Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Bkite, Dec 23, 2016.
Run Spot run!
Well, it's not about shooting dogs "for no reason."
The reason is given: The dogs are behaving like a threat to the officers, which interfere with the cops doing their job of searching the home, arresting the home owner, etc.
Now, I'm sure many dogs are bluffing and would not bike, only growl and bark.
But, do cops have to take that chance?
Under existing law, the answer is no.
I would not mind, however, a policy saying cops should hold their fire until a dog actually DOES bite, and that that point they can kill the dog by whatever means is most convenient for them and safest for the cop whose arm or leg or balls are in the jaws of the canine.
But absent some new laws, new 4th Amendment court rulings, or new departmental policy adopted by L.E. agencies, this court has it right.
Whether it's a person or an animal-- if it looks like it's going to attack, and it's armed (all dogs are "armed" with dangerous teeth), shoot at it until it's either incapacitated or in full retreat from the scene.
MOM'S need attention should focus their attention on this and demand police give up their guns!
The law, like Jim Crow laws were, is immoral and unethical. The behavior, also immoral and unethical, is not justified by the existence of law condoning said behavior.
Sorry, I'm much more fond of "imminent danger of great bodily harm" as the standard.
No, they do not. See previous comment regarding morality and ethics.
So a toddler, armed with a butter knife is "armed" and you should "shoot at it until it's either incapacitated or in full retreat from the scene".
A citizen with a holstered weapon, who "looks like it's going to attack" should be shot "until it's either incapacitated or in full retreat from the scene".
I'm sorry, I cannot agree in the slightest. Torturing words to make meet the literal definition of justification, then abdicating any requirement for common sense, is behavior that should not be tolerated from any person placed in a position of authority, especially and armed armed.
Either you were in imminent danger of actual great bodily harm, or you were not. If you were not, your actions were immoral, unethical, and should be unlawful.
Saw this on FB, Phil is 100 percent correct.
You don't own any dogs, do you, gs?
Yes, it is. Cops have absolutely no compulsion to learn how to deal with animals. The simplest solution is to just shoot the damn thing, claim "officer safety" and be done with it.
Dogs act like dogs do. They protect their property and their masters. They let them know that something is there that doesn't belong there. Our dogs bark at falling leaves and people walking down the street. They aren't a threat to anybody. They're not trained as fighting dogs. Almost every dog I've ever encountered could be fairly well controlled with the right approach.
Police work comes with chances. Whether from people or animals. If you can't deal with that then find another line of work. Solving every encounter by killing something shouldn't be the default position. It doesn't take a PhD to deal with a dog.
Almost every dog bite can be avoided with training but why bother if there's no accountability for just killing the animal? Now a dog that actually does bite is a different issue and even that can be dealt with without killing it unless absolutely necessary.
The court is full of sh*t. As are many courts on many issues. Just because they say it's right or justified or whatever doesn't make it morally or ethically so. Black robes don't impart infallibility to their wearers.
That's a pretty low bar, isn't it? "Looks like it's going to attack" is far from being objective wouldn't you say? You could slip almost anything past that definition and be absolved.
So I guess that any police dog that gets turned loose on a citizen is now fair game for killing too. Unintended consequences you know.
Southerners feel very strongly about someone shooting their dogs.
It could easily cross the line from doing their job and making it personal.
I have to agree with him.
And I really think I would have to respond in a similar manner.
I wonder how many people die from dog bites annually in the US?
20-30 fatal dog bites per year.
Out of 4.5-4.7 million dog bites.
Assume that each occurrence is a separate dog. Is the citizenry killing 4.5-4.7 million dogs every year that bite them? I bet not.
I wonder how many cops die from dog bites annually in the US?
I can't seem to find any incidents.
Maybe that's because the cops kill them before they get a chance to bite them?
My dag delivered mail on foot for 32 years in Lakewood. Didn't even carry the issued dog spray. Bitten only twice, neither required more than neosporin.
Off an on, I've been a contractor for 10 yrs of my life. Encountered countless dogs on customers property, usually inside tge fence with the homeowner away. Bitten once. Never had to harm an animal (except a rabid fox).
Killing dogs in "self defense" is rarely necessary. It happens for the same reasons humans are abused. Easiest course of actions, zero accountability.
I wonder which dog is potentially more deadly?
A - My dumbass English Springer Spaniel who has a really nasty bark?
B - A trained police K9 who will dig in and hold onto you and/or rip you apart until commanded to cease its attack?
Just for the record, I've been bitten twice in my life, once by my own dog. Never got the desire to kill either of them.
Does this cover when they break in, I mean go to the wrong house
"Never waste a good crisis." Winston Churchill or Rahm Emanuel, take your pick.
Maybe it's time we make a law that says we can act in self-dense of our dogs just like their police dogs are literal human officers in the eyes of the law. Make things even, stop the tyranny.
You begin to shoot my sweet Golden retriever family dog for no reason, hope you are faster and a better shot than me you authoritarian
So tired of all the tyranny loving, boot-lickers in this country.
Stop the tyranny.
This country used to at least believe in freedom and liberty from government at least for white folks.
Time to even the playing field just a tiny bit.
Sounds good but should count for anyone not just cops
Sounds good to me
I have never suggested otherwise. That said, I cannot ever recall a story of a non-LEO coming onto another man's secure property and killing his dog in "self-defense". With LEO, however, it has reached epidemic proportions.
Either dogs are property or they are family. If they are property, then fighting off a police dog is not a crime. And we should not be paying for police dog funerals. If they are family, however, then deadly force should have the same threshold (and consequences) as killing one of my human family members.
Unfortunately, government LOVES to establish different standards for themselves than the peasantry. It's almost as if skipping "American History before 1800" in high school is a job requirement for govt employment.
It's pretty damned ridiculous when you have federal as well as state laws imparting basically "human" status to police dogs along with the requisite penalties if you hurt or kill them. Yet our dogs, just as much family to us as cop dogs are to cops, are fair game for immediate neutralization if they impede police activity. Bullsh*t.