• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Police shoot and kill suspect after K-9 is stabbed

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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/2013/02/12/st-paul-police-k9-killed-suspect-shot-by-officer/
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
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:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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:

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.

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:

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
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:

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
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:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
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.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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?
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
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.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
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:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 
Top