Simply....unbelievable -

[WalkingWolf]

Unless you ignore the definitions section of the statute, it fits perfectly. Unless the dog was paralyzed and incapable of feeling pain, that is.

Why are you wasting your time, he is just arguing to argue until the thread is locked. I think he gets off on it.

 

[wrightme]

Unless you ignore the definitions section of the statute, it fits perfectly. Unless the dog was paralyzed and incapable of feeling pain, that is.

I am not the one ignoring the definitions in statute.

 

[wrightme]

Why are you wasting your time, he is just arguing to argue until the thread is locked. I think he gets off on it.

False.


I do not agree with his interpretation of statute. It is that simple.

 

[WalkingWolf]

False.


I do not agree with his interpretation of statute. It is that simple.

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[wrightme]

No, in the video the animal was still moving seconds after the officer stopped firing. Try again.

Edit: That's what you get for making assumptions. You get wrong conclusions.

How do you know the officer was not firing after the video stopped?

But, where in the video can you even see the dog that was killed after the shooting began?

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...ideo-shows-officer-coaxing-shooting-dog.html/


The dog he shot isn't even visible once after the officer began shooting.

 

[wrightme]

:lol::lol::lol:

If you have nothing to add to the conversation, why even bother?

 

[WalkingWolf]

If you have nothing to add to the conversation, why even bother?

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[wrightme]

But, where in the video can you even see the dog that was killed after the shooting began?

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...ideo-shows-officer-coaxing-shooting-dog.html/


The dog he shot isn't even visible once after the officer began shooting.

No, in the video the animal was still moving seconds after the officer stopped firing. Try again.

Edit: That's what you get for making assumptions. You get wrong conclusions.

Nope, you cannot even see the shot dog after the officer stopped firing. The moving dog was not the one shot and killed.

Yep, make assumptions, get wrong conclusions.

 

[davidmcbeth]

How do you know the officer was not firing after the video stopped?

But, where in the video can you even see the dog that was killed after the shooting began?

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...ideo-shows-officer-coaxing-shooting-dog.html/


The dog he shot isn't even visible once after the officer began shooting.

“As is often the case, the short video does not tell the whole story.” from linked art.

Well the whole story is not known .. we have to wait for the fiction writers to complete the story. They must have a staff of 20. Awaiting the total BS story that will be puked out to the public.

It will be a SyFi movie.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Nope, you cannot even see the shot dog after the officer stopped firing. The moving dog was not the one shot and killed.

Yep, make assumptions, get wrong conclusions.

It doesn't really matter. If you want to rest on "the dog's death was instantaneous" go right ahead. I'll let you rest your case there, because it'll fall all on it's own, without a doubt.

 

[wrightme]

“As is often the case, the short video does not tell the whole story.” from linked art.

Well the whole story is not known .. we have to wait for the fiction writers to complete the story. They must have a staff of 20. Awaiting the total BS story that will be puked out to the public.

It will be a SyFi movie.

Correct, the whole story is not known, which I mentioned in my post about how I thought it played out so far.

 

[wrightme]

It doesn't really matter. If you want to rest on "the dog's death was instantaneous" go right ahead. I'll let you rest your case there, because it'll fall all on it's own, without a doubt.

Strawman.


Are you still attempting to claim that shooting an animal to kill it is 'in a cruel manner?'

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Strawman.


Are you still attempting to claim that shooting an animal to kill it is 'in a cruel manner?'

It isn't a strawman. If the act is unjustified and causes pain then it qualifies the definition of in a cruel manner. Don't get mad at me about it, I didn't write the damn statute.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Strawman.


Are you still attempting to claim that shooting an animal to kill it is 'in a cruel manner?'

How are we worried about how much pain the dog was in, as opposed to the fact that the dog got shot in the first place?

Any cop that is scared of serious permanant bodily injury that a 7 month old dog that he can get to obey a command to come to him, to the point of shooting it, is not fit to be a public servant IMO.

heaven forbid a 9 year old kid with a wrist rocket or paintball gun approach an officer.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Why are you wasting your time, he is just arguing to argue until the thread is locked. I think he gets off on it.

*sigh* I guess because I'm young and unwise

 

[davidmcbeth]

Correct, the whole story is not known, which I mentioned in my post about how I thought it played out so far.

We KNOW how it will play out.

Cops will do an *investigation* and we'll hear 6 months from now that its completed. All is well..no charges.

Onto the next isolated incident.

 

[wrightme]

It isn't a strawman. If the act is unjustified and causes pain then it qualifies the definition of in a cruel manner. Don't get mad at me about it, I didn't write the damn statute.

I am not mad, I am asking if you truly believe that shooting an animal to kill it fits 'in a cruel manner.'

The strawman was what you attempted to claim I had said or meant.
"If you want to rest on "the dog's death was instantaneous" go right ahead. "

That was what I called out as 'strawman' created by you.

 

[J_dazzle23]

I am not mad, I am asking if you truly believe that shooting an animal to kill it fits 'in a cruel manner.'

The strawman was what you attempted to claim I had said or meant.

If I said I shot anything for any other reason than to "stop the threat" I'd be in jail. Are we gonna start saying we "shoot to kill" now so we can cherry pick to navigate a torture loophole?

 

[wrightme]

How are we worried about how much pain the dog was in, as opposed to the fact that the dog got shot in the first place?

Any cop that is scared of serious permanant bodily injury that a 7 month old dog that he can get to obey a command to come to him, to the point of shooting it, is not fit to be a public servant IMO.

heaven forbid a 9 year old kid with a wrist rocket or paintball gun approach an officer.

Because the claim was presented that the cop violated the statute that says 'in a cruel manner.'

As I have already stated, from what I saw in the video, it is very likely a violation of b(2), unless they say the exception applies. Further, I do not agree that shooting the dog to kill it fits the 'in a cruel manner' definition of the applicable statute.


So, as I already said, if that is how it gets viewed, and it is noted that the exception applies, the next logical step would be to seek legislative changes to make such seemingly unjustified killings 'not within the performance of the office.'

 

[wrightme]

If I said I shot anything for any other reason than to "stop the threat" I'd be in jail. Are we gonna start saying we "shoot to kill" now so we can cherry pick to navigate a torture loophole?

Nope, not at all. This is a non-livestock animal, and has nothing to do with self-defense statutes where 'stop the threat' is the goal.

I would expect that a s/d shooting of a dog would not be a violation of ANY of the cited statutes for animal cruelty here, whether it was 'shoot to stop' and not killed, or 'shoot to kill.'