Wisconsin police deploy armored vehicle over dog poop dispute, SWAT team executes dog

originally posted by: Bedlam
I like the Texas solution. Charge the guy with felony cruelty to animals, and give him the out to decertify permanently, or face trial with the sentence being to general population if it's proven.

Just wanted to say, no citizen would be givin the option to quit his job to avoid a trail. He should be charged and face a jury of his peers.

a reply to: XTexan

He'd get off. Did you even read the story?

a reply to: boohoo

Did he intentionally shoot that girl? Your saying a cop would intentionally shoot a 4 year old, then you link to an officer accidentally shooting a 7 year old.

You look even more foolish now.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Did he intentionally shoot that girl? Your saying a cop would intentionally shoot a 4 year old, then you link to an officer accidentally shooting a 7 year old.

You look even more foolish now.

No, you still look foolish. Nowhere, in your earlier comment, did you mention "intentionally" or "accidentally". I addressed your comment as written. However, if you are now "implying" something else, AFTER THE FACT, than you CERTAINLY need to start working on your writing skills.

Back on topic, here is an old ATS thread of mine outlining the Animal Mortality Insurance Strategy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: XTexan

He'd get off. Did you even read the story?

Yes I did, at what point did the dog pose a threat that required lethal force to combat?

a reply to: boohoo

Why would I have to say intentionally? Do you even know what is going on? ALIENJUGGALO is the one who said intentionally, not me.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
a reply to: Frexmil2

thank god you are not an officer. If the guy said he was going to send his 4 year old kid out to attack you would you have blown the kid away too?

So obviously that guy is implying that an officer would intentionally shoot a 4 year old just like a dog. Are you too daft to understand that?

Let's look at my response to him:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Are you seriously comparing a 4 year old to a dog? Do you really believe they would have shot a 4 year old? You sound ridiculous.

How do you not understand that conversation?

Double post?

originally posted by: raymundoko
Do you really believe they would have shot a 4 year old? You sound ridiculous.

How do you not understand that conversation?

I won't minced words here...

The police WILL shoot children if they feel they are in "danger" or a "distraction" to the "mission"

There is PLENTY of evidence supporting this observation

Cop Tries to Shoot Dog, Plugs Kid Instead.

Georgia teen holding Wii remote shot by cops at his front door

Police Shoot At Oriana Ferrell And Van Full Of Her Kids

Dad Calls Cops on Son to Teach Him a Lesson, Cops Shoot Son Dead

'We called for help, and they killed my son,'

a reply to: boohoo

What does any of that have to do with what I said? Yet again you are showing accidental shootings of very young children.

The intentional ones you posted have stories behind them, and one of them resulted in convictions.

originally posted by: raymundoko
What does any of that have to do with what I said? Yet again you are showing accidental shootings of very young children.

The intentional ones you posted have stories behind them, and one of them resulted in convictions.

I disagree with you, wholeheartedly. These were intentional shootings, make no mistake. If they were "accidental" we would be hearing about resignations from Law Enforcement, post-event mental illness and possibly even suicides. Since we see NONE of that I can only conclude that these LEO's feel "justified" in their own minds.

AGAIN...

The police WILL shoot non-threatening children, the elderly and pets if they feel they are in "danger" or are causing a "distraction" to the "mission"

There is PLENTY of evidence supporting this observation. The minute people get this into their thick skulls, the faster we can influence real change. STOP giving them excuses and start giving consequences

a reply to: boohoo

The officer who thought the mentally ill teen was wasting their time was indicted...The dudes going to jail...

And feeling justified does NOT mean intent.

If a SWAT team raids a drug dealer/murderers house and the guys young child is killed who's fault is that? The officers or the drug dealer/murderer who put his child in a deadly situation?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: boohoo

The officer who thought the mentally ill teen was wasting their time was indicted...The dudes going to jail...

And feeling justified does NOT mean intent.

If a SWAT team raids a drug dealer/murderers house and the guys young child is killed who's fault is that? The officers or the drug dealer/murderer who put his child in a deadly situation?

The person who fired the bullet that kills the child is at fault. No one is responsible for the bullet except the person who fires it.

originally posted by: raymundoko
And feeling justified does NOT mean intent.

I'll say it again, if they were "accidental" we would be hearing about resignations from the involved Law Enforcement personnel, them having post-event mental illness and/or possibly even suicides. Since we see NONE of that I can only conclude that these LEO's feel "justified" in their own minds. If someone kills a child on "accident", it should haunt them for the rest of their lives, "sucking it up" and continuing to be a cop, isn't possible for people whom are REALLY suffering from REAL remorse.

Its not a draft or war, where the choice is jail or kill. Its a civil servant job that pays the bills and they can QUIT at any time they want to. Even mid-operation, if they think the action is unconscionable. ITS JUST A J-O-B!

To clarify further I say the same thing about negligent celebrities that killed people "accidentally" too, that somehow seem to show no remorse for their actions and continue to live in the "lime light". Halle Berry and Vince Neil come to mind:

popnhop.com...

a reply to: boohoo

Again, feeling justified is not the same as intent. You've made yourself look foolish enough, along with the other person, by suggesting that officers intentionally kill children.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: boohoo

Again, feeling justified is not the same as intent. You've made yourself look foolish enough, along with the other person, by suggesting that officers intentionally kill children.

Even if its accidental then its still involuntary manslaughter. Its still a jailable crime.

a reply to: XTexan

That is absolutely incorrect.

Yes, if something negligent was done (like the officer who shot a subdued mentally ill teenager), then yes, they go to jail.

However, if an approved raid is happening on the home of a potentially dangerous criminal, then no, it isn't manslaughter. It is collateral damage.

Source

In most states, emergency personnel and other government employees are usually protected in the performance of their duties from liability. This includes the firefighter who smashes down a door or destroys other property while trying to fight a blaze, the EMT that accidentally breaks someone's ribs while administering CPR, or the police officer who inadvertently shoots an innocent person while lawfully pursuing a dangerous suspect. As a result, these individuals and others would escape personal criminal and civil liability in most instances for mistakes or intentional actions that were reasonable under the circumstances. Similarly, the organizations for which these people work are often protected by similar legal principles, either under emergency responder exemption laws or sovereign immunity concepts.

Source

Accidental Killing
A death caused by a lawful act done under the reasonable belief that no harm was likely to result.

Accidental killing is different from Involuntary Manslaughter, which causes death by an unlawful act or a lawful act done in an unlawful way.

So lets break his examples down for both of you:

originally posted by: boohooCop Tries to Shoot Dog, Plugs Kid Instead.

This was an accidental shooting. The officer was pursuing an armed suspect who had just committed armed robbery. The suspect released a large dog on the officer and in attempting to shoot the dog he accidentally struck a boy. This is not manslaughter. The suspect would be charged with the injury of the child.

originally posted by: boohooGeorgia teen holding Wii remote shot by cops at his front door

This was an accidental shooting caused by a shaky officer who thought she saw a gun, and despite what was stated actually DID feel remorse:

The officer, who has been placed on administrative leave, broke down after she realized that she had shot the teen at point-blank range, witnesses said.

The female officer reportedly burst into tears after the shooting. She has not been identified.

“She put her head in her hands and she was sobbing,”

originally posted by: boohooPolice Shoot At Oriana Ferrell And Van Full Of Her Kids

Nobody was injured and the officer who fired the shots was fired. The woman and her son were charged, and she was liable for child endangerment for the situation.

originally posted by: boohooDad Calls Cops on Son to Teach Him a Lesson, Cops Shoot Son Dead

Man reported his truck stolen and that his son was the thief. Son refused to get out of the car and drives aggressively towards the officers after leading them on a high speed pursuit and RAMMING police vehicles, he had already demonstrated he would use the vehicle as a weapon...This was also a 19 year old adult, not a child. Unfortunate indeed, but not a criminal killing.

originally posted by: boohoo'We called for help, and they killed my son,'

The officer who did this was indicted (Bryon Vassey ) and is currently in Jail.

None of his links support the idea that officers would intentionally kill a 4 year old...

a reply to: raymundoko

Yes, thats everyones point. If your a citizen defending your home and kill an innocent in the process you are charged and face a jury. For some reason a shiny badge means you don't have to identify your targets and if innocent people die, all well.

As for the definition of an accidental killing, is it not reasonable to assume that if you fire a bullet without verifying your target that harm may come to someone?

As for those links, i didn't post them. At a cursory glance it seems appropriate actions were taken in some cases. It should be so in all cases, and it isn't.
The case of the cop firing at the van, yes he was fired from the force but no charges and no trial. You and I would not get that and neither should he. The cop who shot the kid with the wii remote, I would face trial for that and most likely do time, not just time off from work.

Not saying they should all be jailed, but they should be judged by a jury of their peers.

If someone broke into my home and one of my bullets went stray and killed my 4yr old or the neighbors I would be charged and tried for it. My intent would not matter. The same should apply to police.

However this case in this thread deals with the intentional killing of an animal that did not pose a threat. Animal cruelty charges should be filed and the officer should face a jury.

originally posted by: raymundoko
This was an accidental shooting caused by a shaky officer who thought she saw a gun, and despite what was stated actually DID feel remorse:

The officer, who has been placed on administrative leave, broke down after she realized that she had shot the teen at point-blank range, witnesses said.

The female officer reportedly burst into tears after the shooting. She has not been identified.

“She put her head in her hands and she was sobbing,”

I'm sure she was so broken up over it that she immediately handed in her resignation, correct?

Well, we know she did not AND according to reports had done something similar before, endangering the public, thinking "her safety" was above everyone else around her. The other cop on the scene even said the kid was removing his backpack, yet she pulled her weapon and fired anyway. For "safety" of course

reason.com...

But you're right Officer Beth Gatny, was so remorseful of her last negligent shooting that she figured escalating it to an actual death was the proper next step in her career. She still hasn't resigned out of remorse, BTW.

Honestly the community should serve her some justice, since her employers and the courts won't. Its obvious that she is a danger to every civilian she encounters.

a reply to: boohoo

What does that have to do with intentionality killing a 4 year old?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: boohoo

What does that have to do with intentionality killing a 4 year old?

Because a cop can kill a 4-year old, not loose any sleep over it, not loose their job, not face charges, never thinks to resign and in the end, calls it "justified" for the rest of their life.

Hey, you want to keep making excuses for them, go right ahead.

The general public is tired of it and very few people believe anything LEO's have to say anymore. They brought it all on themselves.