Puppycide in Austin

Off Topic
161

Well im sure the guy will get a hefty payout for this, and hopefully that officer loses his job.

Anyone ever see that video of the police officer at McDonald’s who thought that the woman at the drive thru window didnt give him change for a 20 so he went back there and tasered her for supposedly resisting arrest? Turns out he gave her a 10 and she was completely right the entire time. Ended up suing and getting 50 grand from that police station,though the officer did not lose his job.

I’m imagining the results in this case will be similar, especially since the dog owner wasnt even the person the cop was looking for

162

Shooting elderly, handicapped, men, women, kids… and now pupps.

And never a hint of remorse about it.

Motherfuckers.

163

What’s worse, that this happened or that no one is surprised by this sort of thing any more?..

164

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Shooting elderly, handicapped, men, women, kids… and now pupps.

And never a hint of remorse about it.

Motherfuckers.[/quote]
You could hear the remorse in his tone, imo. Different story altogether though.

165

Preservation of HUMAN life is priority number one. He was reasonable in doing what he did until AFTER he shot the dog. A HUMAN life was believed to have been in danger and during that time, a threat appeared. Whether the dog was going to give the cop kisses or try to bite him is a moot point. Police use their dogs to run interference all the time. So do criminals. This dog advanced, and unfortunately the owner didn’t have time to hold back his pooch. I feel REALLY shitty for the owner, but at the same time I have perspective and can see where the cop was coming from up until he started talking after the shot was fired.

For what it’s worth, I have a buddy who almost lost his dog after EMS called police to shoot it while responding to a medical emergency within his house. Luckily, he got there before the cops did and was able to get control of the situation. I know that wasn’t the issue in this case, but it’s relevant because a lot of people seem to think fire and EMS just barge into houses that contain possibly aggressive animals. They call in the cops to do the job no one else wants.

166

Also I don’t want orion’s excellent examples on page one to go unnoticed. Very funny while also making a strong point.

167

It all comes down to panem et circenses (bread and circus)

Keep them well fed and entertained and your average human population will just hand over ALL power and responsibility to the state.

It’s all cyclical - EVERY empire rises and falls. Ours is simply in decline at the moment and we (as a people) lack the political will and testicular fortitude to change it.

Welcome to AmeriKa…

It ain’t gonna get any better any time soon. Wait until they start privatizing our police force like they’ve done in some countries with our military - then there REALLY won’t be any accountability… It’s already started with the prisons. Law enforcement is the next logical step.

The Constitution might as well be toilet paper at this point in our country’s state of evolution.

168

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

He wasn’t sent out “to apprehend non-violent fully compliant innocent people.”
[/quote]

Exactly. But that is what he did. To apprehend a violent wife abuser, you have to find the violent wife abuser.

He did not enter a violent volatile situation. He created a violent volatile situation.[/quote]
Still very impressed by your hindsight.[/quote]

It isn’t hindsight, it’s the facts of what happened and what he did.

169

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I guess that poor woman bleeds out somewhere else now.

Because he had some dog killing to do and bullshitting to do.

Just to stay in that scenario.

[/quote]

Yes, that’s it. He decided to take a detour to go kill himself some white man’s black hating dog. Maybe it was to get back at the Zimmerman/Martin thing. [/quote]

It does not matter why he did it.

While he decided to take out that clear and imminent danger, some woman, somewhere, got beaten to a pulp with a tire iron by a supposedly armed man.

Because, if we like make up scenarios to excuse an armed thugs mo, we shall look at all the consequences. [/quote]
And when looking at consequences, we should accurately assign blame to those who directly caused them.

Whoever sent the cop on a goose chase is to blame, not the cop.

Blaming the officer is like throwing a match on the carpet instead of in the fireplace and then blaming the match for burning a house down.[/quote]

He threatened an unarmed man.

The man had his hands in the air.

He ordered said unarmed man to get his dog, the shot it before said man could possibly do so.

I dont care if the toothfairy told him that there was a whole stash of teeth under that guys daughters pillow.

I dont know about you, but I dont come from a nation where anyone in uniform is seen as a mystical being.

He eats, sleeps and shits like all the rest of us and he royally fucked up and piled some bs on top of it.

Which is when his sergeant apparently decided to pile even more on.

No.

You will never convince someone who grew up in a moderately free country that this was ok.

Go find some Syrian immigrant, he will be grateful that the cop did not rape the guy with a golf club.

[/quote]
Put yourself in the cops shoes. Without the use of hindsight, explain how you would’ve handled the situation.

Remember:

  1. You were called to a violent, life threatening scene
  2. You reasonably believe you are at the right place
  3. You reasonably believe the violator is in the yard
  4. You do not know what he may or may not have concealed
  5. You do not know how critical unseen aspects of the situation are but you are responsible for handling the situation
  6. A dog is approaching you
  7. You do not have back up.[/quote]

All right in an average Austrian city, this is what would happen:

Cop: Hi there, we have received a report that you beat your wife or girlfriend senseless.

Dude: I dont have a wife or girlfriend.

Cop: Bummer, let me radio my dispatcher again, this is weird. Cute dog by the way.

Dude: No problem, need any help?

Cop: Na, just stay there in case it turns out that I really had your address.

Dude: What the hell?

Cops: Yeah I know, just doing my job.

And that is kind of what would have happened.

I kid you not.
[/quote]
Only because you know the outcome. I mean, it isn’t like the police are ever lied to or anything. You’d be a bumbling cop at best, dead at worst if you made it a common practice to just trust Joe Blow.

Who fucked up the address anyways? Dispatch would’ve confirmed he was at the right place. I still find it comical how you unrealistically brush off the dog too. In fact, it honestly makes me think you are trolling to read your slants, ignored facts and general bluster.

[/quote]

No, that is what would happen.

If it indeed was the right address he would go in and if he found no battered women they would get back to the person calling to try to find out where she was.
[/quote]
He magically knows the wrong address was called in? Maybe that hindsight was packaged as a crystal ball…[/quote]

He should know that it is a very realistic and common possibility.

170

[quote]Mac85 wrote:
Preservation of HUMAN life is priority number one. He was reasonable in doing what he did until AFTER he shot the dog. A HUMAN life was believed to have been in danger and during that time, a threat appeared. Whether the dog was going to give the cop kisses or try to bite him is a moot point. Police use their dogs to run interference all the time. So do criminals. This dog advanced, and unfortunately the owner didn’t have time to hold back his pooch. I feel REALLY shitty for the owner, but at the same time I have perspective and can see where the cop was coming from up until he started talking after the shot was fired.

For what it’s worth, I have a buddy who almost lost his dog after EMS called police to shoot it while responding to a medical emergency within his house. Luckily, he got there before the cops did and was able to get control of the situation. I know that wasn’t the issue in this case, but it’s relevant because a lot of people seem to think fire and EMS just barge into houses that contain possibly aggressive animals. They call in the cops to do the job no one else wants.

[/quote]

NO. The report of a domestic disturbance is not grounds to shoot animals around the area of the alleged disturbance.

171

The new Rory Miller book, Force Decisions: Understanding How Police determine Appropriate Use of Force.
There’s a whole lot of discussing going on here with little knowledge of the why, when, and how .

As usual .

172

In a free and peaceful society where so many have been taught that all violence is wrong, citizens are often confused and dismayed when officers use force, even when the force is perfectly lawful and justified. This book explains how police are taught to make decisions on the use of force. Readers will understand how to behave when confronted by a police officer and how the police officer interprets the situation

Tom do they make this in audio so I can play for my dog? J/k

173

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

He wasn’t sent out “to apprehend non-violent fully compliant innocent people.”
[/quote]

Exactly. But that is what he did. To apprehend a violent wife abuser, you have to find the violent wife abuser.

He did not enter a violent volatile situation. He created a violent volatile situation.[/quote]
Still very impressed by your hindsight.[/quote]

It isn’t hindsight, it’s the facts of what happened and what he did.[/quote]
Exactly. Hindsight. He was in a situation of which he didn’t yet know the outcome and could only react based on what he reasonably believed was accurate information. It’s easy to criticize after the fact. Kinda worthless though, considering.

174

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I guess that poor woman bleeds out somewhere else now.

Because he had some dog killing to do and bullshitting to do.

Just to stay in that scenario.

[/quote]

Yes, that’s it. He decided to take a detour to go kill himself some white man’s black hating dog. Maybe it was to get back at the Zimmerman/Martin thing. [/quote]

It does not matter why he did it.

While he decided to take out that clear and imminent danger, some woman, somewhere, got beaten to a pulp with a tire iron by a supposedly armed man.

Because, if we like make up scenarios to excuse an armed thugs mo, we shall look at all the consequences. [/quote]
And when looking at consequences, we should accurately assign blame to those who directly caused them.

Whoever sent the cop on a goose chase is to blame, not the cop.

Blaming the officer is like throwing a match on the carpet instead of in the fireplace and then blaming the match for burning a house down.[/quote]

He threatened an unarmed man.

The man had his hands in the air.

He ordered said unarmed man to get his dog, the shot it before said man could possibly do so.

I dont care if the toothfairy told him that there was a whole stash of teeth under that guys daughters pillow.

I dont know about you, but I dont come from a nation where anyone in uniform is seen as a mystical being.

He eats, sleeps and shits like all the rest of us and he royally fucked up and piled some bs on top of it.

Which is when his sergeant apparently decided to pile even more on.

No.

You will never convince someone who grew up in a moderately free country that this was ok.

Go find some Syrian immigrant, he will be grateful that the cop did not rape the guy with a golf club.

[/quote]
Put yourself in the cops shoes. Without the use of hindsight, explain how you would’ve handled the situation.

Remember:

  1. You were called to a violent, life threatening scene
  2. You reasonably believe you are at the right place
  3. You reasonably believe the violator is in the yard
  4. You do not know what he may or may not have concealed
  5. You do not know how critical unseen aspects of the situation are but you are responsible for handling the situation
  6. A dog is approaching you
  7. You do not have back up.[/quote]

All right in an average Austrian city, this is what would happen:

Cop: Hi there, we have received a report that you beat your wife or girlfriend senseless.

Dude: I dont have a wife or girlfriend.

Cop: Bummer, let me radio my dispatcher again, this is weird. Cute dog by the way.

Dude: No problem, need any help?

Cop: Na, just stay there in case it turns out that I really had your address.

Dude: What the hell?

Cops: Yeah I know, just doing my job.

And that is kind of what would have happened.

I kid you not.
[/quote]
Only because you know the outcome. I mean, it isn’t like the police are ever lied to or anything. You’d be a bumbling cop at best, dead at worst if you made it a common practice to just trust Joe Blow.

Who fucked up the address anyways? Dispatch would’ve confirmed he was at the right place. I still find it comical how you unrealistically brush off the dog too. In fact, it honestly makes me think you are trolling to read your slants, ignored facts and general bluster.

[/quote]

No, that is what would happen.

If it indeed was the right address he would go in and if he found no battered women they would get back to the person calling to try to find out where she was.
[/quote]
He magically knows the wrong address was called in? Maybe that hindsight was packaged as a crystal ball…[/quote]

He should know that it is a very realistic and common possibility.[/quote]
He also knows a violent and life threatening response is a common reality in his line of work, especially given the nature of the call, and came prepared to what he reasonably believed was the correct address.

You can show up to a gun fight with a knife so to speak and be killed for it.

  • In b4 “but he didn’t show up to a fight”. He reasonably believed he was at a violent scene and acted accordingly. You can rail against dispatch, whoever made the call or what ever led to misinformation but the only thing the cop did wrong was fail to apologize for being the face of the mistake. The real apology should come from whoever fucked up the situation. /thread.
175

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Mac85 wrote:
Preservation of HUMAN life is priority number one. He was reasonable in doing what he did until AFTER he shot the dog. A HUMAN life was believed to have been in danger and during that time, a threat appeared. Whether the dog was going to give the cop kisses or try to bite him is a moot point. Police use their dogs to run interference all the time. So do criminals. This dog advanced, and unfortunately the owner didn’t have time to hold back his pooch. I feel REALLY shitty for the owner, but at the same time I have perspective and can see where the cop was coming from up until he started talking after the shot was fired.

For what it’s worth, I have a buddy who almost lost his dog after EMS called police to shoot it while responding to a medical emergency within his house. Luckily, he got there before the cops did and was able to get control of the situation. I know that wasn’t the issue in this case, but it’s relevant because a lot of people seem to think fire and EMS just barge into houses that contain possibly aggressive animals. They call in the cops to do the job no one else wants.

[/quote]

NO. The report of a domestic disturbance is not grounds to shoot animals around the area of the alleged disturbance. [/quote]
Which of course depends on what the animal is doing.

176

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

Exactly. Hindsight. He was in a situation of which he didn’t yet know the outcome and could only react based on what he reasonably believed was accurate information. It’s easy to criticize after the fact. Kinda worthless though, considering.[/quote]

LOL. So no criticizing based on the facts.

And no. Again. An allegation of domestic violence with an armed man. Finds a compliant unarmed man by himself and shoots his dog.

The caller could have said a million things all of which there is a high probability are either lies or inaccurate.

You already called what the officer did a mistake. What he did was the wrong thing to do. I have the benefit of thinking about it a long time after the fact, because I didn’t choose to be a cop and take on that responsibility. The guy who shot the dog did, so he has to make his call without that benefit. If he isn’t willing to suffer the consequences of those split second decisions according to the actual facts of what happened, he shouldn’t be a cop.

177

The owner said the dog came around the corner and did not bite him he was barking and “challenging” him. see OP page one. Not sure what everyone else thinks comes next but having worked K-9s this seems like the dog was in his defensive drive mode. Basically building up to a response but needing something to put it over. That could have been as much as a step forward or a response by it owner.

these are the dogs that bite you and run back not trained to bite or because they have a high prey drive. None the less, is was threat to maintaining the situation. I feel sorry for the dog and the owner but this thread has made this a representation of the state of our country and law enforcement. That’s what I am calling BS on.

178

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
mistake[/quote]

Yup.

Phony, erroneous, calls happen ALL THE TIME. You can’t pull a gun on someone and shoot their dog for the sole reason that some unverified unknown person picked up a phone.

179

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Mac85 wrote:
Preservation of HUMAN life is priority number one. He was reasonable in doing what he did until AFTER he shot the dog. A HUMAN life was believed to have been in danger and during that time, a threat appeared. Whether the dog was going to give the cop kisses or try to bite him is a moot point. Police use their dogs to run interference all the time. So do criminals. This dog advanced, and unfortunately the owner didn’t have time to hold back his pooch. I feel REALLY shitty for the owner, but at the same time I have perspective and can see where the cop was coming from up until he started talking after the shot was fired.

For what it’s worth, I have a buddy who almost lost his dog after EMS called police to shoot it while responding to a medical emergency within his house. Luckily, he got there before the cops did and was able to get control of the situation. I know that wasn’t the issue in this case, but it’s relevant because a lot of people seem to think fire and EMS just barge into houses that contain possibly aggressive animals. They call in the cops to do the job no one else wants.

[/quote]

NO. The report of a domestic disturbance is not grounds to shoot animals around the area of the alleged disturbance. [/quote]
Which of course depends on what the animal is doing.[/quote]

Acting in a normal and reasonable manner for a dog? (I never heard any barking even on the recording)

180

And now, DD, you are reduced to spin. Until you can honestly acknowledge the situation the officer reasonably believed himself to be in, there is no conversation. /thread.