Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: It's Time to Train Officers Not to Kill Dogs, A. Barton Hinkle @ reason.com

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    It's Time to Train Officers Not to Kill Dogs, A. Barton Hinkle @ reason.com

    "Cops are just "following policy" - and that's precisely the problem."

    "Do we really need systematic training to combat a few isolated incidents, however unfortunate? The question rests on a false premise. Civil-liberties writer Radley Balko notes that over a nine-year period Milwaukee officers killed 434 dogs – about one every eight days. And that’s just one city. Across the country, according to Justice, “the majority of [police] shooting incidents involve animals, most frequently dogs.”

    http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/0...-not-to-kill-d

    Once upon a time humans were taught and educated, while horses and dogs were trained. Then came government schools.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The purpose of killing animals is to insure that the police let you know that they are willing to kill.

    Nothing to do with safety ... all about control.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    If an officer is threatened by a dog, he ought to be able to do exactly what I would do: Shoot the dog.

    If it is determined afterward by a competent authority that the dog could not reasonably be seen as a threat, the officer should be trained and/or disciplined.

  4. #4
    Regular Member HP995's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    289
    McBeth: The purpose of killing animals is to insure that the police let you know that they are willing to kill.
    Nothing to do with safety ... all about control.
    That's a good observation! I bet that's a big part of the reason. There is a safety aspect too, for sure, but if it's driven by the no-knock tacticool trend, they'd be safer doing things the proper Constitutional way. If you kick down doors and start shouting comply or die, owners have no chance to secure dogs.

    (Talking about housed and fenced dogs...dogs on the loose are a menace.)

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Yeah. That's what the cop was thinking as he shot that large dog that was lunging at him! "Ooo...here is a chance for me to show the public that I am willing to kill!"

    Um. No. He was likely thinking one single word. Probably, "Crap!"

    "First he said it. Then he did it." - B. Cosby.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The purpose of killing animals is to insure that the police let you know that they are willing to kill.

    Nothing to do with safety ... all about control.
    Respect is good. Fear works. Gun control is merely control.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    If postal workers can do their jobs armed only with mace, I don't see why the police couldn't get the same training.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Sadly, “man’s best friend” is often a letter carrier’s worst menace. Despite extensive training on how to avoid aggressive canines — and ample supplies of dog repellant — nearly 6000 postal workers were bitten by dogs in 2012, according to newly-released statistics from the U.S. Postal Service.
    38 fatalities reported in 2012.

    What is not clear, or that i could discover, in all these statistics is why the dog bit the child or adult. My dog bit me, while sleeping on the floor in our basement, when I stepped on him because I was not paying attention. If I had required any medical treatment and reported the cause of the injury the reason why the dog bit would likely not be reported. A dog "attacking" does not translate into a dangerous dog.

    A police office does not have the luxury of trying to determine if the dangerous dog in front of him at that time is in reality a ***** cay who just got stepped on. That dog is dangerous right then and there.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    If postal workers can do their jobs armed only with mace, I don't see why the police couldn't get the same training.
    "17 May 2012 Nationwide last year, 5,577 postal employees were attacked in more than 1,400 cities. Los Angeles topped the list with 83 postal employees attacked in 2011. Beyond the needless pain and suffering, medical expenses from dog attacks cost the Postal Service nearly $1.2 million last year."
    http://www.news.ruralinfo.net/2012/0...tatistics.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Dogs are dangerous, when they get out of line its time to give them a lead treatment. If you don't want this done to your pooch, keep the dog away from me, my property and cops.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Dogs are dangerous, when they get out of line its time to give them a lead treatment. If you don't want this done to your pooch, keep the dog away from me, my property and cops.
    My dog's a ninja ....

    But really, they are shooting dogs in CAGES .... I guess a small % are actually justified to a rational person ...

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Free and easy killing of dogs is just another clue to the mentality of some police. Its part of a bigger picture: lack of decency.

    I mean really, what kind of person has to be taught decency to avoid raiding a home where children and pets are known to be present based on the single report of a confidential informant? What kind of person has to be taught to perform surviellance on a home out of decency to find out whether there are children or pets present?
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    ST. LOUIS • A St. Louis police officer was injured this morning after he was apparently hit by a ricocheting bullet fired by a fellow officer as a dog attacked them.

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...133d0469b.html
    Charges may be filed against the owner according to a radio news update this morning. If the owner is found negligent the dog must be destroyed and the owner sanctioned as the law allows.

    Focus on the action(s) of the officers and the consequences of discharging a firearm without first being as sure as possible that no "innocents" are harmed as a result of discharging a firearm.

  14. #14
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Free and easy killing of dogs is just another clue to the mentality of some police. Its part of a bigger picture: lack of decency.

    I mean really, what kind of person has to be taught decency to avoid raiding a home where children and pets are known to be present based on the single report of a confidential informant? What kind of person has to be taught to perform surviellance on a home out of decency to find out whether there are children or pets present?
    This does not have to do with just pets and children, but to the fact that these home invasions are in most cases unnecessary. Most of the time these people can be arrested when going to or from work. And most warrants do not need to be served in the middle of the night, or by breaking down doors for misdemeanors.

    What happened to the democrats that 30 years ago would have been offended by this type of police behavior. Why are the voters for present day democrats not holding them accountable. They are by far the ones who suffer the most police abuse, yet they do not cry out.
    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

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Free and easy killing of dogs is just another clue to the mentality of some police. Its part of a bigger picture: lack of decency.

    I mean really, what kind of person has to be taught decency to avoid raiding a home where children and pets are known to be present based on the single report of a confidential informant? What kind of person has to be taught to perform surviellance on a home out of decency to find out whether there are children or pets present?
    So only people with children and pets should be safe from unreasonable searches and violent raids?
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  16. #16
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Um. No. He was likely thinking one single word. Probably, "Crap!"
    Bald speculation based on precisely zero credible evidence. I would be exactly as justified in supposing that cops shoot dogs because they're amped up to shoot something, and dogs are a consequence free outlet for pent-up aggression.

    You don't want other people making assumptions, then knock it the f___ off yourself.
    Last edited by ()pen(arry; 07-14-2013 at 10:10 PM.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    It's Time to Train Officers Not to Kill Dogs, A. Barton Hinkle @ reason.com

    Um...you did notice the words "likely" and "probably"? Someone made a flat-out assertion that the motives of the officers was to demonstrate their willingness to kill. No "likely," no "probably." I demonstrated an alternative thought process and stated it as a possibility only, knowing that folks looking at the body language of the officer in the video would support my supposition of the motivation more than the asserted motivation.

    So take your insult elsewhere. It is a sign of a weak argument.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
    Last edited by eye95; 07-14-2013 at 10:21 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740

    Re: It's Time to Train Officers Not to Kill Dogs, A. Barton Hinkle @ reason.com

    Not buying it. I called you out, and now you're getting defensive. Possibility and probability are fundamentally different propositions. You call people out frequently on their presumptions and assertions, often with good cause. Take your own medicine and follow your own rules.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    It's Time to Train Officers Not to Kill Dogs, A. Barton Hinkle @ reason.com

    meh. I don't care what you think. Others will look at the two possible thought processes, the one asserted and the one merely proposed. They'll think on it. For most rational folks, Occam's razor will kick in (as it naturally tends to do), and they will see one of the explanations of motive as more likely.

    Moving on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Several years ago, on a police ride along, I watched a cop threaten to shoot a big friendly golden retriever who was running around some teenage "suspects" yard excitedly, having been let out of the garage by the police, and being stimulated by police who were walking all over the lawn.

    From my perspective, there was no reason for the cop to have been concerned about being seriously injured. It was part of the "escalation" of wills between the suspects and the police, who were starting to get frustrated that the investigation of a relatively minor incident was taking alot of time and they had not yet gathered enough evidence to support an arrest.

    The threat did result in getting the dog locked back up in the garage. It also resulted in the teenagers' parent -- who up to this point had cooperated with police -- to withdraw her consent for the police to search the house.

    One can readily understand how police end up as competitors in ego contests, given the garbage they need to deal with on a daily basis. "If you don't get this dog under control, I am going to shoot him," is such a typical macho "cop" line in these idiot escalations as to be almost trivial. And, once uttered, the line is potentially a deadly one for Fido, because the cop has now vested his street cred in his willingness to follow through on a stupid threat. But, from my observations, dealing with the public in this tone-deaf and threatening fashion only results in alienating them: it does not help get the job done, or make things safer for the cops or anyone else.

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    Several years ago, on a police ride along, I watched a cop threaten to shoot a big friendly golden retriever who was running around some teenage "suspects" yard excitedly, having been let out of the garage by the police, and being stimulated by police who were walking all over the lawn.

    <snip>
    Did the cop know a dog was in the garage? Was the cop informed that a dog was in the garage? If the answer is yes to either one or both then the cop shooting the dog would/should not be held as justifiable.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Did the cop know a dog was in the garage? Was the cop informed that a dog was in the garage? If the answer is yes to either one or both then the cop shooting the dog would/should not be held as justifiable.
    If my increasingly adled memory serves, the police asked to look in the garage, mom said yes, and when the garage door was lifted the dog dashed out.

    Legally minded as I sometimes get -- whether the cop shooting the dog should be "held" justifiable is entirely beside the point: threatening to shoot the dog caused a previously cooperative member of the public to decide not to cooperate with police in a matter in which cooperation might have been helpful.

    The police suspected that this mom's young teenage kids had shot at a school bus with some kind of plastic pellet gun, breaking a window. That is the kind of call in which police -- sorting it out in the community -- might have done some good.

    Shooting the dog would have completely poisoned the police's ability to positively influence these people, possibly in the entire neighborhood, likely permanently. That is generally the kind of thing that idiocy -- and inspiring fear -- get you.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If an officer is threatened by a dog, he ought to be able to do exactly what I would do: Shoot the dog.

    If it is determined afterward by a competent authority that the dog could not reasonably be seen as a threat, the officer should be trained and/or disciplined.
    I agree, Magical Fairy Land is quite the utopia.

    Now, back to the real world...

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    Several years ago, on a police ride along, I watched a cop threaten to shoot a big friendly golden retriever who was running around some teenage "suspects" yard excitedly, having been let out of the garage by the police, and being stimulated by police who were walking all over the lawn.

    From my perspective, there was no reason for the cop to have been concerned about being seriously injured. It was part of the "escalation" of wills between the suspects and the police, who were starting to get frustrated that the investigation of a relatively minor incident was taking alot of time and they had not yet gathered enough evidence to support an arrest.

    The threat did result in getting the dog locked back up in the garage. It also resulted in the teenagers' parent -- who up to this point had cooperated with police -- to withdraw her consent for the police to search the house.

    One can readily understand how police end up as competitors in ego contests, given the garbage they need to deal with on a daily basis. "If you don't get this dog under control, I am going to shoot him," is such a typical macho "cop" line in these idiot escalations as to be almost trivial. And, once uttered, the line is potentially a deadly one for Fido, because the cop has now vested his street cred in his willingness to follow through on a stupid threat. But, from my observations, dealing with the public in this tone-deaf and threatening fashion only results in alienating them: it does not help get the job done, or make things safer for the cops or anyone else.
    +1

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    If postal workers can do their jobs armed only with mace, I don't see why the police couldn't get the same training.
    Dude! These heroes have to go home at night. The postman is just dog food.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •