|
The scores of expected friends of Kaiser
the pit bull never showed, but the few who did make an appearance
offered emotional testimony at the DeLeon City Council meeting,
Thursday, January 25. Councilman Johnnye Howell was absent. City
attorney Lois Rockefeller was present for the first half of the
meeting.
Kaiser was shot by former DeLeon police
officer Richard Hyatt in October of last year, on, or near, (that
issue is still being debated) the property of his owner, Stephen
Shoemaker.
In the police report (provided to the
Free Press by Shoemaker) Hyatt described how, while on patrol, he,
“Saw a young boy playing with two pit bull type dogs. The boy had his
hands out and was backing away from the dogs as they moved around him
barking and growling.” Hyatt also stated that he asked the boy if he
were playing with the dogs. “The boy looked visibly shaken and said he
was not playing with them,” Hyatt stated. “I could see the two dogs
were acting very aggressively toward the boy. I exited my vehicle and
the dogs moved away from the boy and towards me. I told the boy to
walk on up the road and get away from the dogs. While trying to keep
an eye on the dogs, I got back in my vehicle and called for Animal
Control. I then exited my vehicle again and the dogs came closer,
growling, barking, snarling and acting aggressive.”
Hyatt went on to say that he didn’t use
his tazer because there were two dogs. He also said neither dog had a
collar on. After he shot the larger of the two dogs (Kaiser), when it
lunged at him, the smaller dog ran away.
At the January 11 council meeting
Shoemaker used the citizen’s presentation portion of the meeting to
express his opinions on the matter. Since council members could not
respond at that time, the issue was placed on the agenda so it could
be addressed properly at the most recent meeting.
Even though the item was on the agenda,
David Mathis chose to address the issue during the citizen’s
presentation.
“Dogs are man’s best friend,” Mathis
said, “and that dog down there he wanted to lick me, and his tail was
always wagging.” Mathis went on to say “dog spelled backwards is God.”
“If we’re going to be getting after
somebody, we should be getting after somebody who’s breaking the law,”
Mathis said, “not some harmless dog that’s not doing nothing.”
Stephen Shoemaker also spoke again,
saying he wanted to talk about his dog “that was killed without any
reason.”
Shoemaker then read a letter that he’d
written to Hyatt where he lamented the loss of his dog, and noted he
was surprised at how many people wanted him to pursue the matter
legally. Shoemaker brought up the subject of other people wanting him
to take legal action several more times during the meeting, adding at
one point that the council would be “shocked and surprised” to know
who was encouraging him. He also mentioned several times that he
wasn’t sure if his dog had left his property prior to being shot.
“I haven’t read the police report,” said
Councilman Howard Gifford, “and I’m not condoning the actions he
(Hyatt) took -- I don’t know if they were necessary or not, because I
wasn’t there.”
“I wasn’t either,” Shoemaker said.
“Well, if I remember correctly from the
last council meeting,” Gifford said, “the boy told you he was afraid
of your dog. He thought the dog was going to come after him.”
Shoemaker answered in the affirmative,
adding, “But I wonder which was more damaging, him being afraid the
dog was going to bite him -- or the dog being shot right in front of
him?”
“I’ll make a comment from my own point of
view,” Gifford said. “I’m a parent...and if a pit bull was near my
son, and my son was afraid, I’d take whatever action I needed to in
order to protect my son. The officer had to make a judgement call, and
without me being present, I don’t know if he made the right judgement
call or not. I think you’re in the same situation -- you can’t know
either.”
Councilman John Holdridge then discussed
dogs and dog training, and how he and his wife have had experience in
that area and that he believes he knows dogs pretty well. He spoke of
two particular dogs that were as well-trained as any dog he’d ever
seen, and that they would respond to commands 99 percent of the time.
“But it’s that one percent, or maybe even two or three percent,”
Holdridge said, “where a dog is going to do whatever he wants to do,
despite all the training.” He then discussed the fact that any dog
running loose is a source of concern for most people, “But if they’re
pit bulls, rottweilers or German Shepherd,” Holdridge said, “any dog
that has a reputation, deserved or not, of being aggressive, then the
concern grows.”
Holdridge then addressed specific
comments that Shoemaker made at the previous meeting.
“At the last meeting, you made the
comment that Officer Hyatt murdered your dog,” Holdridge said. “And
tonight, you said he shot your dog without any provocation. I just
refuse to believe that Officer Hyatt got in his car and drove to your
shop, got out, and for no reason at all, shot your dog. I wasn’t
there, I didn’t see it, but something happened to make that young
person afraid of your dog. Officer Hyatt probably saw that reaction.
He had a split second to decide, ‘Am I going to let that dog go, and
maybe injure that child, or am I going to stop him? I don’t know if he
made the right decision or not, but I think you’re giving the wrong
impression when you use the term ‘murdered’ and ‘no provocation.’”
Tommy Hargus, an audience member, then
spoke. “You’re saying he had a split second,” Hargus said, “but it
says in there (the police report) that he pulled his tazer out, then
he re-holstered his tazer, and then he pulled his gun out. That’s not
a split second.” Hargus then informed council members that “state law”
said that to use lethal force to kill a dog, the dog has to be off
your property. “They cannot kill one on an owner’s property, unless
it’s viciously attacking somebody,” Hargus said. He went on to say
that he was attending the meeting “for Stephen” and because his own
dog, also a pit bull, was shot while on his own property back in 2005.
Although he didn’t say so at the time, it was mentioned later that
former Police Chief Gary Morphew shot Hargus’ dog, after the dog tried
to bite him.
“I’m not just here for the pit bulls,”
Hargus said. “I’m here for any dog that is not aggressively attacking
somebody, or they are not in imminent danger, that gets killed again.
Actions are going to have to be taken, because people love their
animals.”
“Let me say,” said Mayor Danny Owen,
“that as many pets as there are in this town, our officers are not
going around selectively shooting them.”
Mayor Owen then noted that “Our city has
a responsibility to protect our citizens from any animal that acts
aggressive, and makes people fear for their safety.”
After a great deal of discussion,
including more about the death of Hargus’ dog, Officer Robert Kluge
spoke. “The DeLeon Police Department, as a whole, does not condone
going around shooting people’s dogs,” he said. “We are not against any
specific breed of dog, or anything like that. We’re not out shooting
dogs. If there is any way to avoid shooting a dog, we will.”
Kluge also noted that due to his training
at animal control school, he was well-versed in the state law Hargus
had referenced. “There are specific rules for shooting dogs,” Kluge
said, “and they do need to be actively aggressing people before you
can put a dog down, or it falls under animal cruelty. I wasn’t there
when Officer Hyatt shot that dog. I’d been around that dog before and
he’d never been aggressive towards me. But that day, I don’t know if
he was aggressive or not...I was not there.”
Still more discussion included a brief
session on dog bites that Councilman Gifford recently suffered when a
seemingly harmless dog used him as a “chew toy.”
“It happens in an instant,” Gifford said.
“This dog didn’t give me the indication when it walked up to me, that
it was going to bite. Once again, Officer Hyatt had to make that
judgement call...if he thought that boy might get bitten. If he had
just let it go, and the boy had been bitten, how much trouble do you
think he would have been in because he allowed the dog to attack him.”
After still more discussion Officer Kluge
asked Shoemaker, “What is it that you want the council to do?"
Shoemaker replied that he wanted the
council to buy him a wireless shocking collar, at a cost of $300.
There was no response from the council
regarding Shoemaker’s request. Shoemaker then went on to talk about
how his dog had not been dangerous, that in fact, he wouldn’t have a
vicious animal.
Police Chief Ralph Dickey then addressed
Shoemaker. “I talked to the person yesterday that you got that dog
from,” Dickey said. “He raises those dogs, he hunts those dogs --
takes down wild hogs -- he told me himself that in that bloodline of
that particular dog he has shot every one of them but one. He told me
also, that when he sold you that dog, he told you that dog doesn’t
need to be in town.”
Councilman John Holdridge asked Lois
Rockefeller, DeLeon’s city attorney, if she had any comments.
“This is about relative responsibility,” Rockefeller said, “and there
are responsibilities on both sides of this -- as a dog owner, and as
the people who are here to enforce the safety within the community.”
Rockefeller first touched on the
responsibility of the pet owner, noting that a dog is not responsible
for a crime, a dog is a dog -- that’s all. “The law is in in force
against pet owners,” she said. “Your responsibility as a pet owner, is
to keep your dog either inside a structure, inside of a fence, ...or
if he’s out, then you have to be right there and have verbal control
or have the dog on a leash. If you haven’t done that, you have not
maintained your responsibility. Outside of that, the city -- that is
peace officers and animal control officers -- has certain
responsibilities in handling this type of situation. They have to act
in good faith, use good judgement, and act within the scope of their
authority. Certainly, any peace officer in this city has the ability
to deal with a dangerous animal or dangerous situation. Then we’re
back to the issues that are being batted back and forth, and that is
good judgement -- good faith. Those are issues that are going to be
based upon the facts. The facts in the report would indicate that
there was certainly good faith...so from the city’s point of view,
their officer acted within the scope of his authority and used good
judgement and acted in good faith.”
There were several more comments from
audience members, including Dianne Donegan and Donna Gibson, with
Donegan inquiring as to why the officer hadn’t used his tazer. Chief
Dickey spent the next few minutes explaining the difficulties of
tazering something the size of a dog.
After Shoemaker spent several moments
speaking about burying his dog, Mayor Owens, said, “Regrettably, you
lost a dog. I don’t know if there’s anything else we can do at this
point. I appreciate you coming in and having your say with the
council. Hopefully, this won’t ever have to happen again.”
“I don’t think we will ever know exactly what took place,” Councilman
Gifford added, “but I’m sorry for the loss of your dog.” Other council
members, and Chief Dickey, echoed Gifford’s sentiments.
“I really appreciate that,” Shoemaker
said, “that’s actually about all I wanted to hear.”
When Mayor Owen moved on to the next
agenda item, the second reading of the amendment to animal ordinance,
Councilman Holdridge asked, “How did we arrive at the number of four
animals?” adding that he knew people who had a combination of more
than four cats and dogs, “that weren’t bothering anybody.”
“That’s a select few then,” Owen said,
“because we get lots of calls on people who have five or six dogs.”
Holdridge said he was concerned about the
council “biting off more than it could chew.”
Council members then discussed the issue
for some time, with audience participation again from Donegan and
Gibson.
“This is purely arbitrary,” Donegan
stated. “If someone takes care of their animals, and they’re not
bothering somebody down the road, who’s business is it?”
“This being a small town,” Owen said,
“we’re going to take a lot of that into consideration. But understand
from our standpoint. If you have a problem, and we do not have an
ordinance to help you address your problem, then all that’s left is
that you’re going to poison their animals, or shoot their animals.”
“Well there’s a difference between just
making up a number,” Donegan said, “and having a complaint about a
specific problem.”
“What number would you choose?” Owen
asked.
“I would not choose a number,” Donegan
said.
Mayor Owen said “we have to have a
number,” with Donegan and Gibson asking “why” to which Owen replied,
“What if somebody moved in beside you and had 35 dogs, and they all
barked?”
“If they all barked, I guess I’d have a
legitimate complaint,” Donegan laughed.
Mayor Owen informed her that without an
ordinance nothing could be done.
“What if I have six cats in the house,”
Donegan said, “and they’re not bothering anybody?”
“To me, if they’re in your house, and
they’re not bothering anybody, I’m not going to bother you until
there’s a complaint,” Owen said.
Donegan pointed out that with an
ordinance in place, someone might still make a complaint just to cause
the owner grief.
After considerable discussion and debate,
mostly over whether a specific number was necessary, Karen Wilkerson,
city secretary said, “A lot of complaints that we get through the
courtroom are ‘you set a number for cows, horses, goats -- how come
you’re not setting a number for cats and dogs?”
After still more discussion, the ordinance was approved on second
reading with the number of “four” animals still in place.
In other business, City Council members:
• Approved the minutes of the called
meeting from January 8, and the regular meeting (after one correction)
of the January 11 meeting.
• Approved, on first reading, Ordinance #
003-07, ordering the May 2007 election and other related matters.
• Approved an unaudited financial
statement, as of January 31, 2007, for the City of DeLeon.
• Discussed updating and publicizing the
curfew ordinance.
• Approved, on second reading, Ordinance
#002-07, amending Ordinance #025-03, regarding motor-assisted
scooters.
• Approved a bid from Fraser Insurance of
Stephenville for Blue Cross Blue Shield coverage for city employees.
• Accepted, with gratitude, Chief
Dickey’s decision not to accept compensation for his lost vacation
time, with Councilman Gifford noting that he wanted to make a “public
thanks” to all the officers for the extra effort they’ve put forth
during a difficult time.
• Heard an update on the Texas Parks and
Wildlife grant, regarding the Festival Park project.
During the open discussion between city
employees and city officials Emergency Management Coordinator Ray
Helberg thanked “the city for the flowers” during his recent
hospitalization. Helberg also noted that he was able to get an
extension on the work he was doing for a Homeland Security grant,
adding that he was in the back of an ambulance on his way to the
hospital while attempting to do so.
Councilman John Holdridge announced that
he and his wife would be “moving to the Tyler area in the fairly near
future.”
“I don’t know what you want to do,”
Holdridge said, “go on until the next election with only four people
on the council, or appoint someone else. I’ve really enjoyed the last
three, almost four, years. Maybe I can come back in August and see the
Peach and Melon Festival in its new home.”
“We appreciate your service and hopefully
you can stay with us as long as possible,” Mayor Owen said.
“I hate to see you move,” Councilman Gifford said, “I’ve enjoyed
getting to know you and working with you. You were kind of a mentor to
me when I came on the council...I wish you all the best.” |
