• 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.

Cops shoots dog -- its OK says the PD

marshaul

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

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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?
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.

I don't know what is up with not wanting to quote some posters, but he is referring to my post. And the video's where PALO's partner slaughtered a harmless dog that ran from them, even though the home owner who's house it went to told them not to shoot the dog as it cowered in the bushes in her yard.

He obviously didn't read the whole story and watch the whole video or he really is "that guy".
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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>

I am referring to the op's video and news story. The hero cop killed the dog while he was off duty and let him suffer. What the hell story are you talking about? There was no on duty cop trying to use non-lethal means, just a trigger happy, cowardly, pos who killed a family pet.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
I don't know what is up with not wanting to quote some posters, but he is referring to my post. And the video's where PALO's partner slaughtered a harmless dog that ran from them, even though the home owner who's house it went to told them not to shoot the dog as it cowered in the bushes in her yard.

He obviously didn't read the whole story and watch the whole video or he really is "that guy".

Copy, SVG. As noted above, I was referring to the OP, not additional BS posted by others. eye evidently was responding to the additional BS.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Copy, SVG. As noted above, I was referring to the OP, not additional BS posted by others. eye evidently was responding to the additional BS.

You, sir, engaged me. Not vice versa. And you did so antagonistically.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
You, sir, engaged me. Not vice versa. And you did so antagonistically.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Because your post was off the OP's original topic and you didn't so indicate. It was to the BS obiter dicta inserted that had nothing to do with the original story but rather to show how heartbroken cops are when they callously kill innocent pets. If that was clearly indicated in your post, I would not have "engaged" you for ostensibly defending the pos's action in the OP link. I suggest you clarify when you deviate from the original topic to avoid "antagonism." Unlike your interaction with others on this board, on the numerous occasions I have differed with you, the discourse has been civil as you well know.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It was discussing a topic that came up within the thread.

I am sorry if the side discussion confused you. Actually, no I am not.

Have a good day.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It's obvious you don't care. ;)

Good to see that you are maintaining a sense of humor about it. ;)

Actually, if I am responding to the post immediately above, I routinely don't quote it. It keeps the size of posts down and saves bandwidth for all involved. Unfortunately, during the process, sometimes there are intervening posts. Unless there are a bunch, I don't sweat it, figuring that anyone who reads my post will have very recently read the one to which I am referring. If they skipped that post, oh well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

MattinWA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
278
Location
Spokane Washington
Favorite quote from svg's story (it's the second story) is:


According to the lawsuit, Des Moines police only acknowledged they killed the dog after Charles Wright found a Taser dart on his lawn the next day and took it to the police station, seeking an explanation.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Favorite quote from svg's story (it's the second story) is:


According to the lawsuit, Des Moines police only acknowledged they killed the dog after Charles Wright found a Taser dart on his lawn the next day and took it to the police station, seeking an explanation.

That's PALO's angelic department for you....pretending nothing happened until someone found evidence....
 

Kopis

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
674
Location
Nashville, TN
none of us were there so it's hard to say what happened. Those are scary looking/bad ass dogs for sure. I'd love to have one for running with me. I think my only concern here is that if a regular citizen acted like this, he/she would be arrested more than likely (or at least cited for the discharge if in city limits) whereas the officer is given a free pass. But i suppose it's that way for a lot of stuff.

If the dog is on someone else's property and starts barking at the property owner, it seems likely i would shoot the dog in fear of being attacked. Now, i just doubt it would turn out as well for me.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
Dogs are more dangerous than most people realize. Do a google search and you will see that they are among the most common reasons for emergency room visits, and the average cost of treatment for those dog bite visits is in the thousands of dollars. It's quite astonishing how many people have to go the ER each year for a dog bite. Since I started working in WA, I have been dispatched to 4 incidents I can recall where "citizen" shot a dog, and all were clearly justified. In two cases the dog was attacking and/or had attacked their livestock, and in two other incidents the dog was directly attacking them. In no cases were arrests made or charges brought. It's within the right of ANYBODY, not just a cop, to shoot a dog in self defense or if it is on your property attacking your pets or livestock.

Ironically, I had a "vicious dog" call yesterday. Neighbor called in that his neighbors dog (pitbull/lab mix according to the animal control officer who later responded) was being very aggressive towards several persons who had walke by on the sidewalk and was an extreme menace and he was afraid to exit his house and get into his car lest he be attacked.

When I arrived, I approached the dog cautiously, and with a little command presence and verbalization, I was able to keep it at bay, open the gate to the yard it escaped from and convince it to come back into its yard. Animal Control arrived, as did the dog owners, a few minutes later and the ACO issued them a warning and they said they would keep the dog on it's leash in the yard when they weren't there, as it was clearly finding some way to leap over their fence.

The point is this is not uncommon at all - cops doing what the ordinary citizen was afraid to do - corral a dog into a yard or the backseat of his car, to await ACO's etc. and just like with other NONbleeding incidents, you won't read about it in the papers. We come into contact with dogs often several times a day (searching the backyard of a house during a burglary alarm, and in tons other circ's) and most cops go their entire career , which includes hundreds of such contacts, without ever shooting a dog. Sometimes, though, it's necessary. I posted two videos that clearly show dogs attacking cops before they shot and where it was clearly justified.

I love dogs. I;m not sure I could shoot one, even if it was attacking me, and again I have been attacked by a dog (nearly tore my arm from its socket) and it's not a fun thing.

Some people automatically assume the cops were in the wrong when they shoot a dog. Every VIDEO I've seen of a cop shooting a dog - it was clearly justified, but most shootings aren't videotaped, so the anti-cop brigade can fill in the holes with assumptions of thuggish cops shooting defenseless animals
 
Last edited:
Top