Irresponsible Dog Owner ?

Irresponsible Dog Owner ?

Joined: December 3rd, 2005, 3:06 pm

April 19th, 2012, 1:04 am #1


Joined: February 12th, 2009, 3:46 am

April 19th, 2012, 1:25 am #2

How was the owner even remotely irresponsible? Unfortunate circumstances but I'm not so sure the officer could not have retreated and shut gate too. Plus he already knew the residence did not fit the description. Why was he entering from rear yard. Why would he not have knocked at front door?

Andy Wong aka

Joined: March 13th, 2009, 5:21 pm

April 19th, 2012, 1:30 am #3
Last edited by seawater on April 19th, 2012, 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Joined: October 28th, 2010, 1:01 am

April 19th, 2012, 1:30 am #4

Probably afraid of dogs,wasn`t very big,guy probably lucky he didn`t get shoot
Pretty poor responce at the wrong address no less.

mark in mass

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 am

April 19th, 2012, 2:08 am #5

In my area, all the fatal shootings in recent years have been committed by LEOs, and the victims unarmed. (small town USA, only a few, but too many)

Joined: October 10th, 2003, 5:24 am

April 19th, 2012, 2:30 am #6

In this case, the officer went into the house and the owner's dog went for him. The officer claimed he shot the dog in self defense. An investigation found that the officer had no legal right to enter the residence and the dog was just protecting his owner. That officer is currently on suspension.

FWIW, if that dog is like mine (and she's a sweetheart), it was probably barking when the officer went to the backyard. Now, would you go into a yard if you heard a dog barking nearby? If he really was reaching for his sidearm, then he was anticipating using that gun. I like how the officer put all of it on the owner's back. "I'm in your fenced-in yard, on private property and it's your fault the dog came up to me." Yeah, right.

Last edited by RedFeather on April 19th, 2012, 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Joined: April 21st, 2004, 10:47 pm

April 19th, 2012, 1:06 pm #7

with the recient death of a LEO in Austin, I guess most are on edge. going to the wrong location and entering into someones back yard without permission , well under the Castle Law in Texas, the home owner has the right to protect his property, and his dog was just that. So if the homeowner would have shot the LEO, what would happen to him, probably a death sentance for shooting the LEO.
What of the LEO, did he have the right to shoot the dog, after all the dog was protecting his owners home.
Now if the home owner had posted signs to warn of his dog, than the LEO should be tried for animal cruility and fired from the force.
But this is just my opinion.
OH, to those who think I'm PETA , forget it, I'm just a responsible dog owner who would do anything to protect his pets on my own property.

\\\ X ////
one step closer to the ultimate goal

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 3:18 am

April 19th, 2012, 1:40 pm #8

justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

For those who fully support the state of Texas stand point on the protection of tangible property and feel that such law is worthy, you then would have to agree with the provisions which allow officers to exercise their own disgretion in the given scenario. Afterall, the same people wrote the laws for both individual scenarios.

Texas rank is high on the violation of civil liberties, take that for what it is worth.

No, it wasn't murder. Murder only applies to humans. In fact, most states do not even allow equal force to protect an animal. I say most, as ALL the states I have reviewed do not, but I have not reviewed them all.

"The majority of things in our lives are created by folks no smarter than the rest. Afterall, the world is comprised, and operated by C average people intellctually, academically, and morally. These people are often the great pioneers that set the precedent for what excellence should be."

Joined: December 3rd, 2005, 3:06 pm

April 19th, 2012, 3:42 pm #9

The Plaintiff should sue the LEO Civilly for wrongful death resulting in emotional injury.

Differences between
Civil and Criminal Law in the USA

Criminal law is much better known to laymen than civil law, as a result of journalists' reports of famous criminal trials. In talking with people about law, I find that they often misapply principles from criminal law to situations in civil (e.g., tort) law, which results in their misunderstanding. They are surprised when they learn the actual legal principles that apply to a problem. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast criminal and civil law.

In civil law, a private party (e.g., a corporation or individual person) files the lawsuit and becomes the plaintiff. In criminal law, the litigation is always filed by the government, who is called the prosecution.


One of the most fundamental distinctions between civil and criminal law is in the notion of punishment.

criminal law
In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either (1) incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to the government, or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the defendant: the death penalty. Crimes are divided into two broad classes: felonies have a maximum possible sentence of more than one year incarceration, misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than one year incarceration.

civil law
In contrast, a defendant in civil litigation is never incarcerated and never executed. In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's behavior.

So-called punitive damages are never awarded in a civil case under contract law. In a civil case under tort law, there is a possibility of punitive damages, if the defendant's conduct is egregious and had either (1) a malicious intent (i.e., desire to cause harm), (2) gross negligence (i.e., conscious indifference), or (3) a willful disregard for the rights of others. The use of punitive damages makes a public example of the defendant and supposedly deters future wrongful conduct by others. Punitive damages are particularly important in torts involving dignitary harms (e.g., invasion of privacy) and civil rights, where the actual monetary injury to plaintiff(s) may be small.

One can purchase insurance that will pay damages and attorney's fees for tort claims. Such insurance coverage is a standard part of homeowner's insurance policies, automobile insurance, and insurance for businesses. In contrast, it is not possible for a defendant to purchase insurance to pay for his/her criminal acts.

While a court can order a defendant to pay damages, the plaintiff may receive nothing if the defendant has no assets and no insurance, or if the defendant is skillful in concealing assets. In this way, large awards for plaintiffs in tort cases are often an illusion.

effect of punishment
The notion that the threat of punishment will deter criminal conduct is based on the principle that human beings are rational. In practice, criminals are either impulsive (i.e., not rational) or believe that they will not be caught by the police. Therefore, the threat of punishment does not deter criminal conduct, as one is reminded every day by reading reports of journalists.

Legal theory considers the possibility of loss of freedom (i.e., incarceration) as much more serious than merely paying damages to an injured plaintiff. As a result of this high value placed on personal freedom, legal dogma is that criminal litigation is more serious than civil litigation, therefore criminal defendants have more rights and protections than civil defendants, as explained later in this essay. The economic reality is that most people would prefer to spend, for example, one year in prison, than pay a million dollars from their personal assets.


burden of proof
criminal law
In criminal litigation, the burden of proof is always on the state. The state must prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant is assumed to be innocent; the defendant needs to prove nothing. (There are exceptions. If the defendant wishes to claim that he/she is insane, and therefore not guilty, the defendant bears the burden of proving his/her insanity. Other exceptions include defendants who claim self-defense or duress.)

In criminal litigation, the state must prove that the defendant satisfied each element of the statutory definition of the crime, and the defendant's participation, "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is difficult to put a valid numerical value on the probability that a guilty person really committed the crime, but legal authorities who do assign a numerical value generally say "at least 98% or 99%" certainty of guilt.

civil law
In civil litigation, the burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff. However, there are a number of technical situations in which the burden shifts to the defendant. For example, when the plaintiff has made a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to refute or rebut the plaintiff's evidence.

In civil litigation, the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. For example, if the jury believes that there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins. This is a very low standard, compared to criminal law. In my personal view, it is too low a standard, especially considering that the defendant could be ordered to pay millions of dollars to the plaintiff(s).

A few tort claims (e.g., fraud) require that plaintiff prove his/her case at a level of "clear and convincing evidence", which is a standard higher than preponderance, but less than "beyond a reasonable doubt."


protections for criminal defendants
Anyone who has studied civics in the USA knows of a number of protections specified in the U.S. Constitution:
No ex post facto law. Art. I, §9 and 10
If an act was lawful when it was performed, the performer can not be convicted of a crime as a result of a law enacted after the performance.

prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures". Amendment IV.

prohibition of double jeopardy. Amendment V.
This protection takes two forms:
A defendant who is found "not guilty" of a more serious charge can not have a second trial on a lesser included offense. For example, if D is found "not guilty" on a charge of felony murder (e.g., incidental killing of someone during the commission of a felony, such as robbery), then D can not be tried for the underlying felony (e.g., robbery).

The prosecution can not appeal a "not guilty" verdict. Of course, the criminal defendant can appeal a "guilty" verdict and an incarcerated criminal can file a "habeas corpus" writ.

However, it is possible to try a defendant in criminal court and then try the same defendant again in civil court, for the same event. The most common example of such two trials is a criminal prosecution for homicide and then have a second trial for the same defendant for the tort of wrongful death: the most famous example of this situation is the cases of O.J. Simpson. While legal scholars carefully explain the distinction between criminal and civil law, the plain fact is that one can be tried twice for the same event. Another situation in which one can have two trials for the same event is a prosecution under state law (e.g., for assault and battery) in a state court, then a second prosecution in a federal court under federal statute (e.g., civil rights violation).

prohibition against compelled self-incrimination. Amendment V

the right to a speedy trial. Amendment VI

the right to the assistance of counsel. Amendment VI, as interpreted in, among other cases, Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979); Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
Indigent defendants have the right to an attorney who is paid by the state, even during custodial questioning by police. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

It may come as a surprise to know that these protections are not available in civil law.

The standard in tort cases is what a reasonable and prudent man would have done, the details of applying this standard to the facts of the case is decided by the jury, and unknown to the defendant until the end of the trial.

In criminal law, police generally must first obtain a search warrant in a proceeding showing a "neutral and detached" magistrate that there is "probable cause", before searching or seizing items from a person's house. Spinelli v. U.S., 393 U.S. 410 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964); Johnson v. U.S., 333 U.S. 10 (1946).
In civil law, an attorney may request documents or a visit inside a building. (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34). In civil law, an attorney may demand information from the opposing party about any matter that is relevant to the case, provided that information is not privileged. In civil law, an attorney may properly demand information that would be inadmissible at trial, if such demand "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence". Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). An attorney may even take the deposition of nonparties in a civil case, and require them to bring documents with them. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, 34(c).

The prohibition against double jeopardy applies only to criminal trials. The corresponding concept in civil litigation is res judicata: one can have only one trial for claims arising from one transaction or occurrence.

In a criminal case, the suspect or defendant has the right to remain silent during questioning by police and prosecuting attorneys. In a criminal case, the defendant may choose to refuse to be a witness, and the jury may infer nothing from the defendant's choice not to testify. However, in a civil case, the defendant must be available and cooperative for depositions and testimony as a witness in the trial. In fact, the defendant in a civil case in Federal court must voluntarily provide his/her opponent with a copy of documents "in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings." [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(B)] Further, the defendant in a civil case must voluntarily provide names of people who are "likely to have discoverable information relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings." [FRCP 26(a)(1)(A)] In other words, the defendant in a civil case must help his/her opponent collect evidence that will defeat the defendant. And, at trial, if a party invokes their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, then the judge will instruct the jury that they may make an adverse inference against the party who refused to testify.

There are often several years between the filing of a complaint in a civil case and the trial. So much for "speedy trial"!

People who can not pay for an attorney (legal fees for trial preparation often run to more than US$ 100,000) are practically unable to obtain access to the courts in civil cases. The one notable exception is in tort law, where attorneys for plaintiffs often take cases with the possibility of large awards (e.g., more than US$ 500,000) on a contingency fee: the attorney is paid, for example, 1/3 of any award, but the attorney is paid nothing for his/her time if plaintiff loses. However, the plaintiff usually pays for expert witnesses, deposition transcripts, and other expenses. These expenses can be tens of thousands of dollars.


ignorance of the law is no excuse
The statement "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is an ancient legal doctrine:
Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law; but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him.
John Selden (1584-1654), posthumously published in Table Talk, 1689.
If a defendant were allowed to escape legal responsibility for his acts, merely by saying "I didn't know it was wrong/illegal", the system of using law to regulate human conduct would collapse. So the doctrine is a practical necessity.

This doctrine still has vitality and validity today. See, for example, Ratzlaf v. U.S., 510 U.S. 135, 149 (1994); U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 612 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring); Minnesota v. King, 257 N.W.2d 693, 697 (1977).

However, the law in the USA has swelled to a size that is unknowable even by experts. In Oct 1998, the annotated edition of the U.S. Code (i.e., federal statutes) occupied 990 cm of library shelf space. In Oct 1998, the annotated edition of the New York state statutes occupied 675 cm of library shelf space. Who can know all that is within these pages? A criminal law class in law school contains only about 40 hours of lectures, mostly about homicides, with a little about larceny and rape. The only solution seems to be a detailed search of statutes and cases in a database on a computer (e.g., WESTLAW), plus the avoidance of any behavior that harms people, either through physical, financial, or emotional injury, or by deceit.

A related concept in law is "wilful blindness": the criminal defendant who should have known, and could have asked, but deliberately chose not to ask. The law regards "wilful blindness" as equivalent to knowledge. U.S. v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700-701 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976). Cited with approval in U.S. v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d. 946, 950-951 (5th Cir. 1990).

Joined: June 16th, 2009, 7:43 pm

April 19th, 2012, 3:57 pm #10

make him a criminal? Are citizens just supposed to take it on the chin? Listen again to this ill-prepared officer's response to the victim he created.

"Silence is the only thing that can hinder the Truth"