Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 58

Thread: Cops shoots dog -- its OK says the PD

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Cops shoots dog -- its OK says the PD

    “He told them (neighbors) three weeks ago, that he would shoot a German Shepherd if he came on his property, and they said, not do that, because he was just protecting the property.”

    http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Famil...220577541.html


    Sad story ....

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    Damn dog probably **** in his yard also. Ever step in fresh dog **** while barefooted? Not a pleasant experience.

  3. #3
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Happens all the time. Sickening.
    Google Map view of dogs shot by ________________.
    https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...fec39c0992f16f
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    I love dogs, even though I once had my shoulder nearly ripped from its socket by a dog in the front yard of a neighbor's house

    That being said , certainly some officershootsdog incidents are not justified.

    But many are.

    Thankfully, we now have a lot of people videoing cops, so bad shoots are more likely to be discovered as such and good shoots (as if any dog shooting could be "good" . they are horrible. I of course mean JUSTIFIED)

    Here's one where not only is it justified, but the owner admits it i s, after seeing the video
    http://www.katu.com/news/local/Caugh...171397761.html
    http://www.ktvb.com/news/crime/RAW-V...171395861.html

    thank god for cops who get to wear body cameras
    Imo, this is clearly justified. He doesn't shoot until the dog lunges at him at point blank range

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...rate-the-cops/

    A lot of people think the nimrod was arresting for filming the police. Rubbish. The guy who shot the video here was videotaping without a problem and others were fine doing whatever they wanted, across the street. The issue was he got too close to their felony stop, was repeatedly told to get out of there, etc.

    My partner had to shoot a dog a few years ago. He was devastated. It's an awful thing, but dogs can inflict nasty injuries and especially where they think their owner is under attack (which is what an arrest would appear to a dog), they can get very violent.

    I am first in line to punish a cop for shooting a dog where it's not justified.

    Dog Bite Stats

    •According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Humane Society of the United States, there are about 4.7 million dog bites every year in the U.S. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities.
    •Approximately 800,000 people seek medical attention for dog bites in the U.S. every year -- about 1,000 people require emergency care for dog bite injuries every day (according to a study produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality).
    •About half of those injured in dog attacks are children. The rate of dog bite accidents is highest for those between the ages of 5-9 (according to the American Veterinary Medical Association).
    •Nearly 2/3 of injuries among children ages 4 and younger are to the head or neck region, because of their height. Injuries are higher for boys than for girls.
    •According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the number of Americans hospitalized for dog bites nearly doubled over a 15-year period. The average cost of a dog bite-related hospital stay was $18,200. There were 4 times as many dog bite-related ER visits and 3 times as many hospital stays in rural areas than in urban areas.
    •In the US, the most frequent victims of dog bite attacks are:
    1.Children
    2.The Elderly
    3.Postal Service Carriers
    •Dog bite victims account for as much as 5% of all emergency room visits in the United States.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Just a whole lot of not enough information.

    But how does a PD come up with "he acted accordingly" (whatever that means) when an officer fires four times and does not call in the incident?

    I'm not going to bother asking when a "mercy shot" became anywhere except in the brain.

    If your dog comes onto my property to do its business, expect to see me at your door with a shovel asking where you want what's on the shovel. If your dog comes on my property to dig, expect to find me at your door asking how you intend to pay for the damage. If your dog keeps coming on my property expect to have a visit from the folks paid to tell you it is against the law to allow animals to run at large - armed with photographic evidence that yes it is your dog and holding a sworn affidavit that I tried to resolve the problem with you. If your dog acts aggresively towards me but does not actually attack expect to receive written notice of the incident. If it does attack and survives expect to receive written notice - but not from me. And have fun complying with all those "viscious dog" rules.

    But it sounds like these folks out in the country could not be bothered by speaking with each other to try and keep things from getting to the point it did get to.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Just a whole lot of not enough information.

    But how does a PD come up with "he acted accordingly" (whatever that means) when an officer fires four times and does not call in the incident?

    I'm not going to bother asking when a "mercy shot" became anywhere except in the brain.

    If your dog comes onto my property to do its business, expect to see me at your door with a shovel asking where you want what's on the shovel. If your dog comes on my property to dig, expect to find me at your door asking how you intend to pay for the damage. If your dog keeps coming on my property expect to have a visit from the folks paid to tell you it is against the law to allow animals to run at large - armed with photographic evidence that yes it is your dog and holding a sworn affidavit that I tried to resolve the problem with you. If your dog acts aggresively towards me but does not actually attack expect to receive written notice of the incident. If it does attack and survives expect to receive written notice - but not from me. And have fun complying with all those "viscious dog" rules.

    But it sounds like these folks out in the country could not be bothered by speaking with each other to try and keep things from getting to the point it did get to.

    stay safe.
    imo, shootin a dog merely for it coming on your property is wrong. If it was attacking pets, livestock or a person, that's another story.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Well, the OP has stated repeatedly that he believes he should be allowed to shoot people merely for coming on to his property, so why would he have a problem with someone shooting a dog in the same circumstance? Or do dogs have more rights than people in his warped world?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Well, the OP has stated repeatedly that he believes he should be allowed to shoot people merely for coming on to his property, so why would he have a problem with someone shooting a dog in the same circumstance? Or do dogs have more rights than people in his warped world?
    If that is true ... that he believes one should be allowed to shoot people merely for "simple trespass" (coming on to one's property w/o permission and where one does not have permission (implicit or otherwise), that disturbs me

    Life is ***sacred*** . The idea that one would eliminate a life, or seriously injure a person through gunfire for mere TRESPASSING makes my heart hurt. All I can say in regards to OCers and CCers is that ime (vast - 20+ yrs of law enforcement) they either don't hold that opinion or they hold it , but don't act on it, and are admirably restrained in their choice as when to shoot somebody. Overwhelmingly so, ime, when CCers or OCers shoot somebody, it's justified and also there are many cases where they would be justified to shoot, but just like one sees with cops, they refrain from shooting even though justified.

    DOes the OP not believe in the sanctity of human life, such that it's ok to snuff one out merely for trespassing? I just can't understand how anybody could think that such a minor crime should be a death sentence

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Nope. He believes in the sanctity of canine life.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Nope. He believes in the sanctity of canine life.
    I love dogs. I think they are noble animals, man's best friend, etc. Having to kill a dog is a tragic decision, but sometimes justified. Having to euthanize dogs with certain medical conditions is an acceptable choice that some families have to make. Doing the same with grandma is NOT acceptable.

    So, yea. There is a difference.

    Fwiw, here in WA state one does not need "justification" to kill one's OWN dog. It is perfectly legal, in open shoot areas, to take one's dog into the backyard and shoot it in the head to kill it. No reason/justification necessary. It's not a crime. THat's a huge difference between dogs and people.

    Fwiw, one of my partners had to shoot a dog a few years back. He was devastated. To add insult to injury, the dog owner tried to sue him. The lawyer he hired is one of those "animals have rights" guys. (note: imo and according to law, animals don't have rights. We have a duty not to act certain ways toward them - not to cause them undue pain and suffering (cruelty to animals), to feed them etc, but they don't have "rights".

    This lawyer believed they do. He made all kinds of wacked out appeals ot the court etc. but the courts didn't buy the "dogs have rights" theory either.

    Eventually, the case was dropped without ever going to civil trial. Major stress for my partner. First the stress of having to shoot the dog, the feelings of guilt (even when it's justified, a person with a conscience will still feel remorse/guilt), and then getting inundated with motions, etc. from this attorney who was trying to portray him as evil incarnate.
    Last edited by PALO; 09-02-2013 at 12:12 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    If that is true ... that he believes one should be allowed to shoot people merely for "simple trespass" (coming on to one's property w/o permission and where one does not have permission (implicit or otherwise), that disturbs me

    Life is ***sacred*** . The idea that one would eliminate a life, or seriously injure a person through gunfire for mere TRESPASSING makes my heart hurt. All I can say in regards to OCers and CCers is that ime (vast - 20+ yrs of law enforcement) they either don't hold that opinion or they hold it , but don't act on it, and are admirably restrained in their choice as when to shoot somebody. Overwhelmingly so, ime, when CCers or OCers shoot somebody, it's justified and also there are many cases where they would be justified to shoot, but just like one sees with cops, they refrain from shooting even though justified.

    DOes the OP not believe in the sanctity of human life, such that it's ok to snuff one out merely for trespassing? I just can't understand how anybody could think that such a minor crime should be a death sentence
    Shot for merely trespassing is not believing in the sanctity of life? Considering that's what would probably happen on any number of military bases nationwide, yours is a good testimony of how our government feels about our lives.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Well, the OP has stated repeatedly that he believes he should be allowed to shoot people merely for coming on to his property, so why would he have a problem with someone shooting a dog in the same circumstance? Or do dogs have more rights than people in his warped world?
    You misquote me ... I support legislation that would allow a person to shoot people on their land. A difference and meant to avoid the affirmative defense of self defense needed when one shoots an intruder that is needed in some states.

    I doubt that if such legislation would pass that Girl Scouts would be a hazardous club to join.

    See, YOU think that people need these laws because you have no faith in gun owners or people in general and think it would be the wild wild west ~ hmmmm.isn't that what antis say about open carriers?
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 09-02-2013 at 02:26 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    If you like dogs keep the damn things at home where they belong. Problem solved.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Shot for merely trespassing is not believing in the sanctity of life? Considering that's what would probably happen on any number of military bases nationwide, yours is a good testimony of how our government feels about our lives.
    Back when I was a california surfer dood. Dood!

    There were several choice surf spots that were on or near military bases.

    If you pull up Point Mugu military base on streets a nd trips or whatever, look at the Western border of that base. You will see Arnold Rd. This was oneof my favorite "semi-secret" surf spots and it was RIGHT On the border of point mugu, as you can see. The fence extended a little ways into the water, but not too far. Several times we would "drift over" to the east and usually within a few minutes, the military police (not sure which agency) would show up on the sand dunes and give us fair warning to move back over to the other side of the fence. Never got shot, fortunately, but I'm sure if we paddled much farther down we would have. Point Mugu allegedly has a couple of KILLER surf breaks. Looking at a map, there is an outlet at Mugu Lagoon which shows a lot of promise of being epic.

    I used to surf Jalama a lot (just north of point conception)

    About 25 miles north is Vandenburg Air Force base which allegedly has some epic spots, too. One of my friends got busted for surfing there. Basically they took him into a room, grilled him for a little while to make sure he was not some kind of spy or whatever, then released him with a stern warning/letter that advised him that if he ever trespassed again, he would face serious prison time, etc. But hey, he didn't get shot.

    Looking at Vandenburg as a surfer just makes me drool. Mile after mile of exposed coastline and tons of waves hitting those beaches without anybody surfing them

    What a WASTE!

    Oxnard has some great spots, but very localized. I never had a problem, but I never got aggro, didn't have a bright wetsuit and didn't bring any visitors to surf with me. Guys who came there with a group, made a scene etc. WISHED they were OC'ing, because the Oxnard locals are tough and they will beat the piss out of people who try to invade their turf and/or vandalize their cars.

    Total tangent, excuse me...

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Well, the OP has stated repeatedly that he believes he should be allowed to shoot people merely for coming on to his property...
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You misquote me ... I support legislation that would allow a person to shoot people on their land...
    What a laugh!

    I will allow others to contrast both posts and see if there was any material misrepresentation.

    Folks forget that posting on a message board leaves a semi-permanent record of what was stated. They try to deceive like they would in a spoken conversation. It just does not work.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You misquote me ... I support legislation that would allow a person to shoot people on their land. A difference and meant to avoid the affirmative defense of self defense needed when one shoots an intruder that is needed in some states.

    I doubt that if such legislation would pass that Girl Scouts would be a hazardous club to join.

    See, YOU think that people need these laws because you have no faith in gun owners or people in general and think it would be the wild wild west ~ hmmmm.isn't that what antis say about open carriers?
    WA doesn't require the defendant to prove self defense (as many states do, at least by a preponderance, etc.) but places the burden on the state to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt AND if found not guilty, the jury is polled on whether they found it to be self defense and if so, the defendant also gets back pay for lost wages during the trial AND gets paid their lawyer fees.

    Prett fair.

    Do you think people should be able to "shoot people on their land" in a state like WA that does a good job of recognizing/protecting self defense?

    It has nothing to do with faith in gun owners or wild wild west stuff. Don't make stuff up. People generally don't shoot people for mere trespass. At least some people decide not to do so because they fear arrest/prosecution IF they do. That's a good thing, because it... saves the life of somebody who would otherwise get shot for mere trespass.

    And if somebody DOES shoot somebody for mere trespass, we can seek justice for the victim/family and put the shooter away for some good prison time

    That's good too.

    As I have said many times before, I have great faith in and respect for gun owners. That's why I support RKBA for all but a select few (convicted violent felons). If even ONE person decided to shoot a mere trespasser because it was no longer illegal, that would be one too many. It's a damn good thing we have these laws beccause they disincentivize people (a small %age that would shoot for such an offense) from shooting a trespasser (a good thing. better to prevent a crime, than respond after the fact), and they let us hold a shooter accountable who choose to make such an egregious choice, showing no respect for the sanctity of life

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    What a laugh!

    I will allow others to contrast both posts and see if there was any material misrepresentation.

    Folks forget that posting on a message board leaves a semi-permanent record of what was stated. They try to deceive like they would in a spoken conversation. It just does not work.
    I agree in that I don't see a distinction there

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    I agree in that I don't see a distinction there
    Because you and eye have limited thought processes on this subject matter.

    Instead you are dreaming like the antis dream about carriers ... that corpses will be strewn all over the USA.

    In places that allow just that what I propose, shootings have not increased to my knowledge ~ if you have data to support your idea that such legislation would lead to mass killings, please let me know.

    I think your search will lead to to a realization: that folks are not evil.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Again, the two statements are juxtaposed for everyone to see. It is their judgment that matters. Mine, in this case, means little. Yours, almost always, means nothing.

    Anyway, I've accomplished what I intended, so I will just move on. Feel free to continue to try to fool folks. There is no need to stop you at this point.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post

    Fwiw, one of my partners had to shoot a dog a few years back. He was devastated. To add insult to injury, the dog owner tried to sue him. The lawyer he hired is one of those "animals have rights" guys. (note: imo and according to law, animals don't have rights. We have a duty not to act certain ways toward them - not to cause them undue pain and suffering (cruelty to animals), to feed them etc, but they don't have "rights".

    This lawyer believed they do. He made all kinds of wacked out appeals ot the court etc. but the courts didn't buy the "dogs have rights" theory either.
    Your partner killed Rosie and you are justifying it! Hahaha I have personally talked to this lawyer I don't agree with his animal right stance but your partner and your department almost came close to being a case of private prosecution. Your demented department were right for getting sued.

    Here's the cam videos the dog was a danger to no one, the home owner where she hid even offered to take care of her, nope the cops showed their character by gut shotting her....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQRVpeXHUjg

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...lementxml.html the fuq- "Over the course of about an hour, the officers twice used a Taser on Rosie, chased her for blocks and ultimately shot the dog four times with an assault rifle in a stranger’s backyard.", "The audio recording indicates the officers were talking about shooting Rosie within 10 minutes of arriving at the scene." "After the dog was shot once, one of the officers is heard shouting “Nice!”"

    Discuss on OCDO a few years ago....
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...te+prosecution

    I wonder where the shooters "partner" was.........
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 09-05-2013 at 03:03 PM.
    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)

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Because you and eye have limited thought processes on this subject matter.

    Instead you are dreaming like the antis dream about carriers ... that corpses will be strewn all over the USA.

    In places that allow just that what I propose, shootings have not increased to my knowledge ~ if you have data to support your idea that such legislation would lead to mass killings, please let me know.

    I think your search will lead to to a realization: that folks are not evil.
    It occurs to me that the objection being voiced is not that your legislation would lead to blood in the streets or "mass killings", it's that you are being inconsistent.

    Hypothetically, let's say I accept that folks should be allowed to "shoot people on their land". OK. Why then, David, should someone not be able to shoot a dog on their land?

    Incidentally, that he is a cop is of no relevance as we're talking about his land, not something he does in an official capacity.
    Last edited by marshaul; 09-05-2013 at 03:15 PM.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    It occurs to me that the objection being voiced is not that your legislation would lead to blood in the streets or "mass killings", it's that you are being inconsistent.

    Hypothetically, let's say I accept that folks should be allowed to "shoot people on their land". OK. Why then, David, should someone not be able to shoot a dog on their land?

    Incidentally, that he is a cop is of no relevance as we're talking about his land, not something he does in an official capacity.
    Good questions. As in legislation that would create a right to shoot people on ones land it was a pretty broad statement I agree. Clearly, such legislation would not be an unlimited right to shoot anyone one your land...for example a child going and retrieving his Frisbee from your land should be addressed...and sections of your land where you invite people (walkway, etc.) would need to be addressed. But overall, the Napolionic code idea on this subject matter is an interesting one..it would certainly release people who shoot criminals from having to spend $$$ defending themselves and also provide some piece of mind ... IMO people who have a "green-light" to shoot generally will tend to avoid doing so for other reasons, especially now that the legal aspect is moot and allows for clearer heads to prevail. And also, people won't go on other people's property to begin with....a preventative measure concerning accidental confrontations. So I would support legislation that would lower the burden on people.

    But as far as dogs go ... they are not rational thinking creatures to the degree we are. I've never heard any dog argue about 2nd amendment stuff. They are dogs. Shoot them if they pose a real safety threat. They are only property in the eyes of the law. For just pooping on the lawn? Nah.

    And this is a problem when governments make laws limiting people ... now people depend on the gov't to be a problem resolution center. I have lived in places where there is no town gov'ts or other local gov't. Guess what? Ya got a problem with someone--ya go over and talk (yes, actually walk across the street ya fat cow) and resolve it. No need to dial 911 because they ain't coming anyway unless its a murder. You know there's a freaking law about a dog pooing on another's property and that guy knew it and stewed about it...then BLAMO! If there was no law, I'm certain that two people talking about it in absence of saying "that's against the law!" and a resolution could have been forth coming...without the death of an animal who cannot read property surveys.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    meh. Dog is loose. Cops have to deal with it. They tried non-lethal means. Didn't work. Shot and killed the dog. So what?

  24. #24
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    meh. Dog is loose. Cops have to deal with it. They tried non-lethal means. Didn't work. Shot and killed the dog. So what?
    What the **** story did you read? Who "tried non-lethal means"? The ******* cop shot and let die slowly a dog that was not posing any threat to him to show what a big man he is. He is a trigger happy pos, and what a surprise that the local Nazis support his action. Be a real shame if someone shot him and he lie there slowly dying, wouldn't it. A dog feels the same pain. "Hero cops," **** them.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Cops shoots dog -- its OK says the PD

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    What the **** story did you read? Who "tried non-lethal means"?...
    What story did YOU read??? The video I watched SHOWED the cops trying to tase the dog without success.

    Moving on from this unwarranted hostility.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

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
  •