Scumbag police in usa kill dog

Razako said:

In my state we recently had a homeowner who shot 6 cops and killed one when they raided his house for allegedly growing a few marijuana plants. He later hung himself in jail. He wasn't a dog owner, but it's still related in a way. Later the same department also went and raided the WRONG HOUSE looking for a AWOL soldier. They nearly shot some innocent guy who came to the door with a bat. The police in this country are out of control.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Matthew Stewart incident?

@ grainde

Having a friend that is an officer they have to deal with a lot of BS, and as "public servants" they deserve a little more credit than they get sometimes. And here in this thread ppl are bashing them for rightfully defending themselves.

Also your subjective statement "That dog was very threatening and looked like it could have mauled someone" is just that SUBJECTIVE. Do you arrest all dubious looking characters or odd balls just because they might cause trouble - Guess its a case of charged and booked rather than guilty until proven innocent.

Mk, the gloves are off, Almost everything about this statement is dumb. You want to bring up the subjective argument, everything is subjective, your entire life is subjective, calling it that doesn't mean anything. The guy with the dog was being a idiot and your on his side?

ixfd64 said:

Are you talking about the Matthew Stewart incident?

Click to expand...

Mathew Stewart and the Ogden PD. Talk about an incompetent department.

Objectively, the issue here is not regarding the validity of the dog being shot, but rather of why the man was being arrested in the first place.

Up to, and including SCOTUS, countless rulings are definitive in this:

On public property, it is legal to record the actions of any public official. Including, and especially the police.

In this case the cops acted like pigs, and the owner of the dog acted like a moron. There are no winners, and unfortunately a dog died.

@TheDukeAnumber1 -

"Having a friend that is an officer they have to deal with a lot of BS, and as "public servants" they deserve a little more credit than they get sometimes. And here in this thread ppl are bashing them for rightfully defending themselves."

Credit, trust, respect, they are earned, not given by default. Long are the days past when a simple little piece of metal grants respect. If anything it only works to create fear.

Your friend was not forced to become a "public servant" and he is certainly compensated for his work. He does not deserve any additional credit for choosing to become a cop, nor will he have any while other cops (or he himself) are allowed to abuse the powers granted to them, to protect the public.

TheDukeAnumber1 said:

@ grainde

Having a friend that is an officer they have to deal with a lot of BS, and as "public servants" they deserve a little more credit than they get sometimes. And here in this thread ppl are bashing them for rightfully defending themselves.

Click to expand...

If they are rightfully and lawfully defending themselves ok, but using the law as a smoke screen is not. Sorry. I have met a few and read about too many arrogant, narcissistic over zealous thugs that like to call themselves officers. There is no accountablity just a slap in the wrist when they use excessive and unwarranted force.

One prime example was an officer in Switzerland who was breaking up a protest a decided to cut a rope dangling over the edge of a motorway bridge. He cut the rope and a demonstrator fell on to the road crippling him for life. He became a paraplegic. What happened to the well meaning and protecting officer, well he got a slap on the wrist. Other people would have been tried for attempted manslaughter...Go and use google if you want to check it out.

TheDukeAnumber1 said:

Mk, the gloves are off, Almost everything about this statement is dumb. You want to bring up the subjective argument, everything is subjective, your entire life is subjective, calling it that doesn't mean anything. The guy with the dog was being a idiot and your on his side?

Click to expand...

Good deflection but please stay on point. The dog "could hurt" does not = the dog "will hurt" someone. Just like "might be" a criminal doesnt = "is" a criminal. My statement is a fact and backed up by your own admission that your friend is a police officer. Your assertions are subjective. Subjective means that you have a biased opinion, contrary to an objective one where you try to look at and present a balanced and informed opinion - to the best of your ability. Looks like you advocate preemptive attacks...just in case...

Im not on anyones side Im stating that we have a right to film a public servant if we wish. As far as I was aware the US is still a democracy...


Edit: Well looks like you cant record public servants in the US. Wow cudos to those in power...In the UK it is perfectly legal to record a public official going about their business. After all they are there to serve and act as a role model in terms of how one should behave. They shouldnt therefore have anything to hide. They uphold the law and in doing so shouldnt break it....

Lotsa respect for firefighters, they risk their lives for us.

grainde said:

Edit: Well looks like you cant record public servants in the US. Wow cudos to those in power...In the UK it is perfectly legal to record a public official going about their business. After all they are there to serve and act as a role model in terms of how one should behave. They shouldnt therefore have anything to hide. They uphold the law and in doing so shouldnt break it....

Click to expand...

NO.

This is wrong.

You are allowed to record public servants in the US. It's quite literally a part of the rights as granted by the first amendment.

Unfortunately cops don't like being recorded (or to be held accountable), and do end up arresting people for basically anything they can come up with.

Sad fact of the matter is they rarely even get a slap on the wrist.

Ahh good phew!! I thought youd written people couldnt! Didnt read your statement properly :beer:

In Soviet America, paid vacations are called Administrative Leave.

TheDukeAnumber1 said:

@ grainde

Having a friend that is an officer they have to deal with a lot of BS, and as "public servants" they deserve a little more credit than they get sometimes. And here in this thread ppl are bashing them for rightfully defending themselves.

Click to expand...

I think we can all agree that police have difficult jobs. However, that does not mean they can shoot whatever they want, and they need to be held accountable for their actions just like everyone else.

How often do you hear of mailmen shooting dogs?

To extrapolate your point grainde

The dog "could hurt" does not = the dog "will hurt" someone

Click to expand...

Do you believe in all cases you need to be fire upon before returning fire. If someone pointed a loaded gun at you or your family you would take the "subjective" free approach and wait to see if you or your family dies? I know this is the most extreme case of the point but it's the point your arguing. If that dog had approached me in the manner it did that officer I would have shot it too.

here is how to properly handle the situation

Dog attacks Police Officer Taser Full News Report - YouTube

even though he shouldn't have arrested him he was committing no crime

TheDukeAnumber1 said:

Do you believe in all cases you need to be fire upon before returning fire. If someone pointed a loaded gun at you or your family you would take the "subjective" free approach and wait to see if you or your family dies? I know this is the most extreme case of the point but it's the point your arguing. If that dog had approached me in the manner it did that officer I would have shot it too.

Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is questioning the act of the officer actually shooting the dog, or having no resort but to shoot the dog in that situation.

He fired of 3-4 rounds, quickly in a controlled manner, and only after the dog came at him aggressively.

The issue that is being brought up though, in general terms is the difference in how people are allowed to react to threats.

Where a police officer is concerned, for some reason the level of the perceived threat is much lower, before they open fire, than it is for civilians. That should not be the case.

Police officer should have to justify using deadly force, just as much, if not more, as civilians.

This is why I think people who carry guns are pussies. The cops are total pigs too, though.

InfinitusEquitas said:

I don't think anybody is questioning the act of the officer actually shooting the dog, or having no resort but to shoot the dog in that situation.

He fired of 3-4 rounds, quickly in a controlled manner, and only after the dog came at him aggressively.

The issue that is being brought up though, in general terms is the difference in how people are allowed to react to threats.

Where a police officer is concerned, for some reason the level of the perceived threat is much lower, before they open fire, than it is for civilians. That should not be the case.

Police officer should have to justify using deadly force, just as much, if not more, as civilians.

Click to expand...

I won't argue that I believe the same.

FireMyLaser said:

This is why I think people who carry guns are pussies. The cops are total pigs too, though.

Click to expand...

Care to expand on that first part? What is the "why"?