Cops shoot dog, say it was "going after officer", video shows othewise

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 108
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    [quote]Originally posted by thegelding:

    <strong>



    you carry a gun, you shoot a gun, you kill someone or something...you pay the price....



    whether you are a cop or a kid on the street or a man in your home...you know this, you understand this...he thinks he is justified and will get his say in interview and possibly court...the thing is NOBODY wants to be in the situation of that family...i don't, they don't, murbot doesn't and i am sure that officer doesn't want himself and his family in that situation...it is a nightmare situation...and it is ****ed up...and we have to find a way to stop things like that happening...



    the cop thinks he did right...all i ask is this, would the cop want the same to happen to him and his?? do we send cops out barrels blazing for so little info?? is there any price to pay when we do??? and yes, thankfully we live in such a protected and wonderful society that a pets life counts this much...life is grand, and when a person dies in the projects, it is an awful thing, and when a dog is gunned down on the side of the road while it's owners are handcuffed and helpless, it is an awful thing...awful things happen everyday and everyplace...doesn't mean we have to accept and like them and say, "no big deal, life is shitty all over"...g</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually it does mean we have to accept it. Until we find the human who will be able to flawlessly execute the job of police officer with perfect use of decision making regarding procedure, force and fairness, we have to accept mistakes.



    We make provisions for mistakes and that is called insurance. Even when a human is killed the result is suing for money. If the human were deemed malicious in their killing then there would be a criminal trial as well.



    However the aspect of criminality for shooting the animal is just flawed reasoning. The animal could be killed by the owners with no recourse.



    This is not true for any other example you care to bring up.



    If I killed your kid it is wrong.

    If you killed your kid it is wrong.

    If the police acting in public interest accidentally killed your kid it is wrong.



    If the police killed your dog it is a civil issue.



    Look at some examples here.



    If the city pound for public interest killed your unclaimed dog. It is according to society, right.



    If you had your dog killed because you no longer desired him or deemed him to old it is according to society right.



    Consider the following... you are driving down the and somehow hit a child. It is a terrible accident and your insurance will pay for it. If you were found negligant in some regard like drinking or driving away, speeding, it could become a criminal matter.



    However it will never come anywhere near any of this for hitting someone's dog.



    Nick
  • Reply 62 of 108
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    That is why I call you a Monday morning quarterback. Because of course you sitting in your office chair know more than someone laying it on the line night after night. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Blind faith is dangerous.
  • Reply 63 of 108
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    I wouldn't imagine this cop shooting my brother because I am not unintelligent enough to equate them with an animal. Likewise I do not equate my brother with a cow, pig, fish, fowl, or any other animal. Likewise when people kill them, accidental or otherwise I don't feel the remorse that I would for a human. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Why don't you kill a police dog and come back and tell us what happens to you....
  • Reply 64 of 108
    When the State trusts you with a badge and a gun along with the authority to do pretty much anything you please, this behaviour cannot be tolerated. It doesn't matter if you value a dog's life or not ... police are there to protect and serve the public, if that responsability is too much for you... don't take the job.



    It's too bad his family is suffering along with him, but he has only himself to blame.
  • Reply 65 of 108
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    However it will never come anywhere near any of this for hitting someone's dog. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    For me the killing of the dog isn't as big of a deal as the alleged irresponsible use of the firearms. That's a serious concern, even if nothing living was hit by the shot.
  • Reply 66 of 108
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>These folks could have decided they didn't want the dog, taken it to the pound and had it put down and no one here would or could have done a d*mn thing about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Because they would have made that decision and carried it out in a far less traumatic and dangerous way.



    [quote]<strong>Would you take the job for probably a massive 40k a year when you get comments like this over a dog?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So because you think their job sucks they should be held less accountable than your average citizen?



    You're all over this one.



    Do you think maybe we should have some standards for those allowed to roam around us with weapons and authority backed by law?

    Amazing we have these crazy "standards" and "expectations".



    I never have understood what kind of real point is made by "look over there" by silly arguments like "All this over a dog, so many people are killed every day..." as if every freaking incident has to meet some idiotic rubric of relevance. Like parents scolding children with "Eat your beets, there are starving children in Africa!"



    Idiotic that you'll call someone a "moron" and put out arguments that have no legs. At one point you say there's no justification, right in the middle of your big tirade about how we shouldn't be expressing outrage. Do you need a real point, or is the simple act of typing your reward? Perhaps you should get a cool Mavis Beacon app to type like mad with.



    --



    Do you want a cop out there who is that careless and frightened while holding a weapon?

    A cop that is so unable to handle pressure situations?
  • Reply 67 of 108
    anyone remember a couple years ago when a guy got into an accident with this woman, and he got out of his car, ran up to her open window, grabbed her pet poodle and through it out into open traffic?? i believe that man went to jail for that...

    so yes...killing someone elses dog is considered a jail-time offense.
  • Reply 68 of 108
    hey trumptman, u have down that u are an "educator" on yer profile. are u just bitter cause u get paid the same as these cops but don't get the right to kill puppies too?
  • Reply 69 of 108
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>Idiotic that you'll call someone a "moron" and put out arguments that have no legs. At one point you say there's no justification, right in the middle of your big tirade about how we shouldn't be expressing outrage. Do you need a real point, or is the simple act of typing your reward? Perhaps you should get a cool Mavis Beacon app to type like mad with.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Leave it to a mod to be a fine example of posting etiquette.



    I made plenty of points, if you don't care to comprehend them, that is your perogative.



    People making logical leaps from accidental to malicious, from animal to human are not making any arguments, they are ranting themselves. I made a clear post that "quoted" their nice arguments and conclusions. You must have read it because it was where I said they were morons.



    Nick
  • Reply 70 of 108
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    People making logical leaps from accidental to malicious...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You're avoiding the middleground of just plain irresponsible, not to mention dangerously so.
  • Reply 71 of 108
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>



    Blind faith is dangerous.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So is blind moral superiority.



    [quote] Why don't you kill a police dog and come back and tell us what happens to you....<hr></blockquote>



    Well first I would have to own a gun, second I'll be happy to do so. Of course the dog has to not be investigating a crime. It has to be on my property unsupervised and acting in a threatening manner.



    I assure you if that occured I would plug it without a second thought. I am sure any investigation would come to a proper conclusion.



    [quote]For me the killing of the dog isn't as big of a deal as the alleged irresponsible use of the firearms. That's a serious concern, even if nothing living was hit by the shot. <hr></blockquote>



    Nice spin....we now have concerns about alleged irresponsible use of guns. How much training have you had with firearms to judge how the police officer used his?



    Or do you just get to be the best judge because you are "concerned."



    Nick
  • Reply 72 of 108
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>



    How much training have you had with firearms to judge how the police officer used his?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>





    well i would say he's pretty good as he killed it on the first shot. i mean, how many of you can kill a puppy with a head about 5 inches wide with one shot?? i, for one, am impressed by his training with firearms...
  • Reply 73 of 108
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    [quote]Originally posted by _ alliance _:

    <strong>anyone remember a couple years ago when a guy got into an accident with this woman, and he got out of his car, ran up to her open window, grabbed her pet poodle and through it out into open traffic?? i believe that man went to jail for that...

    so yes...killing someone elses dog is considered a jail-time offense.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Remember a few years ago when kids in college could understand the difference between malicious and accidental intent.



    [quote] hey trumptman, u have down that u are an "educator" on yer profile. are u just bitter cause u get paid the same as these cops but don't get the right to kill puppies too? <hr></blockquote>



    Bitter... hahahah...naw I only get touchy when dealing with hypocrites. Like this one guy I know would complain about some cop making 40k misjudging something when called to back up some state troopers late on New Year's Eve in the dark but would probably beat that dog to death with his bare hands if it put it's nails all over the paint of his two Hondas.



    Nick
  • Reply 74 of 108
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>



    You're avoiding the middleground of just plain irresponsible, not to mention dangerously so.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually you are the one avoiding it since you haven't made a case for it. You simply mention a "concern" about "alleged" irresponsibility.



    Would you care to state why you think he was irresponsible in his use of a firearms. He was told by the THP that it was a felony stop. The caller who reported the stop said there was money flying out of the car and that it was going 110 mph.



    The office was called in to back up the THP because it was a felony stop. Obviously the THP considered it serious enough to call the drivers out of the car, handcuff them, and have their weapons drawn.



    The officer's responsibility was to back up the officers. In the dark of night he said he thought the dog was going to attack and that it was a pit bull. The dog was a bulldog, pitbull mix. The officer said the dog was trained on him and the video does not show anything against this assertion.



    Now speaking of law, responsibility and of course human/animal characteristics....



    Obviously it is the law that people secure their children in their cars. However it is also the law that the secure their pets. It is not as specific as the human law but it does say they should be secured. The most obvious way of doing this is a dog cage.



    Again we talk about people who treat animals like humans. Fine... what would you have recommended for these owners if their dogs had been harmed flying out of the car during an accident, I wonder how many here would treat it the same as someone not putting their child in a car seat.



    Point blank, could this have happened if the dogs were secured, as required by the law and/or if they were in a dog cage?



    So who is really irresponsible here?



    Nick



    [ 01-11-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
  • Reply 75 of 108
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>I made plenty of points, if you don't care to comprehend them, that is your perogative.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    There's nothing about your points that is difficult to comprehend.



    I'll outline a few for your pleasure, what the hell, I've got some spare time.



    [quote]<strong>Actually it does mean we have to accept it. Until we find the human who will be able to flawlessly execute the job of police officer...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Do I really have to explain how this is a load of garbage?

    Perhaps if we lived under the rule of Jesus or somesuch with heady "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" legislation or even social convention this argument may hold up, but since such we live in no such fantasy land it's crap.



    It's a silly parent-to-child argument that is pure crap out here among the adults, especially when presented TO an adult ABOUT another adult.



    Since when am I to give carte blanche to a man because he is imperfect?

    "I'll tell you what, officer, you simply have to accept my flaws as a man and you have to accept my stealing this car as a result. Are you perfect!?"



    Childish.



    [quote]<strong>However the aspect of criminality for shooting the animal is just flawed reasoning. The animal could be killed by the owners with no recourse.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Because *they* would be the ones determining whether or not that property is destroyed.

    There's no logic there, your "argument" completely ignores the actor, which is the key idea here.



    [quote]<strong>People making logical leaps from accidental to malicious, from animal to human are not making any arguments, they are ranting themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Seems like those including humans were the ones saying "awww shut up, he didn't shoot a person, it was just a dog."

    Not one person in the thread has said that shooting a dog is the same as shooting a human, I'd love to see you find an instance of that.



    As far as "if he'll shoot a dog in that situation he might shoot a human" how is that not valid? The cop is obviously easily scared and very willing to use his firearm in pressure situations.



    Funny that these "morons" believe that a trigger-happy nervous wreck might wind up shooting a real person! They're crazy!



    This guy backed away from a puppy like he was getting chased by O.J., and because he is obviously unable to handle pressure situations and act even the least bit responsibly in pressure situations he does not need to be a weapon-carrying police officer.



    Not one goddam person said that killing a dog and killing a person were the same, maybe it's you that has a difficult time comprehending points.
  • Reply 76 of 108
    [quote] naw I only get touchy when dealing with hypocrites. <hr></blockquote>



    you don't know me...how do you know, how can you judge that i am a hypocrite??? and it is a "nice spin" to say that the officer took a dangerous situation and made it worse by firing his gun...look at how the husband stood up, the other officiers could have taken it to be a hostile act and fired on him....it happened in new york with the young man holding out his wallet....one officer fires and the others started too because they didn't know where the first shot came from...and, once again, one women on a phone makes a call to the police and the cops are sent out HARD like that on an innocent family...shouldn't there be better info and backup of that info...was a bank robbed? did the family match the description?? was a car like theirs stolen??? it seems that one phone call could have gotten the whole family killed in a "worse case" situation....ie. cop kills dog, dad jumps up (like he did), and rushes over, other cop (or same cop) shots dad, wife and kid jump up in shock and rush to dad, cops shot wife and kid....thankfully the family didn't die, but can you say 100% that something like that couldn't happen in such a voiltile situation?? guns firing, everyone "juiced" up and tense....i don't think the guy should go to jail, nor do i think it is right that he is getting death threats, but he has proven that he will fire his gun in an unwarrented situation....do you want him pulling you over? can you trust how he will react?? maybe give him a desk job or something else on the force...but riding in a police cruiser might not be best for him....g
  • Reply 76 of 108
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>





    This guy backed away from a puppy like he was getting chased by O.J., and because he is obviously unable to handle pressure situations and act even the least bit responsibly in pressure situations he does not need to be a weapon-carrying police officer.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>





    best worded point of the whole thread.
  • Reply 78 of 108
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>



    would probably beat that dog to death with his bare hands if it put it's nails all over the paint of his two Hondas.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    who are u referring to there, smart guy?
  • Reply 79 of 108
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>



    Actually you are the one avoiding it since you haven't made a case for it. You simply mention a "concern" about "alleged" irresponsibility. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    :confused:



    I don't think I've made a case for punishing him either.



    I haven't watched the video because I don't care. The courts will settle it. I just think everyone here that's "up in arms" about it are justified, even if it was "just a dog." The fact that it's a dog is irrelevant to me.



    Using a weapon should be a policeman's last resort. Unless he did close the car door and the dog somehow still managed to get out, in this case the firearm wasn't used as a last resort. That's irresponsible.



    The dog could have been a ferocious Rott Weiler lunging at the officer and the situation would be the same. I don't expect an officer to notice that a dog is wagging its tail, or is only 15 pounds and not 45. They've got pepper spray and they SHOULD all know how to close a car door.
  • Reply 80 of 108
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>



    Actually you are the one avoiding it since you haven't made a case for it. You simply mention a "concern" about "alleged" irresponsibility. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    :confused:



    I don't think I've made a case for punishing him either.



    I haven't watched the video because I don't care. The courts will settle it. I just think everyone here that's "up in arms" about it are justified, even if it was "just a dog." The fact that it's a dog is irrelevant to me.



    Using a weapon should be a policeman's last resort. Unless he did close the car door and the dog somehow still managed to get out, in this case the firearm wasn't used as a last resort. That's irresponsible.



    The dog could have been a ferocious Rott Weiler lunging at the officer and the situation would be the same. I don't expect an officer to notice that a dog is wagging its tail, or is only 15 pounds and not 45. They've got pepper spray and they SHOULD all know how to close a car door.
Sign In or Register to comment.