It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anger at police officer who 'called dog over' and shot it three times

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: PhoenixOD


Pitbull dogs are dangerous since they have killed more humans than all other breeds combined. Dogs may be nice when the owner (alpha male) is there, but as soon as they are absent, the dogs convert to an aggressive/protective mode.




You my friend have not ONE single clue do you?
I suggest you take a better look before you open your mouth and remove all doubt....
Try doing some reseach on your own and not just a fast read through of someones hate article.

Yeeshh, just how outof touch can people be.
Pits are NOT the issue, they are like any other breed.
The Fault is the OWNER!
So, just solve the prob, shoot the owner for being a ID10t.
edit on 18-10-2014 by DogMeat because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
People like this deserve Law Abiding Citizen treatment. I'd happily chop that ignorant pig up.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DogMeat

Yeah animals matter more than humans. Kill all humans right?



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: tavi45
Yes they perfer humans but in a pinch when theres a hankering to kill something a household pet will do.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
The problem is the good cops keeping quiet or protecting the bad ones.


That instantly transforms them into bad ones. Silent "good ones" are imbrued with the taint of the bad ones they protect.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic

Pitbulls are one breed out of fifteen on that list. Why are pitbulls the only ones cops are publicly and painfully putting down?


What makes you think that? Cops are equal opportunity dog shooters.

one of thousands...

They're not shooting the dogs because they're dangerous, they're doing it to show you who's boss. It's an outgrowth of "seizing control of the situation" so they can "go home at the end of the shift", and it's safe for them to do. You respond, and they get a free pass to beat or kill you. And you can't sue them. And the law doesn't address it. They won't even get a reprimand.

eta: Except Jerrod Dooley. Now, THIS is what ought to happen to dog shooters. The community made it VERY clear that Dooley was not going to continue to enforce law in Rains County, and the sheriff got the message, over the squeals of the cop unions. Dooley was de-certified as an alternative to facing prison time for animal cruelty. And apparently he's been ostracized from the community.

What happens when the DA isn't pissing his boots over fears of police unions
edit on 18-10-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
if the owner of the dog is black or the dog is in a black neighborhood its all most automatic that the cops take care of the dog by shooting or in other cases where they have kill pit bull shelters have them taken.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
What gets me about this incident is the officer reported he was "charged at" by the animal, but this was not the case according to the camera footage.

If he's the type of person to lie about such a small detail regarding an animal (poor pup) what does that say about his character when it comes to more serious human related events?

ETA : (*attempted to watch video firsthand and couldn't due to streaming problems.)



edit on 10/18/14 by GENERAL EYES because: format edit, ETA



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: PhoenixOD


Pitbull dogs are dangerous since they have killed more humans than all other breeds combined. Dogs may be nice when the owner (alpha male) is there, but as soon as they are absent, the dogs convert to an aggressive/protective mode.



Wow did you drink the entire gallon of the Kool-Aid. APBTs have killed more than all other breeds combined? Really? Say who, dogbite.org an anti-APBT site?

As death by dog has slightly higher #s than death my elephant stampede (in the US), you're more apt to die from Ebola given to you by Rush Limbaugh after he had a roll with Hillary Clinton.

Derek



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: DogMeat

Yeah animals matter more than humans. Kill all humans right?


There are 7,000,000,000 of us.

Are we all really special, unique snowflakes whose very presence improves the world or are we really just walking ecological disasters whose output is measured best by the level of excrement we'll produce and needed to keep ourselves alive?

Quit acting like every human being is as fast as Usain Bolt, make Tesla look dim and that there are 7 of us left and we're on the brink of extinction.

And oh yeah, you're more apt to die from Ebola given to you by Rush Limbaugh after he had a roll with Hillary Clinton than get killed by an APBT.

Derek



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: Hushabye

Saying there are no good police is just silly. That's a blatant overgeneralization. The problem is the good cops keeping quiet or protecting the bad ones.


Which implies that they aren't 'good'



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: PhoenixOD

Video removed from YouTube ??



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
The dogs in the video appeared to be out running loose. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against animals but pitbulls are a dangerous breed maybe not to their owners but to others. When they get into packs they are known to attack, maim or kill other dogs, joggers and children. This fact alone gives the police the initiative to kill the dog or dogs before they cause any damage.

I wouldn't own a pitbull because I don't particularly like the breed and at some point they are known to turn on their owner in competition on who will be the alpha.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Viesczy

originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: PhoenixOD


Pitbull dogs are dangerous since they have killed more humans than all other breeds combined. Dogs may be nice when the owner (alpha male) is there, but as soon as they are absent, the dogs convert to an aggressive/protective mode.



Wow did you drink the entire gallon of the Kool-Aid. APBTs have killed more than all other breeds combined? Really? Say who, dogbite.org an anti-APBT site?

As death by dog has slightly higher #s than death my elephant stampede (in the US), you're more apt to die from Ebola given to you by Rush Limbaugh after he had a roll with Hillary Clinton.

Derek



APBT were at one time called 'babysitter dogs'. The thing that changed? People.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

PhoenixOD
Pitbull dogs are dangerous since they have killed more humans than all other breeds combined. Dogs may be nice when the owner (alpha male) is there, but as soon as they are absent, the dogs convert to an aggressive/protective mode.


American Buffalo, Cows and Crocodiles kill more people per year, than domestic dogs, when tracked as individual species; 4 times as many when combined.

BUT...a loose horse running down 11th Avenue in Manhattan is not dangerous enough to warrant it being shot?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Does anyone know what the difference is between a pet dog and a carriage horse?

The carriage horse is an "insured asset" and the police WILL have to pay the owner of a shot horse, due to something called "subrogation".

In contrast to dogs, you don't see many horses, cows, hogs or other livestock getting shot very often by law enforcement. I think the reason why, is because they are an established commodity with an insured value. If that same kind of insuring practice was done on dogs in larger numbers, I believe the "accidental shooting of pet dogs" by law enforcement will also decline.

I started a topic about this on ATS, to much controversy:

Discouraging Law Enforcement from shooting dogs, by taking out an Animal Mortality Insurance policy

To summarize my point, it will only take a few victim "insured dog" owners, whom were carrying "Animal Mortality" insurance, and filing a claim of wrongful death, to get a broad policy change in place.

How many "insured dogs" shot by police, per year, do you think the insurance companies would tolerate, before they begin to put the screws into the legislators?

If a dog has a set insured value, of say $10,000, and is then shot by police on private property, the owner would then file a claim against their "Animal Mortality Insurance" policy, which they had previously taken out on the animal. So, as with all insurance companies, they will then subrogate the damages from the responsible party.

Subrogation WILL CERTAINLY HAPPEN, you can count on it, even against an LEO or their department. No insurance company is going to eat the $10,000 and not follow through on subrogation simply because its an LEO. They are certainly going to attempt to subrogate the damages from another insurance company. The only questionable part is, if it will be the departments insurance or the individual cops policy (home owners etc).

Note, NO INSURANCE COMPANY ON EARTH is going to eat the cost of payout, while forgoing the subrogation process.

AGAIN, THE EXACT SAME SCENARIO WOULD APPLY TO A HUMAN, whom was covered by a Key Person Insurance Policy, wrongfully shot by police, without a liable third party present.

In the subrogation process, the individual cops insurance will be contacted by the "Animal Mortality" insurance company and the departments insurance will also be contacted by the "Animal Mortality" insurance company. After that arbitration process, the individual cop and/or the police organization itself could have their premiums to be insured increased. Its highly doubtful many officers imagine such a scenario, when shooting someone or damaging property because most "people" and/or "things" are not insured individually in that manner (typically just home, renters or car insurance). For example a wrongful death of a rich CEO carrying an "Executive Life Insurance Policy" would likely bankrupt an LEO department or local jurisdiction. Encountering an "insured dog" would likely take many departments by surprise, post shooting, when the insurance claim comes in.

They will ABSOLUTELY not be expecting it.

Also since LEO's can be held personally accountable for a Title 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit, a dog getting shot by an LEO can be deemed an "unreasonable seizure", so when a dog "insured for a named dollar value" is shot, it can trigger an insurance claim to be made against the individual officers personal insurance policies (not necessarily the department). Being personally liable could possibly render the shooting officer uninsurable OR at minimum end up with an increased personal insurance premium, due to claims being filed by any side.

Now to clarify further, the purpose in taking out an "Animal & Livestock Mortality" policy on a dog, is not to get a large payout from the insurance company after the dogs death, by cop. The purpose is to make the insurance company's get involved on the legal side, once an "insured dog" is killed in a negligent manner by an LEO. The legal effect against Law Enforcement would be even greater, if an increasing number dogs, across the country, shot by police, also happened to be covered by "Animal & Livestock Mortality" Policies. The insurance companies would likely begin to draw up real data, about police shooting dogs, to strengthen their cases.

To my knowledge, there have been no dogs shot that were carrying Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance. However, there have been more than a few breeding show dogs shot by law enforcement and in those cases the Police departments settled for much more then the typical $300, plus immediate medical expenses. Imagine, for a moment, if those dogs had been insured individually as well, with a specific dollar value and pay out schedule amount on the policy. The damages found in court would likely have been much higher at the end of the day. Also remember, the insurance covering the individual officer and the departments insurers will also be involved in the legal discussion about payout. Three insurance companies talking about a claim, involving a negligent cop whom shot an "insured dog", due to irrational fear, can't be good for institutional public policies that encourage officers to shoot civilian owned dogs on a whim. Imagine a scenario where a cop whom shoots dogs negligently becomes both uninsured individually and uninsurable departmentally.
edit on 22-10-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join