Opinion : Disinformation and where it comes from

Can you pick out the pit bull? It only took around 10 seconds to decide which one it must be...

To those looking over the fence, this is what an "aggressive" German Shepherd looks like.

If you really want to mess with the neighbors, this is a poodle

"Just FYI there were only 5 pit bulls in Keystone, I repeat 5, not sure where all the dis information is coming from. At least fact check a topic so sensitive as this, thank you. I know this how? I was the deputy tasked with speaking with the 5 families."

There's one word that irritates me to no end, and that's the word "disinformation." It's so overused lately that it does not affect the hearer...unless it's to irritate. When you say that I'm spreading disinformation, ESPECIALLY if you tell me that I'm spreading it on Vinton Today, well, "them's fightin' words!"

If I accidentally say something wrong I feel terrible. If it has to do with law enforcement, I feel even feel worse.

I received this message just as I was sitting down at another meeting. So I responded quickly that I would get that corrected. Then I proceeded to be distracted by the message and pondered how I could get something wrong when I heard the same story over and over.

There were a couple of possibilities I thought. Perhaps the folks that told me their stories were just so upset that they didn't hear correctly what the officer said. But how can I prove the officer right?

I tuned back into my meeting and tried to give it my attention, but I wasn't paying close attention as I was still trying to solve the dilemma. I wanted to respect the folks that trusted me with their story while also proving this officer right. I hopped onto the website changed the numbers in the story and went on with my night.

There was something not right. How could people that didn't even know each other tell me the same story, with the same information? I ran the information given to me not even doubting that it was true. The stories told, said that these people were in trouble over their dogs. And now we are debating how many dogs? I hated to admit it, but the message from the officer sounded a bit like gaslighting when I thought more about this. (That's when you tell someone something and then turn around and say that they didn't hear it right) I didn't want to think that, I never do. But how can I get to the bottom of this, I wondered.

Then the light went on. I put in a request for his bodycam footage of the visits in Keystone. I figured the deputy wouldn't lie so I'll make a case for him! I'll PROVE that he was right and the people I'd talked to really did just hear him wrong.

"Well, lookie there," I thought after I received the footage and popped in the thumb drive. "There are only 5 files, so that means 5 visits!" He was right and I felt terrible once again. Until I started watching the videos. Then my heart sank.

Right there, on camera, the officer himself was telling residents that there were 9 other people on his list. Ah, so that's where all of the "dis information" on the opic that is "so sensitive" was coming from.

Now my next question is, "are there 10 residents or not?"

I contacted those I had been in touch with, sent the files for them to watch, and then I got messages back. "My visit wasn't on there," and "There's another stop that isn't on there."

I contacted the sheriff's office once again thinking that I had probably just given them the wrong window of time. They responded that no, this was ALL of the visits in Keystone that day.

Hmmm...

I contacted the Sheriff. I asked if the cameras can be altered, footage deleted, if they can be shut off or if they run from the time the officer leaves the door until he checks back in. He assured me that no, the footage can't be altered.

So recapping in my head:

-I was told there were 10 visits

-The officer said 5 visits

-In the camera footage the officer said 10

-But there were only 5 videos

-Sources are telling me that at least 2 stops are missing.

What's the truth? Now, where do I go?

About an hour later, I'm thinking I'll just send the deputy a note and ask him about it. He had contacted me via Facebook so I thought, I'll zap him another note, I mean I know what it looked like, but still giving him the benefit of the doubt and he rapped my knuckles for not fact-checking (another set of words I hate thanks to Facebook's overuse).

My heart was broken, He had unfriended AND blocked me on Facebook. Well, I had my answer. I mean, if you are going to tell the news gal that she had it wrong, and she has footage with you saying that she's right...whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when she wants to ask of you? (humming Bad Boys)

Remember those deleted visits? According to residents, the first missing visit didn't go well concerning the dog. A relative was very upset. The officer then made a second stop to talk to the dog's owner, at her job, and told them that THIS dog only had 7 days. Why? Because of the way the relative acted at his last stop, he was upset.

Apparently, when making a "courtesy" one can pull a random number out of the air and make it apply to various situations. Sounds fair. After all, justice is blind.

Huh, I wonder why that exchange wasn't recorded for posterity. I mean, the relative must've been pretty "aggressive" or had the "characteristics of a pit bull" to get under the officer's skin so badly, so why on earth wouldn't you record that exchange? If anything it would reflect badly on the family. But...maybe that wasn't what we were um...well...failing to record...

I'm sure it's just a glitch, how odd that these two visits never made the cut. They probably were never recorded. The camera can't be manipulated right? Well, Google tends to believe that the cameras can be.

So now I'm in a quandary. Who do I believe? A group of women telling me the same story along with camera footage that backs up what they say or the officer who is upset and accuses me of spreading "disinformation" on such a "sensitive subject?" It's a tough call and then to ghost the reporter? Well...

I believe that the officer said that there were 10 dogs about to be removed because I heard it. But then I believed him when he said I messed up and there were only 5.

Do I believe that at least two stops magically were not on the bodycam footage? Yep. I mean, I never question an officer, but it seems suspicious.

Other things that bothered me

There was something more that bothered me. With more digging, and watching the videos, I found myself upset over what I saw in one particular visit on the bodycam footage. The owner in the video asked that I not show it, I won't but I'll tell you what happened.

In all of the bodycam, remember there was no official business being conducted during these house-to-house calls. There was no reason for the officer to even be at these homes. So, are officers supposed to just knock on random doors to give courtesy calls? I mean the Vinton PD doesn't go around warning residents that they are about to get a "clean up your yard" citation. So this didn't make sense. I mean yeah, you MIGHT get a "courtesy" if you have a taillight out, but even then, I think you get a piece of paper.

He said he was "tasked" with making these calls. How does that work? Did the city task him to? And if so, who in the city? Was it a list of complaints that came in through dispatch? Did the sheriff ask him to make these calls? Who tasked him? I honestly don't know. Keystone doesn't answer their phone or apparently email, and I don't want to keep bugging the sheriff's office, they have bigger things to worry about than answering more questions. But I'm not sure exactly how this works.

In all of these stops, the officer made it sound like "officially" the owners would get a call in 10 days. (well, 7 days if you get snarky with him. Laws are flexible right? Deputies are to enforce the laws equally. The laws don't change because of who you are or if you upset the officer.)

He misrepresented the process for dog removal, leaving the families the feeling that they had no options but to get rid of the dog in 10 days or...on the next visit, he would arrive with a search warrant. Let's talk about that.

When you hear someone say to you that a search warrant will be issued for your home, what do you picture? Yep, battering rams, the door getting bashed in, the house being tossed, your kids crying, and in this case, your dog being snatched. Intimidation is a beautiful thing.

One case really bothered me. A woman answered the door and explained that she had been up since 3:00 a.m. She had just returned from work after a 9-hour shift. She listened politely, she heard the speel. 10 days to get rid of the dog, search warrant, we come and take your dog. The lady nodded wearily and turned to go into her house.

The officer wasn't going to let that happen, he needed a reason to come back to her house, he needed to verify what he had been told. She had given him no argument, she was tired and probably wanted to get back to sleep. The officer started in again.

"And apparently there's a German Shepherd, you have a couple of other 'aggressive' dogs also?" You can see in the video that the dog's mom perked up. "I'm not trying to upset you," he continued, "I don't want to serve you a notice, and have to do a search warrant and just come and snag him. That's why I'm giving everyone a courtesy. And apparently, there's a German Shepherd or something, you have a couple of other 'aggressive' dogs also? Are they 'aggressive'? That's what I was told."

She stops and realized that now he's not just going after her "pit bull" but now he's going after all of her dogs as well. "I have three dogs," she said, "I have a lab, and he's not a German Shepherd no." (Remember this pit bull ordinance is based on if a dog "looks like" a pit bull... The source doesn't have a clue what a German Shepherd looks like. You can be SURE that they can identify a Pit Bull) The officer jumped back in and said, "So the pit bull, is the 'aggressive" one? "

The owner smiles as she answers, "They're not..." she sighs, "they're 'aggressive' if they're outside, but they're not aggressive if you walk..." the officer interrupts, again because she took the bait, she used HIS word "aggressive" and tried to use it in a sentence to describe her dogs that she believes is NOT aggressive. The sheriff agrees with the deputy. "If you watch the video, she said they were aggressive, did you hear her say that?" he asked me. I sighed. That's not what I saw, but whatever.

The officer on the bodycam jumped on it too. "You just saying, I mean, you can't have aggressive dogs either, I mean you can't. Somebody's going to get hurt. I mean, I'm just giving you notice, if you have an issue with it you can feel free to go speak to City Hall," the officer kept talking.

As I'm watching this, it reminded me of those ankle-biting dogs. You know the "characteristics" of a Chihuahua. " Yip, yip, yip, I want your dogs, ALL of 'em yip, yip, yip!" the whole time biting at your ankles. And all you want to do is get away. And obviously, this lady is wiped out.

The owner replied, "Yeah, cuz I don't know how anyone can get hurt when..." then she just gives up and smiles thinking this should be the end of it.

The officer then asks to go into the house to see if the dog "looks like" a pit bull. And says, "I don't want to get bit..." he does the whole...I'm afraid of these 'aggressive' dogs"... (Now in his defense, there was an incident where I believe the same officer shot a pit bull in Garrison about 5 years ago because it went after him)

During this "courtesy," the dogs who had barked like crazy when the officer first knocked had been silent.

"Will they bite me?" the officer repeats as he started to enter the house, and the owner says, "I wouldn't think so..." and he backs out of the door. "You wouldn't think so?" The owner said, "Well their door is shut."

The whole video if it weren't so desperate in its attempt to frame this woman, and her "aggressive" dogs, German Shepherd and all, would be a great comedy. The camera shows the dogs sitting on the other side of a glass door wagging their tails at their mom waiting for her to come through the door. Excited to see her. Then they see the officer. And they bark.

The officer comments again, "Yeah, you can't have 'aggressive' dogs." Now mind you, the dogs weren't attacking the glass trying to get at him they barked and ran in the opposite direction, away from him, pretty aggressive there.

In roughly 10-15 seconds on the video, he identified a pitbull. Then he warns her that she has 10 days before he comes back with the official paperwork, and a search warrant and takes the dog. He never did mention that "German Shepherd," or identify it. But apparently barking dogs running away are aggressive, noted.

What's the takeaway?

1) If an officer shows up without papers, it's not an official visit. Of course, be polite and visit with them. I know, decent human beings say, "Come on in and have a cup of coffee," but unless they are there with paperwork in hand, and even then unless it's a search warrant, the correct response is a polite "thank you, no." I think this is called, "building a case when they don't have one."

2) There is a process. Papers are ALWAYS involved in official business. If you disagree, you can appeal the claim. It's like a speeding ticket. There are official papers, instructions on how to appeal it, and THEN the fine.

3) Intimidation. Using words like, "I'm gonna come back in 10 days with a search warrant" implies that it won't be pretty. In general, for a dog complaint, I don't think they show up with a search warrant as your first official point of contact. Why?

Because there's an appeal process AFTER you have been served aka given that piece of paper that explains what you did wrong.

Now, if you've appealed and lost, and officers show up to seize your dog, with a search warrant, well, you're on your own.

4) Asking if your dog is "aggressive" is as clear as using the "it looks like a pitbull" argument. You go in THEIR house, on THEIR turf, and the dogs bark at you? That is NOT aggressive. That's a dog saying, "This is not right, there is a stranger in my house! Help! What are we gonna do?"

5) Missing footage. When at least two videos are missing from a string of "courtesy calls" and it's been reported that at least one went badly and the call following that one is also missing, I'm getting suspicious. But hey, stuff happens.

This might be a first that (well, a second but we won't discuss the other time,) you will find me saying the cops got it wrong, but in this case, at the very least, they got ahead of themselves.

So there you go.

I'm sure glad I could prove where my "disinformation" came from. Hopefully, that's enough fact-checking, because this whole pit bull ordinance is tiring.