Citizen
Founder's Club Member
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."
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: