In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Dog Shooting Deputy Fired
tneff1969
Member Posts: 6,682 ✭✭
http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Rookie-Texas-deputy-fired-after-shooting-farm-dog-5428983.php
Guess the owners cries were heard.
Guess the owners cries were heard.
Comments
Any clown that shoots a pet of mine in the back of the head and leaves it screaming on the ground then runs to his car to hide while I have to finish the job he started with my bare hands is low life scum and worth less than a fart in a whirlwind in my book.
I hope his actions follow him the rest of his worthless life and to anyone here that thinks my rant is over the top,"bite me."
Well, that's a start but sooner or later, the Deputy and I would cross paths again if there was any possible way I could make it happen.
Any clown that shoots a pet of mine in the back of the head and leaves it screaming on the ground then runs to his car to hide while I have to finish the job he started with my bare hands is low life scum and worth less than a fart in a whirlwind in my book.
I hope his actions follow him the rest of his worthless life and to anyone here that thinks my rant is over the top,"bite me."
+1000
quote:Originally posted by miles
Well, that's a start but sooner or later, the Deputy and I would cross paths again if there was any possible way I could make it happen.
Any clown that shoots a pet of mine in the back of the head and leaves it screaming on the ground then runs to his car to hide while I have to finish the job he started with my bare hands is low life scum and worth less than a fart in a whirlwind in my book.
I hope his actions follow him the rest of his worthless life and to anyone here that thinks my rant is over the top,"bite me."
It would be difficult for some to read your posting and not come to the conclusion that you are Mr. Middleton. You're not. Why the rant as if you are the dog owner? I too, as well as everyone here feels similar anger towards the former Deputy. However, I'm not about to suggest that I would kick his * should I see him in public, let alone intentionally make that "crossing of paths" happen. Why would you? Lastly, I'm confident this matter will follow the former Deputy through his life and career (as it should). I had no idea the owner had to drown his dog in a bucket though. RIP Candy. [:(]
I never said I was Mr. Middleton and I never said a word about kicking someone's *. Those are your words, not mine. I said "our paths would cross again."
I also said that if that happened to a pet/dog of MINE, not yours,his or anyone else's.
Maybe you need to read my post more slowly before responding with "your spin" on what I said.
Middleton later drowned his dog named Candy.
quote:Originally posted by miles
Well, that's a start but sooner or later, the Deputy and I would cross paths again if there was any possible way I could make it happen.
Any clown that shoots a pet of mine in the back of the head and leaves it screaming on the ground then runs to his car to hide while I have to finish the job he started with my bare hands is low life scum and worth less than a fart in a whirlwind in my book.
I hope his actions follow him the rest of his worthless life and to anyone here that thinks my rant is over the top,"bite me."
+1000
agreed...bad things would happen for him if that happened at my house.
Now that he has been fired, perhaps they will take the case to a Grand Jury, and perhaps he'll be indicted for felony animal cruelty.
By including that he felt the dog was retreating at the time the wound was received he brought personal bias into question. This stepping beyond medical observation flings open the door for questioning his neutrality, allowing doubt to be cast on both the accuracy and completeness of his entire report.
Bear in mind that in addition to a possible civil trial this will most likely end up in criminal court with that former deputy facing a felony charge. Well intentioned or not, the vet's inability to restrain himself and throwing in that one sentence creates problems.
The first thing is that the prosecutor has been handed an uphill climb even getting this report admitted into evidence because it goes beyond medical fact.
Secondly, a defense attorney's only goal is to create reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one of those jurors. In this case any defense attorney worth his salt WILL introduce logical - and probably well documented - scenarios where an attacking animal would reasonably be struck by a bullet from this angle. In short, the vet is going to be made to look like either an idiot or someone who wrote a report biased toward what the dog's owner wanted him to state.
The only way for the prosecutor to clear this up would involve digging the dog up for a second necropsy, which is going to add insult to injury. Thanks a lot, Doc. [V]
That vet should've stuck with his area of training. A necropsy/autopsy report is supposed to be about facts and nothing but the facts, but he's gone and muddied things up.
By including that he felt the dog was retreating at the time the wound was received he brought personal bias into question. This stepping beyond medical observation flings open the door for questioning his neutrality, allowing doubt to be cast on both the accuracy and completeness of his entire report.
Bear in mind that in addition to a possible civil trial this will most likely end up in criminal court with that former deputy facing a felony charge. Well intentioned or not, the vet's inability to restrain himself and throwing in that one sentence creates problems.
The first thing is that the prosecutor has been handed an uphill climb even getting this report admitted into evidence because it goes beyond medical fact.
Secondly, a defense attorney's only goal is to create reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one of those jurors. In this case any defense attorney worth his salt WILL introduce logical - and probably well documented - scenarios where an attacking animal would reasonably be struck by a bullet from this angle. In short, the vet is going to be made to look like either an idiot or someone who wrote a report biased toward what the dog's owner wanted him to state.
The only way for the prosecutor to clear this up would involve digging the dog up for a second necropsy, which is going to add insult to injury. Thanks a lot, Doc. [V]
Yep that was my reaction when I read it, the sentence at the end of that report that is going to cause problems for a prosecutor.
That vet should've stuck with his area of training. A necropsy/autopsy report is supposed to be about facts and nothing but the facts, but he's gone and muddied things up.
By including that he felt the dog was retreating at the time the wound was received he brought personal bias into question. This stepping beyond medical observation flings open the door for questioning his neutrality, allowing doubt to be cast on both the accuracy and completeness of his entire report.
Bear in mind that in addition to a possible civil trial this will most likely end up in criminal court with that former deputy facing a felony charge. Well intentioned or not, the vet's inability to restrain himself and throwing in that one sentence creates problems.
The first thing is that the prosecutor has been handed an uphill climb even getting this report admitted into evidence because it goes beyond medical fact.
Secondly, a defense attorney's only goal is to create reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one of those jurors. In this case any defense attorney worth his salt WILL introduce logical - and probably well documented - scenarios where an attacking animal would reasonably be struck by a bullet from this angle. In short, the vet is going to be made to look like either an idiot or someone who wrote a report biased toward what the dog's owner wanted him to state.
The only way for the prosecutor to clear this up would involve digging the dog up for a second necropsy, which is going to add insult to injury. Thanks a lot, Doc. [V]
That makes no sense.
It was plain and clear from all present that the dog was shot behind the ear in the back of the head with the projectile exiting thru the face, so the simple statement that the dog was not facing the shooter is only a logical observation and not a bias opinion.
Capt. Jack Sparrow.
That makes no sense.It does if you use logic.
Not saying it's what I feel was the case here, but actual attacking dogs sometimes get shot and it's not unusual at all for one darting around near someone's feet or running past them as they sidestep to end up being hit somewhere besides directly in front. At such short distances the back of the head is not beyond the realm of possibility, which is all it takes..
Again, reasonable doubt in the mind of only one juror out of twelve and by that vet's report he has no knowledge of the distance the shot was fired from. The way he wrote it up he'll have to admit on the stand it could have in fact been a near contact wound.
quote:Originally posted by Txs
That vet should've stuck with his area of training. A necropsy/autopsy report is supposed to be about facts and nothing but the facts, but he's gone and muddied things up.
By including that he felt the dog was retreating at the time the wound was received he brought personal bias into question. This stepping beyond medical observation flings open the door for questioning his neutrality, allowing doubt to be cast on both the accuracy and completeness of his entire report.
Bear in mind that in addition to a possible civil trial this will most likely end up in criminal court with that former deputy facing a felony charge. Well intentioned or not, the vet's inability to restrain himself and throwing in that one sentence creates problems.
The first thing is that the prosecutor has been handed an uphill climb even getting this report admitted into evidence because it goes beyond medical fact.
Secondly, a defense attorney's only goal is to create reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one of those jurors. In this case any defense attorney worth his salt WILL introduce logical - and probably well documented - scenarios where an attacking animal would reasonably be struck by a bullet from this angle. In short, the vet is going to be made to look like either an idiot or someone who wrote a report biased toward what the dog's owner wanted him to state.
The only way for the prosecutor to clear this up would involve digging the dog up for a second necropsy, which is going to add insult to injury. Thanks a lot, Doc. [V]
That makes no sense.
It was plain and clear from all present that the dog was shot behind the ear in the back of the head with the projectile exiting thru the face, so the simple statement that the dog was not facing the shooter is only a logical observation and not a bias opinion.
"These findings suggest that Candy was shot while retreating from the shooter." This statement is not fact, it is his biased opinion, and it undermines the credibility of the report. Had the Vet stuck with stating his findings that the wound appears to start at the back of the head, with the projectile traveling to the front he would have been fine. However his adding a conclusion, when he could not know all of the facts of the scenario creates a doubt to his neutrality. You can bet a Defense Attorney is going to latch on to this statement, and hammer the VET on cross examination with it.
quote:Originally posted by Onehandude
That makes no sense.It does if you use logic.
Not saying it's what I feel was the case here, but actual attacking dogs sometimes get shot and it's not unusual at all for one darting around near someone's feet or running past them as they sidestep to end up being hit somewhere besides directly in front. At such short distances the back of the head is not beyond the realm of possibility, which is all it takes..
Again, reasonable doubt in the mind of only one juror out of twelve and by that vet's report he has no knowledge of the distance the shot was fired from. The way he wrote it up he'll have to admit on the stand it could have in fact been a near contact wound.
I see your point, and the dog being a heeler is faster than a cows kick, Shilo also makes a good point. bottom line is vet had no bushiness stating anything non autopsy related.
Capt. Jack Sparrow.
If he done that to My Merle
I would Shoot the No Good Scumbag
bottom Line
I would literally Not take A Million Bucks For that Pooch
Sulphur Springs is a small community... It would not take long for a person to find a vet to dispute this other vets claims... I can't imagine his credibility in conducting post mortem animal exams, especially with his documented findings.
Based on the local outcries... I bet they end up charging him.
To me, his most recent retention of an attorney and him saying he has PTSD from a dog bite is a stretch.
Who knows... It will be an interesting outcome for sure.
I would be very upset if someone shot one of my dogs for sure.
Explain to me why the owner drown the dog to put it down? That seems almost as inhumane as not killing it once it was wounded.
Some folks believe drowning is a peaceful way to die. I disagree, but there you go.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
If someone came onto my property and shot one of my dogs, I would respond with violence.
I love my dogs.
If someone came onto my property and shot one of my dogs, I would respond with violence.
I don't know what kind of violence you mean, but If that someone is a police officer you better give that matter some serious thought.
There I go, using the "S" word again.
Where is eastbank? He stated he would like to see someone shoot my dog, to see what I would do about it. eastbank, would you like for someone to shoot allen's dog too?
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
I love my dogs.
If someone came onto my property and shot one of my dogs, I would respond with violence.
I don't know what kind of violence you mean, but If that someone is a police officer you better give that matter some serious thought.
Officers might start giving some serious thoughts about their actions, because citizens are getting fed up with this kind of utter cow cookies. Tensions are increasing dramatically it seems of late due to the goverment squeezing the citizens at every turn and angle.
quote:Originally posted by capgun
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
I love my dogs.
If someone came onto my property and shot one of my dogs, I would respond with violence.
I don't know what kind of violence you mean, but If that someone is a police officer you better give that matter some serious thought.
Officers might start giving some serious thoughts about their actions, because citizens are getting fed up with this kind of utter cow cookies. Tensions are increasing dramatically it seems of late due to the goverment squeezing the citizens at every turn and angle.
I am right there with you and nunn. It won't matter much that he is a police officer after he injures my dog.
quote:Originally posted by capgun
quote:Originally posted by GreatGuns
quote:Originally posted by capgun
I sort of see what Eastbank is saying. There are people here who in the past staunchly defended a police officer who killed a human being at the first hint of an encounter where the officer could have been injured. Defending the officer who did the killing with "you were not there", "he wants to go home at the end of his shift", or "we only saw one angle in the video". Now those same people want to physically injure an officer who killed a dog who the officer said was attacking him and no one else witnessed. It does sound hypocritical. And if you did kill that police officer who killed your dog guess what would happen. The officer, no matter how big a dork he was, would get a heros funeral with a long procession of police vehicles. A eulogy mourning how he gave his life for his country. And you would be dead or in jail for the rest of your life. You would get sued for everything you owned, and your family would have to move out of the area. Your legacy would be only "he was a cop killing SOB".
And to many, said "cop killer" would be a hero. Times aren't just changing, they've changed. You apparently don't remember the Rodney King legacy and the anti-cop movement that followed. I worked there, at that time and wasn't just watching it on the news. [;)]
Can you provide a list of people who have murdered police officers that you consider your heros.
None yet, but if you don't see the writing on the wall then you're probably in for a surprise. In my opinion, law enforcement isn't what it use to be and hasn't been as honorable as many wish to believe for quite some time. Sure, there are certain exceptions. Those are mostly in Mayberry, RFD or some other low population (= low crime) areas. Cities like Los Angeles, Detroit, Washingon, D.C., Dallas and Chicago are now hiring anyone that can pass the entry exam and background check. They aren't being particular as there aren't as many choosing that career path any longer. Thus the higher rate of bad cops and simply mistakes by cops being seen more often in the media. Your "defend my brother, right or wrong" BS is nothing but that, BS. IF you honestly WERE ever in law enforcement, I believe you would show more restraint with your support of the "bafoons of law enforcement" we commonly see posted here. [;)]
I make my comments based on common sense and good judgment, not emotion and foolish bravado. That separates me from many of the people here.
He should have.
He doesn't have the maturity required to conduct himself in a position of authority.
And the deputy who was mugging for the camera needs an attitude adjustment as well.
As for drowning... I've dispatched literally hundreds of animals by drowning. And I've shot quite a few as well.
Painless? Who knows? But drowning is quicker than almost any gunshot.
I'm not sure how he did it. But it was an act of kindness. And I respect that.
according to Scoobie Doo.