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

[WalkingWolf]

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.

Yes this thread IS about the dog, and the dog owner, and all the rectal crevice irresponsible owners who bring this pile of poop on. If it is not about the dog, it is about the rabid cop haters, who care for nothing but their own blind hatred. The dog owner brought her injuries on herself, she is responsible for putting that police officer and her dog in jeopardy. After that she put herself in the line of fire, she is a idiot of the first degree.

Every mauled child is the result of POS like her! She should be jailed!

 

[davidmcbeth]

That's a case where my pocket knife would have slit the pit's throat.

Give a tracheotomy ? You are very kind to do so....

They are just animals though ... although some have more value than some humans...

 

[DocWalker]

Every mauled child is the result of POS like her! She should be jailed!

Not that I disagree with you about people being held accountable for the actions of their dogs or other animals as I do agree with that.

I would like you to qualify your statement that EVERY mauled child is a result of a POS like her. I have never seen a stat or study that has proven 100% of dog attacks are the result of willful neglect. In my 28 years in the medical field (mostly emergency departments and pre hospital) I have seen people attacked by wild animals to include dogs, family pets that have attacked their owners or owners family members that have never displayed any previous reason for attack.

I just think "Every" is a hard word to qualify.

 

[eye95]

Jailing every person who fails to control a dog is somewhat analogous to jailing everyone who carries a knife.

Just because something bad could happen is no reason to declare a behavior a crime. Someone using a knife in an unjustified assault should be a crime. An uncontrolled dog attacking someone should be a crime on the part of the person who failed to control his animal. Neither the mere presence of a knife nor the mere presence of an uncontrolled animal should be crimes.

Laws should bar actual criminal behavior, not behavior that might lead to criminal activity. Laws barring the latter include "gun control."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[SavageOne]

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!

I quoted exactly what he said from his post. I added the periods to show it was snipped from a larger post. This is an accepted form used extensively on this forum.

He may have at stated dangerous dogs initially, but he expanded it to every in the same post. I pointed this out before you choose to make the claim I distorted WW's post. I pointed it in the post in which you claim I distorted WW's post. It was only after these two posts and all the post in between, that WW chose to walk back and say he didn't mean every dog.

Finally, you really shouldn't accuse me of editing someone's post and in the same post you quote something I say and put someone elses name on it. You obviously edited the quote.

 

[OC for ME]

It seems that a rational discussion with WW re the thread topic is no longer possible.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--
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.

I tend to soft delete (action visible), perhaps was deleted by another as has been my response - it was reported.

This does not refer to present personages posting.

 

[DocWalker]

I tend to soft delete (action visible), perhaps was deleted by another as has been my response - it was reported.

This does not refer to present personages posting.

Grape you are starting to sound like a lawyer......your scaring me.

 

[Grapeshot]

Grape you are starting to sound like a lawyer......your scaring me.

Maybe I've been hanging around User and other acquaintances too long....nah, that can't be it.

 

[SavageOne]

Not that I disagree with you about people being held accountable for the actions of their dogs or other animals as I do agree with that.

I would like you to qualify your statement that EVERY mauled child is a result of a POS like her. I have never seen a stat or study that has proven 100% of dog attacks are the result of willful neglect. In my 28 years in the medical field (mostly emergency departments and pre hospital) I have seen people attacked by wild animals to include dogs, family pets that have attacked their owners or owners family members that have never displayed any previous reason for attack.

I just think "Every" is a hard word to qualify.

You realize you run the risk of being accused, by a moderator, of distorting what WW meant, by quoting the exact word he used, right? Appearently the use of an all-inclusive qualifier by WW doesn't mean the same thing as when used by someone like you or I I(probably just me).

 

[WalkingWolf]

Jailing every person who fails to control a dog is somewhat analogous to jailing everyone who carries a knife.

Just because something bad could happen is no reason to declare a behavior a crime. Someone using a knife in an unjustified assault should be a crime. An uncontrolled dog attacking someone should be a crime on the part of the person who failed to control his animal. Neither the mere presence of a knife nor the mere presence of an uncontrolled animal should be crimes.

Laws should bar actual criminal behavior, not behavior that might lead to criminal activity. Laws barring the latter include "gun control."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Carrying a knife is not the same as leaving a razor sharp knife in the street for children to play with. Or carrying a gun is not the same as placing a loaded gun in the street for children to play with. Both the above actions of leaving a dangerous tool unsecured creating a public hazard is against the law. Walking a leashed dog, even a dangerous dog, is not illegal, as long as control of the dog is maintained. Letting a possible dangerous dog run loose is not responsible and should be criminal. Just like leaving a unsecured gun in public is. Or knife.

Thanks eye95 you did good.

 

[OC for ME]

I tend to soft delete (action visible), perhaps was deleted by another as has been my response - it was reported.

This does not refer to present personages posting.

Thanks, I have learned something new.

 

[Grapeshot]

Thanks, I have learned something new.

Then it is a good day. Perhaps I shall also be so blessed

 

[KBCraig]

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

So says Walking Wolf, the perambulating canine.

The irony is almost as thick as his avatar, a Sicilian from Louisiana making a career of false claims of being a Native American.