Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60

Thread: Police shoot and kill suspect after K-9 is stabbed

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Police shoot and kill suspect after K-9 is stabbed

    This may be an interesting one to watch.

    I don't know anything about Minnesota law, but in most states, I don't believe that one is permitted to use lethal force in the protection of property. I'm also pretty sure that at least in most states, animals are still animals, considered to be property, and do not enjoy the same protection as people.

    If an intruder were stabbing your pet dog to death, and you shot them and killed them, I suspect you would be arrested and tried for murder.

    I strongly suspect that will not be the case for these police officers.

    Thoughts?

    TFred

    http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/0...ot-by-officer/

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    In Alabama if an intruder is doing as much as HOLDING a knife while in my house I can kill him. Weapon isn't even necessary, force up to and including deadly force can be used against someone unlawfully in your home. Haven't read the article yet, was merely a response to your post.

    Now, in response to the article, aren't police dogs considered officers? If that's the case then killing a police dog would be the same as killing a police officer and would warrant the use of deadly force.
    Last edited by ADobbs1989; 02-13-2013 at 07:22 PM.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I hate to say it, but all (or nearly all) police dogs should be put down. They have little to no purpose in legitimate law enforcement, their use in circumventing the fourth amendment is intolerable and unconscionable, and I'm afraid their training has rendered them unfit for ownership.

    "Being that I was a previous K9 handler, it’s sentimental, it’s something, it’s like a family member,” said Sgt. Paul Paulos, of the St. Paul Police. “It hits the department hard. It’s like one of our own."
    Boo hoo. Your dogs are like family, but our dogs are convenient target practice, eh?

    "Because **** you, that's why."
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-13-2013 at 07:37 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I hate to say it, but all (or nearly all) police dogs should be put down. They have little to no purpose in legitimate law enforcement, their use in circumventing the fourth amendment is intolerable and unconscionable, and I'm afraid their training has rendered them unfit for ownership.



    Boo hoo. Your dogs are like family, but our dogs are convenient target practice, eh?

    "Because **** you, that's why."
    I don't think the dogs should be put down, the dogs haven't done anything wrong. Dogs are not corrupt, they do not make decisions off of personal beliefs, all they know to do is follow orders. I'd say put down the officers that give orders that circumvent the fourth amendment, then maybe we will get somewhere.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    I don't think the dogs should be put down, the dogs haven't done anything wrong.
    That's true.

    But what do you do when a "pit bull" who's been tormented and mis-trained by its master becomes aggressive to all people and seriously injures a child? Do you coo over "well it's not the dog's fault!", or do you do what needs to be done, and try to teach people not to improperly train their dogs the next time around?

    People are more valuable than dogs. The police value their dogs over us, and they put their dogs between us and our enumerated rights.

    The dogs must go. If you want to take care of them, feed and house them, I suppose I won't stop you.

    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    I'd say put down the officers that give orders that circumvent the fourth amendment, then maybe we will get somewhere.
    I generally don't advocate mass killing of people. It would probably be more humane to fire them.

    You realize it would be all of them, though, right?
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-13-2013 at 07:59 PM.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.
    Subdivision 1.Deadly force defined. For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.
    Subd. 2.Use of deadly force. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when necessary:
    (1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;
    (2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or
    (3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.
    Subd. 3.No defense. This section and sections 609.06, 609.065 and 629.33 may not be used as a defense in a civil action brought by an innocent third party.
    Last edited by MSG Laigaie; 02-13-2013 at 08:08 PM.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    That's true.

    But what do you do when a "pit bull" who's been tormented and mis-trained by its master becomes aggressive to all people and seriously injures a child? Do you coo over "well it's not the dog's fault!", or do you do what needs to be done, and try to teach people not to improperly train their dogs the next time around?

    People are more valuable than dogs. The police value their dogs over us, and they put their dogs between us and our enumerated rights.

    The dogs must go. If you want to take care of them, feed and house them, I suppose I won't stop you.



    I generally don't advocate mass killing of people. It would probably be more humane to fire them.

    You realize it would be all of them, though, right?
    Well I don't think that police dogs have necessarily been "improperly trained" more just that they are misused. I see no problem in using a K-9 unit in a foot pursuit, or trying to find a suspect that is hiding. Or even to find drugs once reasonable suspicion has been acquired and the search is lawful.

    And I'm not sure I completely agree that all people are more valuable than dogs. We are all animals and frankly some people are utterly useless.



    Frankly I think the general population could do a better job at "policing" than most police officers do. Not all cops are bad, maybe there would be 1 left in each city. :P
    Last edited by ADobbs1989; 02-13-2013 at 08:16 PM.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    Well I don't think that police dogs have necessarily been "improperly trained" more just that they are misused. I see no problem in using a K-9 unit in a foot pursuit, or trying to find a suspect that is hiding.
    Police dogs are trained to do more than just this.

    Or even to find drugs once reasonable suspicion has been acquired and the search is lawful.
    It's a rarely discussed fact that the 4th amendment was intended, in part, to prevent (or render prohibitively difficult) things like the outlawing of personal contraband (and contraband in the home), whatever the nature.

    The entire concept of prohibition of drugs depends on ferreting out personal contraband, and so is inimical to – if not fundamentally incompatible with – the fourth amendment (of course the framers were thinking of the specific examples the British set, but the principle is exactly the same with drugs). Drugs are precisely the "camels nose in the tent" which has been used to justify circumventing the fourth amendment with dogs.

    No, this is the most intolerable use of all.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Police dogs are trained to do more than just this.



    It's a rarely discussed fact that the 4th amendment was intended, in part, to prevent (or render prohibitively difficult) things like the outlawing of personal contraband (and contraband in the home), whatever the nature.

    The entire concept of prohibition of drugs depends on ferreting out personal contraband, and so is inimical to – if not fundamentally incompatible with – the fourth amendment (of course the framers were thinking of the specific examples the British set, but the principle is exactly the same with drugs). Drugs are precisely the "camels nose in the tent" which has been used to justify circumventing the fourth amendment with dogs.

    No, this is the most intolerable use of all.
    I know that's not ALL they are used for...but there are still uses for dogs. I will agree to disagree with you on the second part, I don't agree with the prohibition on marijuana, but other drugs like meth and cocaine have ruined too many lives, including ones within my own family and I hold absolutely no contempt for those drugs being taken off the streets, and if a legal search is warranted more power to any dog that can find hidden drugs and get rid of them. I don't mind if we don't agree, everyone has different opinions about things.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I don't know the laws of that state, either, so these would be my questions:

    Does a police dog have special status? I've heard they are considered "officers" in some places, and that could "justify" defense of one.

    Is that level of animal cruelty considered a felony? And does the state authorize deadly force to prevent commission of a felony, even in non-human-defense situations?

    That said, I'm pretty much with Marshaul on this. I spend 90% of my time with my dog, and think everyone should have their own dog with them, including police; but I am against the uses these dogs are usually put to.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I spend 90% of my time with my dog, and think everyone should have their own dog with them, including police; but I am against the uses these dogs are usually put to.
    Yup. I speak harshly out of my frustration with the way things are, but in truth I really wouldn't mind if the police used their dogs for, you know, rescue purposes, legitimate pursuits, even self-defense (dogs seem to be pretty decent, when well-trained, about not initiating violence).

    Unfortunately, the vast majority of the time I hear about, or see a police dog, they're being used inappropriately – that being an understatement.
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-13-2013 at 10:01 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Police dogs are trained to do more than just this.



    It's a rarely discussed fact that the 4th amendment was intended, in part, to prevent (or render prohibitively difficult) things like the outlawing of personal contraband (and contraband in the home), whatever the nature.
    So true. It's almost always couched in terms of personal privacy, and that certainly is important. Most people never discuss how it's actually meant to discourage mala prohibita.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I don't know the laws of that state, either, so these would be my questions:

    Does a police dog have special status? I've heard they are considered "officers" in some places, and that could "justify" defense of one.

    Is that level of animal cruelty considered a felony? And does the state authorize deadly force to prevent commission of a felony, even in non-human-defense situations?

    That said, I'm pretty much with Marshaul on this. I spend 90% of my time with my dog, and think everyone should have their own dog with them, including police; but I am against the uses these dogs are usually put to.
    If a police dog is an officer and gives a false alert then that dog should be charged with perjury. If said dog is used to arrest you that dog should be directly cross examined at trial. They should either be tools or officers and not both. If they are officers then they need to follow the constitution and get their noses out of my crotch.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    but other drugs like meth and cocaine have ruined too many lives, including ones within my own family and I hold absolutely no contempt for those drugs being taken off the streets, and if a legal search is warranted more power to any dog that can find hidden drugs and get rid of them. I don't mind if we don't agree, everyone has different opinions about things.
    That's not very logical. Alcohol ruins many peoples' lives, yea, kills and murders many people. Are you for the prohibition of alcohol? Would you do meth if it were legal?
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    That's not very logical. Alcohol ruins many peoples' lives, yea, kills and murders many people. Are you for the prohibition of alcohol? Would you do meth if it were legal?
    Personal opinion doesn't always have to be logical. No I am not for the prohibition of alcohol as there are millions of people who use alcohol responsibly (including myself), there is no such thing as the responsible use of meth. So no I would not do meth if it were legal, and if it was legal I would still be against it. That's my take on it, you can agree or you can disagree.

  16. #16
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    If someone begins attacking your dog for no reason isn't it now reasonable to conclude they pose an immediate danger to you, being armed and mentally unstable. especially if your dog is within 21 feet of you or in your house.

    to me shooting someone because they're attacking your dog in your presence is defending yourself since the assailant is acting violently very close to you for no reasonable cause so they pose an immediate danger to you, no?
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    there is no such thing as the responsible use of meth
    This is, of course, factually false. At the very least, methamphetamine is used in a medical situation with no more nor less "responsibility" than any other addictive drug.

    But that really doesn't matter.

    The simple fact is that prohibition of meth, as with any drug, inevitably makes a harmful habit more harmful. It's not just jail time either. It's, for instance, the poor quality of manufacture, the culture (alcohol had a more abusive culture during prohibition as well), and the dangerous people from whom the drug is bought, which make prohibition have this effect.

    Portugal shows that widespread and largely complete legalization actually causes use rates to go down. I would submit that the primary reasons for this are a lack of pushers, as well as cheaper prices (it's well known that, when users begin to have difficulty affording their habit, they tend to "recruit" new users in the hopes of obtaining a free source, for a time).

    And then there's the 4th amendment...
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-14-2013 at 03:38 AM.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    If someone begins attacking your dog for no reason isn't it now reasonable to conclude they pose an immediate danger to you, being armed and mentally unstable. especially if your dog is within 21 feet of you or in your house.

    to me shooting someone because they're attacking your dog in your presence is defending yourself since the assailant is acting violently very close to you for no reasonable cause so they pose an immediate danger to you, no?
    It doesn't sound like he was within 21 feet....

    Police say the officers sent a K9, named Kody (pictured below), downstairs to investigate.
    But then again, who knows with reporting these days.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    Personal opinion doesn't always have to be logical. No I am not for the prohibition of alcohol as there are millions of people who use alcohol responsibly (including myself), there is no such thing as the responsible use of meth. So no I would not do meth if it were legal, and if it was legal I would still be against it. That's my take on it, you can agree or you can disagree.
    NM, Marshaul beat me.

    Meth has medical uses. Do you beleive every scare commercial you see on TV? Like anything the problem is when something is used in excess.

    http://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm
    Last edited by sharkey; 02-14-2013 at 03:25 AM.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Killing or disabling a police animal--penalty.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000350.HTM

    Assault on a police animal--penalty.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000353.HTM

    There is no legitimate reason that any LEA should have dogs. If a dog is required, contract out the requirement on a case by case basis. In South Carolina, back in the day, the sheriff would have Bubba bring his dawgs around for tracking/search & rescue.

    The problem with a cop "sending in" a dog is that when the dog is not within line of sight of the handler the dog will do what he is trained to do and that is to use maximum force. There is no escalating levels of force for a dog. A cop is allegedly trained to use only that force that he allegedly can justify using.

    All dogs on LEA payrolls should be eliminated.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    A couple random points.

    I trust the media about as much as I trust police--very little. So, it might be that the cops shot the guy because he actually threatened them with deadly force a very short time after killing the dog. The story doesn't really say. And, if the cops are smart, they wouldn't say, either. Probably just apply the rule about not commenting until after talking to their union-supplied attorneys. I'm not saying they didn't shoot the suspect vindictively--such would not surprise me at all. I'm saying the story doesn't exclude a self-defense situation a moment after the dog was killed.


    Separately, it strikes me as hypocritical to the point of lying for police to think of dogs as fellow officers, fellow heroes in blue. But, then send the dog into a dangerous situation. If the dog is all that wonderful, all that much of a brother officer, why send in the dog instead of another cop who actually has a gun and can defend himself? By their own comments the police sent in the cop least able to defend himself. The fact is they thought the dog was less than themselves, that he was expendable. If they really thought the dog was really was on similar plane with them, then they're cowards. And, they can include some blame for themselves for the dog's death. Where was the heroic human cop who stepped forward and said, "No, Officer Kody can run faster than us. But with a cornered and potentially armed felon, we have guns, tasers, and pepper spray that can reach across a distance, whereas Officer Kody only has his teeth. I will go. You guys back me up."
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-14-2013 at 09:50 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,276
    I have no problems with police dogs used properly, I have a big problem with this report. The suspect was defending himself, there is no doubt about that, a dog is deadly force that the police officer used without justification. The police officer then shot the suspect clearly out of revenge and anger. Which most of us would have wanted to do if it was our dog, but by law we cannot. The cop should be arrested and prosecuted.

    As a retired cop I am sickened by what our police are getting away with. In my time we had the FBI taking apart our every move with a fine tooth comb. Now the FBI is patting police on the back for violating rights.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I have no problems with police dogs used properly, I have a big problem with this report. The suspect was defending himself, there is no doubt about that, a dog is deadly force that the police officer used without justification. The police officer then shot the suspect clearly out of revenge and anger. Which most of us would have wanted to do if it was our dog, but by law we cannot. The cop should be arrested and prosecuted.

    As a retired cop I am sickened by what our police are getting away with. In my time we had the FBI taking apart our every move with a fine tooth comb. Now the FBI is patting police on the back for violating rights.
    Careful. You're generalizing, and the forum rules can be stretched to call it cop-bashing. A certain moderator might be along any moment to delete or edit your post.


    Separately, thanks for bringing up the dog being deadly force used without justification. I didn't think of that. It occurs to me that the dog can't be blamed or held accountable if he doesn't follow his training and attacks a suspect. Pretty convenient, yes? And, you can't sue the dog. And, the cop who sent the dog in has qualified immunity for doing so because, among other things, we don't have a clearly established right to have used on us only dogs that never break their training.
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-14-2013 at 10:03 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I have no problems with police dogs used properly, I have a big problem with this report. The suspect was defending himself, there is no doubt about that, a dog is deadly force that the police officer used without justification. The police officer then shot the suspect clearly out of revenge and anger. Which most of us would have wanted to do if it was our dog, but by law we cannot. The cop should be arrested and prosecuted.

    As a retired cop I am sickened by what our police are getting away with. In my time we had the FBI taking apart our every move with a fine tooth comb. Now the FBI is patting police on the back for violating rights.
    +1

    Even though we have our disagreements, I have respect for you as a former cop who doesn't apologize for the crap they are getting away with. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Careful. You're generalizing, and the forum rules can be stretched to call it cop-bashing. A certain moderator might be along any moment to delete or edit your post.


    Separately, thanks for bringing up the dog being deadly force used without justification. I didn't think of that. It occurs to me that the dog can't be blamed or held accountable if he doesn't follow his training and attacks a suspect. Pretty convenient, yes? And, you can't sue the dog. And, the cop who sent the dog in has qualified immunity for doing so because, among other things, we don't have a clearly established right to have used on us only dogs that never break their training.
    That's Ok he was a cop and Big Dave isn't stalking him to report his posts.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I have no problems with police dogs used properly, I have a big problem with this report. The suspect was defending himself, there is no doubt about that, a dog is deadly force that the police officer used without justification. The police officer then shot the suspect clearly out of revenge and anger. Which most of us would have wanted to do if it was our dog, but by law we cannot. The cop should be arrested and prosecuted.

    As a retired cop I am sickened by what our police are getting away with. In my time we had the FBI taking apart our every move with a fine tooth comb. Now the FBI is patting police on the back for violating rights.
    +1

    Citizen's right on the money; I didn't even think of it as the police using deadly (there's no escalation, as was said by OC for ME) force without justification. But you're absolutely correct: that's what this use of a dog represents.

    Unacceptable.
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-14-2013 at 10:32 AM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •