[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
And by the time the dog showed up, calling back up would’ve been a moot point. The dog would be faster.[/quote]
Pic of the killer dog.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If the cop REALLY felt “endangered” he would have certainly called for backup. He must not have felt THAT scared. And if he REALLY felt like he was fully justified in shooting the dog, he never would have LIED about it.
HG, why can’t you admit that the cop fucked up?
No one is saying that a cop is not within his right to shoot a dog if he feels threatened.
The point is that THIS cop gave conflicting orders, didn’t give the “suspect” (a man in his garden during the day, not dangerous thug in a dark ally - he wasn’t even wearing a hoodie!) enough time to respond to ANY of the commands!
Then he LIED.
I think ANYONE with any kind of mature judgement can say that this situation was not handled properly. From the fuck up at the 911 call center to the inadequate handling of the “situation” (which really WASN’T a “situation” at all)
And now someone’s dog is dead.
Regardless of how “justified” the cop was or wasn’t, it’s not JUSTICE when the STATE can knock down someone’s fucking door and kill their dog! WITHOUT A CONSEQUENCE
That certainly isn’t a country I want to live in.[/quote]
Because I don’t believe the cop fucked up in his actions, “maturity” not withstanding.
Responsibility for the dead dog lies with the call center.
I realize your sentiment fits DD, Orion and BB’s sentiment and the arguments I’ve made to them stand for you as well.[/quote]
No, your argument has been that the cop “reasonably felt that he was in danger”. Well, if he thought that, he would have called for back up. He didn’t. He shot a dog and LIED about it.
My issue really isn’t about weather or not he was justified in shooting the dog - it’s a moot point. HE was the cop, and they will always take the cop’s word.
My point is that he was busted in LYING about it. A point which you repeatedly gloss over as “just a mistake”. That “mistake” calls into question his whole character, integrity and reliability. The things that GIVE HIM THE PRIVILEGE of wearing that badge.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
And by the time the dog showed up, calling back up would’ve been a moot point. The dog would be faster.[/quote]
Pic of the killer dog. [/quote]
Read the thread.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If the cop REALLY felt “endangered” he would have certainly called for backup. He must not have felt THAT scared. And if he REALLY felt like he was fully justified in shooting the dog, he never would have LIED about it.
HG, why can’t you admit that the cop fucked up?
No one is saying that a cop is not within his right to shoot a dog if he feels threatened.
The point is that THIS cop gave conflicting orders, didn’t give the “suspect” (a man in his garden during the day, not dangerous thug in a dark ally - he wasn’t even wearing a hoodie!) enough time to respond to ANY of the commands!
Then he LIED.
I think ANYONE with any kind of mature judgement can say that this situation was not handled properly. From the fuck up at the 911 call center to the inadequate handling of the “situation” (which really WASN’T a “situation” at all)
And now someone’s dog is dead.
Regardless of how “justified” the cop was or wasn’t, it’s not JUSTICE when the STATE can knock down someone’s fucking door and kill their dog! WITHOUT A CONSEQUENCE
That certainly isn’t a country I want to live in.[/quote]
Because I don’t believe the cop fucked up in his actions, “maturity” not withstanding.
Responsibility for the dead dog lies with the call center.
I realize your sentiment fits DD, Orion and BB’s sentiment and the arguments I’ve made to them stand for you as well.[/quote]
No, your argument has been that the cop “reasonably felt that he was in danger”. Well, if he thought that, he would have called for back up. He didn’t. He shot a dog and LIED about it.
My issue really isn’t about weather or not he was justified in shooting the dog - it’s a moot point. HE was the cop, and they will always take the cop’s word.
My point is that he was busted in LYING about it. A point which you repeatedly gloss over as “just a mistake”. That “mistake” calls into question his whole character, integrity and reliability. The things that GIVE HIM THE PRIVILEGE of wearing that badge. [/quote]
I’ve agreed since the beginning his lie was wrong and answered your “king for a day” question.
The rest of the thread has been a discussion of his actions, which were not wrong.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
And by the time the dog showed up, calling back up would’ve been a moot point. The dog would be faster.[/quote]
Pic of the killer dog. [/quote]
Read the thread.[/quote]
I did. Your typical bullshitting tactics are useless here because, it’s not a killer dog. If the cop is so scared of a fucking sheepdog that he has to shoot it for barking then maybe he’s in the wrong line of work.
No you didn’t. Read the whole thread. The breed is an aggressive one, even if not pit vicious.
As stated, all you need is a distraction for a deadly situation, something the dog absolutely provided. An actual cop verified the truth, no bullshit about it.
Speaking of bullshit, the thread has become circular. Most arguments on the last three pages have been addressed and the broken record is boring.
The cops only mistake was lying. “But why lie?” “but he was at the wrong house”… Already answered what I think.
If you have a specific objection as you go through the thread, quote with question and I’ll be happy to reply so long as I haven’t already in the ensuing conversation.
If you just feel like flaming, suck an ass.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If the cop REALLY felt “endangered” he would have certainly called for backup. He must not have felt THAT scared. And if he REALLY felt like he was fully justified in shooting the dog, he never would have LIED about it.
HG, why can’t you admit that the cop fucked up?
No one is saying that a cop is not within his right to shoot a dog if he feels threatened.
The point is that THIS cop gave conflicting orders, didn’t give the “suspect” (a man in his garden during the day, not dangerous thug in a dark ally - he wasn’t even wearing a hoodie!) enough time to respond to ANY of the commands!
Then he LIED.
I think ANYONE with any kind of mature judgement can say that this situation was not handled properly. From the fuck up at the 911 call center to the inadequate handling of the “situation” (which really WASN’T a “situation” at all)
And now someone’s dog is dead.
Regardless of how “justified” the cop was or wasn’t, it’s not JUSTICE when the STATE can knock down someone’s fucking door and kill their dog! WITHOUT A CONSEQUENCE
That certainly isn’t a country I want to live in.[/quote]
Because I don’t believe the cop fucked up in his actions, “maturity” not withstanding.
Responsibility for the dead dog lies with the call center.
I realize your sentiment fits DD, Orion and BB’s sentiment and the arguments I’ve made to them stand for you as well.[/quote]
No, your argument has been that the cop “reasonably felt that he was in danger”. Well, if he thought that, he would have called for back up. He didn’t. He shot a dog and LIED about it.
My issue really isn’t about weather or not he was justified in shooting the dog - it’s a moot point. HE was the cop, and they will always take the cop’s word.
My point is that he was busted in LYING about it. A point which you repeatedly gloss over as “just a mistake”. That “mistake” calls into question his whole character, integrity and reliability. The things that GIVE HIM THE PRIVILEGE of wearing that badge. [/quote]
I’ve agreed since the beginning his lie was wrong and answered your “king for a day” question.
The rest of the thread has been a discussion of his actions, which were not wrong.[/quote]
We don’t know his true actions other than the audio…AND THE OFFICER’S statement…which is not credible…because it was a LIE. Your whole argument is based on what YOU project as the officer’s “right” actions. You’re trying too hard to justify the officer’s alleged “right” actions…but want to separate his character and credibility as being irrelevant…when anyone with common sense knows damn well those things go hand in hand.
The officer shooting the dog…really,imo,is not the bigger argument or criticism.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If the cop REALLY felt “endangered” he would have certainly called for backup. He must not have felt THAT scared. And if he REALLY felt like he was fully justified in shooting the dog, he never would have LIED about it.
HG, why can’t you admit that the cop fucked up?
No one is saying that a cop is not within his right to shoot a dog if he feels threatened.
The point is that THIS cop gave conflicting orders, didn’t give the “suspect” (a man in his garden during the day, not dangerous thug in a dark ally - he wasn’t even wearing a hoodie!) enough time to respond to ANY of the commands!
Then he LIED.
I think ANYONE with any kind of mature judgement can say that this situation was not handled properly. From the fuck up at the 911 call center to the inadequate handling of the “situation” (which really WASN’T a “situation” at all)
And now someone’s dog is dead.
Regardless of how “justified” the cop was or wasn’t, it’s not JUSTICE when the STATE can knock down someone’s fucking door and kill their dog! WITHOUT A CONSEQUENCE
That certainly isn’t a country I want to live in.[/quote]
Because I don’t believe the cop fucked up in his actions, “maturity” not withstanding.
Responsibility for the dead dog lies with the call center.
I realize your sentiment fits DD, Orion and BB’s sentiment and the arguments I’ve made to them stand for you as well.[/quote]
No, your argument has been that the cop “reasonably felt that he was in danger”. Well, if he thought that, he would have called for back up. He didn’t. He shot a dog and LIED about it.
My issue really isn’t about weather or not he was justified in shooting the dog - it’s a moot point. HE was the cop, and they will always take the cop’s word.
My point is that he was busted in LYING about it. A point which you repeatedly gloss over as “just a mistake”. That “mistake” calls into question his whole character, integrity and reliability. The things that GIVE HIM THE PRIVILEGE of wearing that badge. [/quote]
I’ve agreed since the beginning his lie was wrong and answered your “king for a day” question.
The rest of the thread has been a discussion of his actions, which were not wrong.[/quote]
We don’t know his true actions other than the audio…AND THE OFFICER’S statement…which is not credible…because it was a LIE. Your whole argument is based on what YOU project as the officer’s “right” actions. You’re trying too hard to justify the officer’s alleged “right” actions…but want to separate his character and credibility as being irrelevant…when anyone with common sense knows damn well those things go hand in hand.
The officer shooting the dog…really,imo,is not the bigger argument or criticism.[/quote]
Yet it is the prevailing argument in the thread, or was until reasonability set in and arguments shifted to a no contest topic, and then people tried to apply one argument to the other, irrelevant and false anyways.
Oh…is the merry-go-round finally stopping,HG? About damn time.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If the cop REALLY felt “endangered” he would have certainly called for backup. He must not have felt THAT scared. And if he REALLY felt like he was fully justified in shooting the dog, he never would have LIED about it.
HG, why can’t you admit that the cop fucked up?
No one is saying that a cop is not within his right to shoot a dog if he feels threatened.
The point is that THIS cop gave conflicting orders, didn’t give the “suspect” (a man in his garden during the day, not dangerous thug in a dark ally - he wasn’t even wearing a hoodie!) enough time to respond to ANY of the commands!
Then he LIED.
I think ANYONE with any kind of mature judgement can say that this situation was not handled properly. From the fuck up at the 911 call center to the inadequate handling of the “situation” (which really WASN’T a “situation” at all)
And now someone’s dog is dead.
Regardless of how “justified” the cop was or wasn’t, it’s not JUSTICE when the STATE can knock down someone’s fucking door and kill their dog! WITHOUT A CONSEQUENCE
That certainly isn’t a country I want to live in.[/quote]
Because I don’t believe the cop fucked up in his actions, “maturity” not withstanding.
Responsibility for the dead dog lies with the call center.
I realize your sentiment fits DD, Orion and BB’s sentiment and the arguments I’ve made to them stand for you as well.[/quote]
No, your argument has been that the cop “reasonably felt that he was in danger”. Well, if he thought that, he would have called for back up. He didn’t. He shot a dog and LIED about it.
My issue really isn’t about weather or not he was justified in shooting the dog - it’s a moot point. HE was the cop, and they will always take the cop’s word.
My point is that he was busted in LYING about it. A point which you repeatedly gloss over as “just a mistake”. That “mistake” calls into question his whole character, integrity and reliability. The things that GIVE HIM THE PRIVILEGE of wearing that badge. [/quote]
I’ve agreed since the beginning his lie was wrong and answered your “king for a day” question.
The rest of the thread has been a discussion of his actions, which were not wrong.[/quote]
We don’t know his true actions other than the audio…AND THE OFFICER’S statement…which is not credible…because it was a LIE. Your whole argument is based on what YOU project as the officer’s “right” actions. You’re trying too hard to justify the officer’s alleged “right” actions…but want to separate his character and credibility as being irrelevant…when anyone with common sense knows damn well those things go hand in hand.
The officer shooting the dog…really,imo,is not the bigger argument or criticism.[/quote]
Yet it is the prevailing argument in the thread, or was until reasonability set in and arguments shifted to a no contest topic, and then people tried to apply one argument to the other, irrelevant and false anyways.[/quote]
No…it’s been the circle-jerk of the thread. Many reasonable posters in the thread have focused on the bigger issue. You just failed to recognize the reasonability. I still stand that even with your projected scenario…he was justified. But it’s just that…projected conjecture. Your benefit of doubt for the officer is based on nothing factual(only hypothetical with real examples)…other than the false statement he gave.
To sum it up…my biggest issue related to your argument of justifying the dog shooting…is that his lying(whether you feel was needed or not)…gives room to doubt he was truly justified. He has no credibility,imo…and even less character for doing so. And that’s a standard that agencies look for in officers to begin with. No credibility/character…but with authority is something the average person is not going to be comfortable with…and deem untrustworthy.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If the cop REALLY felt “endangered” he would have certainly called for backup. He must not have felt THAT scared. And if he REALLY felt like he was fully justified in shooting the dog, he never would have LIED about it.
HG, why can’t you admit that the cop fucked up?
No one is saying that a cop is not within his right to shoot a dog if he feels threatened.
The point is that THIS cop gave conflicting orders, didn’t give the “suspect” (a man in his garden during the day, not dangerous thug in a dark ally - he wasn’t even wearing a hoodie!) enough time to respond to ANY of the commands!
Then he LIED.
I think ANYONE with any kind of mature judgement can say that this situation was not handled properly. From the fuck up at the 911 call center to the inadequate handling of the “situation” (which really WASN’T a “situation” at all)
And now someone’s dog is dead.
Regardless of how “justified” the cop was or wasn’t, it’s not JUSTICE when the STATE can knock down someone’s fucking door and kill their dog! WITHOUT A CONSEQUENCE
That certainly isn’t a country I want to live in.[/quote]
Because I don’t believe the cop fucked up in his actions, “maturity” not withstanding.
Responsibility for the dead dog lies with the call center.
I realize your sentiment fits DD, Orion and BB’s sentiment and the arguments I’ve made to them stand for you as well.[/quote]
No, your argument has been that the cop “reasonably felt that he was in danger”. Well, if he thought that, he would have called for back up. He didn’t. He shot a dog and LIED about it.
My issue really isn’t about weather or not he was justified in shooting the dog - it’s a moot point. HE was the cop, and they will always take the cop’s word.
My point is that he was busted in LYING about it. A point which you repeatedly gloss over as “just a mistake”. That “mistake” calls into question his whole character, integrity and reliability. The things that GIVE HIM THE PRIVILEGE of wearing that badge. [/quote]
I’ve agreed since the beginning his lie was wrong and answered your “king for a day” question.
The rest of the thread has been a discussion of his actions, which were not wrong.[/quote]
Fair enough, you did. While I disagree with the way the scenario played out, I will not contest your argument that a police officer CAN shoot a dog if he feels threatened by the dog. I may not like it, but I’m pretty sure it’s legal for him to do so.
It’s still a douchebag move given what we know about the scenario, but I do think he was within his mandate at the time of the incident (wrong address notwithstanding).
I think that the guidelines need to be re-examined though so as to avoid these kinds of incidents in the future.
Thoughts?
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
No you didn’t. Read the whole thread. The breed is an aggressive one, even if not pit vicious.
As stated, all you need is a distraction for a deadly situation, something the dog absolutely provided. An actual cop verified the truth, no bullshit about it.
Speaking of bullshit, the thread has become circular. Most arguments on the last three pages have been addressed and the broken record is boring.
The cops only mistake was lying. “But why lie?” “but he was at the wrong house”… Already answered what I think.
If you have a specific objection as you go through the thread, quote with question and I’ll be happy to reply so long as I haven’t already in the ensuing conversation.
If you just feel like flaming, suck an ass.
[/quote]
Yes I did read the thread. Don’t tell me I didn’t when most of your responses are just to remind people you are posting. You are just about the biggest fucking hypocrite on this site right now with your comments on spin, hindsight and flaming. Every post you make is geared towards making you the center of attention. The police dog of choice - German Shepherd - is a a sheepdog( clue is in the name). They are chosen for their restraint and obedience. It’s in their breed.
As for aggression in dogs, Chihuahas are an aggressive breed when they protect their owners. Seen it first hand.
My “specific objection” was made in my last post. I don’t need to go back and make it. I’m making it now. In fact, I remember telling you to do the exact same thing on the first Zimmerman Martin thread. More bullshit from the master.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If the cop REALLY felt “endangered” he would have certainly called for backup. He must not have felt THAT scared. And if he REALLY felt like he was fully justified in shooting the dog, he never would have LIED about it.
HG, why can’t you admit that the cop fucked up?
No one is saying that a cop is not within his right to shoot a dog if he feels threatened.
The point is that THIS cop gave conflicting orders, didn’t give the “suspect” (a man in his garden during the day, not dangerous thug in a dark ally - he wasn’t even wearing a hoodie!) enough time to respond to ANY of the commands!
Then he LIED.
I think ANYONE with any kind of mature judgement can say that this situation was not handled properly. From the fuck up at the 911 call center to the inadequate handling of the “situation” (which really WASN’T a “situation” at all)
And now someone’s dog is dead.
Regardless of how “justified” the cop was or wasn’t, it’s not JUSTICE when the STATE can knock down someone’s fucking door and kill their dog! WITHOUT A CONSEQUENCE
That certainly isn’t a country I want to live in.[/quote]
Because I don’t believe the cop fucked up in his actions, “maturity” not withstanding.
Responsibility for the dead dog lies with the call center.
I realize your sentiment fits DD, Orion and BB’s sentiment and the arguments I’ve made to them stand for you as well.[/quote]
No, your argument has been that the cop “reasonably felt that he was in danger”. Well, if he thought that, he would have called for back up. He didn’t. He shot a dog and LIED about it.
My issue really isn’t about weather or not he was justified in shooting the dog - it’s a moot point. HE was the cop, and they will always take the cop’s word.
My point is that he was busted in LYING about it. A point which you repeatedly gloss over as “just a mistake”. That “mistake” calls into question his whole character, integrity and reliability. The things that GIVE HIM THE PRIVILEGE of wearing that badge. [/quote]
I’ve agreed since the beginning his lie was wrong and answered your “king for a day” question.
The rest of the thread has been a discussion of his actions, which were not wrong.[/quote]
Fair enough, you did. While I disagree with the way the scenario played out, I will not contest your argument that a police officer CAN shoot a dog if he feels threatened by the dog. I may not like it, but I’m pretty sure it’s legal for him to do so.
It’s still a douchebag move given what we know about the scenario, but I do think he was within his mandate at the time of the incident (wrong address notwithstanding).
I think that the guidelines need to be re-examined though so as to avoid these kinds of incidents in the future.
Thoughts?[/quote]
Eliminating hindsight, he wasn’t being a douche in the moment concerning his actions. His lie is another story and I do believe counseling and observation should be in order. I also believe that had he been up front, it would be a non issue and pressure would unquestionably fall on dispatch and how communication could be improved.
Clearly a mistake was made. Any investigation or overhauled guidelines should be directed at the call center in my opinion, the source of the chain of events. A cop responding to a call has a job to do and guidelines/procedures to follow and for good reason. The scenario very well could’ve played out dangerously for the officer and imo common sense says you just have to prepare for that regardless of you voluntary employment.
I simply do not believe the buck stops with the officer in this scenario. Allowing it to do so would in no way address the root cause of a potentially systemic issue.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
No you didn’t. Read the whole thread. The breed is an aggressive one, even if not pit vicious.
As stated, all you need is a distraction for a deadly situation, something the dog absolutely provided. An actual cop verified the truth, no bullshit about it.
Speaking of bullshit, the thread has become circular. Most arguments on the last three pages have been addressed and the broken record is boring.
The cops only mistake was lying. “But why lie?” “but he was at the wrong house”… Already answered what I think.
If you have a specific objection as you go through the thread, quote with question and I’ll be happy to reply so long as I haven’t already in the ensuing conversation.
If you just feel like flaming, suck an ass.
[/quote]
Yes I did read the thread. Don’t tell me I didn’t when most of your responses are just to remind people you are posting. You are just about the biggest fucking hypocrite on this site right now with your comments on spin, hindsight and flaming. Every post you make is geared towards making you the center of attention. The police dog of choice - German Shepherd - is a a sheepdog( clue is in the name). They are chosen for their restraint and obedience. It’s in their breed.
As for aggression in dogs, Chihuahas are an aggressive breed when they protect their owners. Seen it first hand.
My “specific objection” was made in my last post. I don’t need to go back and make it. I’m making it now. In fact, I remember telling you to do the exact same thing on the first Zimmerman Martin thread. More bullshit from the master.[/quote]
I’ll tell you what I want to tell you. I’d put you over my knee and spank you if I felt like it.
If you want my answer go back and read it, it has been given.
The rest of your shit is irrelevant and untrue frankly.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
No you didn’t. Read the whole thread. The breed is an aggressive one, even if not pit vicious.
As stated, all you need is a distraction for a deadly situation, something the dog absolutely provided. An actual cop verified the truth, no bullshit about it.
Speaking of bullshit, the thread has become circular. Most arguments on the last three pages have been addressed and the broken record is boring.
The cops only mistake was lying. “But why lie?” “but he was at the wrong house”… Already answered what I think.
If you have a specific objection as you go through the thread, quote with question and I’ll be happy to reply so long as I haven’t already in the ensuing conversation.
If you just feel like flaming, suck an ass.
[/quote]
Yes I did read the thread. Don’t tell me I didn’t when most of your responses are just to remind people you are posting. You are just about the biggest fucking hypocrite on this site right now with your comments on spin, hindsight and flaming. Every post you make is geared towards making you the center of attention. The police dog of choice - German Shepherd - is a a sheepdog( clue is in the name). They are chosen for their restraint and obedience. It’s in their breed.
As for aggression in dogs, Chihuahas are an aggressive breed when they protect their owners. Seen it first hand.
My “specific objection” was made in my last post. I don’t need to go back and make it. I’m making it now. In fact, I remember telling you to do the exact same thing on the first Zimmerman Martin thread. More bullshit from the master.[/quote]
I’ll tell you what I want to tell you. I’d put you over my knee and spank you if I felt like it.
If you want my answer go back and read it, it has been given.
The rest of your shit is irrelevant and untrue frankly.[/quote]
Why don’t you continue your “spanking” and tell me why you think this dog was a threat to the cop’s life?
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
No you didn’t. Read the whole thread. The breed is an aggressive one, even if not pit vicious.
As stated, all you need is a distraction for a deadly situation, something the dog absolutely provided. An actual cop verified the truth, no bullshit about it.
Speaking of bullshit, the thread has become circular. Most arguments on the last three pages have been addressed and the broken record is boring.
The cops only mistake was lying. “But why lie?” “but he was at the wrong house”… Already answered what I think.
If you have a specific objection as you go through the thread, quote with question and I’ll be happy to reply so long as I haven’t already in the ensuing conversation.
If you just feel like flaming, suck an ass.
[/quote]
Yes I did read the thread. Don’t tell me I didn’t when most of your responses are just to remind people you are posting. You are just about the biggest fucking hypocrite on this site right now with your comments on spin, hindsight and flaming. Every post you make is geared towards making you the center of attention. The police dog of choice - German Shepherd - is a a sheepdog( clue is in the name). They are chosen for their restraint and obedience. It’s in their breed.
As for aggression in dogs, Chihuahas are an aggressive breed when they protect their owners. Seen it first hand.
My “specific objection” was made in my last post. I don’t need to go back and make it. I’m making it now. In fact, I remember telling you to do the exact same thing on the first Zimmerman Martin thread. More bullshit from the master.[/quote]
I’ll tell you what I want to tell you. I’d put you over my knee and spank you if I felt like it.
If you want my answer go back and read it, it has been given.
The rest of your shit is irrelevant and untrue frankly.[/quote]
Why don’t you continue your “spanking” and tell me why you think this dog was a threat to the cop’s life?[/quote]
If you read the thread why don’t you tell me what I said?
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
No you didn’t. Read the whole thread. The breed is an aggressive one, even if not pit vicious.
As stated, all you need is a distraction for a deadly situation, something the dog absolutely provided. An actual cop verified the truth, no bullshit about it.
Speaking of bullshit, the thread has become circular. Most arguments on the last three pages have been addressed and the broken record is boring.
The cops only mistake was lying. “But why lie?” “but he was at the wrong house”… Already answered what I think.
If you have a specific objection as you go through the thread, quote with question and I’ll be happy to reply so long as I haven’t already in the ensuing conversation.
If you just feel like flaming, suck an ass.
[/quote]
Yes I did read the thread. Don’t tell me I didn’t when most of your responses are just to remind people you are posting. You are just about the biggest fucking hypocrite on this site right now with your comments on spin, hindsight and flaming. Every post you make is geared towards making you the center of attention. The police dog of choice - German Shepherd - is a a sheepdog( clue is in the name). They are chosen for their restraint and obedience. It’s in their breed.
As for aggression in dogs, Chihuahas are an aggressive breed when they protect their owners. Seen it first hand.
My “specific objection” was made in my last post. I don’t need to go back and make it. I’m making it now. In fact, I remember telling you to do the exact same thing on the first Zimmerman Martin thread. More bullshit from the master.[/quote]
I’ll tell you what I want to tell you. I’d put you over my knee and spank you if I felt like it.
If you want my answer go back and read it, it has been given.
The rest of your shit is irrelevant and untrue frankly.[/quote]
Why don’t you continue your “spanking” and tell me why you think this dog was a threat to the cop’s life?[/quote]
If you read the thread why don’t you tell me what I said?[/quote]
How about I don’t and you give me the spanking you felt like giving me through a straight answer for once instead?
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If the cop REALLY felt “endangered” he would have certainly called for backup. He must not have felt THAT scared. And if he REALLY felt like he was fully justified in shooting the dog, he never would have LIED about it.
HG, why can’t you admit that the cop fucked up?
No one is saying that a cop is not within his right to shoot a dog if he feels threatened.
The point is that THIS cop gave conflicting orders, didn’t give the “suspect” (a man in his garden during the day, not dangerous thug in a dark ally - he wasn’t even wearing a hoodie!) enough time to respond to ANY of the commands!
Then he LIED.
I think ANYONE with any kind of mature judgement can say that this situation was not handled properly. From the fuck up at the 911 call center to the inadequate handling of the “situation” (which really WASN’T a “situation” at all)
And now someone’s dog is dead.
Regardless of how “justified” the cop was or wasn’t, it’s not JUSTICE when the STATE can knock down someone’s fucking door and kill their dog! WITHOUT A CONSEQUENCE
That certainly isn’t a country I want to live in.[/quote]
Because I don’t believe the cop fucked up in his actions, “maturity” not withstanding.
Responsibility for the dead dog lies with the call center.
I realize your sentiment fits DD, Orion and BB’s sentiment and the arguments I’ve made to them stand for you as well.[/quote]
No, your argument has been that the cop “reasonably felt that he was in danger”. Well, if he thought that, he would have called for back up. He didn’t. He shot a dog and LIED about it.
My issue really isn’t about weather or not he was justified in shooting the dog - it’s a moot point. HE was the cop, and they will always take the cop’s word.
My point is that he was busted in LYING about it. A point which you repeatedly gloss over as “just a mistake”. That “mistake” calls into question his whole character, integrity and reliability. The things that GIVE HIM THE PRIVILEGE of wearing that badge. [/quote]
I’ve agreed since the beginning his lie was wrong and answered your “king for a day” question.
The rest of the thread has been a discussion of his actions, which were not wrong.[/quote]
Fair enough, you did. While I disagree with the way the scenario played out, I will not contest your argument that a police officer CAN shoot a dog if he feels threatened by the dog. I may not like it, but I’m pretty sure it’s legal for him to do so.
It’s still a douchebag move given what we know about the scenario, but I do think he was within his mandate at the time of the incident (wrong address notwithstanding).
I think that the guidelines need to be re-examined though so as to avoid these kinds of incidents in the future.
Thoughts?[/quote]
Eliminating hindsight, he wasn’t being a douche in the moment concerning his actions. His lie is another story and I do believe counseling and observation should be in order. I also believe that had he been up front, it would be a non issue and pressure would unquestionably fall on dispatch and how communication could be improved.
Clearly a mistake was made. Any investigation or overhauled guidelines should be directed at the call center in my opinion, the source of the chain of events. A cop responding to a call has a job to do and guidelines/procedures to follow and for good reason. The scenario very well could’ve played out dangerously for the officer and imo common sense says you just have to prepare for that regardless of you voluntary employment.
I simply do not believe the buck stops with the officer in this scenario. Allowing it to do so would in no way address the root cause of a potentially systemic issue.[/quote]
No, an officer is 100% responsible for every bullet that comes out of his firearm.
Again, if sending an officer to a house where no one is doing anything wrong because of bad info is like throwing a lit match on the carpet, then there is a damn problem with the system. It is the job of an officer to discover the facts and NOT rely solely on an anonymous tip. I don’t think you realize how unreliable a 911 call is.
As I’ve said before, and you’ve yet to answer, why would you draw a weapon on a non threatening person on their own property whom you have no knowledge if they have done anything or not? You shouldn’t. If drawing your weapon first without reliable intel, witnessing an actual crime, being threatened in some manner, or faced with an uncooperative suspect is SOP for the department, then the SOPs need to change. If he’d had any of those things, he would have been justified in feeling threatened and pulling his gun. From that point, I would agree he had the right to put down an attacking dog. BUT he didn’t have any of that. He had an alleged crime at an alleged address from an anonymous source and drew his weapon on a cooperative innocent person needlessly escalating the situation to the point he killed someone’s dog.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Again search for Firce Decisions at amazon . It’s by Rfiry Miller. Order it and read it.
Until then if you’re talking about how force should or not be used you do not know what you’re talking about.
Translation : Houstonguy is right.[/quote]
Why should I read that when I can refer to my actual LEO training, unlike HG. [/quote]
A teacher and a cop? Will you have personal experience in every scenario discussion?
And conveniently a teacher in a poor school?
Get the fuck out of here.[/quote]
Was a substitute teacher while in school. Am an MP in the National Guard. I know, it’s hard to believe that people actually get out, live, and have various experiences…which they then bring to the table unlike others who will go unnamed. Good job keeping score though. The internet is serious business. [/quote]
Lol! A substitute?
And now an MP?
Call that “living” if you want but you’re full of shit with “personal experience” for discussion.[/quote]
I guess if you live with your parents it would be unbelievable. What about your experience? [/quote]
Really? A “shot in the dark” war? Even after openly laying out your bullshit?
FTR, a substitute isn’t in any way an expert on much of anything, certainly not an educational system. And you’re still stretching here. Nice spin and all but you’re a waste of time.
[/quote]
Again, what is your experience? Why do you avoid the question? Why do you demand facts from others yet when the same is asked of you, you refuse? Why the fear?
What’s funny is how you claim a sub isn’t close to an expert on education yet you are because you are acquainted with educators. You don’t even see the irony in your own posts.
So tell us, what is your experience in law enforcement? Don’t be afraid. You’re safe in your parents’ basement. [/quote]
What’s funny is you position yourself as an expert based on alleged experiences and come to find out, you don’t have said experience at all. This is a far cry from objective reasoning and taints your posts with a strong whiff of horse shit.
There are no basements in Texas.
What I do is irrelevant and, unlike you, I won’t pretend otherwise. Frankly, I believe roscoedog is actually an LEO and it seems as though his thinking and mine are pretty well aligned. Tom63 seems pretty knowledgeable as well. Anecdotal, I know, but then so are you and with a flair for dishonesty. So, what about lying cops?[/quote]
If I prove I am an MP will you stop posting here? Ball is in your court Sparky. [/quote]
Nope. It doesn’t take the Chief of police to utilize deductive reasoning. When you start making valid points instead of shit kicking and exaggerating your experience you can have a better conversation though.[/quote]
Of course it’s easier to simply call someone a liar than to address his points. The fact you aren’t willing to take my offer shows that you really don’t know if I’m lying but prefer to “believe” I am in order to “win the internet.” Maybe you aren’t a 12 year old or live in your parents’ basement but that’s how you come off. How about you tell us all how your experience, which you are afraid to divulge, somehow is more significant than a fireman’s? I don’t expect you to answer.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
As I’ve said before, and you’ve yet to answer, why would you draw a weapon on a non threatening person on their own property whom you have no knowledge if they have done anything or not?[/quote]
He can’t answer that question. Well, he could answer but it would be an uneducated and ignorant answer.
He probably thinks that if a cop tells someone to not move and that person sticks his hand in his pocket he can shoot him because POTENTIALLY he might pull out a gun. The fact that his argument is based on what could have happened (POTENTIALITY) shows he knows nothing about how things work.