K9 Officer Dead, Town Outraged

Off Topic
182

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

well… as the law would have it, … " if not but for his actions this dog would not have been released" so he is ultimately responsible for the death of this dog.

If not but for…

remember that. Every criminal is responsible for what happens.

The piece of trash criminal is responsible for this.

that is all.

[/quote]

Completely disagree. The “butterfly effect” theory don’t fly here…pun intended. [/quote]

It isn’t the butterfly effect, it is legal theory and will be applied to his case. Same thing if a person commits a burglary and the victim in fear suffers a heart attack and dies the burglar will be charged with the murder or manslaughter of the victim. Although the burglar didn’t intend the death of the victim, if not but for his actions the death would not have happened.

“if not but for” is a legal theory relating to the outcomes from criminal actions.
[/quote]

I know what it is. And I don’t believe it applies here.

183

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

well… as the law would have it, … " if not but for his actions this dog would not have been released" so he is ultimately responsible for the death of this dog.

If not but for…

remember that. Every criminal is responsible for what happens.

The piece of trash criminal is responsible for this.

that is all.

[/quote]

Completely disagree. The “butterfly effect” theory don’t fly here…pun intended. [/quote]

It isn’t the butterfly effect, it is legal theory and will be applied to his case. Same thing if a person commits a burglary and the victim in fear suffers a heart attack and dies the burglar will be charged with the murder or manslaughter of the victim. Although the burglar didn’t intend the death of the victim, if not but for his actions the death would not have happened.

“if not but for” is a legal theory relating to the outcomes from criminal actions.
[/quote]

I know what it is. And I don’t believe it applies here. [/quote]

I don’t either. If he broke into the police dog kennel and the dog was killed by THAT action, it would be way different than a dog dying because some cops sent the dog after a criminal that was already in a hazardous area.

Doesn’t the fault lie with the cops? Why send a dog into an unsafe environment where they could be hit by a car and then blame the dog’s death on the guy you sent the dog after?

The dog is a TOOL in that scenario and the user of that tool is at fault.

184

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

well… as the law would have it, … " if not but for his actions this dog would not have been released" so he is ultimately responsible for the death of this dog.

If not but for…

remember that. Every criminal is responsible for what happens.

The piece of trash criminal is responsible for this.

that is all.

[/quote]

Completely disagree. The “butterfly effect” theory don’t fly here…pun intended. [/quote]

It isn’t the butterfly effect, it is legal theory and will be applied to his case. Same thing if a person commits a burglary and the victim in fear suffers a heart attack and dies the burglar will be charged with the murder or manslaughter of the victim. Although the burglar didn’t intend the death of the victim, if not but for his actions the death would not have happened.

“if not but for” is a legal theory relating to the outcomes from criminal actions.
[/quote]

I know what it is. And I don’t believe it applies here. [/quote]

I don’t either. If he broke into the police dog kennel and the dog was killed by THAT action, it would be way different than a dog dying because some cops sent the dog after a criminal that was already in a hazardous area.

Doesn’t the fault lie with the cops? Why send a dog into an unsafe environment where they could be hit by a car and then blame the dog’s death on the guy you sent the dog after?

The dog is a TOOL in that scenario and the user of that tool is at fault.[/quote]

By the way, that highway is a very busy, heavily trafficked highway. There is no way I would loose a dog in any proximity to that roadway - or any other roadway for that matter.

And, until I see some witness testimony, I don’t necessarily buy that this kid caused that dog’s death. A very possible scenario is that that dog pursued the kid into traffic. Has anyone paused to think how you throw a dog into traffic and end up getting hit by the same car?

I think the officer’s decision to use the dog in this situation was a regretful one. I respect the dog’s service to the community and I don’t think any of us want to see a dog die needlessly, but I have a strong feeling this was “user error” and that the handler bears some fault here.

He deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for robbery and resisting arrest. I’ll reserve further judgment until I see some testimony or video.

185

There was a law passed in NY after a case where a cop tried to turn around in a Tahoe in snowy conditions to pursue a speeding motorcycle on an ajoining road and lost control of his vehicle and died. They created and passed a law to pin the death of the policeman on the motorcyclist, in future cases. How poor decision making by the police officer is pinned on the suspect strikes me as a blame/PR racket and not sound thinking, nor something that should hold up in court. Same thing seems to be happening in this case.

186

Can you reference that law? I’d love to see that one.

187

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Can you reference that law? I’d love to see that one.[/quote]

I will keep my eyes open but my cursory searches yielded nothing.

EDIT: found it (yes seconds later)
http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch738craigtodeschini.htm

188

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
It’s just an animal, people.
You can grow an attachement to anything but it’s just a mutt, at the end of the day.
Don’t really see the big deal. A dog died, boohoo, so tragic.
The guy was gonna get ripped to shreds. Can you fault him?[/quote]

Since you posted a photo of a dog roast being plated up to illustrate your point, we can assume then that the thought of eating a dog sounds appetizing to you (I’m not asking you if you’d eat one as a last-ditch alternative to starvation, but if you would regularly choose to eat one over say, a steak or chicken and enjoy it)?

You’re not as “de-sensitized” to fluffy creatures as you think you are.[/quote]

Irrelevant comparison. I’ve never tried dog, so of course I would choose a known quantity like steak, which is delicious. Now if you were to ask me if I would try dog, or cat, or horse, or any animal for the sake of trying it, I would say, “absolutely”.[/quote]

It’s not an irrelevant comparison. You didn’t make the point or post the pic. And stop trying to find argumentative loopholes. The question wasn’t “would you try roast dog if I hired a Michelin star chef to cook it and offer it to you for the sake of novelty?”. It was “are you so emotionally removed from domestic animals that you’d eat and enjoy dog flesh on a regular basis and of your own volition?”.

Clearly the answer for both of you “independent thinkers” is no, because you’d be eating it already. Amateur. [/quote]

Wow. You call me an amateur, and yet you’ve built a fine strawman yourself. I said nothing about requiring a professional chef to eat a dog. The reason I don’t eat dog is because it’s not available to me. However, if there was a local dog-slaughtering shop that provided dog at a reasonable price, I’d eat it all day long. The reason I eat a lot of cows, chickens and pigs is because I, like most everyone on this site, do not kill the animals I eat. Why is it normal for someone to raise a pig, an animal as intelligent or even moreso than a dog, only to kill and eat it? Because dogs have endeared themselves to our species by luck of the draw; their social structure is sufficiently similar to ours so as to allow them to slip effortlessly into our homes, nothing more. And quit trying to act so high and mighty because you’re in the majority. Go to a third world country and you would be considered a pariah for holding dogs in such high esteem.[/quote]

I posted a very specific question. You completely misinterpreted it in an effort to make an unrelated point and tried to make yourself look knowledgeable. I agree that one of us tried to make a strawman, but it wasn’t me. Look up the definition of a strawman argument.

It comes from a response, not an opening statement or question. A strawman, by it’s very nature can’t come from an opening argument. That’s impossible. Go away and learn the correct terminology before you try to use the rules of classical debate.

Don’t say that you don’t eat dog meat because it’s is “not available to you”. Dog is very much available to you: you see them every day. You fucked your argument over as soon as you claimed you said nothing about requiring a chef to prepare a dog, then went on to say that you’d eat dog “all day long” if there were authorized slaughterhouses to prepare the meat for you, even though you don’t even know if you like the taste…/argument.

189

That town cares way too much about their dogs. Animals are not equal to people. There are comments there about shooting the robbers on the spot for throwing the dog off themselves… wtf.

[quote]roybot wrote:
Dog is very much available to you: you see them every day. You fucked your argument over as soon as you claimed you said nothing about requiring a chef to prepare a dog, then went on to say that you’d eat dog “all day long” if there were authorized slaughterhouses to prepare the meat for you, even though you don’t even know if you like the taste…

[/quote] I’ve eaten dog. It’s stringy and tough, and among the least enjoyable meats I’ve had. I would eat steak instead of dog anyday, but this preference has nothing to do with how cute a dog might be. Your argument is stupid.

190

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

well… as the law would have it, … " if not but for his actions this dog would not have been released" so he is ultimately responsible for the death of this dog.

If not but for…

remember that. Every criminal is responsible for what happens.

The piece of trash criminal is responsible for this.

that is all.

[/quote]

Completely disagree. The “butterfly effect” theory don’t fly here…pun intended. [/quote]

It isn’t the butterfly effect, it is legal theory and will be applied to his case. Same thing if a person commits a burglary and the victim in fear suffers a heart attack and dies the burglar will be charged with the murder or manslaughter of the victim. Although the burglar didn’t intend the death of the victim, if not but for his actions the death would not have happened.

“if not but for” is a legal theory relating to the outcomes from criminal actions.
[/quote]

I know what it is. And I don’t believe it applies here. [/quote]

I don’t either. If he broke into the police dog kennel and the dog was killed by THAT action, it would be way different than a dog dying because some cops sent the dog after a criminal that was already in a hazardous area.

Doesn’t the fault lie with the cops? Why send a dog into an unsafe environment where they could be hit by a car and then blame the dog’s death on the guy you sent the dog after?

The dog is a TOOL in that scenario and the user of that tool is at fault.[/quote]

By the way, that highway is a very busy, heavily trafficked highway. There is no way I would loose a dog in any proximity to that roadway - or any other roadway for that matter.

And, until I see some witness testimony, I don’t necessarily buy that this kid caused that dog’s death. A very possible scenario is that that dog pursued the kid into traffic. Has anyone paused to think how you throw a dog into traffic and end up getting hit by the same car?

I think the officer’s decision to use the dog in this situation was a regretful one. I respect the dog’s service to the community and I don’t think any of us want to see a dog die needlessly, but I have a strong feeling this was “user error” and that the handler bears some fault here.

He deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for robbery and resisting arrest. I’ll reserve further judgment until I see some testimony or video.
[/quote]

FTR, the dog wasn’t let loose on the highway. From the third link in the OP:

"The canine picked up the scent of one of the suspects behind the restaurant. A half mile away, the German shepherd caught up with Robinson on the shoulder of Route 42. "

191

[quote]schism45 wrote:
That town cares way too much about their dogs. Animals are not equal to people. There are comments there about shooting the robbers on the spot for throwing the dog off themselves… wtf.

[quote]roybot wrote:
Dog is very much available to you: you see them every day. You fucked your argument over as soon as you claimed you said nothing about requiring a chef to prepare a dog, then went on to say that you’d eat dog “all day long” if there were authorized slaughterhouses to prepare the meat for you, even though you don’t even know if you like the taste…

[/quote] I’ve eaten dog. It’s stringy and tough, and among the least enjoyable meats I’ve had. I would eat steak instead of dog anyday, but this preference has nothing to do with how cute a dog might be. Your argument is stupid.[/quote]

My argument is only stupid insofar as you’ve completely and utterly failed to read or comprehend any of my preceding posts on the topic. I know this because your response has absolutely no relevance to the post you quoted.

Feel free to clarify though, as I’m genuinely curious to know what the hell you’re getting at.

192

[quote]roybot wrote:

FTR, the dog wasn’t let loose on the highway. From the third link in the OP:

"The canine picked up the scent of one of the suspects behind the restaurant. A half mile away, the German shepherd caught up with Robinson on the shoulder of Route 42. "[/quote]

For the record, this is a highly populated area with many roadways. I would not loose a dog in that area period. I said earlier that the dog should be on lead - for its own safety and that of the perpetrator it “detains”. I earlier made a point that submitting to arrest should not include getting bit, which in and of itself is in my opinion excessive force. We can argue endlessly about under what circumstances a dog should be loosed upon a suspect…but let’s not pretend that it doesn’t come with risk. Every time I go in the field and loose one of my dogs to hunt, there is a risk that he will within the course of scenting or chasing game, cross a roadway and be struck, among other risks.

Dog off lead = risk.

These kids robbed a chinese joint…they didn’t just get done murdering someone. I think the use of the dog could have been a bit more judicious.

193

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

well… as the law would have it, … " if not but for his actions this dog would not have been released" so he is ultimately responsible for the death of this dog.

If not but for…

remember that. Every criminal is responsible for what happens.

The piece of trash criminal is responsible for this.

that is all.

[/quote]

Completely disagree. The “butterfly effect” theory don’t fly here…pun intended. [/quote]

It isn’t the butterfly effect, it is legal theory and will be applied to his case. Same thing if a person commits a burglary and the victim in fear suffers a heart attack and dies the burglar will be charged with the murder or manslaughter of the victim. Although the burglar didn’t intend the death of the victim, if not but for his actions the death would not have happened.

“if not but for” is a legal theory relating to the outcomes from criminal actions.
[/quote]

I know what it is. And I don’t believe it applies here. [/quote]

I don’t either. If he broke into the police dog kennel and the dog was killed by THAT action, it would be way different than a dog dying because some cops sent the dog after a criminal that was already in a hazardous area.

Doesn’t the fault lie with the cops? Why send a dog into an unsafe environment where they could be hit by a car and then blame the dog’s death on the guy you sent the dog after?

The dog is a TOOL in that scenario and the user of that tool is at fault.[/quote]

By the way, that highway is a very busy, heavily trafficked highway. There is no way I would loose a dog in any proximity to that roadway - or any other roadway for that matter.

And, until I see some witness testimony, I don’t necessarily buy that this kid caused that dog’s death. A very possible scenario is that that dog pursued the kid into traffic. Has anyone paused to think how you throw a dog into traffic and end up getting hit by the same car?

I think the officer’s decision to use the dog in this situation was a regretful one. I respect the dog’s service to the community and I don’t think any of us want to see a dog die needlessly, but I have a strong feeling this was “user error” and that the handler bears some fault here.

He deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for robbery and resisting arrest. I’ll reserve further judgment until I see some testimony or video.
[/quote]

FTR, the dog wasn’t let loose on the highway. From the third link in the OP:

"The canine picked up the scent of one of the suspects behind the restaurant. A half mile away, the German shepherd caught up with Robinson on the shoulder of Route 42. "[/quote]

That’s even worse. They loosed a dog to run free for an area of a half mile in a heavily populated well trafficked part of town…and it’s the KID’S fault the dog got hit?

LOL!!

Wait, so if I let my dog run without a leash into one of the busiest parts of town, I am not to blame if it gets hit?

194
195

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That’s even worse. They loosed a dog to run free for an area of a half mile in a heavily populated well trafficked part of town…and it’s the KID’S fault the dog got hit?

LOL!!

Wait, so if I let my dog run without a leash into one of the busiest parts of town, I am not to blame if it gets hit?

[/quote]

No! YOU’D GET A TICKET FOR YOUR DOG RUNNING LOOSE!!!

196

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
It’s just an animal, people.
You can grow an attachement to anything but it’s just a mutt, at the end of the day.
Don’t really see the big deal. A dog died, boohoo, so tragic.
The guy was gonna get ripped to shreds. Can you fault him?[/quote]

Since you posted a photo of a dog roast being plated up to illustrate your point, we can assume then that the thought of eating a dog sounds appetizing to you (I’m not asking you if you’d eat one as a last-ditch alternative to starvation, but if you would regularly choose to eat one over say, a steak or chicken and enjoy it)?

You’re not as “de-sensitized” to fluffy creatures as you think you are.[/quote]

Irrelevant comparison. I’ve never tried dog, so of course I would choose a known quantity like steak, which is delicious. Now if you were to ask me if I would try dog, or cat, or horse, or any animal for the sake of trying it, I would say, “absolutely”.[/quote]

It’s not an irrelevant comparison. You didn’t make the point or post the pic. And stop trying to find argumentative loopholes. The question wasn’t “would you try roast dog if I hired a Michelin star chef to cook it and offer it to you for the sake of novelty?”. It was “are you so emotionally removed from domestic animals that you’d eat and enjoy dog flesh on a regular basis and of your own volition?”.

Clearly the answer for both of you “independent thinkers” is no, because you’d be eating it already. Amateur. [/quote]

Wow. You call me an amateur, and yet you’ve built a fine strawman yourself. I said nothing about requiring a professional chef to eat a dog. The reason I don’t eat dog is because it’s not available to me. However, if there was a local dog-slaughtering shop that provided dog at a reasonable price, I’d eat it all day long. The reason I eat a lot of cows, chickens and pigs is because I, like most everyone on this site, do not kill the animals I eat. Why is it normal for someone to raise a pig, an animal as intelligent or even moreso than a dog, only to kill and eat it? Because dogs have endeared themselves to our species by luck of the draw; their social structure is sufficiently similar to ours so as to allow them to slip effortlessly into our homes, nothing more. And quit trying to act so high and mighty because you’re in the majority. Go to a third world country and you would be considered a pariah for holding dogs in such high esteem.[/quote]

I posted a very specific question. You completely misinterpreted it in an effort to make an unrelated point and tried to make yourself look knowledgeable. I agree that one of us tried to make a strawman, but it wasn’t me. Look up the definition of a strawman argument.

It comes from a response, not an opening statement or question. A strawman, by it’s very nature can’t come from an opening argument. That’s impossible. Go away and learn the correct terminology before you try to use the rules of classical debate.

Don’t say that you don’t eat dog meat because it’s is “not available to you”. Dog is very much available to you: you see them every day. You fucked your argument over as soon as you claimed you said nothing about requiring a chef to prepare a dog, then went on to say that you’d eat dog “all day long” if there were authorized slaughterhouses to prepare the meat for you, even though you don’t even know if you like the taste…/argument.
[/quote]

And yet, in your original post, you make an assumption to refute a non-existant argument. So what is that if not a strawman? I would characterize my initial post as expanding the topic you presented, but it most certainly answers the question you posed. Implicit within my willingness to try dog is the fact that dog is sufficiently appetizing to me, or I would not try it. Introducing the idea that I would be trying it for the sake of novelty is an assumption on your part and, I think you’ll agree, a strawman. And as you can see, I didn’t suggest you made a strawman argument until your second response. Furthermore, you proved in your second response that you aren’t particularly well-equipped to engage in classical debate yourself in calling me an amateur. If your argument is valid, it will stand on it’s own. But you apparently aren’t convinced of this since you feel the need to consistently reinforce it through name-calling and self-aggrandizing statements. I can assure you that you do not have the power to end an argument through your own say-so, especially one taking place on the internet.

Your last paragraph is utter nonsense based on your own logic if nothing else. I very specifially qualified my statement by saying that I do not kill my own meat (nor do I scavenge it, nor do I do anything other than buy it at a supermarket), hence dog-meat is not in fact available to me. You coveniently left this out in order to serve your argument. So dog-meat is appetizing to me, I eat meats that are available to me (as defined by me), dog is not available to me…explain how you refuted this argument. And hey, I can say /argument too, but it doesn’t mean a damn thing and it doesn’t further your point (see previous paragraph).

197

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

FTR, the dog wasn’t let loose on the highway. From the third link in the OP:

"The canine picked up the scent of one of the suspects behind the restaurant. A half mile away, the German shepherd caught up with Robinson on the shoulder of Route 42. "[/quote]

For the record, this is a highly populated area with many roadways. I would not loose a dog in that area period. I said earlier that the dog should be on lead - for its own safety and that of the perpetrator it “detains”. I earlier made a point that submitting to arrest should not include getting bit, which in and of itself is in my opinion excessive force. We can argue endlessly about under what circumstances a dog should be loosed upon a suspect…but let’s not pretend that it doesn’t come with risk. Every time I go in the field and loose one of my dogs to hunt, there is a risk that he will within the course of scenting or chasing game, cross a roadway and be struck, among other risks.

Dog off lead = risk.

These kids robbed a chinese joint…they didn’t just get done murdering someone. I think the use of the dog could have been a bit more judicious. [/quote]

Fair enough…but the K9 even being able to pursue the guy over a half mile suggests that they’d fled the scene before the cops got there. They wouldn’t have stayed in front of the dog to make the pursuit that long if they didn’t have a significant head start. Outrunning a dog on foot for a half mile? Unlikely (that’s why I posted that specific quote).

Which puts the kibosh on the idea that the guy was chased into heavy traffic. He was, for whatever reason, heading that way anyway.

198

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
It’s just an animal, people.
You can grow an attachement to anything but it’s just a mutt, at the end of the day.
Don’t really see the big deal. A dog died, boohoo, so tragic.
The guy was gonna get ripped to shreds. Can you fault him?[/quote]

Since you posted a photo of a dog roast being plated up to illustrate your point, we can assume then that the thought of eating a dog sounds appetizing to you (I’m not asking you if you’d eat one as a last-ditch alternative to starvation, but if you would regularly choose to eat one over say, a steak or chicken and enjoy it)?

You’re not as “de-sensitized” to fluffy creatures as you think you are.[/quote]

Irrelevant comparison. I’ve never tried dog, so of course I would choose a known quantity like steak, which is delicious. Now if you were to ask me if I would try dog, or cat, or horse, or any animal for the sake of trying it, I would say, “absolutely”.[/quote]

It’s not an irrelevant comparison. You didn’t make the point or post the pic. And stop trying to find argumentative loopholes. The question wasn’t “would you try roast dog if I hired a Michelin star chef to cook it and offer it to you for the sake of novelty?”. It was “are you so emotionally removed from domestic animals that you’d eat and enjoy dog flesh on a regular basis and of your own volition?”.

Clearly the answer for both of you “independent thinkers” is no, because you’d be eating it already. Amateur. [/quote]

Wow. You call me an amateur, and yet you’ve built a fine strawman yourself. I said nothing about requiring a professional chef to eat a dog. The reason I don’t eat dog is because it’s not available to me. However, if there was a local dog-slaughtering shop that provided dog at a reasonable price, I’d eat it all day long. The reason I eat a lot of cows, chickens and pigs is because I, like most everyone on this site, do not kill the animals I eat. Why is it normal for someone to raise a pig, an animal as intelligent or even moreso than a dog, only to kill and eat it? Because dogs have endeared themselves to our species by luck of the draw; their social structure is sufficiently similar to ours so as to allow them to slip effortlessly into our homes, nothing more. And quit trying to act so high and mighty because you’re in the majority. Go to a third world country and you would be considered a pariah for holding dogs in such high esteem.[/quote]

I posted a very specific question. You completely misinterpreted it in an effort to make an unrelated point and tried to make yourself look knowledgeable. I agree that one of us tried to make a strawman, but it wasn’t me. Look up the definition of a strawman argument.

It comes from a response, not an opening statement or question. A strawman, by it’s very nature can’t come from an opening argument. That’s impossible. Go away and learn the correct terminology before you try to use the rules of classical debate.

Don’t say that you don’t eat dog meat because it’s is “not available to you”. Dog is very much available to you: you see them every day. You fucked your argument over as soon as you claimed you said nothing about requiring a chef to prepare a dog, then went on to say that you’d eat dog “all day long” if there were authorized slaughterhouses to prepare the meat for you, even though you don’t even know if you like the taste…/argument.
[/quote]

And yet, in your original post, you make an assumption to refute a non-existant argument. So what is that if not a strawman? I would characterize my initial post as expanding the topic you presented, but it most certainly answers the question you posed. Implicit within my willingness to try dog is the fact that dog is sufficiently appetizing to me, or I would not try it. Introducing the idea that I would be trying it for the sake of novelty is an assumption on your part and, I think you’ll agree, a strawman. And as you can see, I didn’t suggest you made a strawman argument until your second response. Furthermore, you proved in your second response that you aren’t particularly well-equipped to engage in classical debate yourself in calling me an amateur. If your argument is valid, it will stand on it’s own. But you apparently aren’t convinced of this since you feel the need to consistently reinforce it through name-calling and self-aggrandizing statements. I can assure you that you do not have the power to end an argument through your own say-so, especially one taking place on the internet.

Your last paragraph is utter nonsense based on your own logic if nothing else. I very specifially qualified my statement by saying that I do not kill my own meat (nor do I scavenge it, nor do I do anything other than buy it at a supermarket), hence dog-meat is not in fact available to me. You coveniently left this out in order to serve your argument. So dog-meat is appetizing to me, I eat meats that are available to me (as defined by me), dog is not available to me…explain how you refuted this argument. And hey, I can say /argument too, but it doesn’t mean a damn thing and it doesn’t further your point (see previous paragraph).[/quote]

Good God you’re boring.

199

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Does anyone else think the police are making stuff up? I see it happening like this…

Robbers: OH NO! IT’S DA FUZZ!

Police: Go get 'em Rover!

Rover: Straight into oncoming traffic.
[/quote]

While I could imagine that, I sure hope that canine “officers” are not that retarded just because they became a member of a police unit.

I think it takes at least a badge and a gun to lower the IQ by that much.

[/quote]

Bingo!

200

^^^^

K9 Officers here locally are police officers.