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

a reply to: boohoo

So basically you have a very skewed opinion with no facts to back your opinion up.

originally posted by: raymundoko
So basically you have a very skewed opinion with no facts to back your opinion up.

I can post news articles and old threads from ATS ALL DAY LONG. You're not fooling anyone here. LEO's can kill whomever they want, most get off Scott free, some get reprimanded and even fewer see jail time. Kids, dogs, elderly, mental disabled, doesn't matter, they have a licensee to kill and the "good cops", judges and DA's let it happen.

More than a quarter of civilians shot by HPD in 5 years had no weapon, and the last officer charged in a shooting was in 2004

a reply to: boohoo

That article doesn't say anything about police being able to kill whoever they want...

Are officer more aggressive now than they used to be in the past? Yes. Is that acceptable? Not always. Are they allowed to kill whoever they want? Absolutely not and you look even more foolish than you already do for suggesting that.

Again, not one thing in that article talks about officers intentionally shooting a small child...

Why don't you look up the statistic for how many officers in the USA are killed in the line of duty.

99 humans and 5 k-9s this year alone so far. 40 from guns, 40 from vehicles and 19 from "other" which includes knives.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Why don't you look up the statistic for how many officers in the USA are killed in the line of duty.

99 humans and 5 k-9s this year alone so far. 40 from guns, 40 from vehicles and 19 from "other" which includes knives.

Funny you say that, I did. More police are killed in auto accidents and job related illnesses than from being shot (note "being shot" is a lump sum figure that does not separate friendly fire):

reason.com...

Farming is more dangerous than being a cop, police and sheriff's patrol officers die at a rate of 19 per 100,000, farmers and ranchers die at a rate of 41 deaths per 100,000. The only time being a cop was very dangerous was post the Great Depression (the period of alcohol prohibition). That was a LONG time ago and the number of fatalities per million, has been in steady decline in the post-war years.

fee.org...

To quote the above article, "In 2013, out of 900,000 sworn officers, just 100 died from a job-related injury".

a reply to: butcherguy

Kittens, they shoot kittens, in front of kids no less.....

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: butcherguy

Kittens, they shoot kittens, in front of kids no less.....

Guess what, this same guy was so remorseful of his last negligent shooting that he figured escalating it to an raccoon was the proper next step in his career.

"Despite multiple protests, the department last year, deemed Accorti's actions appropriate and didn't punish him"

Hence my statement that they have a licensee to kill and the "good cops", judges and DA's let it happen.

Cop Who Shot Cats in Front of Kids Now Shoots Raccoon in Front of Kids

a reply to: boohoo
Doesn't surprise me any. There was also one about shooting a squirrel in front of kids at school if I remember correctly. Maybe it was the same dude too.

If anyone shot my dog, or a neighbors dog, then next bullets will be nailing them. Cop or not. Vests won't help any either, hit with a .50 cal is #ing you up regardless.

But then, we don't really have to worry about cops up here at the moment, they are not allowed to step foot out of the office unless called, and the guys who our town pays have some brains, common sense, and know we are armed to the teeth

a reply to: boohoo

You are just sounding worse and worse as we go...

Guess what the most deaths in farming and ranching are caused from...drinking on the job.

They don't have the potential for their equipment to shoot or stab them...

The argument you just tried to use was HILARIOUS and does not in any way support the idea that an officer would intentionally kill a 4 year old. Stop being obtuse.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Guess what the most deaths in farming and ranching are caused from...drinking on the job.

They don't have the potential for their equipment to shoot or stab them...

Spouting more propaganda I see...

The majority of deaths in agriculture come from machinery and auto accidents, so despite your assertion, farmers are at risk of their equipment "stabbing" them too...

There are a number of studies showing that farmer have a LOWER instance of tobacco and alcohol use when compared to the general population:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In fact, Farmers are more at risk to die of cancer, than they are of alcohol or tobacco:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

The more false excuses you make for LEO's, the less reputable you appear. You're an "apologist" and a poor one at that. Most likely just a shill, trying to obfuscate the truth.

a reply to: boohoo

Hah, you don't even understand stuff you link...that is MORTALITY RELATED TO DISEASES, not whether they are killed via impairment while on the job. Let's look at your source:

Farmers are 1.59 times more likely to die from alcoholism than average

And that is also reflected in this article:

Source

Which pulls from here:

National Occupational Mortality Surveilance

And that pulls data that is 15-20 years more recent that your source. (Which pulls data from 1980-1985, This source pulls data from 2000-2007)

And yes, of course it is the equipment that kills them...if you operate dangerous machinery with alcohol in your system then you could have a problem...Same with driving...

Your source references this study:

Deaths from 1980-1985

That study showed that 70% of deaths were caused while on tractors, and over half of those from rollovers. That study does NOT include whether they were drinking or not at time of death.

Osha Accidents for Agricultural work

Ohio Safetey Paper for Agricultural workers due to accidents caused by alchohol/drug related impairment

And my favorite part from your source:

Cross-sectional data from a community household sample (n = 591) describe the alcohol use patterns of adult males and females, and farm workers vs. others. Data reveal that men were more likely to be current drinkers than women, 75.1% vs. 65.8% (p = 0.033); farm laborers were more likely to be current drinkers than individuals in other occupations 83.1% vs. 66.8% (p = 0.004). Group, binge drinking on weekends was the norm; men were more likely to be binge drinkers in the past week than women 59.8% vs. 48.8% (p = 0.086); farm workers were more likely to binge than others 75.0% vs. 47.5% (p < 0.001).

So now you are not only looking foolish, but you are also starting to look completely ignorant. Two things that should not be involved in opinion forming...

Edit: Ultimately all you are doing is running from the claim that officers would have intentionally shot a 4 year old...

a reply to: raymundoko

Per your assertion and in the reports, NO WHERE does it say explicitly that the accidents with machinery and autos are caused by intoxication. Yes, you did dig up some portions in the study about increased alcohol use among farmers, but not every peer reviewed report makes such a claim about farmers.

I can concede that the data is not conclusive on this point, can you?

originally posted by: raymundoko
Edit: Ultimately all you are doing is running from the claim that officers would have intentionally shot a 4 year old...

I haven't "run away" from anything you have said or claimed, this is my answer:

How many police shootings a year? No one knows

I will also concede that there is not enough data to confirm or deny my claim about "trigger happy" LEO's. However, I and many others, prefer to err on the side of "caution" assuming, for our own safety, that police can and will shoot a 4 year old child, pet, elderly or disabled person, IF and WHEN, they feel they are in "danger" or in the event that something is a "distraction" to the "mission".

The protectionist system enveloping their careers and pensions is not worth more than my life, nor anyone else.

I'll say it again, if these shootings were "accidental" we would be hearing about resignations from the involved Law Enforcement personnel, with MANY of 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 and "move on", without any ethical or spiritual concerns. 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.

Being an LEO is NOT the same as a military draft or war, where the choice is jail or kill. Its a civil servant job that pays the bills which they can QUIT at any time they want to. Remember that they can even QUIT mid-operation, if they think the action is unconscionable. AFTER ALL ITS JUST A J-O-B!

When an LEO shoots someone innocent or non-threatening, they are saying to the public: MY career is more important than another life, MY pension is more important than another life, MY ego is more important than another life, MY inability to overcome fear is more important than another life.

I feel the EXACT same way about negligent celebrities that killed people "accidentally" too. Whom post-accident 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: ker2010

No I pretty much nailed it the first time. Reject with the machete was to blame for everything that occurred. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: XTexan
Now, the question becomes was the killing of the animal justified or is it animal cruelty? We seem to agree that the animal posed no threat...

While I don't like the fact that the dog was killed, I lay the blame on the maniac with the machete who opened his door and allowed his dog to run outside. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: FraggleRock
I stand by what I stated: The owner is at fault and here is why:

In many states, there are laws on the books that cover dog bites. Should a dog bite, during a police confrontation, then the owner of said animal is guilty of assault and battery, along with several other charges. In some states, if a dog bites someone, it is considered to be assault with a deadly weapon, and possibly attempted murder.

While the police may not be so innocent in this aspect, the facts are and still remain. The police were there, the owner did let the dog out. That takes it from fault of the police to the fault of the owner, as now the owner, is using the animal as a weapon. If the owner had the dog restrained where it did not pose a threat and the police shot it, then the police would be at fault, and that I can see. But this is not the case.

The bottom line is this: If you have a dog, it becomes your responsibility to take care of the animal and see to its well being. That means if the police show up, you want to restrain said animals, to where said dog cannot get out.

Tell me, are you willing to risk your life or wellbeing over a dog? Care to guess how many shots in the stomach it is for a dog, would you ask another person to take them for you? I won’t. Even where I live, and people let their dogs run free, the laws are very clear, if the dog is hit by a car, then the owner of the dog, is financially responsible for any and all damage that animal does, if it is not restrained or on its property.

I watched as one of the neighbors ended up paying thousands of dollars in medical bills, for the dog causing people on another property getting hurt. And the owners of that animal were facing felony charges, even though the dog was very friendly, but people got hurt due to it.

And in most states, have laws that if a dog bites, then the animal can be put down as a prevention and protection of the public safety.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
No I am not kidding. Yes I saw the size of the dog, and that is what makes it far more dangerous than a big dog any day of the week.
Dog nature can make them very lethal, if not dangerous in the correct situations and lets take a look at this:

The dog views its owner as part of its pack, the human may be considered alpha. The dogs first instinct is to protect the alpha and pack. There is a tense standoff with the police, the owner is in a highly aggressive state, which now that energy and body language is being read by the dog, puts it in a more highly aggressive state. Even a calm mellow dog, that is small can become a lethal biting machine if the circumstances are correct and it views there is a threat to its pack. In this case it viewed the strangers, in uniform as a threat. It did not matter the size of the animal, nor does it matter the breed. If the owner had not let the animal out and kept it restrained, then there is a good chance that the police would not have to shoot it.

And as I have stated, before, it is the owners responsibility to see to the well being of the dogs that he or she may own. That means restraining then to where they can not bite a person, cause in most states, if this dog had bitten an officer, then it would have to be put down and ultimately the person would then be facing additional felony charges.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Even a calm mellow dog, that is small can become a lethal biting machine if the circumstances are correct and it views there is a threat to its pack.

you mean like if the said police officer is laying on his back with his neck exposed ?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Ever heard of rabies?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
No. A bite to the ankle can be just as damaging or even to the leg or the arm, or the hand.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Ever heard of rabies?

yes ...we dont have rabies in this country and tbh i wasn't aware that you had it in the U.S...

even so the chances of that dog having rabies i would imagine are very small

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
No. A bite to the ankle can be just as damaging or even to the leg or the arm, or the hand.

ok then...we had better put ankle biters on the most deadly lists.....so am i right in saying you believe that dog was a serious threat to those officers and the use of deadly force for warranted or even necessary ?

in my opinion if the police cannot handle a little dog like that without shooting it they should get a new job as in one they are capable of doing