FORT WORTH -- Readers upset that a Fort Worth police officer fatally shot a border collie mix Sunday have made their feelings known through e-mails and hundreds of comments on a story at star-telegram.com.
Readers have suggested that the officer -- who has not been identified -- overreacted, was "trigger happy," was inadequately trained and should be fired.One reader questioned why it was acceptable for an officer to fatally shoot a dog while it was not OK for a fisherman to fatally shoot an 11-foot alligator that he felt threatened by in the Trinity River. In that recent incident, a man was cited for hunting by illegal means and methods and for not having a hunting license and faces $5,300 in restitution.And while some people defended the officer's actions, others let their emotions run wild, saying they would retaliate against a police officer who shot their dog on their property, a troubling line of comments that blurs the line between free speech and terroristic threats.This comment was among those deleted from star-telegram.com: "Here is a solution, if you see a cop shoot immediately it might save an innocent life. Another solution, train dogs to attack anyone with a gun."One reader's e-mail to the Star-Telegram said that if a police officer shot his dog, "Then we would have a big problem, because I would charge that cop and beat him senseless, if he hadn't already killed me too. Then, where would we be??? Dead dog, dead owner, or cop."Fort Worth police say they are not responding to the threats."This is an emotionally charged issue and we understand that," Maj. Paul Henderson said in an e-mail. "What we would like for everyone to know is that we have been in contact with the family and are investigating the actions of the officer, his account of the incident, and potential tactical and/or policy violations. The incident will also undergo an independent review by our Critical Police Incident Review Board."In general, the Star-Telegram will provide law enforcement agencies information on those whose posts are perceived as threatening.'Castle Law!'The shooting occurred after Mark and Cindy Boling returned to their home in the 4700 block of Norma Street with their two dogs and found an officer walking up the driveway.The officer, who was assisting an officer investigating a copper theft in the area, was at the wrong address.The Bolings' dogs started barking and the officer asked the owner to control them, while at the same time the owner asked the officer to stand where he was. Boling said that he told the officer that his dogs do not bite but that the officer continued to approach.The officer was waiting by the driveway when the two barking dogs charged him aggressively while he repeatedly asked the owner to call the animals back, according to Sgt. Pedro Criado, police spokesman.Boling said that he gained control of one of the dogs but that the officer raised his gun and fired once, striking the other dog -- Lily, a border collie-English setter mix. The dog dashed into the back yard, where it died within minutes.One reader said in a online comment that his "property is protected by Castle Law! That means that if you come onto my 'private property' to kill animals, people or to take property you are going to die here. Wearing a costume will not change this! Being a city employee will not change this! Being armed will not change this! Private Property means just what it says."Joe Larsen, a Houston-based First Amendment attorney, said such comments are protected by the Constitution. The posts are conditional, Larsen said -- what would happen in a certain situation."This guy is not advocating going out and killing a cop," Larsen said.Still, targeting police officers on newspaper websites is not going to win the posters any friends, Larsen said."More speech is always better than less," he said. "But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you have more people posting on that site that are holding that person up to ridicule."'Fringe outlooks'Social media have completely changed the way we communicate, Larsen said, explaining that people now respond to information sooner after digesting it and that that is not always a good thing."I'm astonished when I read a lot of the posts," Larsen said. "People with fringe outlooks are able to find others like them. There was no forum for this type of speech 20 years ago. There's the opportunity for extreme opinions to come forward and make themselves known where they would not have had the opportunity in the past."In the past, the media acted as a filter, said Tyler Barnett, a social media expert and president of Tyler Barnett Public Relations in Beverly Hills, Calif. Advances in social media have eliminated that filter, allowing lunatics to voice their opinions, he said. People have to be prepared for the good and the bad when a forum opens itself up to the public, Barnett said. However, he said, "I don't think it's ever appropriate to threaten to kill someone."To be relevant in today's market, a 21st-century news organization needs to have a forum where people can share ideas, said Jake Batsell, an assistant professor of digital journalism at Southern Methodist University. Usually, the forum adds a lot to the conversation, Batsell said. And usually, as with this story, most of the comments are civil.Some news outlets are experimenting with ways to compel posters to identify themselves as a way to raise the level of discourse, Batsell said.Some outlets have devised ways to tie posters' screen names to Facebook or Twitter profiles. Other communication companies' comment sections are monitored by full-time moderators, which has elevated the dialogue but is time-consuming and expensive, Batsell said.Mitch Mitchell, 817-390-7752Twitter: @stcrime