davidmcbeth
Banned
hmmmm .... such a broad statement ... what about squirrels or racoons or deer or bald eagles ..... animals that pose no actual (not perceived) threat should not be shot ... except for cats of course
-
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.
-
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.
Cop on cell phone=cop done bad cop tries to shoot dog-hits person good job!
- Thread starter davidmcbeth
- Start date
hmmmm .... such a broad statement ... what about squirrels or racoons or deer or bald eagles ..... animals that pose no actual (not perceived) threat should not be shot ... except for cats of course
g21sfpistol
Banned
so it gives the cop a right to use a DEADLY weapon? yes or no? so if i see a dog "at large" i should just shoot the thing is that what you are saying? cause when it comes to talking about SD situations on here some on here arnt so trigger happy because of 'public safety" or 'to crowded of a area" yet now im seeing "theres a damn dog shoot it!!" in residential areas and around kids. are all dogs dangerous and deadly? maybe all gun owners are dangerous and deadly? theres kind of a double standard goin on here.
g21sfpistol
Banned
thank you! this is what im getting at. how is a cop making the public any more safe by just poping rounds off at dogs when he is given other means to control a situation.
SavageOne
Regular Member
So, you feel all dogs regardless of whether or not they are dangerous should be put down if they are "at large"? Well, that would certainly curtail all those posters, put up by kids looking for their lost beagle that ran out the door they forgot to close. Hey, maybe it'll teach the little whine bags that life is hard and that the mistakes they make can often have tough consequences. Probably better they learn it early, right.
Can someone explain to me why someone, who is not legally required to protect my safety or any one elses', is given extraordinary powers and discretion to protect theirs?
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Keep your cops on a leash, they are more dangerous.
So, why do you hate dogs so much?
Long established fact, per legislative action and the courts.
Would you restrict that ability (personal defense) to non-officers?
eye95
Well-known member
Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. It shouldn't matter. Do you want folks to second guess your choice of weapon when faced with the imminent threat of a large, dangerous, and lunging dog?
He has the same right to defend himself that you do.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Not so well it doesn't.
"costing an average of $29,522 for everything from stitches and shots to lawsuits and reconstructive surgery"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/05/16/dog-bite-stats/2166543/
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Dog-bites-bedevil-S-F-letter-carriers-4519687.php
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/15/5422763/sacramento-in-top-10-for-dogs.html
davidmcbeth
Banned
Well, we don't have the right to defend ourselves anymore .. limitations on guns we can choose, where we can carry, etc...
DocWalker
Regular Member
I agree that dog owners should be held accountable for thier dogs but what I get from all of walkingwolfs post is that it isn't about the dogs at large but the "blind" defense of any cop and their actions good or bad.
I do not get that reading his posts.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Stating that your own argument is valid does make your argument valid just cuz you said so.
I believe that his training into the effective use of his service weapon will come into question. Also, only a jury in a civil trial will determine whether or not his department will pay for her injury(s) and to what extent she was injured, if any beyond the specific gunshot wound.
The officer has the same right to SD as I do when faced with a perceived threat from a animal regardless of the species of the animal.
g21sfpistol
Banned
roger. so basically, by your logic, all of your statements and arguments are valid cause you say so. so this is all senseless posting.
Originally Posted by OC for ME
Stating that your own argument is valid does make your argument valid just cuz you said so.
I believe that his training into the effective use of his service weapon will come into question. Also, only a jury in a civil trial will determine whether or not his department will pay for her injury(s) and to what extent she was injured, if any beyond the specific gunshot wound.
The officer has the same right to SD as I do when faced with a perceived threat from a animal regardless of the species of the animal.
I think this was an observation, not a conclusion.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
It seems some people care more for their hatred of cops than the lives and welfare of children. Children mauled by dogs at large are mauled by dogs at large. The right to SD extends to everyone threatened by a dog at large. The officer responded to a deadly threat, he missed, it happens. Maybe his missing was due to the current training of spray and pray instead of accuracy. Like many of the high mag folks that think throwing lead every directions is good, without regard for the public, including children.
But I don't know, it could have been the dog was moving fast and was a hard to hit target. The owner so gravely injured she is walking around the same day.:lol:
And the reason for all this, is a dog at large left to run the neighborhood by a IDIOT! And the reason these dogs run at large is because the public does not look at the danger of these loose supposedly lovable animals. Some of this public is rabid cop haters, as well overly emotional citizens. Logic is lost, and children are mauled every year. The cop haters can rejoice at the mauling of children to they can try to blame the police for stupidity of dog owners. They are just as stupid.
The owner in the OP IS responsible for her own injuries, hopefully the SBI will recommend charging her. SHE endangered the public.
But I don't know, it could have been the dog was moving fast and was a hard to hit target. The owner so gravely injured she is walking around the same day.:lol:
And the reason for all this, is a dog at large left to run the neighborhood by a IDIOT! And the reason these dogs run at large is because the public does not look at the danger of these loose supposedly lovable animals. Some of this public is rabid cop haters, as well overly emotional citizens. Logic is lost, and children are mauled every year. The cop haters can rejoice at the mauling of children to they can try to blame the police for stupidity of dog owners. They are just as stupid.
The owner in the OP IS responsible for her own injuries, hopefully the SBI will recommend charging her. SHE endangered the public.
OC for ME
Regular Member
WW, in my readings of his post, does not post blindly regarding any issue. WW's call to put down every at large dog on the spot is a bit extreme. I do not think that WW actually desires that every "at large dog" be put down on the spot.....period, but I could be mistaken. I do not know his views regarding dogs in general.
In urban and suburban settings the control of a dog (pet) by its owner is typically mandated by city code. In this respect pet owners should consider themselves fortunate that charges are not filed against them in every case of a "at large dog" (pet).
Out in the country "at large dogs" are required, at least on every farm I know of including my own, for the safety and security of the farm and any farm animals.
OC for ME
Regular Member
I agree in part and disagree in part.
The dog owner is responsible for the control of her pet. She failed to control her pet and that was/is likely a violation of city code. The dog is "in custody" awaiting a status determination, if W-S's animal control operates in a similar fashion to my local animal control. the citizen should count herself lucky if no charges are filed for failing to control her dog. I do not know what the penalty is for not controlling a pet in W-S. Are there different dgrees of severity based on the circumstance when no person has been physically harmed by the "at large dog"?
The officer is solely responsible for the citizen receiving the gunshot wound. He discharged his weapon without regard to the possible hazard to the citizen that is claiming to be in closer proximity to the dog than the officer. The investigation will find the truth, but make no mistake, the officer is the only person responsible for the citizen's gunshot wound.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I have been annoyed more time by children than by dogs .. so I guess I'm prejudiced. Dogs are just animals ... but that does not mean you shoot them just for being free otherwise one would have to agree to kill all free animals ...