I must admit....I only watched the video....and trusted comments from folks here personally acquainted with the situation.

Great point. One I should have caught. Once the police took 'custody' of the animal....they also took 'responsibility' for the animal. The liability is now to the city or county until the animal is disposed of, or is released back to the owner, or until others take legal ownership of the animal.

***Several of you here have made the point about no Animal Control in this particular county, which surprises the Hell out of me. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that there are counties out there which do NOT have one, but I am. This county gets what it paid for. Animal Control gets into a helluva lot more than just dog-catching. Livestock, dangerous animals (snakes, etc.), proper facilities, and the proper equipment and training for officers DEDICATED to Animal Control.....Not just as a supplemental job for their primary mission, which is as a police officer.

 

There are many places, like ours, that are lucky to have law enforcement, much less animal control. I think we have 3 or 4 deputies for a county of 8000+ square miles.

Remember how the politicians work. When there is money, they build buildings and fund programs. When there is a shortfall, they cut public safety.

 

And that's the point.
I did not *observe* that that dog, in that situation, was any threat to public safety.

If they had impounded the dog, and it was found that that dog had -in fact- a bite record and was deemed a "dangerous animal" then it should be put to death.
Humanely.

I don't know the laws, statutes and regulations in that particular jurisdiction.

But I do know that if it were a person with a warrant out on them and someone called the police, who then came upon the suspect out in the open and they first handcuffed that suspect before capriciously executing him there would be hell to pay.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

What constitutes a 'real' dog?

At least 40lbs and able to intimidate sissies like these pigs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

Those are the only 3 options?

You know what they say about 'assuming'......

OK why then? Your a cop, what possible and reasonable reason can you come up with to justify shooting her?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

What? No harsh words for the owner? Didn't the OP state that there had been a couple of other incidents with this same dog/owner? How about calling him a *****, a sicko, or someone who wanted to get back at the cops?

The owner didn't do anything malicious, not that there's any evidence off in the articles or video. And even if he had we here in the U.S. are supposed to have this thing called due process, the dog is property and the pig destroyed private property without immediate cause or due process. Dogs get out on occasion, it happens fences and leashes break, that is no reason to murder her.

Yes I called him a pig, sicko, etc. he earned it, nor the dog or the owner did anything to those officers or the public to warrant killing the dog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

I don't know how they do it there, but after a certain number of 'incidents', the animal is seized by the county.

The article mentions but does little to explain the previous 'incidents' however I get the impression from the description of the ones that day that it was little more then the child and mother being irrationally afraid of a dog that only wanted to play and be friendly. Too many people who haven't been around dogs of the bull and terrier breeds misunderstand them and are simply afraid of the breeds.

There is absolutely no mention of the dog doing anyone or any other animal any harm, and I think I can safely say that had there been any it would be all the cops and articles would be talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

Did you, perhaps, consider that maybe he's pissed-off at himself for doing it?

Of course but that's no excuse, if he didn't want to do it and thought it was wrong then he shouldn't have done it. He has both the right and a responsibility to refuse.

On that note are you an OathKeeper yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

Needless name-calling, Opossum.

Needless sure, but he earned it, and it expresses how I feel.


Edit, one more thing just came to mind, they may have commited a crime. Cmpd1781 your a "law enforcement" officer, if I (a civilian) had done just exactly what those officers did wouldn't I have commited a crime? What makes the officers any different? We both must act in accordance with the same laws.

 

A lot of people would just walk away at this point, toss it off as worthless and insulting, and would just block all your posts from view.....

But I'll try to remain civil and will address your post anyway.

I didn't justify the shooting of the dog. I made that point in my first post. Why don't you revisit it?

Maybe....Maybe not. Do you know him?

How about 'negligent'? Is that a better word?

And by extension you are describing the officers' actions as 'malicious'....which requires forethought and intent. Is there ANY sign ANYWHERE in the video where it appeared as though the officers had just been 'planning' to dispatch the dog? If so, why is this a 10-minute video? Why the comedy with the collar and the stick? Why not just jump out of the cruiser, but the gun to the dog's head and just pull the trigger? More than one of you commented on the officers either being a) intimidated, or b) poorly-trained. But malicious?

Be honest.....Did that appear to be malicious intent? Not saying that the outcome was correct or desirable, but did it?

Not to quibble or to pick nits (one of my favorite dono-isms....)...

But murder is an act committed by one human being on another. Despite the PETA protestations that 'Meat is Murder'.....Well....No, it is not.

The article also mentions the dog going after those neighbor's pets. Perhaps the neighbors knew something WE didn't, seeing as they live next to the dog, and their fear isn't really so irrational.

We're both making a lot of assumptions on the phone call. Could be his supervisor told him to just use his own discretion.

Oathkeepers is an organization explicitly founded to 'counter' the feared and expected Obama Administration moves towards concentration camps, disarming the American people, and blah-blah-blah. It's no coincidence that the actual founding was in March 2009 (2 months after Obama's inauguration).

Also, I already took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That's explicit enough for me. I don't need a website to spoon-feed me a laundry list of 'orders' that I promise NOT to obey. That's indoctrination. It's also insulting.

And excuse me, Opossum.....But with your history of anti-authority behavior (not necessarily a bad thing by itself) and your tendency to throw words like 'pig' out there (even knowing that some fellow FTE members are police and would likely take umbrage) when you get annoyed.....sometimes with stuff that you really don't know a whole lot about......Do you really think that I'd run out and join an organization that you recommended? I don't mean to sound insulting there, but I did at least scan the website, and even heard one of the spokesmen being interviewed on our local Talkie station.......He could NOT answer (or he danced-around) the dreaded '911' question.......

If someone posted a video of a couple of black thugs knocking over a convenience store, would you be commenting here on them being a couple of N-words? Would you?

The N-word is not one of those words where you can cast the word at one or two......'but hey....everyone else is OK in my book'......It just doesn't work that way. Not to mention you'd earn a permanent vacation from FTE....even if the edit software 'asterisked' it out of the text.......

'Pig' is the same thing. No, it's not a banned word, but it's not a pick and choose word either. A 'pig' is a derogatory word of a faceless, shapeless entity which encompasses ALL police. It's not just 'hey...he's a 'pig'.....but the rest of you are groovy, man'......When you use the word 'pig' to describe police, you are speaking this way about police and policing in general......In this case it really IS a matter of 'Hit 1 and you hit ALL of us'.......

There's a bit of a difference (I think you already know this) between police being called out (911), and in their official capacity, to handle a situation, rather than just Joe 6-pack (or a guy who likes to throw the word 'pig' around) going over to some neighbors house to take things in hand...and ends up shooting the neighbor's pooch.

Sometimes, the result is not desirable, but the other difference is, they (the police) had to be there. As a slimy civilian (), you, Opossum, would not have to be there. It would be one thing if you intervened because you saw a neighbors dog using a neighborhood toddler as a chew-toy.......It would be something entirely different if you were trying to enforce some city ordinance.

 

Good thing it wasn't my dog. I'd be in jail for seriously injuring the "police" officer. It's obvious that this donut eating punk suffers from small *****, big gun and a badge syndrome. I bet he was picked on all through grade school and was always the last one picked at dodge ball.

*******.

 

Good thing.

 

Do you let your dog run around loose, fail to register the dog (and we're not talking about chihuahuas.....), have neighbors complain about your dog, have your dog try to attack neighbors dogs, and have your neighbors in fear of your dog? Enough so that there's previous 911 calls on your dog?

If the answer is 'no', and you're a responsible pet owner, then what does this have to do with your dog?

As far as the rest of it, I don't know enough about the chap to comment on his pee-nus size, his history of eating donuts (or even if he'd ever eaten one), whether he's displaying a big-badge, big-gun syndrome, or his athletic history in grade school. And I also know enough not to a) make these determinations based on a 10-minute video, and b) assume that I can whup someone's *** based on what they look like. Do that with the wrong person and you're liable to end up on your *** rubbing a sore jaw and staring at the stars.

But maybe he is a dodgeball reject....who knows?

 

Kinda curious but I never saw the dog look menacing.. anyway I did not read any articles but watched the video and how does anyone know that a 911 call was made and by whom and what for. It might have been a simple call to dispatch

 

Wow. Ingrid Newkirk's A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy theory has permeated our society far more than I suspected.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

A lot of people would just walk away at this point, toss it off as worthless and insulting, and would just block all your posts from view.....

But I'll try to remain civil and will address your post anyway.

You do know I'm not insulting you right, your not that bad and we've had some good discussions. I'm calling these guys names because of their actions not their uniform. I do not believe I am wrong to so and will not apologize for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

I didn't justify the shooting of the dog. I made that point in my first post. Why don't you revisit it?

I didn't ask you to justify it, but you challenged my assumptions as to why they killed her, so asked you to use your professional knowledge and experience to come up with some other possible reasons. Are you unable to do so?

Sure justify and reason are similar, but can't you even guess, can you come up with one, just one good situation/reason where those actions are reasonable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

Maybe....Maybe not. Do you know him?

How about 'negligent'? Is that a better word?

And by extension you are describing the officers' actions as 'malicious'....which requires forethought and intent. Is there ANY sign ANYWHERE in the video where it appeared as though the officers had just been 'planning' to dispatch the dog? If so, why is this a 10-minute video? Why the comedy with the collar and the stick? Why not just jump out of the cruiser, but the gun to the dog's head and just pull the trigger? More than one of you commented on the officers either being a) intimidated, or b) poorly-trained. But malicious?

Be honest.....Did that appear to be malicious intent? Not saying that the outcome was correct or desirable, but did it?

I got an even better word for you 'evidence', you are familiar with evidence aren't you?

I can't believe that you can watch that video and not see malicious intent, now your just slinging BS, maybe the job has corrupted you more then I thought.

Planning, are you kidding absolutely!! What were all the phone calls about, why all the waiting, they were PLANNING! Do yourself a favor and go watch again, just what is the dog doing before the 'officer' calmly pulls his weapon while being able to hold this 'dangerous' dog with one hand. She is just standing there, WOW what a threat it's really amazing the 'officer' was able to shoot her so fast before he was killed

Why the stick, cause he can't shoot for S**t. Maybe this 'officer' is so afraid of this clearly dangerous dog that he can't get close enough to hit her, again cause he can't shoot.

So YES it very much appeared to be malicious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

Not to quibble or to pick nits (one of my favorite dono-isms....)...

But murder is an act committed by one human being on another. Despite the PETA protestations that 'Meat is Murder'.....Well....No, it is not.

Dogs aren't meat, there man's best friend.

And just what are the penalties for killing or assaulting a police dog? There pretty harsh aren't they, around here there almost the same as if it was a human cop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

The article also mentions the dog going after those neighbor's pets. Perhaps the neighbors knew something WE didn't, seeing as they live next to the dog, and their fear isn't really so irrational.

I'm thinking that both/either there fear was irrational or the police are stretching the story yet again. Like I said before she hadn't hurt another person or animal, and many dogs of that bread like to play rough and this gets misunderstood. I see nothing in this vid that indicates the dog was aggressive, and if it did pose a direct immediate danger why didn't the neighbors do anything then? The answer is it wasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

We're both making a lot of assumptions on the phone call. Could be his supervisor told him to just use his own discretion.

Ok so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

Oathkeepers is an organization explicitly founded to 'counter' the feared and expected Obama Administration moves towards concentration camps, disarming the American people, and blah-blah-blah. It's no coincidence that the actual founding was in March 2009 (2 months after Obama's inauguration).

Well your close, the public founding was in April, but it really did start right after Katrina(during Bush). The actions of LE and the National Guard during Katrina where what really got the ball rolling, have we all forgotten about that? When the Super Dome became a "Concentration Camp" and the American people were all "Disarmed".

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

... I don't need a website to spoon-feed me a laundry list of 'orders' that I promise NOT to obey. That's indoctrination. It's also insulting.

It's my opinion that you do, that you have been indoctrinated by your peers and commanders and corrupted by the job. It's not really your fault, it's human nature and part of the job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

And excuse me, Opossum...........Do you really think that I'd run out and join an organization that you recommended? .......He could NOT answer (or he danced-around) the dreaded '911' question.......

Well then this is really going to turn you off about OathKeepers, I'm actually a rather high ranking member, the highest in WA State, and have some influence on the board.

And what's the "dreaded '911' question"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

If someone posted a video of a couple of black thugs knocking over a convenience store, would you be commenting here on them being a couple of N-words? Would you?

In actuality no, but only because it would get me in trouble, in any format where I can get away with it yes, it's only a word man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpd1781

There's a bit of a difference (I think you already know this) between police being called out (911), and in their official capacity, to handle a situation, rather than just Joe 6-pack (or a guy who likes to throw the word 'pig' around) going over to some neighbors house to take things in hand...and ends up shooting the neighbor's pooch.

Sometimes, the result is not desirable, but the other difference is, they (the police) had to be there. As a slimy civilian (), you, Opossum, would not have to be there. It would be one thing if you intervened because you saw a neighbors dog using a neighborhood toddler as a chew-toy.......It would be something entirely different if you were trying to enforce some city ordinance.

No there isn't a difference, not under our legal system, and if you don't you really should know this. When they executed the dog they executed a sentence and became judge, jury, and executioner. NO law enforcement officer has the right or authority to do that. Nor ANY member of the executive, not a chief, governor, or even the president. NO sentence can be carried out until adjudicated after due process.

These officers violated the 5th and 6th amendment rights of the owner and committed a crime.

Slimy?

 

I know you didn't specifically call ME one.....But the smear paints a wide swath...

For example....Someone posts a video of Fallujah....and you make a comment about baby-killing jarheads....You think maybe me and a couple other of the resident FTE marines wouldn't take issue with those words?

Well...Yeah you did...

You said "OK why then? Your a cop, what possible and reasonable reason can you come up with to justify shooting her?"

The choices were limited. They were either pussies....or sickos....or just had it in for the dog owner......

And in the video I didn't see a reason for the first shot (although the coup d' gras was mercy)......which I stated in my first post.......

But they didn't just look like a couple of 'pigs' out to off some poor guys pooch either....Which is where YOU were going.....Not to mention, the sicko label.....

I really don't think you want to get into that argument with me.....

I think maybe you should look up the word 'malicious'.......

I also think you should consider that your own prejudices are corrupting your own judgment. If you think I'm just slinging BS, it's because you just can't BELIEVE that someone is actually arguing a point which you consider so unimpeachable and inarguable......

Get over it. Not everyone is going to jump on the same bandwagon. If you really WERE a member of the free-thinking libertarians, you'd understand this a little better.

I'm sorry, Opossum....If these cops had 'malicious' and evil intent....Why even make phone calls and ask for advice? Wouldn't they look better if they just jumped out and shot the dog? That way, the dog isn't on the 'stick' and at least partially under control, and they could just say "dog tried to attack me...had to shoot him (or her)......

Is that what you gathered from the video?

Sorry man....You're just sounding idiotic now.....

Again. Look up the word.

Dogs are man's best friend...Yes....But they are also 'animals'...and 'property'.....

Now you're arguing against statute...which further weakens your points. A human does not commit 'murder' against an animal. Look it up. Check it out. Consult with a friggin' attorney if you don't believe me.

Case in point, at least in NC, a theft of a dog is a felony larceny........

But a theft of a person is a.......kidnapping......pure and simple.......

The officers COULD NOT HAVE 'murdered' the pooch.....Do you get it yet? Or do I have to paint a friggin' picture?

Not all fears of the 'pit' breeds are irrational. Unfortunately, there's plenty of evidence of the real and/or potential of these animals---particularly in the hands of abusive or negligent owners. There might be breeds with a higher 'bite' count....But there are few breeds (like the pits) that go for the kill and try to tear you from limb to limb.......It may be a reflection of the treatment of the dog by the owner....but it's in the gene pool of the breed also.

Why do they call them 'pit' bulls?

And did the owner in this story appear to be a loving and responsible owner? Did he?

(I'm sure at least 1 pit bull owner will take issue with this....Oh well....)

The founding of the group was in March 2009......Period.....

Your opinion is a big steaming load of horses--t. a) you don't know anything about me. b) you don't know anything about being a cop. c) you don't know anything about my 'peers', and d) you don't know anything about my 'commanders'.....

What qualified you for that position? Are you a present or former military member, peace officer, or emergency services (i.e. paramedic) worker? This seems to make up the membership (along with others unnamed who take 'the oath')......although they have NON-oath associates and supporters....

But NOT board members....

I normally don't ask such questions of other members, but a) you seem to make a lot of assumptions about me, and b) i'm doubting that this organization would have a high ranking member who throws the word 'pig' around (in describing cops) at every turn. But hey....I could be wrong.

Cops or firemen refusing to defend life and/or property during a seemingly 'righteous' insurrection.......when the government offices and it's employees are under attack.....(kind of like when the banks were torched and employees killed in Greece)......The question was.....If what the government was doing was deemed 'unconstitutional'........whatever the scenario....and the people rose up....and people and property were being torched....do the emergency services workers (police, fire, medic) just 'deem' their orders to defend 'unconstitutional' and refuse to respond to the 911 call?

Simple question. Simple answer. The oathkeepers doofus couldn't answer it......

In other words, when you're not in immediate danger of physical harm....You'd use the word......

Just a word?

Really? Ever?

I think you just beautifully illustrated your ignorance here......

Actually officers all over the country have to act as judge jury and executioner....in a matter of seconds......every day........

Didn't you know that?

Uh huh......

You saw the smiley face in there didn't you?

 

P*g, the new "hate word".



I agree. When a cop start regurgitating some commie "hate speech" babble I have to wonder what the heck is going on?

 

Just because a cop killed a dog, everyone is out for the cops ***. A six and a half vid doesn't tell the whole story.

It's a shame this thread had to turn into this. Some of you just need to grow the hell up and wrap your minds around the fact that not everything is fair and equal.

I suspect that if the cops had been involved multiple times with this poor dog, then shooting the animal may have been the most humane treatment that this dog has ever seen.

 

You have reading comprehension issues, don't you?

Ooh-ooh! Me-too! Me-too!

Try making your own argument instead of nipping onto someone else' for once.

Funny. And an ignorant comment.

But for the record, at least me and Opossum were addressing each others posts point-by-point......Whatever we think of each other there, at least we spent a little (or a lot) of time addressing the points.

You jump in at the end with a watered-down one-sentence 'hit' that not only misses that point......it totally ignores 98% of the rest.

Congrats, man!

***Oh. And BTW....I'm not so sure that the term 'coloured' is in current usage. Not sure it denotes 'hate' speech, but you might have folks scratching their heads at what 'colour' you're talking about.......Of course, you posted a video in this case, but still.....