Scumbag police in usa kill dog

[NKO29]

because it affects millions of people rather than a couple of dangerous dogs.

 

[grainde]

A rottweiler-looking dog jumping at him? I'd definitely call that threatening. x The cop didn't fire just because the dog was staring at him. The dog jumped at him. Is he supposed to give the dog hit arm to bite?

I just watched the video again and no the dog did not look threatening. If it were protecting its owner it would have gone to him. Instead it looks very much like the officer was provoking him to get a reaction and an excuse to shoot. Have you ever had a dog jump at you? If they mean business the teeth will be clearly visible and the dog would have used them - he had the chance, but didnt... If the dog had been attacking he would have bitten. That didnt happen though did it.

Its not a case of whether the dog might attack, but rather whether it did attack. I dont consider jumping up an attack any more than someone pushing you in the street. Yes its might be considered a challenge, but not one that needs to be met with 3 bullets.

Next youll be advocating people shooting each other cos they looked funnily at one another. Whats that under their jacket, maybe they have a gun, maybe they'll shoot or knife me, better safe than sorry, Ill make sure I kill them first.

When you are trained that you are superior to everyone else and that you deserve complete servitude, obedience and total control, you are not taught to properly think rather react and carry around a dangerous weapon with no recourse if it is used, do you find yourself believing you can do anything and that you are above the law? Well here was a good demonstration.

Also one or three shots? What really is the difference? You shoot something to kill something.

That is not true. It can also be used to incapacitate, if need be. The mentality seems to have changed now a days.

Hunting is really not the correct analogy. You hunt to kill period. You carry a gun to protect yourself. There is a big difference here and if you cant see that I just hope to god you dont carry a gun.

So now you only shoot an attacking dog once it's at the point of shredding your clothing? Or maybe causing grievous injuries? That's just stupid. I don't think even you would abide by that standard for yourself. What next, only shooting gun wielding attackers when they manage to hit you? Let's get back to reality here. We act on threats in order to prevent injury or death.

The question here is was there really a threat of life and death or even a mauling. Had they let the guy loose for a couple of mins to put the dog back in the car the dog would still be alive. The owner wasnt aggressive, he wasnt a flight risk, he wasnt even arrested for anything. Why didnt they let him loose for a moment to calm and remove the dog? A simple solution and a good question. Answer - because they dont have to, they can kill indiscriminately if need be; judge, jury and executioner.

No, I wouldn't fault your country for being that obtuse.

Well thats just insulting, but I really question who is obtuse here? I guess a lifetime of living in fear of imminent threats, whether real or imagined, will have an effect on ones attitude.

Im not saying that deadly force is not needed, on occasion. What I am saying is that it should only be used in response to a real and not fictitious deadly threat.

As IE pointed out the guy has a history with these exact same cops and is currently suing them for another incident where he was dragged from his home, arrested without charge and beaten....Sorry, but to me the whole thing stank and looked more calculated than threatening.

 

[TheDukeAnumber1]

@ Bionic
Well said.

@ NKO29
Way to really elaborate there and participate in the conversation. A sentence fragment, you must have really given it your all.

 

[grainde]

youre right on specific breeds. A Chiwawa is hardly a threat but a big dog like a Rottweiler can do some serious damage. This is a storm in a teacup and there are better things to worry about like the violence in Somalia and other 3rd world countries...

And why is that better to worry about please elaborate.

because it affects millions of people rather than a couple of dangerous dogs.

@ NKO29
Way to really elaborate there and participate in the conversation. A sentence fragment, you must have really given it your all.

:thinking:

 

[NKO29]

LOL it doesn't need an extended response. The reasoning can easily be expressed in 1 sentence; but I shouldn't of even had to explain because it is so damn obvious why! If you really care more about the dog and cant think of why what i said before was more important, then do some research. You will find that there are people who every day go through MUCH worse things.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

LOL it doesn't need an extended response. The reasoning can easily be expressed in 1 sentence; but I shouldn't of even had to explain because it is so damn obvious why! If you really care more about the dog and cant think of why what i said before was more important, then do some research. You will find that there are people who every day go through MUCH worse things.

So you consider yourself morally superior by "caring" about those people instead right?

By doing something to change their life?

No, instead you complain about, and look down on people who care about what is happening in their country, at home, about their erosion of liberties, and injustice that they are able to see.

Please remember you're free to judgemental BS, but don't for a second think that you are not completely transparent to everyone here.

 

[BShanahan14rulz]

?Dehumanizing stares,? body language prompted arrest of Florida teen feeding puppy: cops* - NY Daily News

^didn't shoot him for staring at the cops, but then again, he was a person and not a dog, so he was afforded humane treatment.

Edit: I haven't watched the video. And I'm a dog person, putting that out there now. I will say that as long as he shot the dog once in attempt to kill, glad he put a few more in him. If I had to shoot an animal, I'd send out a few more rounds just to make sure that it is quickly passed on.

But, let's think about other ways this man could have handled the situation. He could have gotten in the car and rolled up the windows, but who wants to get shot for fleeing? Same with tying the dog's leash to something in the car, who wants to get shot for going for a weapon?
Moral is, if they are looking at you, try not to look at them, and commit yourself to the truth that you are now their target and they will take something of yours.

And how 'bout these folks being arrested for things they say on facebook? I mean, yes, they're dumb for posting that shiz, but from what I've heard, it was fairly obvious that it was said in jest. Is this not covered under freedom of speech? Oh, wait, I forgot, the bill of rights is apparently unconstitutional.

 

[grainde]

?Dehumanizing stares,? body language prompted arrest of Florida teen feeding puppy: cops* - NY Daily News

All I can say is wow:

"Florida police say the “dehumanizing stares” a 14-year-old boy directed at officers together with his body language presented a threat, prompting an arrest and a brutal take down by cops.."

"But Miami-Dade Police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta said McMillian’s “behavior was unacceptable” and that the teen resisted officers, who asked him repeatedly where his parents were.

“Of course we have to neutralize the threat,” Zabaleta said. “When you have somebody resistant to them and pulling away and somebody clenching their fists and flailing their arms, that’s a threat.

As if that wasnt enough for a 14 y/o, they are trying to have him up for resisting arrest!

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

?Dehumanizing stares,? body language prompted arrest of Florida teen feeding puppy: cops* - NY Daily News

I read and watched quite a bit about that case.

To me it's one of the most extreme examples of cops run amok.

Dehumanizing stare?!

Body language?!

Those are not grounds for any legal action, especially when the recipients are people wearing sunglasses, are fully armed, and are in turn using intimidating body language.

At the same time, yes people are being arrested for any kind of statements that others find to be even remotely threatening.

https://www.change.org/petitions/dr...campaign=26953&alert_id=ZwbkCrfbLU_GGlkETjrHt

Here's another one...

https://www.change.org/petitions/release-my-son-justin-carter-in-jail-for-a-facebook-comment

The cops, and prosecutors, and judge... :wtf: are they thinking? If the kid was not a threat before (and given the facts he wasn't) he will be now when he gets out.

 

[grainde]

Just found this too: VIDEO: Cover-up alleged after California man dies following nightstick beating by sheriff?s deputies - NY Daily News

"Despite police efforts to confiscate the cell phones from possible witnesses, raw video has surfaced of multiple California sheriff’s deputies beating a drunk man in the head with nightsticks less than an hour before he was pronounced dead."

"Silva, who police say resisted arrest, was taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead."

"We still have to secure the evidence, especially when the evidence can tell us whether we did it right or wrong,” Sheriff Donny Youngblood told The Times.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

"We still have to destroy the evidence, especially when the evidence can tell us whether we did it right or wrong,” Sheriff Donny Youngblood told The Times.

Fixed.

This sheriff is actively impeding an investigation into a murder. He is an accomplice after the fact. My bet is NOTHING will happen to those involved, except maybe some paid administrative leave.

(What the rest of us peons call vacation.)

That's what scares cops, prosecutors, politicians and judges. The fact that everyday what they say and do becomes more and more visible, and they can sweep less and less under the rug.

 

[NKO29]

Hey i'm not looking down on anybody. Everyone is free to their opinions, but in my opinion the only injustice in this incident could be that the man was wrongly arrested. The officer wasnt provoking the dog, he was reaching for the collar so he could restrain the dog.
i think it is a bit silly to make so much fuss over this anyway because people hunt innocent animals every day. I dont mind going hunting once in a while so dont think i am some sort of activist!
You would be naive to think that what happens in other countries doesnt affect your country. Who goes to fight for their freedom? Your soldiers... Who donates million of dollars to them? My stupid government... What country doesnt buy our products because they have no money? Alot of 3rd world countries. These countries bring the world economy down and that directly affects your country and mine.
As for me helping personally: I CANNOT. Anyways i'm done arguing over this silly video i have better things to do.

 

[Danteslayer]

Off topic: I had no idea this thread would get so popular

On topic: The cop had no right to shoot the dog, he could of tazed the dog, kicked the dog away, use pepper spray, but nope, he shot it three times, No mercy man.

 

[Bionic-Badger]

I just watched the video again and no the dog did not look threatening. If it were protecting its owner it would have gone to him. Instead it looks very much like the officer was provoking him to get a reaction and an excuse to shoot. Have you ever had a dog jump at you? If they mean business the teeth will be clearly visible and the dog would have used them - he had the chance, but didnt... If the dog had been attacking he would have bitten. That didnt happen though did it.

He wasn't provoking the dog. Go watch the video again.

3:17: The officer is trying to keep the dog away with his hand.
3:18: The dog goes after the officer's leg. The officer backs away.
3:22: Owner tries to get the dog to go back. Dog then leaps at the officer. Dog gets shot.

The dog also would not "go to him" as there was an officer in the way. Even the owner was trying to get the dog to back off.

Teeth are visible and the mouth is open at the apex of the leap. The dog was also shot at that moment, preventing any further escalation (bites, etc.).

And yeah, I have had dogs jump at me. However, this was at a friend's house because the dog is friendly, and not in a situation where the dog is trying to protect his master. Far different situation. The context of the situation further justifies the shooting as the officer does not know how this dog is going to respond and is demonstrating that it is going after the officer.

Its not a case of whether the dog might attack, but rather whether it did attack. I dont consider jumping up an attack any more than someone pushing you in the street. Yes its might be considered a challenge, but not one that needs to be met with 3 bullets.

It did attack, and the shots were fired during the attack.

Next youll be advocating people shooting each other cos they looked funnily at one another. Whats that under their jacket, maybe they have a gun, maybe they'll shoot or knife me, better safe than sorry, Ill make sure I kill them first.

No, nothing like that. However, if you're reaching quickly for whatever is in your jacket and I interpret that as you grabbing a weapon, I'm going to shoot. It's the way with any self-defense.

When you are trained that you are superior to everyone else and that you deserve complete servitude, obedience and total control, you are not taught to properly think rather react and carry around a dangerous weapon with no recourse if it is used, do you find yourself believing you can do anything and that you are above the law? Well here was a good demonstration.

Your personal bias against law enforcement only serves to taint your arguments.

That is not true. It can also be used to incapacitate, if need be. The mentality seems to have changed now a days.

Incapacitating is only possible when there is a large setup time in which to place a shot, or use some alternative means such as a tazer or pepper spray. The latter two are slow reacting and cannot hit fast targets, and are usually only used when the officer has prepared to used them, not in a quickly escalating situation.

Hunting is really not the correct analogy. You hunt to kill period. You carry a gun to protect yourself. There is a big difference here and if you cant see that I just hope to god you dont carry a gun.

No, you just missed the point I was making about what these bullets are supposed to be doing, and why you fire a weapon at a living target. You fire a gun at a living target to kill it. That is fundamental. Like hunting weapons, these handguns use hollow-point bullets for stopping power because they're meant to incapacitate soft-targets, not just wound, and to prevent the bullets from ricocheting from hard surfaces or penetrating soft surfaces. If these weapons were meant to simply wound they would utilize rubber bullets or other somewhat less injurious projectiles. They're not. They're meant to stop the target through grievous injuries caused by the projectile. It's not a nice thing, but then firing on a target isn't meant to be a nice thing either.

Go look up information anywhere about why you fire a gun at a living target. They will tell you exactly the same thing. Usually the word used instead of "kill" is "destroy" but it has the same meaning when it comes to a living target. Guns are meant for killing. They're designed for killing. Because of that you don't fire a gun unless you want whatever you're hitting killed.

The question here is was there really a threat of life and death or even a mauling. Had they let the guy loose for a couple of mins to put the dog back in the car the dog would still be alive.

Oh right, we'll just allow the guy being arrested to go grab his dog after the dog has been jumping at the officer. Get real. This is like naive armchair analyst talk here.

The owner wasnt aggressive, he wasnt a flight risk, he wasnt even arrested for anything. Why didnt they let him loose for a moment to calm and remove the dog? A simple solution and a good question. Answer - because they dont have to, they can kill indiscriminately if need be; judge, jury and executioner.

Because the dog was already jumping and attacking at the officer? The situation may have been different if they were just telling the owner to secure the dog in the car better and not already jumping at and attacking the officers. The situation at hand, however, was an excited, loose rottweiler-looking dog jumping at the officer after already having tried going after the officer's leg. Who knows how this dog was trained. The dog could have landed its bite and caused more injuries from that point on.

Well thats just insulting, but I really question who is obtuse here? I guess a lifetime of living in fear of imminent threats, whether real or imagined, will have an effect on ones attitude.

Don't make assumptions about living in fear or other stupid reasons people try to pin these logical views on. I'm basing this on the evidence in the video and how people react to loose animals attacking them.

Im not saying that deadly force is not needed, on occasion. What I am saying is that it should only be used in response to a real and not fictitious deadly threat. [/quoet]

What's fictitious here? The dog demonstrated that it had, and was going to attack. This wasn't the officer shooting the dog in the car, or a chained up dog or something like that. And no, it's not just about "deadly" threats, but also injurious threats where the safety of those involved would be jeopardized.

As IE pointed out the guy has a history with these exact same cops and is currently suing them for another incident where he was dragged from his home, arrested without charge and beaten....Sorry, but to me the whole thing stank and looked more calculated than threatening.

That's too bad, but not relevant to this specific incident.

But, let's think about other ways this man could have handled the situation. He could have gotten in the car and rolled up the windows, but who wants to get shot for fleeing? Same with tying the dog's leash to something in the car, who wants to get shot for going for a weapon?
Moral is, if they are looking at you, try not to look at them, and commit yourself to the truth that you are now their target and they will take something of yours.

The problem was too that the arrested guy didn't expect the dog to leap out of the window. By the time the dog did get loose, he was in handcuffs, the dog was already making aggressive behavior to the cops, and it escalated to where the dog got shot. There were literally 13 seconds between the cops being aware of the dog and the dog getting shot.

And how 'bout these folks being arrested for things they say on facebook? I mean, yes, they're dumb for posting that shiz, but from what I've heard, it was fairly obvious that it was said in jest. Is this not covered under freedom of speech? Oh, wait, I forgot, the bill of rights is apparently unconstitutional.

That depends on what they said. The ol' yelling fire in a movie theater thing. The latest incident I heard about was some guy jokingly saying something about shooting up a school or something in response to some joke. Yes, it sounded in jest, but sometimes these incidents get averted because someone reports what someone says about their planned actions.

The main problem is that the guy is receiving a ton of jail time for the posting. Really, the incident should get a lot of publicity to prevent others from doing the same, but he gets let go because of lack of intent to do harm. Then people will be a little more guarded in what they post publicly, but the guy's life won't be ruined.

On topic: The cop had no right to shoot the dog, he could of tazed the dog, kicked the dog away, use pepper spray, but nope, he shot it three times, No mercy man.

Have you ever seen a taser used? They're one-shot, slow-moving (compared to a bullet) incapacitating devices for relatively stationary targets. Tasers are most appropriate for belligerent targets that would be hard to subdue with physical strength. They're also good when a bullet may ricochet and hit someone. A dog would be a candidate for this if the dog were further away, in a more stationary stature, and if the taser would disable the dog before it could do anything more.

That last point is important: the dog may not go down in short order from just the taser shot; the dog may even become frenzied and strike out even more. In this case, even after that dog was shot 3-4 times it was still on its feet for a while before collapsing.

Tasers are also not all that more humane. The body gets paralyzed and often people collapse without catching themselves, injuring themselves. Some people have hit their heads and died because of a tasering. Dogs have also been known to die from tasering, often because they were tasered too much when the dog wasn't quickly disabled.

Pepper spray is also one of those things that the officer usually has to plan to use before using it, not something often pulled out quickly to deal with a situation. The spray must also hit the face of the dog or it is ineffectual. For a vicious dog the spray may not be disabling, only causing the dog to become even more frenzied, where it could remain dangerous. The goal of firing on the dog to was to stop it in its tracks before it could do harm.

I don't like seeing animals being killed in such a manner anymore than any of us. However, I'd definitely be fearful if a rottweiler started leaping at me in defense of its owner. That's a step beyond just threatening behavior which is usually growling or barking; the threshold of the use of force is not whether the dog has already caused bodily harm. I'd also want whatever weapon I'm carrying to stop that animal flat if things escalated. Tasers can miss, pepper spray may not be effective enough and might also miss. One or three/four bullets also makes no difference, especially as they were fired in quick succession for exactly the same purpose: to incapacitate the dog. Even then, the dog was still on its feet for some time after being hit; one bullet may not have even done the job unless well planted.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

That's too bad, but not relevant to this specific incident.

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.

They choose to pursue a course of action which led up to the shooting of the dog, and as such bear the greater fault, and responsibility for the outcome.

If the situation was reversed, a police k9 went after a bunch of thugs harassing his handler, and one of the thugs killed the dog, even in self defence, we can be certain all of the perpetrators would be arrested. Of course when the perpetrators themselves are cops...

 

[Danteslayer]

To sum this up, The cop could of done 5+ other things the be a trigger happy pig.

A dog is gonna do what a dog is going to do, Im pretty sure this cop could take a bite to the arm instead of slaying the dog and then not even finish it and let it suffer.

Also cudos to @bionic-badger good statement.