Scumbag police in usa kill dog

@Bioinic I really dont have the time to sit here arguing semantics and replying to each of your replies in detail. Your opinion is exactly that, your opinion. I am entitled to a different view and so I dont think we are actually going to get anywhere.

I fundamentally disagree with your arguments.

The police had time to react between seeing the dog get loose and the time before the dog attacked to let the owner go and remove the dog. 13 seconds is a lot of time in a stressful and dangerous situation. It would have simply taken some brain power on the part of the officers involved. You dont believe that, I do.

No you can shoot to incapacitate and you also have the option of non lethal force. I believe that, you dont.

A gun is a last resort, not a first one please dont forget that. You apparently dont believe that either, but I do.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Police officers are unfortunately a necessary evil. They should however have much better selection procedures, regulation and control. They should also be held fully accountable for their actions and if they break the law they should face the same consequences as any other criminal. Period. :beer:

InfinitusEquitas said:

Going to disagree with you completely on that count.

Given prior history, the police knew exactly who the individual was. Neither was he in any way interfering, or doing anything illegal at the time they choose to approach him.

Click to expand...

I'm only discussing whether the dog should've been shot or not. I'm not talking about whether the officers should've gone up to arrest the guy in the first place, whether that guy was interfering, or whether citizens should be allowed to record incidents or not.

I don't think it's relevant because that is an entirely different issue. It's comparable to the issue of a soldier's conduct compared versus why the war was started in the first place. Now if you want to connect the two with something like the cop shooting the dog simply because he didn't like the dog's owner, that's a different issue. Other people have brought that up, but I don't believe that happened from what I saw in the video.

grainde said:

The police had time to react between seeing the dog get loose and the time before the dog attacked to let the owner go and remove the dog. 13 seconds is a lot of time in a stressful and dangerous situation. It would have simply taken some brain power on the part of the officers involved. You dont believe that, I do.

No you can shoot to incapacitate and you also have the option of non lethal force. I believe that, you dont.

Click to expand...

I'm convinced that you've never actually used a gun or for that matter don't even understand the use of one. Tell me, how and where would you shoot a dog just to incapacitate it? How and where would you shoot a human to just injure?

Police are not trained to fire to just injure-to-incapacitate people. The reason is that, like you say yourself, a gun is the last resort. It's used for killing.

There are other, more technical, reasons too: aiming a weapon and hitting a specific part of the body with a handgun that will only disable a target is no small task even to trained individuals; hitting a moving target is even harder (imagine shooting to disable that leaping dog). Furthermore, there are risks that must be weighed: do you try and just injure someone and risk the assailant being able to retaliate (such as a frenzied dog)? Are you forced to fire more shots because you miss, possibly injuring bystanders?

It is for these reasons and concerns that less-than-lethal weapons were developed. They ensure that there are intermediate levels of force possible below lethal force.

But please don't give me this junk about incapacitating something with a weapon made to destroy it. That is absolutely ridiculous and something spoken out of complete ignorance.

A gun is a last resort, not a first one please dont forget that. You apparently dont believe that either, but I do.

Click to expand...

Don't make such assumptions. I'm not the one making claims about weapons made to kill being used only to injure, as if there's some middle ground in their use. Guns are the last resort, and they're for ending lives. So if that officer was pulling out that gun on that dog, it was to inflict lethal damage if necessary. Maybe in hindsight pepper spray would've been a better choice, but the gun was drawn in case lethal force was necessary and was used only when the dog attacked. And who knows with the pepper spray whether that would've been enough to stop the dog.

Saw the video back to front.
Shooting of the dog in front of the kids is horribly out of line. Cops don't seem to be using their good judgement on this one.
Meat head cops are out for blood. I wouldn't put this past our RCMP or VPD either.

Summary:
Very senseless use of force on the part of the cops. However the dogs owner was being a complete dick here and interfered with the police during a very tense standoff. (taunting the cops, and blaring loud music at the scene of a standoff) Tough lesson.
poor dog. Dumb owner.

Bionic-Badger said:

I don't think it's relevant because that is an entirely different issue. It's comparable to the issue of a soldier's conduct compared versus why the war was started in the first place. Now if you want to connect the two with something like the cop shooting the dog simply because he didn't like the dog's owner, that's a different issue. Other people have brought that up, but I don't believe that happened from what I saw in the video.

Click to expand...

I do think it is extremely relevant. The cops had already made up their mind to punish this guy before approaching him.

They approached him with the intent to arrest/hassle him.

They expected him to resist, and were quite aggressive in handcuffing him.

That aggression set the tone for the encounter. The dog might not of even reacted if all parties involved were calm.

The cops were NOT calm. They helped to both create, and escalate the situation.

The natural response would be to say "Well how would you have handled the guy who was being a nuisance?"

Easy. Ignore him.

Instead they created and escalated the situation, and a tragic incident occurred.

Bionic-Badger said:

I'm convinced that you've never actually used a gun or for that matter don't even understand the use of one.

Click to expand...

Hmm you couldnt be more wrong. Sorry, but not all people in England are completely clueless when it comes to weapons.

I get the impression you are trying to troll. I wont even bother to entertain your rather large ego, by responding to the rest of your nonsensical drivel.

Suffice to say please heed your own words:

Bionic-Badger said:

Don't make such assumptions.

Click to expand...

Edit: Here here IE and Seoul_lasers couldnt agree more.

Luckily the dog didn't die this time but a horrendous error on the part of Law Enforcement...

Cops shoot dog in front of six-year-old after raiding wrong home in search of man with expired vehicle registration

______________________________________________________

Apparently the officer in the OP has quite a history :thinking:

http://intellihub.com/2013/07/02/dog-killer-cop-killed-man-with-down-syndrome-as-a-rookie/

~ LB

InfinitusEquitas said:

I do think it is extremely relevant. The cops had already made up their mind to punish this guy before approaching him.

They approached him with the intent to arrest/hassle him.

They expected him to resist, and were quite aggressive in handcuffing him.

That aggression set the tone for the encounter. The dog might not of even reacted if all parties involved were calm.

The cops were NOT calm. They helped to both create, and escalate the situation.

Click to expand...

With exception only to the intent to arrest that guy, all of the above statements are nothing more than wild, prejudiced speculation with no ties to any evidence shown in the video. What that guy roughed up? No. Did the cops say anything indicating that they were trying to hassle him? Nope. Did the cops harm the dog at any time before the dog leaped at the cop? No. Did the officers show any indication of not being calm such as running after the guy, aggressive handling of the dog owner, yelling at him, or arresting him immediately without asking him to back off? Nope.

You're seeing all this with blind, prejudiced eyes. You're making up ridiculous -- unfounded -- claims about knowing what is going on inside the minds of those cops. You're making ASSumptions based on your own obvious prejudices against cops.

Come on, show a single bit of evidence from the video that backs your claims. If you're going to make these wild accusations, at least tie it to the evidence shown in the video.

The natural response would be to say "Well how would you have handled the guy who was being a nuisance?"

Easy. Ignore him.

Instead they created and escalated the situation, and a tragic incident occurred.

Click to expand...

No, don't ignore him. The dog owner pulled up and was blaring his loud music for over FOUR MINUTES behind the scene of a police standoff involving an armed robbery suspect. He was told repeatedly to shut off his music and back up. He refused and continued acting like an idiot. Even the people videotaping the incident were surprised by the dog owner's actions. So the cops walked over to him to arrest him for disruptive behavior, especially considering the circumstances.

Under those circumstances, yeah, I think their arrest was justified. The guy was being very disruptive during a tense police stand-off and refused to cease his unnecessary, disruptive behavior. I also think the police did not mishandle the dog owner in any way that was out of the ordinary, but that unfortunately, that dog got loose, leaped at the officer in a threatening manner and was shot. The dog was also not shot prior to the dog leaping at the officer.

grainde said:

Hmm you couldnt be more wrong. Sorry, but not all people in England are completely clueless when it comes to weapons.

Click to expand...

Who's talking about people in England? I'm talking about you.

I get the impression you are trying to troll. I wont even bother to entertain your rather large ego, by responding to the rest of your nonsensical drivel.

Suffice to say please heed your own words:

Click to expand...

At least come up with a better excuse to duck out when you can't provide or respond to coherent arguments based on evidence.

Bionic-Badger said:

Who's talking about people in England? I'm talking about you.

Click to expand...

Wow sounds like you are getting personal..:tsk: Well as I stated you are WRONG get over it. In fact you would have been better off simply referring to people in England, rather than me... Sorry, but no mater how much you like to believe it, you arent always right.

Bionic-Badger said:

At least come up with a better excuse to duck out when you can't provide or respond to coherent arguments based on evidence.

Click to expand...

Why do I need excuses? I have already stated my arguments and opinions. Theres no point repeating them. Its clear we have a difference of opinion and that we are just going around in circles. You have simply reworded the same arguments from the beginning. If you want answers to your questions, Id suggest reading through my posts, my opinion has been clearly stated.

Your arguments are not based on evidence they are based purely on opinion. Learn the difference. Now stop trolling and attempting to provoke people.:tsk:

Lazerbeak said:

Luckily the dog didn't die this time but a horrendous error on the part of Law Enforcement...

Cops shoot dog in front of six-year-old after raiding wrong home in search of man with expired vehicle registration

Click to expand...

Another one of thousands of "mistakes".

This happens on fairly regular basis... warrants being served, and wrong people having their doors knocked down, and lives turned upside down.

I remember another case where a local police department playing swat, shot teargas into a home, broke down the door, dragged everyone out, and only later realized "oops" we have the wrong place. When the owners asked for compensation for the damage (broken door, broken windows, cleaning out/replacing things damaged) the police department basically ignored them. Hopefully they got a nice payout from it.

For anyone without a badge such actions would be considered breaking and entering, aggravated assault, and kidnapping.

Until cops are held personally accountable, and have their lives impacted in a meaningful and severe way when they make "mistakes" nothing will change.

The only way to promote this change is to be able to hold them accountable.

The only way to hold them accountable is to document everything, and have incontrovertible proof in the form of a recording.

Bionic-Badger said:

With exception only to the intent to arrest that guy, all of the above statements are nothing more than wild, prejudiced speculation with no ties to any evidence shown in the video. What that guy roughed up? No. Did the cops say anything indicating that they were trying to hassle him? Nope. Did the cops harm the dog at any time before the dog leaped at the cop? No. Did the officers show any indication of not being calm such as running after the guy, aggressive handling of the dog owner, yelling at him, or arresting him immediately without asking him to back off? Nope.

You're seeing all this with blind, prejudiced eyes. You're making up ridiculous -- unfounded -- claims about knowing what is going on inside the minds of those cops. You're making ASSumptions based on your own obvious prejudices against cops.

Come on, show a single bit of evidence from the video that backs your claims. If you're going to make these wild accusations, at least tie it to the evidence shown in the video.

Click to expand...

Hawthorne, Ca Police Kill Dog(1) - YouTube

Go watch the video again.

You can fast forward to the roughly 2:45 mark.

The man walks towards them turns around, and puts his hands slighly behind/out the side.

From that point he is handcuffed, while one cop holds him the other grabs a pair of cuffs, and puts them on. The man does not offer ANY resistance.

His legs are spread apart forcefully...

At the 3:00 minute mark is he is pushed/grabbed roughly by the cop...

Unfortunately we can't see anymore because the guy with the cellphone moved the camera, and the cops are blocking the view with their bodies, but at the very least it looks like a not so gentle pat down. From the dog perspective - his owner is being attached by three aggresive other beings.

Before you yourself start making asinine ASSumptions, go and view both my comments, and the video.

I've backed up my statements, your turn.

Bionic-Badger said:

No, don't ignore him. The dog owner pulled up and was blaring his loud music for over FOUR MINUTES behind the scene of a police standoff involving an armed robbery suspect. He was told repeatedly to shut off his music and back up. He refused and continued acting like an idiot. Even the people videotaping the incident were surprised by the dog owner's actions. So the cops walked over to him to arrest him for disruptive behavior, especially considering the circumstances.

Under those circumstances, yeah, I think their arrest was justified. The guy was being very disruptive during a tense police stand-off and refused to cease his unnecessary, disruptive behavior. I also think the police did not mishandle the dog owner in any way that was out of the ordinary, but that unfortunately, that dog got loose, leaped at the officer in a threatening manner and was shot. The dog was also not shot prior to the dog leaping at the officer.

Click to expand...

The man may have been annoying, making noise, and pain the ass.

That's not illegal.

If the noise he was producing was disruptive, that merits telling him to turn off the music. If he failed to comply, only then they would have reason to either write him a ticket, or arrest him.

If he needed to be further from the scene, the scene should have been better defined. I didn't see any kind of perimeter setup/taped off.

Nor at any point have I argued that the shooting itself was not justified. I only take issue with everything that led up to it. A point you seem to want to overlook consistently.

You should also redefine what you consider to be out of the ordinary. Anytime force is used when it is not required, to me is outside the norm, and out of the ordinary. Doesn't have to be a great deal of force.

Go rewatch the video, re-read my comments, and take off your blinders.

4th of July DUI Checkpoint - Drug Dogs, Searched without Consent, while Innocent - YouTube


Another police mishandling of dogs. Also, just all around disgusting. This was a few mins east of me.

ixfd64 said:

Considering that police shoot innocent dogs so often, I'm surprised pet owners never seem to shoot back.

Click to expand...

Sometimes they do.

Police officer Robert Lasso shot dead after pointing his stun gun at man's dogs | Mail Online

Thanks for sharing Shanahan. That answers that. You have no rights, period... :scowl:

Edit...

EC, Ouch!

~ LB

Just gona leave this here...Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations | World news | The Guardian

Very interesting read and closely related to the question of rights and freedom discussed in this thread. :beer:

BShanahan14rulz said:

4th of July DUI Checkpoint - Drug Dogs, Searched without Consent, while Innocent - YouTube

Another police mishandling of dogs. Also, just all around disgusting. This was a few mins east of me.

Click to expand...

Stuff like this... having been through it as well, with worse consequence... just pisses me off to no end.

The cops know the guy did nothing wrong, yet still harass him, scratch up his car, and make a mess of it inside. He is lucky to have gotten away with no trumped up charges. The could have arrested been arrested for anything, and I mean anything at all, only to have the charges dropped.

I give credit to the police officer for one thing more than any other.

He CLOSED THE DOOR after the man exited the vehicle. In many cases cops will not allow you to close the door, and looking inside will "see something suspicious". With that they will proceed to search the car under plain sight exception.

The only area they cannot search this way would be the trunk. In order to search the trunk they do actually need to get a warrant, unless you consent.

EnergyCoherence said:

Sometimes they do.

Police officer Robert Lasso shot dead after pointing his stun gun at man's dogs | Mail Online

Click to expand...

The officer was trespassing. He was asked to leave, and he did display clear intent to harm the property of the owner.

Hopefully the laws in pennsylvania are such that a man is allowed to defend himself and his property, while on said property, from an armed intruder, who had a weapon drawn.

Cops should be held to a higher, or at least the same standard as everyone else. Not to a lower one.

Grainde said:

Just gona leave this here...Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations | World news | The Guardian

Very interesting read and closely related to the question of rights and freedom discussed in this thread.

Click to expand...

While I am not a fan of our deteriorating rights and freedoms I am strongly against endangering our operatives overseas and destroying covert operations which have our Country's safety and interests at heart.

He was a contractor not a bona fide CIA or NSA member, so he would not fall under the same whistleblower regulations. He employed illegal means to gain access because he was not authorized access to the materials he stole. Ars Technica revealed his account info starting from when he was a teenager. He specifically planned the Booz Allen job to gain access to CIA/NSA databases.

China and Russia apparently were not interested enough in what he had on his 4 encrypted laptops to grant him asylum.

Yes, I have seen a press conference of Soldiers in Iraq encouraged to kill Iraqi citizens as initiation. Shooting Mosques, etc.

I do believe there is more going on than we the public are told. 72 people were recently killed when National Guard members tried to confiscate recently banned assault rifles in Boston. (They were out gunned and turned back by local armed citizenry)

I don't have the answers, but I think its to soon to call Snowden a hero.

Our Covert Operatives and Servicemen and Women are not political, their interest is serving the interests of our nation regardless of who is in the big chair. Unfortunately too often they become pawns in a bigger game

~ LB

First off, the guy deserved to be detained. he was clearly, in my opinion, being antagonistic to the police while they were already in stressful situation. Did you not see the swat truck IE?

And to all the people that are calling the cops scum for shooting the dog, you are crazy. The cop clearly showed restraint, and acted at the last minute. The dog was shot mid air, in leap to bite the man. The only person responsible for this dogs death, was the owner.

Michael.