|
Post by WaTcHeR on Nov 20, 2006 14:08:34 GMT -5
11.20.2006 - TEXAS - Brazos County sheriff's investigators are expected to meet with prosecutors Monday to decide if the fatal shooting of a miniature horse over the weekend by an off-duty policeman constitutes cruelty to animals. The stallion, which stood 30 1/2 inches tall, was shot once Friday evening by College Station Police Officer Damian Anderson, according to Sheriff's Office reports. The horse had gotten loose from a residence down the road from the officer's Rosier Road property, Anderson is reported to have told the agency. "Apparently, it injured some of his other [full-sized] horses," Sheriff Chris Kirk said Sunday of the officer's reasoning for the shooting. "He says that he was protecting his livestock." Investigators with the Sheriff's Office have compiled statements and taken photographs of the incident, Kirk said, noting that it is now a matter of figuring out whether a crime was committed. "The law does provide for you to protect your livestock," he said, explaining that he will leave it to the district attorney's office to decide whether the incident amounted to protection of property or cruelty to animals. "We'll just present it all to them Monday." Cruelty to animals is a state jail felony punishable by up to two years incarceration. Anderson, who has been with the College Station Police Department for eight years, could not be reached for comment Sunday. The horse - named Santi - had wandered onto Anderson's property twice before in the past 4 1/2 years, but loose animals are not unusual for the rural north Brazos County neighborhood, Santi's owner, Brandi Hamlin, said Sunday. On previous occasions, she said, the officer had penned the animal and notified her that it was loose. But this time, she said, she didn't find out anything was wrong until Saturday morning - when a sheriff's deputy knocked on her door to tell her that her pet was dead. "It was quite possibly one of the most gruesome sights I had ever seen," Hamlin said of retrieving her pet Saturday. "I just don't understand why somebody else would do this - especially somebody who has animals." She described the shooting as "shocking." "He was a pet," she said, noting that the horse never attempted "so much as a nip" while in her presence. "We fed him carrots and grain out of our hands and he would follow us around the pasture. He was like a big dog. He could have been easily subdued." Hamlin said the miniature horse had last escaped about eight months ago, leading Anderson to complain his animals had been injured then. Hamlin said she offered to pay any necessary vet bills, but never heard back from the neighbor. This time, he took matters into his own hands, she said. "I find this to be very disturbing and disheartening," Hamlin said. "I just can't understand why it had to come to that." Friday's shooting marked the second time in a little more than a month that the death of a horse has led to an investigation into cruelty to animals charges in Brazos County. In October, two college students were arrested after police said they hit a show horse over the head with a mallet, slashed its throat and stabbed it in the heart with a broken golf club. The horse, which was kept in a pasture next to Reveille Ranch Apartment Complex, was targeted because it had chased one of the men earlier, according to court documents. www.theeagle.com/stories/112006/local_20061120003.php
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Nov 20, 2006 14:10:26 GMT -5
I'm sure those miniature horses are a real danger. Maybe it's just that Officer Damian Anderson enjoys shooting and killing a two foot high horses? If Officer Damian Anderson does this to innocent little animals, imagine what he might do to a human.
|
|
|
Post by KC on Jan 28, 2007 23:19:50 GMT -5
A Brazos County grand jury decided not to file charges against an off-duty College Station police officer who shot and killed a neighbor's horse after it wandered onto his property. The officer, Damian Anderson, told Brazos County sheriff's deputies that he shot the horse Nov. 17 after it broke onto his land, then harassed and attacked two of Anderson's horses. "The investigation revealed that he felt he had no other choice than to do what he did in order to prevent any injuries to his horses," said Shane Phelps, first assistant district attorney for Brazos County. An investigation by the sheriff's department determined that Anderson's two horses had several bite marks on their stomachs and one horse had a large gash on the side of its face. According to the Brazos County District Attorney's Office, the horse, a 30 1/2-inch-tall miniature stallion named Santi, had broken onto Anderson's property several times before and, on one occasion, injured a horse. Anderson told authorities that he believed he had no choice but to shoot the horse because he had attempted unsuccessfully to control it and keep it from harming his property, according to court documents. Brandi Hamlin, the horse's owner, told The Eagle in November that she considered it a harmless pet that she believed easily could have been subdued. She said she offered to pay his neighbor's vet bills but received no response. She declined to comment Monday after learning the grand jury's decision. The district attorney's office reviewed Anderson's case and decided that he did not break the law by shooting the horse, citing a Texas law that gives citizens the right to use force to protect their property at night if there is no alternative. "We made the call at that point [to not file criminal charges] and then made the determination to present it to a grand jury to get the community's perspective," Phelps said. "It is what we call a refusal with a grand jury review. On cases where there is any kind of unusual thing, we will get a second opinion from a grand jury." Phelps said the strategy is somewhat common and is a way for the district attorney to gauge the public's opinion about a case. "They can take a different look at it than we do," he said. The decision by the grand jury not to file charges now closes the case, Phelps said, adding that this case should not give residents the impression that they can be liberal with the use of a firearm on their property. "It is important for the public to realize that if someone does use this kind of force, it ought to be a last resort and they better be prepared to face pretty close scrutiny," Phelps said. If convicted of with the state jail felony of cruelty to animals, Anderson would have faced up to two years behind bars. www.theeagle.com/stories/012307/local_20070123005.php
|
|
|
Post by Terri Kahla on Feb 21, 2007 19:43:33 GMT -5
To add to this most heinous little act , on the exact same day our mini was shot and killed by the CSPD, we were actually in the Brazos County Court where I was most hopelessly defending my rights as a single mother, a self employed and self sufficient woman against a most obvious discriminative male judge who allowed a physically and mentally abusive ex- husband that has never in his life been responsible for anything he has done, be patted on the head, given total rights to the child he abandoned years ago, and charged me with his attorney fees. Now do I expect justice from this system? No, not on either count. Will justice be served? Not if left up to this court and police. My daughter, of whom was with me in court on that day, also lives less than 1/2 mile from this police officer. To say the least, no longer feels safe at her own home. My other daughter, who resides in College Station has been instructed by me not to call College Station Police Department for any assistance. By the way, I see, the paper failed to mention the fact that we were not notified of the Grand Jury Hearing on Santi's death due to the officer's inability to serve notice to us because of inclement weather, although the Grand Jury had sufficient notice, met, and ruled, saw pictures of D. Anderson's horses (none of which showed Santi actually causing the reported injuries) but did not get to see the pictures of Santi, shot in the head at close range, with a police issue service revolver, his brains coming through his nose. I wonder what the Grand Jury would have thought then? That is the picture we live with. Bitter? Scared? Furious? Yes, all of the above. Women and animals have no rights here. We should all be stripped of our rights, stood up and shot.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 22, 2007 12:23:55 GMT -5
My other daughter, who resides in College Station has been instructed by me not to call College Station Police Department for any assistance.
Exactly why would someone in their right mind call the police? We Americans need to go back to protecting ourselves and our property and not depending on a group of incompetent fools. If someone breaks into your house, you shoot and kill them and then you call the cops and say, do your job get the dead body out of my house.
By the way, I see, the paper failed to mention the fact that we were not notified of the Grand Jury Hearing on Santi's death due to the officer's inability to serve notice to us because of inclement weather, although the Grand Jury had sufficient notice, met, and ruled, saw pictures of D. Anderson's horses (none of which showed Santi actually causing the reported injuries) but did not get to see the pictures of Santi, shot in the head at close range, with a police issue service revolver, his brains coming through his nose. I wonder what the Grand Jury would have thought then?
People don't understand that a Grand Jury is one of the most powerful groups of citizens in America. They even have more power then the District Attorney that presides over the Grand Jury. A Grand Jury can do and ask for anything, if they know their rights and powers.
It sounds like the District Attorney in College Station has his tongue so far up the local police officers ass, that he decided not to present all the evidence to the Grand Jury.
I would be interested in posting pictures of the horse and Officer Damian Anderson if you run across one. Also a picture of the crooked District Attorney in College Station as well.
|
|
|
Post by terri kahla on Feb 25, 2007 17:27:55 GMT -5
To All Who Are Watching When my daughter sent me a copy of this website I was relieved to see there are others out there who feel the same as we do. We were told by our own lawyer that these things happen and its sad, but the Grand Jury just probably didn't feel the killing of a Miniature Horse was impotrant enough to pursue!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just exactly what is it going to take to be important enough? I will look for the pictures of "Officer" Anderson and and see if we have pictures of Santi. Thank- You for your support. It means a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Nomad on Feb 28, 2007 9:22:45 GMT -5
If you don't want your animals injured or killed keep them on your property and/or under your control. Pretty simple concept.
Why doesn't the owner accept the blame for failing to control her property?
|
|
|
Post by Nomad on Feb 28, 2007 9:27:02 GMT -5
Watcher, first you state that people need to get back to protecting themselves and their property, but then you decry this guy's actions for doing just that.
What with that?
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 28, 2007 11:36:32 GMT -5
Watcher, first you state that people need to get back to protecting themselves and their property, but then you decry this guy's actions for doing just that. What with that? Whoa slow down there cowboy. We're talking about a miniature horse, that stood less than 3 feet off the ground. Officer Damian "Sharpshooter" Anderson wasn't faced with a wolf, coyote, bobcat or even a bear. Officer Damian "No Balls" Anderson walked up behind the horse and shot the horse in the head at close range, with a pistol. Protecting property could also mean not being a stupid inbred and getting a damn rope and tying off the horse and calling the owner. Is that so hard to do, even for cop?
|
|
|
Post by understood on Feb 28, 2007 16:23:25 GMT -5
Watcher, I registered as Understood (wouldn't allow Nomad, something to do with the letter "a" being disallowed or something).
Doesn't matter if it was a minature horse or coyote, the guy states that the animal was inflicting injury to his property and he destroyed.
Yeah, I know he's a cop and he knows or has knowledge of the law as it pertains to protecting his property and he used it to it's fullest ability.
I say the owner of the horse is to blame for failing to keep control of her property and allowing it to become a nuisance, however questionable that claim may be. Keep in mind that the horse has been allowed to run loose before.
All I'm saying here, is keep your animals on your property and the chances of them being injured or killed is greatly reduced. An animal may act completely different when not in the presence of it's owner.
|
|
|
Post by Terri Kahla on Feb 28, 2007 22:37:13 GMT -5
Wow, I wasn't aware this website was a forum for a bunch of rednecks who will find any reason for violence. So what you are saying; Oh Brave Defenders of Cowards, (who I see won't even identify themselves) that it is the right of anyone who carries a weapon and perceives themselves right for shooting someone or something in the back of the head may also have that right to shoot anyone or anything that wanders onto their property, but mostly when they are tied up and virtually harmless? ??!!!!!!! Again this is his word only. Oh by the way, Smart Guy, I bet you didn't hear the part where his mares frequently wander up and down the road, graze freely in neighbors yards, and have on at least 2 occasions wandered down to my daughter's place when they were in heat and teased our mini, where he was in his pasture, fenced in and minding his own business. Oh, and that this little mini was so friendly, that when he did go down to "Officer" Anderson's place, his small children played with him and gave him treats!!!!!!!! That when "Officer" Anderson shot our mini, he drug him at least 1/2 mile down to the river behind his place and unceremoniously dumped his body, so yep you guessed it, his kids wouldn't see what Dad had done. Best to keep your hypotheses to yourself "Cowboy" til you know the whole story. I sincerely hope you do not live within a 1000 miles of anyone we know. You are dangerous!
|
|
|
Post by Terri Kahla on Feb 28, 2007 22:57:09 GMT -5
And as for you, "Understood", I think you may have misinterpreted the Watcher's statement on getting back to protecting ourselves and our property. We obviously cannot depend on the Justice System or anyone associated with the police department to receive a fair hearing, ( remember, we didn't even get notice to be at their hearing). And we will never stand against one of their own and win. So who protect us ? We do. Watch "The Jack Bull". Government still runs the same, only a little more sophisticated. Also, one last word, we didn't allow Santi to roam. It was an accident, and as for taking responsibility for him, I believe we did. We offered to pay any damages incurred by Santi's escape. Thanks so much for realizing that not only was this avoidable but we are still grieving over the loss of our pet. Not one time has that jack ass even had the guts to acknowledge our loss and his involvement, but drives by my daughter's house in his green Jeep Cherokee very slowly when she is outside working and stares at her!!!!!!! She is scared!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by understood on Mar 1, 2007 1:38:53 GMT -5
Wow, I wasn't aware this website was a forum for a bunch of rednecks who will find any reason for violence. Where? Where did I make this claim? If this is what you construe in your illogical, emotion-laden rant, well, then you're plainly being dishonest. As an example, if a person entered on or into my property uninvited but NOT posing a threat, they will receive one warning to leave my property. If they choose to ignore that warning they are posing a threat and any harm that comes to them is of their own doing. If a domestic animal enters on to my property univited and unwanted, the owner will receive one warning to keep their property off of my property. If the owner persists in allowing his property to enter on to my mine, then the animal will be destroyed. The owner may never see the animal again. Needless to say, I do not have a feral cat problem on my property. As opposed to what you claim and did not witness? So do something about it. Advise him to keep his property off of yours. Civil action maybe? Isn't this strictly your hypothesis? Your unsupported claim that he didn't want his kids to see the dead horse? How do you expect a person to accept your unsupported claims when you won't support his claims of self-defense? I suspect we haven't heard the whole story. How about you take some responsibility for allowing your animal to run at large and not being in your immediate control? Would your horse still be alive today if you had taken adequate measures to ensure the horse could not "escape" from his enclosure? Really? More unsupported claims. Really is getting quite common with you and it's marring your credibility.
|
|
|
Post by understood on Mar 1, 2007 1:55:41 GMT -5
And as for you, "Understood", I think you may have misinterpreted the Watcher's statement on getting back to protecting ourselves and our property. We obviously cannot depend on the Justice System or anyone associated with the police department to receive a fair hearing, ( remember, we didn't even get notice to be at their hearing). And we will never stand against one of their own and win. So who protect us ? We do. Watch "The Jack Bull". Government still runs the same, only a little more sophisticated. Also, one last word, we didn't allow Santi to roam. It was an accident, and as for taking responsibility for him, I believe we did. We offered to pay any damages incurred by Santi's escape. Thanks so much for realizing that not only was this avoidable but we are still grieving over the loss of our pet. Not one time has that jack ass even had the guts to acknowledge our loss and his involvement, but drives by my daughter's house in his green Jeep Cherokee very slowly when she is outside working and stares at her!!!!!!! She is scared!!!!!!!!!!!! So you still affix the blame this guy who was defending his property. Would you be so rabid about this if he wasn't a cop? Would you believe that your horse inflicted wounds to the abdomen of another horse? The abdomen of a full-sized horse is roughly three feet from the ground. Right about the correct height for your horse to bite with neck extended. Even standing on it's rear legs it could easily reach the abdomen. This incident was completely avoidable if you had taken the measures that would have prevented your horse from escaping. The horse has escaped or been loose for other reasons in the past and this lays claim to your irresponsibility. Your statements are akin to the dog owner who allows his dog to run along the highway and then blames the driver of the car that strikes and kills the dog. Lastly, why should he acknowledge your "loss"? It was your horse that attacked his property. You should acknowledge your part in the incident. What was your horse's breed?
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Mar 1, 2007 2:02:26 GMT -5
I grew up in the great State of Misery which is cattle country. Full sized horses and mules are easily kept corralled. Our problem was cattle going off property and be-bopping down the road. Of course I never had a horse smaller than a common dog. I did have a dog once that refused to stay home. I ended up tying a 15 foot long 3/8" inch towing chain along with a 50 pound boat anchor to his collar. This didn't keep him home but it did keep him from meandering too far away. He ended up being shot by a neighbor. Apparently he had a thing for titty milk. He would suck mama dogs titties dry while baby dogs starved so the neighbor shot him. I didn't like it but I couldn't fault the neighbor either. There was no other recourse.
As to a 30 inch horse I don't know. What mischief can he possible get himself into? A mischief so sever that the one and only possible recourse is the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by yourneighbor on Mar 1, 2007 11:56:30 GMT -5
So if the officers kids got on my property messing with my live stock, I have the right to shoot the kids? It's the law, at least in Texas!
Texas has some weird laws! You can kill someone or an animal messing with your live stock. Yet in Texas if someone breaks into your home, by law your are required to "flee" from the intruders instead of defending yourself. "Texas legislators are now trying to change this law." Im surprised the idiot citizens of Texas allowed the government to change it in the first place!
A real man would have tied up the horse. Officer Damian Anderson is no real man! I'm sure his wife will agree as well.
|
|
|
Post by understood on Mar 1, 2007 11:59:02 GMT -5
It's also illegal in Texas to fight an officer effecting an illegal arrest.
Not so in North Carolina.
|
|
|
Post by terri kahla on Mar 1, 2007 18:38:30 GMT -5
Dear Understood. This is obviously a forum for epople to voice their experiences with martial law. I will tell you right now I have a large horse ranch and my neighbors have large horse ranches. We consider ourselves good neighbors to each other and look out for one another's property. My neighbor has Draft horses who occasionally slip that gate and get into my pasture with my performance and cutting horses. Never has it ever crossed my mind to get a gun and shoot them, even though they are very large and in a herd are rather scary ( I am 5'4" and weigh in at 120) I get in my truck and herd them all back. The shooting of a neighbor's horse has just never been an option for most of us. Hell, we don't even own any type of military issue weapons what so ever. I don't know you or "Officer" Anderson personally but have seen, heard, and witnessed enough from you kind of people to hope I never encounter either of you.
|
|
|
Post by understood on Mar 1, 2007 19:40:33 GMT -5
Dear Understood. This is obviously a forum for epople to voice their experiences with martial law. I will tell you right now I have a large horse ranch and my neighbors have large horse ranches. We consider ourselves good neighbors to each other and look out for one another's property. My neighbor has Draft horses who occasionally slip that gate and get into my pasture with my performance and cutting horses. Never has it ever crossed my mind to get a gun and shoot them, even though they are very large and in a herd are rather scary ( I am 5'4" and weigh in at 120) I get in my truck and herd them all back. The shooting of a neighbor's horse has just never been an option for most of us. Hell, we don't even own any type of military issue weapons what so ever. I don't know you or "Officer" Anderson personally but have seen, heard, and witnessed enough from you kind of people to hope I never encounter either of you. And see, that's something that I would do and have done, herded cattle back to where they belong. But I certainly wouldn't fault my neighbor for destroying any animal that belongs to me that is behaving aggressively on his property. Which appears to be the case in this instance. I certainly would not associate myself with a person who destroyed my property on his property without valid cause. Doesn't mean he's wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by understood on Mar 1, 2007 22:38:28 GMT -5
I don't know you or "Officer" Anderson personally but have seen, heard, and witnessed enough from you kind of people to hope I never encounter either of you. Why? Because I fully support the property rights of others? My kind of people? What is my kind of people?
|
|