Cop on cell phone=cop done bad cop tries to shoot dog-hits person good job!

[WalkingWolf]

My posts are not about pit bulls, they are about MORON dog owners, the dogs or pit bulls are just as much victims as the people mauled.

Pit bulls are a very common dog, which because their reputation are trained by some owners to be killers. And then those POS owners do not take responsibility for their animals. If you can't pick up on the fact that I post about dog owners, and not pit bull owners then you are lacking in the devices to read properly. Instead you are trying to put your own spin on the mauling to excuse the POS loser owners for their responsibility to properly restrain their pets. I wonder why?

Seems like every low life in neighborhoods just has to have a pit bull, that is not the pit bulls fault. The dogs whatever breed are not responsible, it is the dumb owners.

If you do not want your DOG shot do not let it run loose. Very simple...

 

[eye95]

...i [sic] know this game [sic] and im [sic] not playing.

It is you who are playing a game, by inventing what you claim others are saying and arguing against those invented arguments. You have done it to at least three people in this thread alone.

Oh, and not a damned one of them is a liberal. But name-calling is another juvenile game you are playing.

Just rationally argue against what folks actually say. That is the adult thing to do.

 

[SPOProds]

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

Thank you.

Sent from the back of a black van

 

[OC for ME]

A LEO is under no obligation to answer a call either. Legally they can sit in their cruiser and watch a mugging and are not required to do one thing. That is the reason for my question. They are under no greater standard, legally, when it comes to protecting the safety of another, so why are they afforded more leeway when protecting their personal safety?

So, the reason LEOs can shoot dogs(and homeowner) with impunity is because, they are allowed to have a firearm as part of their job?

I must disagree. In Missouri a officer is obligated to apprehend a criminal if they witness a misdemeanor crime or to apprehend a suspect if a felony is reported. The prevention of the crime is not required as has been established by SCOTUS. Now, a officer in Missouri is not required to arrest the criminal based on officer discretion given the facts he has available to him at that time. The officer will arrest a citizen if a felony is reported and let the courts sort it out. The officer may arrest a citizen for a misdemeanor that he witnesses.

I have never been a LEO and can only base my opinion on RSMo. WW is exactly spot on given his experiences as a LEO where a officer is obliged to do this or that based on the terms of employment, whether or not the this or that is later found to have been lawful after judicial review. A loose dog can be a threat and the threat perceived varies from one citizen to the next. What I would consider a dangerous animal another may not come to the same conclusion.

 

[Grapeshot]

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?

You distort (thereby misquote) what he said.

Long established fact, per legislative action and the courts.

Would you restrict that ability (personal defense) to non-officers?

Why given extraordinary powers and discretion when it comes to their safety - because the GA and courts deemed it approppriate.

I beleive I asked why they are given extraordinary powers and discretion when it comes to their safety. A courier would not be treated the same if in the course of their job they came to a private property, was confronted by a dog, pulled a firearm, fired, missed, and caused injury to the owner of the property. Thar courier would be charged with any number of criminal offenses and infractions by the very persons, who if they did the same actions, many here feel are without blame. Yet, neither are legally required to protect the safety of another individual, thus my question. Clever how you turned what I asked around, and made it imply the exact oppisite of what I was asking. Is there any chance you will give an opinion on what I actually asked?

I did answer/gave an opinion - see above.

If by "clever", you mean deliberate - yes it was - nevertheless, the question was seriously presented. Since you did not answer directly, I will provide.

No one is "required to protect the safety of another individual" but certainly allowed. All (includes LEOs) are afforded the benefit of case law.

Right to Self-defense and Defense of Others - Works in VA.
http://Foster v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 380, 385, 412 S.E.2d 198, 201-02 (1991) .

 

[SavageOne]

Legally they are not required to answer calls, BUT contractually they are, it is their job. The SOP from department to department varies, but most will justify the shooting of a dangerous animal to answer a call. Mail couriers are not police officers, there job is not to answer police calls. Their SOP for dangerous dogs is not to deliver the mail. The reason a police officer can shoot a dog is because the owner is a idiot and has not contained their animal. If the dumba$$ owner had been responsible their would have been no need for the officer to use his firearm.

If you do not want your dog shot, be a responsible dog owner. It is very simple.

Can you cite a statue giving a LEO the authority to exercise any action against a citizen or their property, because the person has been deemed an "idiot"? I tell you what, I'll settle for a simple policy statement from any police department, perhaps yours, that authorizes the use of force because a person has been deemed an "idiot".

While I admit to not having your experience as a LEO, I beleive the the standard punishment for failing to have your dog leashed or contained is a summons. Regardless of how you feel not everyone, including those who make the ordinances, views every "at large" dog as a threat. You, further, make statements to the effect that you believe every "at large" dog should be shot on the spot. These causes me to wonder if are unable or just unwilling to distinguish between perceived threats and true threats. Not every dog "at large" attacks or mauls someone, yet to your way of thinking every "at large" dog should be shot. You in previous posts questioned others logic but I have to tell you, that mindset is not logical at all.

As to granting a person extraordinary power to protect their safety simply because they have chosen to except certain contractual stipulations(which they can, and real world examples have shown they do, ignore), I can't say I the legitimacy of that

 

[SavageOne]

Every dog at large should be put down on the spot.
....

You distort (thereby misquote) what he said.

I believe "every dog" would include both dangerous and non-dangerous dogs, would it not? He chose to make no distinction and use all inclusive wording. He has also chosen to stand by such wording. I distorted nothing he said.

Why given extraordinary powers and discretion when it comes to their safety - because the GA and courts deemed it approppriate.



I did answer/gave an opinion - see above.

If by "clever", you mean deliberate - yes it was - nevertheless, the question was seriously presented. Since you did not answer directly, I will provide.

No one is "required to protect the safety of another individual" but certainly allowed. All (includes LEOs) are afforded the benefit of case law.

Right to Self-defense and Defense of Others - Works in VA.
http://Foster v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 380, 385, 412 S.E.2d 198, 201-02 (1991) .

Forgive me, I thought the fact that I had never made an statement that I believe LEOs have less of a right to self defense, was answer enough. For your clarification. I do not beleive that those who have choosen a career in Law Enforcement in any way give up their Natural Right to self defense or any other right enumerated in the Constitution. I hope that clears up any confusion on your point as to my postion.

I do not believe, however, that such a career choice should not give them any extra legal protections. If, as in the story linked in the OP, a citizen had gone to another citizen's private property, felt threatened by that citizen's dog, then pulled and fired a firearm in an attempt to kill that dog, missed and stuck the other citizen, I believe that person would have been criminally charged. I also believe that if a LEO does the same thing, more than "officer safety" should be used as an excuse to avoid similar results

 

[Grapeshot]

are you serious???? you stated you shot a pit last year and hit one with a bat. and all the videos you posted i believe were all pits. you need to quit being dishonest. if not dont even reply to me then. you dont know me so dont speak for me.

Get over yourself - you do not make the rules. Anyone may quote you or reply to you as long as they stay within the forum rules.

Cease with the provoking attitude.

 

[OC for ME]

Get over yourself - you do not make the rules. Anyone may quote you or reply to you as long as they stay within the forum rules.

Cease with the provoking attitude.

Get over yourself - you enforce the rules. Anyone may demand/request that other members not quote or reply to them as long as they stay within the forum rules.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by WalkingWolf
Every dog at large should be put down on the spot.....

Originally Posted by Grapeshot
You distort (thereby misquote) what he said.

Originally Posted by g21sfpistol
I believe "every dog" would include both dangerous and non-dangerous dogs, would it not? He chose to make no distinction and use all inclusive wording. He has also chosen to stand by such wording. I distorted nothing he said.

You omitted verbiage giving an obviously different picture - WalkingWolf referred to dangerous dogs at large.

Clearly a rule violation:
(16) NO FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS: Editing quoted posts by another member to make it appear as if they said something other than what they intended will NOT be tolerated!

 

[BriKuz]

Get over yourself - you enforce the rules. Anyone may demand/request that other members not quote or reply to them as long as they stay within the forum rules.

And anyone may ignore said request...

Back to the topic, though: A person is accountable for the actions of their livestock and pets... PERIOD! Should a dog menace me, my wife, my children, or my livestock, it will meet a fast end caused by the rapid injection of 180 grains of lead and copper. Then, I will sue the OWNER of said attacking animal (if there is one, probably isn't for a coyote, fox, etc) for the cost of the round fired, the time it takes me to clean my weapon, and for the trauma that my wife or kids would have from the animal attacking. (They're not so worried about the "trauma" of the animal dying, hell the 2 year old keeps wanting to help me take the heads off roosters!) We HAVE cats and dogs, but if one of them gets out and gets shot by a neighbor, that's OUR fault, NOT the neighbor's! People need to take responsibility for themselves, and stop trying to push blame on everyone else for everything.

 

[OC for ME]

This post or the quotes contained therein are not directed towards WW. He is merely a hapless victim.

The owner of the dog in the OP IS responsible. Dogs are not supposed to be running at large. Especially dangerous dogs.

<snip>

Every dog at large should be put down on the spot.

No distinction is made between dangerous or not dangerous. I fully understand what WW's over all point is, dogs should be restrained or else bad things could happen. Very good advice that too many of our fellow citizens fail to follow.

WW has made "the" statement and continued to commingle "dangerous dogs" and "all dogs." Based on the context of the statements being made he clearly, to me anyway, and likely intentionally, makes no distinction between any "at large dog" and any "at large dangerous dog", thus the "every dog at large" statement. Especially if children are in the vicinity. That is his position and I will not condone nor condemn his position.

You omitted verbiage giving an obviously different picture - WalkingWolf referred to dangerous dogs at large.

Clearly a rule violation:
(16) NO FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS: Editing quoted posts by another member to make it appear as if they said something other than what they intended will NOT be tolerated!

Anyway.....

Which post is g21sfpistol alleged to have omitted verbiage?

WW's initial post uses "especially" in a very specific context. He then makes a broad stand alone statement. Periods mean things. WW clearly desires that dangerous dogs, by his definition it seems, be held under tight control at all times. A valid point that comports with the law as far as I know.

BTW. You added extra dots after the quoted statement that are not contained in the original statement you quote.

 

[OC for ME]

And anyone may ignore said request...

Back to the topic, though: A person is accountable for the actions of their livestock and pets... PERIOD! Should a dog menace me, my wife, my children, or my livestock, it will meet a fast end caused by the rapid injection of 180 grains of lead and copper. Then, I will sue the OWNER of said attacking animal (if there is one, probably isn't for a coyote, fox, etc) for the cost of the round fired, the time it takes me to clean my weapon, and for the trauma that my wife or kids would have from the animal attacking. (They're not so worried about the "trauma" of the animal dying, hell the 2 year old keeps wanting to help me take the heads off roosters!) We HAVE cats and dogs, but if one of them gets out and gets shot by a neighbor, that's OUR fault, NOT the neighbor's! People need to take responsibility for themselves, and stop trying to push blame on everyone else for everything.

A dog on private property may not be seen as "at large" under the law. This distinction, if it exists, needs to be made known and understood. WW apparently makes no such distinction. I know that on my farm any "at large dogs" that are on my property have no requirement to be confined or restrained. Urban settings are different, and suburban areas may different.

The op recounts a shot fired at a dog, that is alleged to have been on private property, that struck the property owner. If the officer entered upon that private property and there is no requirement that the dog be confined or restrained, then the legal position of the officer is in some doubt. The officer clearly has the right to SD, he does not have a right to shoot at a dog, then miss, and that missed shot hit the property owner. I would expect that every member here not brush off the main point of the this thread.....not dog.....wounded citizen.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--
BTW. You added extra dots after the quoted statement that are not contained in the original statement you quote.

Formatting went south when I copied and pasted - reconstructed w/extra key stroke I presume.
Hope I didn't change the meaning tooo much.

 

[eye95]

OfM:

I think the particular offending post is gone. He focused in on the one sentence, leaving out the context that added meaning to it. You included that context, as you should do--and as he should have done.

He has made a habit of misrepresenting what folks say, either by deceptive restatement or by edited quotation. He needs to change this dishonest practice.

Oh, and ellipses (...) are the formal grammatical way to say [snip]. I routinely use them, eschewing [snip]. Unless their use to trim a quote changes its meaning, they are actually a tool of honesty.

 

[OC for ME]

Formatting went south when I copied and pasted - reconstructed w/extra key stroke I presume.
Hope I didn't change the meaning tooo much.

On my screen (older eyes) they look like commas and not dots. Sou subscribe a meaning that was not written. Inference I think it is called.

 

[OC for ME]

OfM:

I think the particular offending post is gone. He focused in on the one sentence, leaving out the context that added meaning to it. You included that context, as you should do--and as he should have done.

He has made a habit of misrepresenting what folks say, either by deceptive restatement or by edited quotation. He needs to change this dishonest practice.

Oh, and ellipses (...) are the formal grammatical way to say [snip]. I routinely use them, eschewing [snip]. Unless their use to trim a quote changes its meaning, they are actually a tool of honesty.

OfM.....took me a few moments to figure that one out. :banghead:

Nine posts by g21sfpistol and I could not see any deleted posts or indications of a edited post. Thus, I remain unenlightened as to the post that raised GS's ire.

WW made a standalone statement that clearly qualified his position, he then makes another stand alone statement that changes his position stated in the previous statement. Which is it, or is it both?

GS posted a rules violation determination. I asked for the offending post. GS is not obligated to provide enlightenment but it sure would be nice if he did.

 

[WalkingWolf]

In my post which some people seem to want to take apart and snip one part to change my meaning is dishonest. I made it clear I was talking dangerous dogs. I also made it clear in other posts that I WILL shoot a dog at large that is menacing my family, myself, or women and children. I am not so sure about some male numpties.

EVERY dog at loose that is not a working dog, or family dog in a very rural setting. Should be picked up by animal control, and the owner heavily fined. If the owner shirks their responsibility the dog will be adopted or put down. A dog unrestrained on your property that menaces a person that has a legal right to be there, granted they have not been trespassed or are committing a crime is a dangerous dog, in any residential environment. Such as suburb, housing development, small town. Ya know a non farm environment where it is common for their to be pedestrians and children.

If a dog shows any aggression as it did in the OP, it should be put down on the spot. That can be done by a number means, by dart, by snare, or by gunshot. The dog being on her property does not change the fact the dog was menacing and charging. The dog did not know it was a police officer, so and it could have been the mailman. The problem is the mailman does not have the option to shoot, he has the option to not deliver the mail. The police officer is under contract, he does not have that option.

Whether or not you think your dog is not dangerous it does not matter. A dog has a mind of his own unless he has been highly trained. And most times we know if a dog is a highly trained service dog. Service dogs also are usually kept on a LEASH.

IF you do not want your dog shot, do not let it run at large. If it menaces a police officer or a LAC it may get shot. Be a RESPONSIBLE pet owner, not a numpty. It really is very simple.

 

[OC for ME]

This thread is not about the dog, it is about the harmed citizen at the hand of a police officer. The officer was justified, in my view, to defend himself. The choice he made as to how to defend himself, employing his weapon, in close proximity to the citizen, is the key issue for me and is on topic in my view.

This officer must be held accountable for willfully and recklessly endangering the citizen. Of course this is my opinion and a jury may have a opportunity to disagree or agree with my opinion.

The citizen is very lucky that her injury is not more severe or that her life was not ended by that officer's act. The reported prognosis seems to indicate that the bullet or bullet fragments will remain due to the risk of causing more harm by its/their removal. If there are long term medical after affects from this event the officer must be held accountable for those after affects.

She was not deserving of her injuries and a simple paying of her medical bills must not stand as the only sanction against this officer.

 

[BriKuz]

This thread is not about the dog, it is about the harmed citizen at the hand of a police officer. The officer was justified, in my view, to defend himself. The choice he made as to how to defend himself, employing his weapon, in close proximity to the citizen, is the key issue for me and is on topic in my view.

This officer must be held accountable for willfully and recklessly endangering the citizen. Of course this is my opinion and a jury may have a opportunity to disagree or agree with my opinion.

The citizen is very lucky that her injury is not more severe or that her life was not ended by that officer's act. The reported prognosis seems to indicate that the bullet or bullet fragments will remain due to the risk of causing more harm by its/their removal. If there are long term medical after effects from this event the officer must be held accountable for those after effects.

She was not deserving of her injuries and a simple paying of her medical bills must not stand as the only sanction against this officer.

<--- fixed it for ya ;-)

But you are right on with your statement... perhaps we should try to steer back on topic and save the name-calling for PMs!