ok, for those who think that people are overreacting, can we agree on a few main points? i think that those who want to see this cop punished are working from a few base assumptions, and i'd just like to know if others would agree with them.
first, that this cop took an already tense situation and made it significantly worse by firing his weapon.
that there isn't a single living being on this planet that weighs 25lbs. and is a significant threat. therefore, the use of deadly force was unnecessary in this situation.
<strong>first, that this cop took an already tense situation and made it significantly worse by firing his weapon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Undoubtedly. The evidence on that is clear as day, just watch the video.
[quote]<strong>that there isn't a single living being on this planet that weighs 25lbs. and is a significant threat. therefore, the use of deadly force was unnecessary in this situation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll disagree with this one.
There are living beings that are =/<25lbs that are indeed deadly. I'm sure there are many snakes that meet that rubric. I don't know the measurements of a wolverine offhand, either, but those things will do some damage.
In this specific instance it's quite obvious that this dog was not a threat and that deadly force was beyond unnecessary.
There are two options:
1) the officer was acting maliciously
2) the officer was genuinely scared of a 25-pound, tail-wagging puppy. Either one calls for his termination.
I think it's a combination of the two, stress on #2 and him being a sack of crap.
If a 25lb King Cobra were to slither out of someone's car and towards the officer then by God blow that thing back to Hell. It is extremely difficult to make a snap judgement about the intentions and mood of a reptile, especially a snake.
"Red touch Yellow: Kill a fellow. Red touch Black: You're OK Jack."
[quote]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. <hr></blockquote>
You do have to explain because in doing so you show that you do not understand the context of what I am saying. Someone teasingly mentioned that that they wanted to see this guys scores on the range and mentioned a scenario where you would have a split second to decide if the target was a threat or not. No one, NO ONE is going to score 100% on their ability to decide. Accidents do happen and so we also ask about intent.
In your little scenario you mention the intent of the criminal. Regardless of his mistakes, his intent was to steal the car. The officers intent was not to harm the parties pulled over, however the dog was coming towards him in the dark and while you may easily read the intent from the side, better lighted and with a video camera. He didn't do that perfectly.
The reasons weapons were drawn is again because it was a felony stop. He was not alone acting with his weapon. All the other officers on the scene had use of them as well because of the nature of the stop.
Lastly you did not address my point with regard to the law requiring that animals in transport be secured in some manner. If these dogs had been in a dog cage, or even leashed with the leash attached to something within the car, this couldn't have happened. But the people in the car get a pass for not following the law and the officer who has to make a split second decision in the dark based off them not following the law should be fired at minimum and criminally prosecuted at maximum.
Typical....
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe there is something he saw from the front that you can't see from the side. You are the one trying to have it both ways with regard to the dog/human argument. If the dog is just property, then it is just a civil issue. If I ran over your mailbox or even your dog, it isn't the same as running over your kid. Likewise so seeking job dismissal and criminal charges for property are over the line.
And there are people who were comparing dogs to humans. There was one post where someone even compared the dog to a sibling and asked me how I would feel if the officer shot my brother.
[quote]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.
<hr></blockquote>
What it points out and reaffirms is that an animal has no basic rights. It is property of the most basic kind. People do try to assign it certain rights and succeed occasionaly in issues involving cruelty. However for the most part the owners can dispose of it when they see fit just like they can throw out a Christmas tree or garbage. My point is that it is a civil issue which deals with property and liability. The officer will be found liable and the city will pay out money. I have never contended that the officer didn't judge wrong or that the family wouldn't get a payout.
I said that since it is a civil issue it shouldn't affect his job and certainly not his freedom.
That is why I keep using the scenario of you running over the dog with your car. It would be the same thing and we can all probably say that people shouldn't go to jail from hitting a dog. Especially since the dog does not have human judgement and can run into the street.
That is the same thing here. The dog doesn't have human judgement. It bounded out of the car and was killed because of the human reaction to it. (Much like driving) The issue is civil, not criminal.
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</strong><hr></blockquote>
You reasoning is very flawed. You are employing a slippery-slope argument. The officer firing did not lead to the deaths of the entire family and to consider that is silly. It would be like me saying every time you drive you could hit and kill a busload of school children and thus you shouldn't drive.
However you do hit upon an interesting point I would ask you to consider. The officers had to act upon the information they were given. The information from dispatch turned out to be a false conclusion. (Again we are talking percentages here, most cars traveling at 110 with money flying out of it were probably not just speeding and the guy left his wallet on the car roof)
If you saw a sign that said freeway exit and instead it ended up being an entrance and you hit and killed someone, how much liability would you consider yourself to have in this instance?
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So then you are questioning the protocals used for a felony stop? The other officers had their weapons drawn as well.
You never addressed the fact that by law the dogs should have been secured inside the car. If anyone is liable here, it is the owners.
I am sure that they have some sort of hierchy of weapons use. I certainly don't have it memorized but I would bet that when something goes from misdemeanor to felony, it changes somehow.
I would guess that there will be a review of procedures of the Tennesee Highway Patrol and especially the information they have to tell city police who they are calling to assist them on felony stops. However if there is a flaw in the protocal, what is the personal liability of the officer himself acting on that flawed protocal and what do you think the resolution for this stop and shooting should be?
<strong>You never addressed the fact that by law the dogs should have been secured inside the car. If anyone is liable here, it is the owners.
...
I would guess that there will be a review of procedures of the Tennesee Highway Patrol and especially the information they have to tell city police who they are calling to assist them on felony stops. However if there is a flaw in the protocal, what is the personal liability of the officer himself acting on that flawed protocal and what do you think the resolution for this stop and shooting should be? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Does the protocol require leaving the car doors open? Does the protocol not cover how to handle a live animal in any given situation? Or does the protocol just say ignore all animals but if you see one it's easier to just shoot it than to attempt to bring it under control?
I just think that even if by law the animal has to be tied when inside a car, the police still need to react responsibly when they make a stop. They can't just say "well, it's the owner's fault the dog isn't tied so I'm gonna shoot it if it comes near me."
Obviously that's an exaggeration, but if the cops knew there was a dog, one of them has to be responsible when the family was rendered unable to be so (because they were legitimately cuffed or just face down on the ground.) And I have no problem with guns being drawn, it's the decision to use it that's troubling.
[quote] most cars traveling at 110 with money flying out of it <hr></blockquote>
once again, called in by one "flawed" eyewitness...is she an expert at assessing car speeds by a visual mode?? so one flawed phone call leads to a "Felon" stop, which has this innocent family on its knees in handcuffs with guns all over them and their dog dead...that should be looked at...and i am not saying that the cop should be charged with shooting the family, because that, thank god, didn't happen...but you know and i know that the police set up rules and protocols based on possible situations and outcomes...firing his gun greatly increased the possibility of a more violent outcome for all involved....at some point there should have been a leader at the site that said: something is wrong here...these are not the criminals we expected, we can close the car doors or we can let the people get their dog or hey why don't i pet that dog instead....if the police are going to stand by the logic that they expect the worst at all times and react as quickly and as violently as possible (which killing the dog was the quickest and most violent action possible), then they should expect and accept that the reaction against them will also be the most extreme when they are wrong...i don't think the officer should go to jail...i am not sure whether he should keep his job or not, that is for the police dept to decide...but he probably should be out of cruiser patrol and the family should sue and win several hundred thousand dollars for pain and suffering...and that is likely to be what happens....so it will all work out in the end...but you also can't deny that sometimes the worst does happen and innocent people, not dogs, get killed...just give springsteens 41 Shots a listen to sometimes....g
[quote] You reasoning is very flawed. You are employing a slippery-slope argument. The officer firing did not lead to the deaths of the entire family and to consider that is silly <hr></blockquote>
beware of the slippery-slope argument...the whole stop and police action is based on it....why did they come in guns drawn?? why did they handcuff an innocent family??? why did they shoot a non-hostile dog??? because of that slippery-slope....they didn't go in looking at the situation as it was (suburban family and pet coming home from a holiday family get together)....they went in looking at the worse case...bad guys with guns and violent dog on the attack...
<strong>You do have to explain because in doing so you show that you do not understand the context of what I am saying. Someone teasingly mentioned that that they wanted to see this guys scores on the range and mentioned a scenario where you would have a split second to decide if the target was a threat or not. No one, NO ONE is going to score 100% on their ability to decide. Accidents do happen and so we also ask about intent.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He had a lot more than a "split second" to decide. You count SIX SECONDS between the dog's tail-wagging exit to the officer retreating like the French and shooting the curious puppy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
*boom*
Since he cannot make that evaluation in 6 seconds (which is an eternity in threat assessment) then he needs to be far away from any position of authority that requires him to hold deadly weapons.
[quote]<strong>The officers intent was not to harm the parties pulled over,</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's debateable based on his actions. He may not have intended to but he certainly wasn't averse to the idea if an opportunity presented itself.
[quote]<strong>however the dog was coming towards him in the dark and while you may easily read the intent from the side, better lighted and with a video camera. He didn't do that perfectly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Explain to me how it is physically possible for me to see it with better lighting than him? Please, just lay that out if you can.
Explain how the patrol car's very bright headlights register in my eyeballs and not his.
[quote]<strong>was not alone acting with his weapon. All the other officers on the scene had use of them as well because of the nature of the stop.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah... and?
He's the only one who fired shots.
He's the only one who considered that dog any kind of threat (2 others also saw the dog).
I haven't seen anyone complain that the officers had guns, I don't know what point you're making here. I think you're simply grasping at straws.
[quote]<strong>Lastly you did not address my point with regard to the law requiring that animals in transport be secured in some manner. If these dogs had been in a dog cage, or even leashed with the leash attached to something within the car, this couldn't have happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know that there is such a law. And even along that vein the officers were asked to shut the doors for the very purpose of keeping the dogs out.
There is no leg to stand on with that argument.
Since you want to play the "if" game, if the officers had simply followed a very simple request made in plain English this couldn't have happened.
[quote]<strong>Maybe there is something he saw from the front that you can't see from the side.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see a puppy wagging its tail. Is the dog holding a gun in the front that's blocked from view?
Because dogs don't wag their tails when preparing for attack, that's not how it works. And if the officer didn't know that he must be an alien of some kind and again shouldn't be an officer.
[quote]<strong>If the dog is just property, then it is just a civil issue. If I ran over your mailbox or even your dog, it isn't the same as running over your kid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually running over my mailbox (on purpose) is a federal crime. Destruction of property is a criminal issue, not a civil one. Between the parties it is a civil issue but the state is involved criminally. Your understanding of the law is laughable.
[quote]<strong>Likewise so seeking job dismissal and criminal charges for property are over the line.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The officer should be dismissed for incompetence and an inability to handle pressure situations. He should also be dismissed for reckless discharge of his weapon, it has little to do with the species of animal that was shot (some, but just a little).
Again, destruction of someone else's property is a crime. Between the involved parties it is a civil issue. Between the state and the actor it is a criminal issue. Class dismissed.
[quote]<strong>There was one post where someone even compared the dog to a sibling and asked me how I would feel if the officer shot my brother.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One poster asks one thing so you attempt to use that to characterize multiple posters? tsk tsk
[quote]<strong>What it points out and reaffirms is that an animal has no basic rights. It is property of the most basic kind. People do try to assign it certain rights and succeed occasionaly in issues involving cruelty.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're saying that animals have no basic rights but they do?
What waste of two sentences.
[quote]<strong>However for the most part the owners can dispose of it when they see fit just like they can throw out a Christmas tree or garbage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They can determine "when" they see fit, but not necessarily how. And certainly not out like a Christmas tree or garbage. In Austin, at least, it is illegal to throw dead animals into the trash.
[quote]<strong>My point is that it is a civil issue which deals with property and liability. The officer will be found liable and the city will pay out money. I have never contended that the officer didn't judge wrong or that the family wouldn't get a payout.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not the entire issue. It doesn't just go away at that.
[quote]<strong>I said that since it is a civil issue it shouldn't affect his job and certainly not his freedom.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Things he does on the job shouldn't affect his job? Amazing!
Because he was acting as an officer when he determined in 6 seconds that a tail-wagging puppy was a threat to his life and fired his shotgun (twice?) while 4 other officers held the human owners of said puppy at gunpoint, dramatically increasing the danger to all parties involved with the shot fired.
But that's a civil matter, right?
Risking the lives of his fellow officers and citizens because he is unable to handle pressure situations shouldn't have any effect on his job, right?
[quote]<strong>That is why I keep using the scenario of you running over the dog with your car. It would be the same thing and we can all probably say that people shouldn't go to jail from hitting a dog.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the "same thing" in that a dog dies as a result of an object striking it. That's the only way it is similar.
It's not that simple. Unfortunately there is a context for everything.
Hey I'm not the only one who can read a profile. If you can make comments about my occupation, then I can make comments about your obsession.
Make sure when my dog runs toward your cars, you perfectly understand their intent before you act ok?
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
hey dumbsh*t, i have two rottweilers at home. the one time i left my car in the garage for a week and went on a trip, i came home and found that my dogs had eaten the front half of it, destroying the bumper, hood, and left fender. now, i have never hit my dogs in any way, even when they had damaged something that means so much to me. i later found out that they there was a dead rat under my car, so instead of disciplining them, i actually congratulated them. despite damaging my car, they were just acting based on their natural instincts...and i can not punish them for that. also, my dogs are harmless. they are huge...but could never hurt a person. if my dogs were in this situation, they would not have survived. if this bozo was scared of a 25 pound puppy, imagine if he came across 130 pound rottweiler...even if my dog made no move, i wouldn't expect this officer to hold his firing because he is obviously incompetent. and for u to defend him so much, i wouldn't expect much different from you.
hey mods, this moron would be someone i would like to put on an ignore list, if thats possible. he has lost all credibility based on every single post i've seen.
Hey bottom line : The people stopped hadn't committed a crime. The dog was so small ( and friendly ) the worst that would have happened is the officer would have been licked to death. The comments about the dog having possible dangeous intent is ludicrous. If the cop couldn't tell the dog was wagging his tail he can't size up situations well at all. These guys shouldn't be cops! Jail time is almost too good for him!
Not to 'start this up again' but can I ask a new question?
If you just shot my dog for next to no reason, I'd jump up and attack you.
So my question is:
Had the officer who shot the dog been attacked by the dog's owners, and the owner ended up shot also....how would the situation have changed? Would it be more serious?
hey dumbsh*t, i have two rottweilers at home. the one time i left my car in the garage for a week and went on a trip, i came home and found that my dogs had eaten the front half of it, destroying the bumper, hood, and left fender. now, i have never hit my dogs in any way, even when they had damaged something that means so much to me. i later found out that they there was a dead rat under my car, so instead of disciplining them, i actually congratulated them. despite damaging my car, they were just acting based on their natural instincts...and i can not punish them for that. also, my dogs are harmless. they are huge...but could never hurt a person. if my dogs were in this situation, they would not have survived. if this bozo was scared of a 25 pound puppy, imagine if he came across 130 pound rottweiler...even if my dog made no move, i wouldn't expect this officer to hold his firing because he is obviously incompetent. and for u to defend him so much, i wouldn't expect much different from you.
hey mods, this moron would be someone i would like to put on an ignore list, if thats possible. he has lost all credibility based on every single post i've seen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, well that's what you get for leaving them alone for a week. Next time don't be so cheap and put them in a kennel instead.
You are welcome to ignore my postings. I ignore about 2/3 of yours because they simply don't make any sense.
It's the "same thing" in that a dog dies as a result of an object striking it. That's the only way it is similar.
It's not that simple. Unfortunately there is a context for everything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True and in the context of assisting with little to no information on a felony stop, on a busy holiday weekend, in the dark, late at night, I give the benefit of the doubt to the officer.
[quote] Since he cannot make that evaluation in 6 seconds (which is an eternity in threat assessment) then he needs to be far away from any position of authority that requires him to hold deadly weapons. <hr></blockquote>
The dog wasn't coming at him for the full six seconds, more like 1-2.
[quote]posted 01-12-2003 12:25 PM Profile for groverat Author's Homepage Email groverat Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote riginally posted by trumptman:
You do have to explain because in doing so you show that you do not understand the context of what I am saying. Someone teasingly mentioned that that they wanted to see this guys scores on the range and mentioned a scenario where you would have a split second to decide if the target was a threat or not. No one, NO ONE is going to score 100% on their ability to decide. Accidents do happen and so we also ask about intent.
He had a lot more than a "split second" to decide. You count SIX SECONDS between the dog's tail-wagging exit to the officer retreating like the French and shooting the curious puppy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
*boom*
Since he cannot make that evaluation in 6 seconds (which is an eternity in threat assessment) then he needs to be far away from any position of authority that requires him to hold deadly weapons.
quote:The officers intent was not to harm the parties pulled over,
That's debateable based on his actions. He may not have intended to but he certainly wasn't averse to the idea if an opportunity presented itself.
quote:however the dog was coming towards him in the dark and while you may easily read the intent from the side, better lighted and with a video camera. He didn't do that perfectly.
Explain to me how it is physically possible for me to see it with better lighting than him? Please, just lay that out if you can.
Explain how the patrol car's very bright headlights register in my eyeballs and not his. <hr></blockquote>
Sure simple. You are looking the intended direction for use of the headlights. You obviously get the best view because you are behind them, not in their glare and get the full effect of their illuminance. He is at the far right side, gets some shadows and also some glare.
A simple example... ever played with a flashlight when you were a kid? Remember taking the flashlight and shining it from the top, side, and bottom of your face to make yourself look "scary."
Again it is just an example, but the point is that things look different illuminated from the side than they do from the front.
[quote]Yeah... and?
He's the only one who fired shots.
He's the only one who considered that dog any kind of threat (2 others also saw the dog).
I haven't seen anyone complain that the officers had guns, I don't know what point you're making here. I think you're simply grasping at straws. <hr></blockquote>
He starts at the far right of the screen. By the time he fires he has been chased by the dog in a full semi-circle into the middle of the screen. He looks to have backed up 5-6 feet. The other officer felt the dog enough of a threat to train their own weapons on it as well. So obviously he wasn't the only one threatened.
[quote] I don't know that there is such a law. And even along that vein the officers were asked to shut the doors for the very purpose of keeping the dogs out.
There is no leg to stand on with that argument. <hr></blockquote>
Doesn't matter what they were asked. The dogs, by law (whether you know it or not) should have been restrained. The recommend method of transporting dogs according the SPCA is a dog cage. There are plenty of legs to stand on because as you mentioned there is context, intent and liability. The owners should be held responsible for not securing their animal. The intent of the officer was to protect himself. The context was a felony stop, not a traffic violation or misdemeanor. We can all talk about what they knew afterward, but they acted on what they knew then.
<strong>Had the officer who shot the dog been attacked by the dog's owners, and the owner ended up shot also....how would the situation have changed? Would it be more serious?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely it would be more serious, because then a person is dead. The officer would also be under much harsher scrutiny for escalating the situation unnecessarily.
Anyone who attacks an armed cop for shooting his dog in cold blood is an idiot.
-
trumpt
[quote]<strong>The dog wasn't coming at him for the full six seconds, more like 1-2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, maybe you're the one with the vision problems.
Before you even see the dog appear out of the car you see the officer point the gun at it through the open door. You then see him run backwards in a semi-circle while the dog follows him. Full 6 seconds with the dog out of the car, damn near 10 seconds of him obviously reacting to the dog including the time it's still in the car. He had his gun raised at the dog for 7 seconds.
He had a much clearer view than me, here I am watching the internet feed of a shitty dashboard camera, he's the one standing out there with nice big headlights to light his way.
[quote]<strong>You are looking the intended direction for use of the headlights. You obviously get the best view because you are behind them, not in their glare and get the full effect of their illuminance. He is at the far right side, gets some shadows and also some glare.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Glare off of what? He is the object farthest to the right and then moves towards the middle, towards the headlight. Never once is he facing the headlights, I don't see the issue.
What would cause the glare for him? The dog's eyes?
Not only that, but he was actually there and I'm watching an internet feed of a pixelated dashboard camera feed.
Idiotic that you'd say I have a better vantage-point than him. What a joke. You're not even thinking about this.
[quote]<strong>A simple example... ever played with a flashlight when you were a kid? Remember taking the flashlight and shining it from the top, side, and bottom of your face to make yourself look "scary."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was his face right up next to the headlights?
Maybe you're watching a different video.
[quote]<strong>Again it is just an example, but the point is that things look different illuminated from the side than they do from the front.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He got full view of the dog as he ran in a semi-circle backwards. There must have been some alternate reality shit going on if he could run backwards in a semi-circle and STILL only see it from the side. Talk about tunnel-vision.
"Suppose for a second that he only has one eyeball and has the visual acuity of a gopher. Now, assume for a minute that the trees 30 yards behind the scene caused a harsh glare..."
[quote]<strong>He starts at the far right of the screen. By the time he fires he has been chased by the dog in a full semi-circle into the middle of the screen. He looks to have backed up 5-6 feet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wait, I thought you said he only saw the dog for 1 or 2 seconds.
flip
flop
flip
flop
"Chased"!? CHASED!?
Did you even WATCH that video? How in blue fuck do you consider that a "chase"? When a goddam toddler walks up to you because it wants you to pick him up, you back up and it follows do you consider it a "chase"?
Like I said above, you would have to be an alien to not know that puppy was being playful.
Quote:
<strong>[/qb]<hr></blockquote>The other officer felt the dog enough of a threat to train their own weapons on it as well. So obviously he wasn't the only one threatened.</strong>
The other officer brought his gun into his field of vision, like you're trained to do. If he heard a noise in the woods 30 yards behind he would've done the same. That's how you turn to look when you are holding an automatic weapon. You don't just whip your head around. You never point a gun like that where you aren't looking.
He was *gasp* evaluating the situation! Notice how he didn't fire his weapon? Good, because there's a reason.
And when another officer fires his weapon you're going to tense up a great deal, you'll notice automatic-boy didn't get serious until Officer Dumbass fired his weapon.
That's why it's a problem, he raised the danger level dramatically with his incompetence. Thanks for helping to prove my point.
[quote]<strong>Doesn't matter what they were asked.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually it does, especially in regards to officers securing such a scene. But whether or not the dog was secured is a non-issue in this case.
[quote]<strong>The owners should be held responsible for not securing their animal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A ticket for not properly securing the animal, good by me. Funny that they recognized the problem and the police officers did not, however.
[quote]<strong>The intent of the officer was to protect himself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
His self-defense action was not reasonable in that context. I could make a self-defense argument for shooting someone's dog in their yard because I felt threatened. It's garbage, it's on video plain as day.
[quote]<strong>The context was a felony stop, not a traffic violation or misdemeanor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And that matters... how?
[quote]<strong>but they acted on what they knew then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If someone, officer or not, intentionally killed a member of my family (and my pets are members of my family), even with the law on his side... I'd pray for him that he can make me understand his point.
Comments
first, that this cop took an already tense situation and made it significantly worse by firing his weapon.
that there isn't a single living being on this planet that weighs 25lbs. and is a significant threat. therefore, the use of deadly force was unnecessary in this situation.
It's getting hot in here....
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
....so take of all your clothes.
(that'd be the day, to see a nude flame war about dog killing and police brutality)
<strong>first, that this cop took an already tense situation and made it significantly worse by firing his weapon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Undoubtedly. The evidence on that is clear as day, just watch the video.
[quote]<strong>that there isn't a single living being on this planet that weighs 25lbs. and is a significant threat. therefore, the use of deadly force was unnecessary in this situation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll disagree with this one.
There are living beings that are =/<25lbs that are indeed deadly. I'm sure there are many snakes that meet that rubric. I don't know the measurements of a wolverine offhand, either, but those things will do some damage.
In this specific instance it's quite obvious that this dog was not a threat and that deadly force was beyond unnecessary.
There are two options:
1) the officer was acting maliciously
2) the officer was genuinely scared of a 25-pound, tail-wagging puppy. Either one calls for his termination.
I think it's a combination of the two, stress on #2 and him being a sack of crap.
If a 25lb King Cobra were to slither out of someone's car and towards the officer then by God blow that thing back to Hell. It is extremely difficult to make a snap judgement about the intentions and mood of a reptile, especially a snake.
"Red touch Yellow: Kill a fellow. Red touch Black: You're OK Jack."
<strong>best worded point of the whole thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't. You'll just encourage him.
<strong>
Don't. You'll just encourage him.
but this is one of the few times i find myself agreeing w/ him...
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. <hr></blockquote>
You do have to explain because in doing so you show that you do not understand the context of what I am saying. Someone teasingly mentioned that that they wanted to see this guys scores on the range and mentioned a scenario where you would have a split second to decide if the target was a threat or not. No one, NO ONE is going to score 100% on their ability to decide. Accidents do happen and so we also ask about intent.
In your little scenario you mention the intent of the criminal. Regardless of his mistakes, his intent was to steal the car. The officers intent was not to harm the parties pulled over, however the dog was coming towards him in the dark and while you may easily read the intent from the side, better lighted and with a video camera. He didn't do that perfectly.
The reasons weapons were drawn is again because it was a felony stop. He was not alone acting with his weapon. All the other officers on the scene had use of them as well because of the nature of the stop.
Lastly you did not address my point with regard to the law requiring that animals in transport be secured in some manner. If these dogs had been in a dog cage, or even leashed with the leash attached to something within the car, this couldn't have happened. But the people in the car get a pass for not following the law and the officer who has to make a split second decision in the dark based off them not following the law should be fired at minimum and criminally prosecuted at maximum.
Typical....
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe there is something he saw from the front that you can't see from the side. You are the one trying to have it both ways with regard to the dog/human argument. If the dog is just property, then it is just a civil issue. If I ran over your mailbox or even your dog, it isn't the same as running over your kid. Likewise so seeking job dismissal and criminal charges for property are over the line.
And there are people who were comparing dogs to humans. There was one post where someone even compared the dog to a sibling and asked me how I would feel if the officer shot my brother.
[quote]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.
<hr></blockquote>
What it points out and reaffirms is that an animal has no basic rights. It is property of the most basic kind. People do try to assign it certain rights and succeed occasionaly in issues involving cruelty. However for the most part the owners can dispose of it when they see fit just like they can throw out a Christmas tree or garbage. My point is that it is a civil issue which deals with property and liability. The officer will be found liable and the city will pay out money. I have never contended that the officer didn't judge wrong or that the family wouldn't get a payout.
I said that since it is a civil issue it shouldn't affect his job and certainly not his freedom.
That is why I keep using the scenario of you running over the dog with your car. It would be the same thing and we can all probably say that people shouldn't go to jail from hitting a dog. Especially since the dog does not have human judgement and can run into the street.
That is the same thing here. The dog doesn't have human judgement. It bounded out of the car and was killed because of the human reaction to it. (Much like driving) The issue is civil, not criminal.
Nick
<strong>
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</strong><hr></blockquote>
You reasoning is very flawed. You are employing a slippery-slope argument. The officer firing did not lead to the deaths of the entire family and to consider that is silly. It would be like me saying every time you drive you could hit and kill a busload of school children and thus you shouldn't drive.
However you do hit upon an interesting point I would ask you to consider. The officers had to act upon the information they were given. The information from dispatch turned out to be a false conclusion. (Again we are talking percentages here, most cars traveling at 110 with money flying out of it were probably not just speeding and the guy left his wallet on the car roof)
If you saw a sign that said freeway exit and instead it ended up being an entrance and you hit and killed someone, how much liability would you consider yourself to have in this instance?
The officers were told it was a felony stop.
Nick
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So then you are questioning the protocals used for a felony stop? The other officers had their weapons drawn as well.
You never addressed the fact that by law the dogs should have been secured inside the car. If anyone is liable here, it is the owners.
I am sure that they have some sort of hierchy of weapons use. I certainly don't have it memorized but I would bet that when something goes from misdemeanor to felony, it changes somehow.
I would guess that there will be a review of procedures of the Tennesee Highway Patrol and especially the information they have to tell city police who they are calling to assist them on felony stops. However if there is a flaw in the protocal, what is the personal liability of the officer himself acting on that flawed protocal and what do you think the resolution for this stop and shooting should be?
Nick
<strong>
who are u referring to there, smart guy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey I'm not the only one who can read a profile. If you can make comments about my occupation, then I can make comments about your obsession.
Make sure when my dog runs toward your cars, you perfectly understand their intent before you act ok?
Nick
<strong>You never addressed the fact that by law the dogs should have been secured inside the car. If anyone is liable here, it is the owners.
...
I would guess that there will be a review of procedures of the Tennesee Highway Patrol and especially the information they have to tell city police who they are calling to assist them on felony stops. However if there is a flaw in the protocal, what is the personal liability of the officer himself acting on that flawed protocal and what do you think the resolution for this stop and shooting should be? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Does the protocol require leaving the car doors open? Does the protocol not cover how to handle a live animal in any given situation? Or does the protocol just say ignore all animals but if you see one it's easier to just shoot it than to attempt to bring it under control?
I just think that even if by law the animal has to be tied when inside a car, the police still need to react responsibly when they make a stop. They can't just say "well, it's the owner's fault the dog isn't tied so I'm gonna shoot it if it comes near me."
Obviously that's an exaggeration, but if the cops knew there was a dog, one of them has to be responsible when the family was rendered unable to be so (because they were legitimately cuffed or just face down on the ground.) And I have no problem with guns being drawn, it's the decision to use it that's troubling.
once again, called in by one "flawed" eyewitness...is she an expert at assessing car speeds by a visual mode?? so one flawed phone call leads to a "Felon" stop, which has this innocent family on its knees in handcuffs with guns all over them and their dog dead...that should be looked at...and i am not saying that the cop should be charged with shooting the family, because that, thank god, didn't happen...but you know and i know that the police set up rules and protocols based on possible situations and outcomes...firing his gun greatly increased the possibility of a more violent outcome for all involved....at some point there should have been a leader at the site that said: something is wrong here...these are not the criminals we expected, we can close the car doors or we can let the people get their dog or hey why don't i pet that dog instead....if the police are going to stand by the logic that they expect the worst at all times and react as quickly and as violently as possible (which killing the dog was the quickest and most violent action possible), then they should expect and accept that the reaction against them will also be the most extreme when they are wrong...i don't think the officer should go to jail...i am not sure whether he should keep his job or not, that is for the police dept to decide...but he probably should be out of cruiser patrol and the family should sue and win several hundred thousand dollars for pain and suffering...and that is likely to be what happens....so it will all work out in the end...but you also can't deny that sometimes the worst does happen and innocent people, not dogs, get killed...just give springsteens 41 Shots a listen to sometimes....g
[quote] You reasoning is very flawed. You are employing a slippery-slope argument. The officer firing did not lead to the deaths of the entire family and to consider that is silly <hr></blockquote>
beware of the slippery-slope argument...the whole stop and police action is based on it....why did they come in guns drawn?? why did they handcuff an innocent family??? why did they shoot a non-hostile dog??? because of that slippery-slope....they didn't go in looking at the situation as it was (suburban family and pet coming home from a holiday family get together)....they went in looking at the worse case...bad guys with guns and violent dog on the attack...
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>You do have to explain because in doing so you show that you do not understand the context of what I am saying. Someone teasingly mentioned that that they wanted to see this guys scores on the range and mentioned a scenario where you would have a split second to decide if the target was a threat or not. No one, NO ONE is going to score 100% on their ability to decide. Accidents do happen and so we also ask about intent.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He had a lot more than a "split second" to decide. You count SIX SECONDS between the dog's tail-wagging exit to the officer retreating like the French and shooting the curious puppy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
*boom*
Since he cannot make that evaluation in 6 seconds (which is an eternity in threat assessment) then he needs to be far away from any position of authority that requires him to hold deadly weapons.
[quote]<strong>The officers intent was not to harm the parties pulled over,</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's debateable based on his actions. He may not have intended to but he certainly wasn't averse to the idea if an opportunity presented itself.
[quote]<strong>however the dog was coming towards him in the dark and while you may easily read the intent from the side, better lighted and with a video camera. He didn't do that perfectly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Explain to me how it is physically possible for me to see it with better lighting than him? Please, just lay that out if you can.
Explain how the patrol car's very bright headlights register in my eyeballs and not his.
[quote]<strong>was not alone acting with his weapon. All the other officers on the scene had use of them as well because of the nature of the stop.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah... and?
He's the only one who fired shots.
He's the only one who considered that dog any kind of threat (2 others also saw the dog).
I haven't seen anyone complain that the officers had guns, I don't know what point you're making here. I think you're simply grasping at straws.
[quote]<strong>Lastly you did not address my point with regard to the law requiring that animals in transport be secured in some manner. If these dogs had been in a dog cage, or even leashed with the leash attached to something within the car, this couldn't have happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know that there is such a law. And even along that vein the officers were asked to shut the doors for the very purpose of keeping the dogs out.
There is no leg to stand on with that argument.
Since you want to play the "if" game, if the officers had simply followed a very simple request made in plain English this couldn't have happened.
[quote]<strong>Maybe there is something he saw from the front that you can't see from the side.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see a puppy wagging its tail. Is the dog holding a gun in the front that's blocked from view?
Because dogs don't wag their tails when preparing for attack, that's not how it works. And if the officer didn't know that he must be an alien of some kind and again shouldn't be an officer.
[quote]<strong>If the dog is just property, then it is just a civil issue. If I ran over your mailbox or even your dog, it isn't the same as running over your kid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually running over my mailbox (on purpose) is a federal crime. Destruction of property is a criminal issue, not a civil one. Between the parties it is a civil issue but the state is involved criminally. Your understanding of the law is laughable.
[quote]<strong>Likewise so seeking job dismissal and criminal charges for property are over the line.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The officer should be dismissed for incompetence and an inability to handle pressure situations. He should also be dismissed for reckless discharge of his weapon, it has little to do with the species of animal that was shot (some, but just a little).
Again, destruction of someone else's property is a crime. Between the involved parties it is a civil issue. Between the state and the actor it is a criminal issue. Class dismissed.
[quote]<strong>There was one post where someone even compared the dog to a sibling and asked me how I would feel if the officer shot my brother.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One poster asks one thing so you attempt to use that to characterize multiple posters? tsk tsk
[quote]<strong>What it points out and reaffirms is that an animal has no basic rights. It is property of the most basic kind. People do try to assign it certain rights and succeed occasionaly in issues involving cruelty.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're saying that animals have no basic rights but they do?
What waste of two sentences.
[quote]<strong>However for the most part the owners can dispose of it when they see fit just like they can throw out a Christmas tree or garbage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They can determine "when" they see fit, but not necessarily how. And certainly not out like a Christmas tree or garbage. In Austin, at least, it is illegal to throw dead animals into the trash.
[quote]<strong>My point is that it is a civil issue which deals with property and liability. The officer will be found liable and the city will pay out money. I have never contended that the officer didn't judge wrong or that the family wouldn't get a payout.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not the entire issue. It doesn't just go away at that.
[quote]<strong>I said that since it is a civil issue it shouldn't affect his job and certainly not his freedom.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Things he does on the job shouldn't affect his job? Amazing!
Because he was acting as an officer when he determined in 6 seconds that a tail-wagging puppy was a threat to his life and fired his shotgun (twice?) while 4 other officers held the human owners of said puppy at gunpoint, dramatically increasing the danger to all parties involved with the shot fired.
But that's a civil matter, right?
Risking the lives of his fellow officers and citizens because he is unable to handle pressure situations shouldn't have any effect on his job, right?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>That is why I keep using the scenario of you running over the dog with your car. It would be the same thing and we can all probably say that people shouldn't go to jail from hitting a dog.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the "same thing" in that a dog dies as a result of an object striking it. That's the only way it is similar.
It's not that simple. Unfortunately there is a context for everything.
<strong>
Hey I'm not the only one who can read a profile. If you can make comments about my occupation, then I can make comments about your obsession.
Make sure when my dog runs toward your cars, you perfectly understand their intent before you act ok?
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
hey dumbsh*t, i have two rottweilers at home. the one time i left my car in the garage for a week and went on a trip, i came home and found that my dogs had eaten the front half of it, destroying the bumper, hood, and left fender. now, i have never hit my dogs in any way, even when they had damaged something that means so much to me. i later found out that they there was a dead rat under my car, so instead of disciplining them, i actually congratulated them. despite damaging my car, they were just acting based on their natural instincts...and i can not punish them for that. also, my dogs are harmless. they are huge...but could never hurt a person. if my dogs were in this situation, they would not have survived. if this bozo was scared of a 25 pound puppy, imagine if he came across 130 pound rottweiler...even if my dog made no move, i wouldn't expect this officer to hold his firing because he is obviously incompetent. and for u to defend him so much, i wouldn't expect much different from you.
hey mods, this moron would be someone i would like to put on an ignore list, if thats possible. he has lost all credibility based on every single post i've seen.
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
If you just shot my dog for next to no reason, I'd jump up and attack you.
So my question is:
Had the officer who shot the dog been attacked by the dog's owners, and the owner ended up shot also....how would the situation have changed? Would it be more serious?
(this is just a curiosity of mine)
<strong>
hey dumbsh*t, i have two rottweilers at home. the one time i left my car in the garage for a week and went on a trip, i came home and found that my dogs had eaten the front half of it, destroying the bumper, hood, and left fender. now, i have never hit my dogs in any way, even when they had damaged something that means so much to me. i later found out that they there was a dead rat under my car, so instead of disciplining them, i actually congratulated them. despite damaging my car, they were just acting based on their natural instincts...and i can not punish them for that. also, my dogs are harmless. they are huge...but could never hurt a person. if my dogs were in this situation, they would not have survived. if this bozo was scared of a 25 pound puppy, imagine if he came across 130 pound rottweiler...even if my dog made no move, i wouldn't expect this officer to hold his firing because he is obviously incompetent. and for u to defend him so much, i wouldn't expect much different from you.
hey mods, this moron would be someone i would like to put on an ignore list, if thats possible. he has lost all credibility based on every single post i've seen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, well that's what you get for leaving them alone for a week. Next time don't be so cheap and put them in a kennel instead.
You are welcome to ignore my postings. I ignore about 2/3 of yours because they simply don't make any sense.
Nick
<strong>
It's the "same thing" in that a dog dies as a result of an object striking it. That's the only way it is similar.
It's not that simple. Unfortunately there is a context for everything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True and in the context of assisting with little to no information on a felony stop, on a busy holiday weekend, in the dark, late at night, I give the benefit of the doubt to the officer.
[quote] Since he cannot make that evaluation in 6 seconds (which is an eternity in threat assessment) then he needs to be far away from any position of authority that requires him to hold deadly weapons. <hr></blockquote>
The dog wasn't coming at him for the full six seconds, more like 1-2.
[quote]posted 01-12-2003 12:25 PM Profile for groverat Author's Homepage Email groverat Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote
You do have to explain because in doing so you show that you do not understand the context of what I am saying. Someone teasingly mentioned that that they wanted to see this guys scores on the range and mentioned a scenario where you would have a split second to decide if the target was a threat or not. No one, NO ONE is going to score 100% on their ability to decide. Accidents do happen and so we also ask about intent.
He had a lot more than a "split second" to decide. You count SIX SECONDS between the dog's tail-wagging exit to the officer retreating like the French and shooting the curious puppy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
*boom*
Since he cannot make that evaluation in 6 seconds (which is an eternity in threat assessment) then he needs to be far away from any position of authority that requires him to hold deadly weapons.
quote:The officers intent was not to harm the parties pulled over,
That's debateable based on his actions. He may not have intended to but he certainly wasn't averse to the idea if an opportunity presented itself.
quote:however the dog was coming towards him in the dark and while you may easily read the intent from the side, better lighted and with a video camera. He didn't do that perfectly.
Explain to me how it is physically possible for me to see it with better lighting than him? Please, just lay that out if you can.
Explain how the patrol car's very bright headlights register in my eyeballs and not his. <hr></blockquote>
Sure simple. You are looking the intended direction for use of the headlights. You obviously get the best view because you are behind them, not in their glare and get the full effect of their illuminance. He is at the far right side, gets some shadows and also some glare.
A simple example... ever played with a flashlight when you were a kid? Remember taking the flashlight and shining it from the top, side, and bottom of your face to make yourself look "scary."
Again it is just an example, but the point is that things look different illuminated from the side than they do from the front.
[quote]Yeah... and?
He's the only one who fired shots.
He's the only one who considered that dog any kind of threat (2 others also saw the dog).
I haven't seen anyone complain that the officers had guns, I don't know what point you're making here. I think you're simply grasping at straws. <hr></blockquote>
He starts at the far right of the screen. By the time he fires he has been chased by the dog in a full semi-circle into the middle of the screen. He looks to have backed up 5-6 feet. The other officer felt the dog enough of a threat to train their own weapons on it as well. So obviously he wasn't the only one threatened.
[quote] I don't know that there is such a law. And even along that vein the officers were asked to shut the doors for the very purpose of keeping the dogs out.
There is no leg to stand on with that argument. <hr></blockquote>
Doesn't matter what they were asked. The dogs, by law (whether you know it or not) should have been restrained. The recommend method of transporting dogs according the SPCA is a dog cage. There are plenty of legs to stand on because as you mentioned there is context, intent and liability. The owners should be held responsible for not securing their animal. The intent of the officer was to protect himself. The context was a felony stop, not a traffic violation or misdemeanor. We can all talk about what they knew afterward, but they acted on what they knew then.
Nick
<strong>Had the officer who shot the dog been attacked by the dog's owners, and the owner ended up shot also....how would the situation have changed? Would it be more serious?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely it would be more serious, because then a person is dead. The officer would also be under much harsher scrutiny for escalating the situation unnecessarily.
Anyone who attacks an armed cop for shooting his dog in cold blood is an idiot.
-
trumpt
[quote]<strong>The dog wasn't coming at him for the full six seconds, more like 1-2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, maybe you're the one with the vision problems.
Before you even see the dog appear out of the car you see the officer point the gun at it through the open door. You then see him run backwards in a semi-circle while the dog follows him. Full 6 seconds with the dog out of the car, damn near 10 seconds of him obviously reacting to the dog including the time it's still in the car. He had his gun raised at the dog for 7 seconds.
Get glasses or something, it's <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/09/police.kill.dog/index.html"; target="_blank">plain as day</a>.
He had a much clearer view than me, here I am watching the internet feed of a shitty dashboard camera, he's the one standing out there with nice big headlights to light his way.
[quote]<strong>You are looking the intended direction for use of the headlights. You obviously get the best view because you are behind them, not in their glare and get the full effect of their illuminance. He is at the far right side, gets some shadows and also some glare.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Glare off of what? He is the object farthest to the right and then moves towards the middle, towards the headlight. Never once is he facing the headlights, I don't see the issue.
What would cause the glare for him? The dog's eyes?
Not only that, but he was actually there and I'm watching an internet feed of a pixelated dashboard camera feed.
Idiotic that you'd say I have a better vantage-point than him. What a joke. You're not even thinking about this.
[quote]<strong>A simple example... ever played with a flashlight when you were a kid? Remember taking the flashlight and shining it from the top, side, and bottom of your face to make yourself look "scary."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was his face right up next to the headlights?
Maybe you're watching a different video.
[quote]<strong>Again it is just an example, but the point is that things look different illuminated from the side than they do from the front.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He got full view of the dog as he ran in a semi-circle backwards. There must have been some alternate reality shit going on if he could run backwards in a semi-circle and STILL only see it from the side. Talk about tunnel-vision.
"Suppose for a second that he only has one eyeball and has the visual acuity of a gopher. Now, assume for a minute that the trees 30 yards behind the scene caused a harsh glare..."
[quote]<strong>He starts at the far right of the screen. By the time he fires he has been chased by the dog in a full semi-circle into the middle of the screen. He looks to have backed up 5-6 feet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wait, I thought you said he only saw the dog for 1 or 2 seconds.
flip
flop
flip
flop
"Chased"!? CHASED!?
Did you even WATCH that video? How in blue fuck do you consider that a "chase"? When a goddam toddler walks up to you because it wants you to pick him up, you back up and it follows do you consider it a "chase"?
Like I said above, you would have to be an alien to not know that puppy was being playful.
<strong>[/qb]<hr></blockquote>The other officer felt the dog enough of a threat to train their own weapons on it as well. So obviously he wasn't the only one threatened.</strong>
The other officer brought his gun into his field of vision, like you're trained to do. If he heard a noise in the woods 30 yards behind he would've done the same. That's how you turn to look when you are holding an automatic weapon. You don't just whip your head around. You never point a gun like that where you aren't looking.
He was *gasp* evaluating the situation! Notice how he didn't fire his weapon? Good, because there's a reason.
And when another officer fires his weapon you're going to tense up a great deal, you'll notice automatic-boy didn't get serious until Officer Dumbass fired his weapon.
That's why it's a problem, he raised the danger level dramatically with his incompetence. Thanks for helping to prove my point.
[quote]<strong>Doesn't matter what they were asked.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually it does, especially in regards to officers securing such a scene. But whether or not the dog was secured is a non-issue in this case.
[quote]<strong>The owners should be held responsible for not securing their animal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A ticket for not properly securing the animal, good by me. Funny that they recognized the problem and the police officers did not, however.
[quote]<strong>The intent of the officer was to protect himself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
His self-defense action was not reasonable in that context. I could make a self-defense argument for shooting someone's dog in their yard because I felt threatened. It's garbage, it's on video plain as day.
[quote]<strong>The context was a felony stop, not a traffic violation or misdemeanor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And that matters... how?
[quote]<strong>but they acted on what they knew then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They?
Only one cop shot the dog.
He acted. He.