Ya know there was a time in the 70's when Peace officers took on the term with pride, made it an acronym for Pride Integrity Guts and wore these Badges.

But as I and many use the term is as a slur, and just like many other slurs they only hurt those who are sensitive to the term for reasons of there own. Redneck for example doesn't bother me at all, I know the original meaning for the term and am actually related to a member of the Redneck Army.
OK you got me there, but still the question remains and you have no answer.
Sorry but through my eyes they did.
Sure I do, that's why I brought it up.
OK

Main Entry: ma·li·cious
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shəs\
Function: adjective
Date: 13th century
: given to, marked by, or arising from malice

Main Entry: mal·ice <INPUT class=au title="Listen to the pronunciation of malice" onclick="return au('malice01', 'malice');" type=button itxtvisited="1">
Pronunciation: \ˈma-ləs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin malitia, from malus bad
Date: 14th century
1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse

Sounds right to me.
You may call it prejudice, I call it reason, knowledge, and experience. We all pre-judge it's needed you just don't have the time to learn everything about everyone, admit it you do it to, you must. However this doesn't mean it is wrong as long as it is reasoned.
Jump, no, but maybe I can get them on board with a good argument and reason.
I don't know, your the cop, so why? I can only assume they didn't think it through well enough.
Well kinda but mostly I was poking fun. However it is quite clear that he isn't going anywhere near where that dog can get him.
Yes and that is why they committed a crime

Wow well then wouldn't the destruction of the same property also be a felony, meaning these law enforcement officers committed a felony?
That's not a pit, a pit is a very specific breed, and yes pit's are known to instinctively go for the throat and hold on till the pray stops, but still that's not a pit.
Does that mean if you don't take care of your truck and I'm afraid it might cause an accident I can shoot it?
Well let's see who has better info, you the non member, or me the involved member with inside info.
I know what you have written in this forum, and could probably know a lot more if I wished given all the info on the net and that I have your badge number and department.
Nope, I'm an associate member and likely couldn't be a board member, not that I want the job anyway. Really the only reason I have any influence is that no oath taker has stepped up in WA State. That and I guess I'm pretty good at what they have tasked me with doing and have made a good impression. I keep looking for someone with a better background to work with or rise above me but haven't found one yet. I really don't want the job, it takes up a lot of time, but I believe in the mission and am doing all I can to help.
No, trouble makers are promptly thrown out, in fact that's part of my responsibilities. I also of course sensor what thoughts I share there and which words I use, it would be counter productive for me to make the same arguments there that I make here. One must consider the audience, and any LEO that has taken the step of joining doesn't deserve the contempt and doubt I give other LEO's
That's an easy one, I can answer that and will in a sec. But first I seriously doubt this doofus was really speaking for OathKeepers. OathKeepers is very strict about who is allowed to speak for them in the press and what is said. However there are a lot of doofuses who get the wrong idea about the organization and decide to try and speak for them, they are promptly shut down or corrected as best we can.

And the answer is a clear NO, OathKeepers does not in any way advocate that any first responder fail to assist in stopping the destruction of property or harming of people for any claimed 'reason' there is never good reason for that.

The main OathKeeper mission is RTI, Reach, Teach, and Inspire. Reach out, Teach about oath they took the Constitution and it's restrictions and powers, and Inspire members to hold true to that oath and what it really means.

Like this man did during Katrina, please take note that it says "est. April 19, 2009" and the founder clearly says he started because of Katrina.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HRZfvtYlCY
Well yes, or legal harm, or disciplinary restriction like on this and many other forums.

In WA it can be considered a crime to call a man a N-word to his face if and only if he assaults you afterword, kinda crazy huh.
YES EVER, anything else is unconstitutional and a police state, this failed understanding from a LAW enforcement officer is a big reason why I think what I do about many LEO's and am starting to think about you.
I think YOU just beautifully illustrated your ignorance here!
Ohh yes I know that, that is why I work against it, work with OathKeepers, and do all I can to educate about it and stop it.

You put in there though "in a matter of seconds" and can only assume you mean acts of self defense. That is totally different, we ALL have the right to defend ourselves, that is NOT a police power, in fact I'm sure your aware that depending on state law you as a LEO often have more restrictions on use of lethal force then I do.
Again, I think YOU just beautifully illustrated your ignorance here, about the 5th and 6th amendments, just where your law enforcement and legal authority come from, and how truly limited they are.


On the whole though I can't help but notice how you keep skipping over my main points and arguments and instead keep focusing on some peripheral word or abstract point. Why don't you just address my points?

 

I'm not going to pick apart every point here, Opossum.....Too much time.

Let's just say I did address every one of your points....Sometimes more than once....So I can't imagine why you'd say that I skipped over your main arguments. Go back over them if you have to.

Regarding malicious intent....The tone of consensus (aside from 'oh man...that's effed-up') was that the cops appeared either intimidated, poorly-trained, unsure, whatever. YOU turned it into malice aforethough (i.e. 'intent'). You are wrong. I'm sure you'll come back and say 'no man...you're wrong...that's not how it is shown to me....'. Fine, you see a diabolical intent and action, I do not. Just leave it at that. The 'tantrum' at the end doesn't appear to jibe with any kind of satisfaction at the way things turned out either.

But I'm sure you'll disagree.

Your point about shooting someone's truck is just stupid. You can do better than that.

Thank you, you clarified your status with OathKeepers (supporter/associate). That's about what I expected you'd say.

Regarding your judge/jury/executioner statement, I was speaking of deadly force. Those situations arise every day. Isn't that, in effect, what a law enforcement officer has to decide on-the-spot? Now we can argue all day on whether or not killing the man's property (the dog) rose to the level of stopping a dangerous threat to self or others, but again.....That's what I was speaking of. Is THIS what you are trying to 'stop'?

Regarding whether or not the officers committed a felony destruction of property, what did the court decide in this case?

 

Agreed, hey we agree on something and I guess yet again we will just have to agree to disagree. It is good to have these debates without getting nasty.
Well I think you did, let's see;

I was trying to get a professional theory as to why he felt he was justified in shooting the dog. You don't need to justify it or stand behind it, but is there at least one good theory?

Most of all though is the legal justification, I don't think it could be said that the officer had reasonable cause to fear for his safety or the safety of others at the point in which he shot the dog. This would be the only legal justification for killing the dog and destroying private property. Anything else was outside the scope of their authority and a crime.
No man...you're wrong...that's not how it is shown to me....

Seriously you were the first to use the word malicious, yes I insinuated it as a possibility with my comments, we just don't know yet what was in there minds and what there intent was.
I actually thought it was rather on point and funny, but ok here's an example from yesterday.

I went for a run on a new to me trail that skirted a neighborhood. For about 50 yrds this trail was right up against a fenced yard and in this yard was a HUGE dog, some kind of great dane and bull mix. He was really barking and growing at me like crazy and the fence he was behind was only as tall as his shoulders. He was right on one side of the fence running along side and I was on the other.

Would I have been within my rights to shoot that dog? He certainly appeared dangerous, and could have hopped that fence anytime he wished and attacked me.
No problem, happy to talk about it.
We are talking about two different things here, self defense and defense of others, or law enforcement. Sure they overlap, and LEO's are put in more situations where they may find the need to defend themselves and others, but that is not law enforcement, nor is it being judge and jury.

You a LEO and myself a civilian have all the same rights and responsibilities to defend ourselves and others, this is why it is not law enforcement or a police power, any American has those god given rights. And I have no desire to stop or even restrict them, in fact quite the opposite.

Though as I said before in this post I don't think it's reasonable to figure that this officer was acting in self defense. Is that what you think, do you think he was acting in self defense? If that's the argument you are making then the next question is was it reasonable?

If he wasn't acting in self defense then he was acting with malice and/or forethought. I see no other third option.

Edit, I do see one other option, neglegence and stupidity.
This happened less then a month ago and I'm sure you know the courts are slow. There hasn't been enough time for the courts to decide the case. Though if it works there like it does here the officers will probably get a medal.

 

I missed something in this whole debate that really changes things and really makes it worse. I read this article again Quincy Herald Whig and in it is this line;

"shows the dog standing in front of a mobile home, tied to the home with a chain or rope. The dog, which appears to be a bulldog, does not offer any resistance and allows an officer to put a leash on it."

That wasn't in the video posted that started this thread, so I went looking for it, watch the first 4 min of this one, after that it is the same as the first vid. You will have to watch it in full screen it's hard to watch in the small screen.
YouTube - ASPCA THIS IS A CRY FOR HELP: ANIMAL CRUELTY BY THE LAGRANGE MISSOURI POLICE DEPARTMENT

This in my mind makes it way worse, with this added part of the vid, and noticing that the first vid starts pointed at that house you get more of the whole story. And in that story is NO attempts to get the dog in the truck or another vehicle. It is not clear how far away the dog lived but I get the impression not far.

What is clear is that these officers made no attempt to take the dog anywhere else. And that the dog was very cooperative, both with the officers and whomever chained her to the house.

Ohh and in a previous post cmpd1781 asked;
"Regarding whether or not the officers committed a felony destruction of property, what did the court decide in this case?"

This line is in one of the articles on it;

"LaGrange Police Chief Dale McNelly said “it’s never a win situation” and said the two officers involved in the dog shooting will not be disciplined or suspended."

 

Alright. Good points.

Now that we've established what the meaning of 'is' is......

I'm oughta here. It's been fun, no hard feelings....I'm not cutting and running.... I'm just tapped out with material with all the typing me and the Opossum threw out here....Time for someone different to step up....

Besides, another immigration thread just opened in 'The Club' that requires my attention.......

Bottom line. I like dogs and don't want to shoot one unless absolutely necessary. Sorry if anyone took it any other way.

Peace.

Steve

 

Opossum and I.



If you say so.



I didn't "hit" anyone. I made my point. Are you going to respond to my point, or continue to criticize me for my choice of words?


I find it absurd that a cop would object to someone using a word. Why don't you worry about people who violate real laws, and let the lawyer-scum worry about "hate speech".

 

Now that's just chickens--t......But expected.

"Commie hate speech babble" (your words)

Sometimes some things are too ignorant to respond to, but now I will.

That's your point? "Commie hate speech babble"? That's what you got from everything that was said?

I'll draw it with a crayon so you can understand it. I made the point that pig, unlike the N-word, is not banned....but like the N-word, when you throw it out, it's not a word that tends to just stick to whatever person you're addressing......Other persons of the same background (i.e. 'race'....or 'profession', or whatever), upon hearing the 'word' being thrown in a disparaging manner, would probably take issue with it. I also used the word 'jarhead' as an example where other marines, even if not being spoken to directly, would be apt to take issue with the individual casting the word.

Is that enough 'babble' for you? I don't remember using the term 'hate speech' (but maybe I did...I'll have to re-check....)......I also didn't call for the word 'pig' (to describe a police officer) to be banned from FTE.....although other words ARE banned.

Is that enough 'commie' for you?

Or is this going to fly over your empty head too?

That's an ignorant thing to say. Why is it absurd? 'Object' to? We're people too, and can 'object' just as much as the next person. Why is it absurd to see a cop objecting to a word that is both insulting and inflammatory?

Why don't you worry about your own a$$....and stop worrying about what I'm worrying about.......

Nice word.....'scum'......Do you know any lawyers? Do you not find a place in society for lawyers? What if you need a lawyer? Are you going to call him or her 'scum'? I hope there aren't any FTE members who are attorneys who are reading this right now....They might take issue, whereupon you'll jump on them for 'commie hate speech babble'.......

And are you saying only lawyers should object to, or comment on, hate speech?

And do you call lawyers 'scum' to their faces?

I doubt it.

There, Websthes.....Aren't you glad we talked? Lookie here.....it was a timely response to your B.S. too....I feel soooooo much better.

 

No, Websthes....Just checked.....Didn't describe 'pig' as hate speech.

Peace. Later

 

First you complain that I didn't pick apart your entire post. And when I do you call me names.


Yes I get it. You're a cop. You're going to stand up for other cops. And when you don't like what other people say about cops, you're going to play your race card, and whine about words being used in a disparaging manner.

 

cops doesnt = god.

Maybe these cops need a harsh dose of reality to get off their powertrip.

 

Alright....All you dog lovers!

Military Channel. Right this minute....and between 8pm and 9pm.....The show 'War Dogs Of The Pacific' is on. One of the best Military Channel shows i've seen in awhile. Grab your tissues.....It's a good one!

 

When it comes to LEO bashing, all the usual suspects showed up!

 

These two are a little over the top guys, they both come accross as veiled threats, not good
Wish I got the Military channel, I've heard great things about that documentary, hoping I can find it on demand.

 

Hey, Opossum....That wasn't a veiled threat that he needed to watch himself for some reason......

That was just a call for him to not worry about what I'm worrying about.......Worry about hizzownself instead.......

Regarding the Military Channel and the episode I cited......Just watched it again. The actions and sentiments of the Marines with their dogs are mirror images of my own. Dogs have a special relationship with Man as do no other species.....Why? Who the Hell knows....it just is. Other species (including porpoisi) have the potential, and show some of the same traits.

Again....I'm a dog lover. But I also believe in owner responsibility. Had the owner of the dog in the OP been 'responsible', none of this would have happened....and we wouldn't be having this contentious argument, because the cops would never have been called there in the first place......

If one chooses to have a pet. Be not only responsible, but treat the animal like it was a member of your family......

 

Nope, don't let my dogs run loose. I have a Rottweiller/Lab mix and a Malamute. Both would chew your leg off and not think twice. The Rott tore a kids arm open once. He got 10 staples because he came up into our yard and teased her. Cops showed up and wrote the kid a ticket. Told him to stay the **** out of my yard.

Now, on my assumption that I could whip his ***. I'm betting I could. Been in plenty of scraps. Didn't always win but never backed down. Been in the lock up over it too. Didn't deter me from doing what I had to do.

I know that you are a police officer and I respect that. My father was a firefighter for 32 years in a major California city. I grew up around police officers and firefighters and I know what kind of crap they have to put up with on a daily basis. My Dad has been shot at, had rocks thrown at him, spat on and called every name in the book. Still, it's guys like this that give cops a bad name. The dog had submitted, he didn't have to shoot him.

He did it because he wanted to and in some perverse, strange kind of way, it made him feel like a big man. Hopefully, he'll get some jail time and then he can make someone else feel like an big man while he's bent over.