Man Arrested Trying to Save His Dog

Off Topic
41

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Cops did the right thing. Anyone who disagrees is WRONG.

He asked the cops “why did you show up then?” and I am thinking “To stop your dumb ass from ending up in the lake.”

Cannot risk it to save a dog. Even with the gear, the rescuer ended up in the water. You don’t know what will happen. The guy could have been pulled in, had heart attack, anything could happen.

If it was a child though, tie the jackets together to make a line you can pull the guy out after the guy jumps/falls in trying to get the kid. Of course, kid would be dead a helluva lot quicker than Super Dog there.
[/quote]

You’re wrong. When you’re talking about a dog, a member of your family, that’s just as important to me - probably more important - than some stranger’s kid.

What’s so special about a kid that him you have to save but the dog you don’t? Plenty of people are assholes, so you dont know if the kid you’re saving grows up good, bad or in between. So what’s the justification then, that he belongs to the same species? Totally irrelevant. 100 years ago someone like you would be arguing 'Well you wait for animal control to come to rescue some black guy that fell through the ice. If it was a white guy, then you tie jackets together…"

And yes, that family is pretty much white trash.

42

[quote]Bootsie wrote:
I have to defend these cops. The thing they did wrong was not put the owner in handcuffs and in the back of his car from the get go. If you have to push someone back because they wont listen to you, thats enough right there to detain him.

It should have never come to that guy making a dash for the lake and the cops tackling him. Second, if the cops let that guy in the water, and he so much as caught a cold, he could and probably would sue the department and win. As a cop, I am not going to risk my life or my career for a dog.

ive owned dogs, and i loved them, but i still would rather be the one living at the end of the day. This situation was jacked up from the begining, and is one of the situations where calling the cops made it worse. at the end of the day, the dog is still alive and the DA is probably not going to file charges on the guy. [/quote]

I totally agree with everything (except the bolded part.) Cops were in a tough situationthere , but they weren’t helping themselves either. And bottom line, the dog got saved. The guy’ll pay a fine - failure to obey, or disorderly - and that’s probably it

43

Some of you guys are way to attached to your dogs. A dogs life is not equivilant to that of a human life.

The guy from the video wouldn’t have waited 1/2 hour for help if the life in the lake were human… I hope.

44

[quote]Christine wrote:
Some of you guys are way to attached to your dogs. A dogs life is not equivilant to that of a human life.

The guy from the video wouldn’t have waited 1/2 hour for help if the life in the lake were human… I hope.[/quote]

Depends on the human.

45

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Bootsie wrote:
I have to defend these cops. The thing they did wrong was not put the owner in handcuffs and in the back of his car from the get go. If you have to push someone back because they wont listen to you, thats enough right there to detain him.

It should have never come to that guy making a dash for the lake and the cops tackling him. Second, if the cops let that guy in the water, and he so much as caught a cold, he could and probably would sue the department and win. As a cop, I am not going to risk my life or my career for a dog.

ive owned dogs, and i loved them, but i still would rather be the one living at the end of the day. This situation was jacked up from the begining, and is one of the situations where calling the cops made it worse. at the end of the day, the dog is still alive and the DA is probably not going to file charges on the guy.

I totally agree with everything (except the bolded part.) Cops were in a tough situationthere , but they weren’t helping themselves either. And bottom line, the dog got saved. The guy’ll pay a fine - failure to obey, or disorderly - and that’s probably it[/quote]

I know people who feel the same way about their dogs as you do. While I may not neccesarily agree, I can see where they are coming from and respect it. However, whether people agree with it or not, society and the law looks at a dogs life as less valuable then a humans. Courts have stated that if a person is pointing a gun at a dog, as a cop we can not use deadly force to protect the dogs life.

However, if a person is pointing a gun at another person, then we can use deadly force. People may not agree with that, i know some of my friends dont, but its still the law. How it relates to this video, the guy should have realized he values his life as much as his dogs, and never called the police. Or, call the police, and while they are enroute, jump in and try to save the dog.

when the police arrive and see a person in the freezing water, I guarentee they wouldnt have just been standing around (unless it was that fat lady, then they might have just stood around).

46

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The right to life is the right to risk yours. If you buy into the government being able to save you from yourself you sign off on government interference with all aspects of your life. Diet, exercise, medication, supplements, could all be controlled by the government if you buy into that logic.

You want them to force you to do the “healthiest” thing? Tell you you can’t sky-dive, or ride motorcycles?

The government does not have the right to protect you from yourself. Things like seatbelt laws make me sick.

That may be so, but who do you think pays for the clean-up of someone’s mess when they off themselves? As a tax payer, I’d rather pay for a police force NOW than the municipal clean-up later.

Which is once again a window the government can use to tell you to do whatever it wants. EX: powerlifting/bodybuilding is bad for your joints so they should outlaw it to save on health costs down the road.

If the guy fell in and died, I don’t think the government should fish him out. I wouldn’t see the point of investigating.[/quote]

That’s such a stupid example. You’re probably one of those people who thinks of a police organization as socialism.
Keep that shit in the POW forums please.

Like I said before, their motto is To Protect and to Serve. That’s what the cops did. They kept a bad situation from turning worse. So what’s your problem with it? Where do YOU draw the line for police involvement?

47

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The right to life is the right to risk yours. If you buy into the government being able to save you from yourself you sign off on government interference with all aspects of your life. Diet, exercise, medication, supplements, could all be controlled by the government if you buy into that logic.

You want them to force you to do the “healthiest” thing? Tell you you can’t sky-dive, or ride motorcycles?

The government does not have the right to protect you from yourself. Things like seatbelt laws make me sick.

That may be so, but who do you think pays for the clean-up of someone’s mess when they off themselves? As a tax payer, I’d rather pay for a police force NOW than the municipal clean-up later.

Which is once again a window the government can use to tell you to do whatever it wants. EX: powerlifting/bodybuilding is bad for your joints so they should outlaw it to save on health costs down the road.

If the guy fell in and died, I don’t think the government should fish him out. I wouldn’t see the point of investigating.

That’s such a stupid example. You’re probably one of those people who thinks of a police organization as socialism.
Keep that shit in the POW forums please.

Like I said before, their motto is To Protect and to Serve. That’s what the cops did. They kept a bad situation from turning worse. So what’s your problem with it? Where do YOU draw the line for police involvement?[/quote]

You are probably one of those people that thinks socialism will work this time.

I’m specifically talking about police involvement not a political movement, sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Every time I’ve had experience with an officer in life has taught me not to trust them. They have an obscene amount of power on how to interpret and enforce laws.

Is there a law that says you can’t risk your life for an animal? What law are they enforcing?

Where do you draw the line?

If you are going to keep this guy from risking his life for a friend, shouldn’t you stop stunt men and daredevils from risking their life for entertainment? Surely the dog is more valuable than entertainment.

48

Ok it looks like somebody needs to speak from experience here.

YES there is a dog in the water, the owner called 911 for help. First to arrive on scene is PD. It’s a small town and not all fire departments have the same resources or training, so they have to call for another department to respond.

The problem with the guy going in after the dog is now we have two parties to rescue in water that is below freezing. The dog has a better chance at survival.

Could PD have handled this differently… sure! Communicate with the owners keep them informed of what’s going on advise why you had to call for more help. Not just stand there yelling at each other. You’ll notice that once the FD was on scene with ice rescue suits the dog was out of the water in a matter of two minutes.

49

also remember, the news crew was not present the entire time. Alot happened before the camera was on, which we will never know.

50

[quote]threewhitelights wrote:
Very few things make me as upset as it does to watch those cops tell him to stand away from the ice. If my dog was in freezing water, I would have no problem whatsoever causing a great deal of injury to whatever civil servant that tried to stand in my way.

I’m not anti-cop or anything, some of my best friends are law, but I wouldn’t have any problem hurting the dumbass that tried to stop me from going to my baby, badge or no badge.

On another note, white trash pretty much does sum up the rest of the family.[/quote]

Your dog is your baby?

51

[quote]LiftSmart wrote:
I don’t see precedent for the police to deny a man choosing to risk his own life.

If he died in the attempt (seems unlikely with so many people around and the short distance from shore) his family would suffer emotional pain but other than that this would have only effected him. His choice should not have been interfered with.

[/quote]

Yeah, it’s not like, when they showed you a video about the guy going in and drowning and the police doing nothing to save him, it’s not like you would have critisided the cops for not saving his stupid ass, would you?

I’m guessing you would.

Both parents are hysterical. In fact the kids are smarter than both their parents put together. If that doesn’t prove evolution, I don’t know what does. :wink:

52

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I think it’s a little sad when people think it’s OK for police to “SAVE” someone from themselves. So if I’m out snowboarding and tell everyone I’m gonna try a double backflip off a 60 foot jump, should someone call the cops and make them stop me? Hell I wouldn’t even be trying to save something in that scenario.

Look the cops should have shut the hell up and HELPED the guy try to save his dog. People are tougher than many of you seem to think as well. You got a good 20 minutes if you fall in, I watched survivorman do it. A Professional can go for an hour.

V[/quote]

I’ve got an idea, why don’t you put your phone number here, and people can call YOU when they want their dog saved. You’re the expert after all, you’ve seen survivoerman do it.

53

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The right to life is the right to risk yours. If you buy into the government being able to save you from yourself you sign off on government interference with all aspects of your life. Diet, exercise, medication, supplements, could all be controlled by the government if you buy into that logic.

You want them to force you to do the “healthiest” thing? Tell you you can’t sky-dive, or ride motorcycles?

The government does not have the right to protect you from yourself. Things like seatbelt laws make me sick.[/quote]

Well, they keep stupid fucks like you alive, so they make me bit queezy also.

54

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
threewhitelights wrote:
Very few things make me as upset as it does to watch those cops tell him to stand away from the ice. If my dog was in freezing water, I would have no problem whatsoever causing a great deal of injury to whatever civil servant that tried to stand in my way.

I’m not anti-cop or anything, some of my best friends are law, but I wouldn’t have any problem hurting the dumbass that tried to stop me from going to my baby, badge or no badge.

On another note, white trash pretty much does sum up the rest of the family.

Your dog is your baby?[/quote]

Yes, I treat my dog as I would treat my child. Is there a problem with that?

55

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The right to life is the right to risk yours. If you buy into the government being able to save you from yourself you sign off on government interference with all aspects of your life. Diet, exercise, medication, supplements, could all be controlled by the government if you buy into that logic.

You want them to force you to do the “healthiest” thing? Tell you you can’t sky-dive, or ride motorcycles?

The government does not have the right to protect you from yourself. Things like seatbelt laws make me sick.

That may be so, but who do you think pays for the clean-up of someone’s mess when they off themselves? As a tax payer, I’d rather pay for a police force NOW than the municipal clean-up later.
[/quote]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but the police do not clean anything up when someone commits suicide. It is entirely up to the family.

That said, those cops handled that situation very badly. There was no empathy whatsoever. There is a balance between setting boundaries in the interest of protecting people and still acting like a sympathetic human being.

56

[quote]threewhitelights wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
threewhitelights wrote:

Yes, I treat my dog as I would treat my child. Is there a problem with that? [/quote]

yes. your values are fucked up. If a dog and your baby are both facing imminent danger and you can only save one, who do you save? It’s amazing the convoluted philosophical arguments some of these college students make. And if they are not students, they have no excuse, because they are already in the real world and just don’t get it.

57

[quote]sluicy wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The right to life is the right to risk yours. If you buy into the government being able to save you from yourself you sign off on government interference with all aspects of your life. Diet, exercise, medication, supplements, could all be controlled by the government if you buy into that logic.

You want them to force you to do the “healthiest” thing? Tell you you can’t sky-dive, or ride motorcycles?

The government does not have the right to protect you from yourself. Things like seatbelt laws make me sick.

That may be so, but who do you think pays for the clean-up of someone’s mess when they off themselves? As a tax payer, I’d rather pay for a police force NOW than the municipal clean-up later.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but the police do not clean anything up when someone commits suicide. It is entirely up to the family.

That said, those cops handled that situation very badly. There was no empathy whatsoever. There is a balance between setting boundaries in the interest of protecting people and still acting like a sympathetic human being. [/quote]

I wasn’t talking about suicide specifically. I was contrasting the payment of our tax dollars for municipal involvement on the REACTIVE and the PREVENTATIVE aspect of such a situation. I choose the latter.

Yes, the cops handled it badly. No empathy. But imagine YOU’RE a cop on that scene. A man wants to jump into an icy lake to save his dog. What do YOU do? No self-respecting officer of the law would allow it on his watch. If that man was so brave when “help” arrived, he should have saved himself the call to begin with and jumped in as soon as his beloved pet went through the ice.

Believe me, I LOVE my 2 dogs like family, but they don’t even come close to the love I have for my own son.
The fact that the man wanted to risk his own life for a dog sounds valiant, yet it is stupid when you consider that his possible death would have had greater repercussions on the loved ones he left behind. No dog is worth hurting my wife and child over.

58

[quote]Magarhe wrote:.
You have to talk to some people like a small child to control them. .[/quote]

and this is the problem today… we think we should “control” other people. which in of itself is WRONG

59

[quote]Christine wrote:
Some of you guys are way to attached to your dogs. A dogs life is not equivilant to that of a human life.

The guy from the video wouldn’t have waited 1/2 hour for help if the life in the lake were human… I hope.[/quote]

I have a real problem with this type of thinking. Who are you to tell me what I can consider valuable. If someone attacked my dog, I would defend my dog, if I needed to kill the other person to do so, I would do so, to ME my dogs life is more valuable than a lot of people. I am a free human being and I am free to choose what I think and what I do.

I am sick to death that people would sue for someone doing what they think is right and getting injured or killed over it. The problem isn’t a guy with the attitude of I’m going to save my dog, its the attitude of the lawyer who says, Hey you are suffering because the cops let your husband die, Why not get some monetary compensation for your suffering and also put a monetary penalty on the police for not doing thier duty. This is the Major fault with our modern society.

Also he probably called the police expecting them to be there in a couple minutes, and help him get his dog out of the damned lake, He was relying on the societal structure set up to take care of his problem. Luckily that structure came through at the very end and a tragedy for this man was avoided.

Unfortunately a side effect of the structure is that anyone who is attempting to subvert, or act outside of the structure is considered a threat and must be nuetralized and processed. Now that he is tagged, whenever he gets pulled over for a traffic ticket, the cops will know that this one can have a tendancy to do things the system doesn’t approve of. He has a potential to rebel, deal with this one with extreme caution.

V

60

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The right to life is the right to risk yours. If you buy into the government being able to save you from yourself you sign off on government interference with all aspects of your life. Diet, exercise, medication, supplements, could all be controlled by the government if you buy into that logic.

You want them to force you to do the “healthiest” thing? Tell you you can’t sky-dive, or ride motorcycles?

The government does not have the right to protect you from yourself. Things like seatbelt laws make me sick.

Well, they keep stupid fucks like you alive, so they make me bit queezy also.

[/quote]

They have no right to keep me alive if I choose not to live. Ever heard of a DNR order?

You have a right to be an idiot and risk your life. Much more so in order to save a valued, irreplaceable friend.