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.

 

This One Police Department Shot 92 Dogs in Three Years.

page: 2
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I know some very bad, inappropriate and just plain wrong shooting of dogs has made it onto these boards at times.

My father had a very old and sick dog shot by the police. The policeman approached the situation with discussion and respect and we are thankful of their service. It was a lot cheaper, quicker and less stressful for the dog than going to the vet.

The point is not all dog shootings are bad, but when someone has a done a lot more killing than most it does raise a lot of questions.




posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

well perhaps if the dogs though you were an alpha they would not attack....they are pack animals and if they sense an alpha they will be submissive...

25 dogs in one year is outright wrong there is no way he would have encountered 25 cujo type animals that needed to be shot i very much doubt he even encountered one.....

i used to do a sales job door to door and i encountered many dogs of all shapes and sizes....never once was i scared every time one came at me all it took was a loud and powerful "SIT"...hell i even had 2 pitbulls come at me growling one night when i was in the country and again all it took was a raised commanding voiced and they simply turned around and walked away



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Imagine for a second that one-third of these 92 dogs had been insured under an "Animal Mortality" policy, what do you think the insurance companies, on both sides, would be doing to this Police department, after filling 30 plus claims, even for nominal amounts?

Protests won't make any difference and in some cities legislators can't even disband the local police departments. So it seems, even changing laws is not enough in some cases, to make LEO's accountable for unconstitutional actions.

Only MONEY, namely insurance coverage, can solve this problem.

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 horse shot negligently, 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 main 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.

To summarize my point, it will only take a few victim owners, with "insured dog", whom were carrying "Animal Mortality" insurance specifically on the shot animal. In a situation like that with real money on the line, it likely wouldn't take many claims of wrongful death filed with a single company, to get a broad nationwide policy change in place in LEO departments.

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 and LEO's?

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,the victims insurance 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 t fault. 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 and/or the individual cops policy (home owners etc) that will pay.

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 process, the individual cop and/or the police organization itself would likely have their insurance premiums increased. Its highly doubtful many officers imagine such a scenario, when shooting someone, a pet 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 adjuster shows up, straight from an insurance company.

LEO's and their departments 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 has the possibility of triggering an insurance claim to be made against the individual officers personal insurance policies (not always the department). Being personally liable, in an instance like this, could conceivably render the shooting officer uninsurable, OR at minimum, result with an increased personal insurance premium, due to claims being filed by any side. THIS SHOULD BE THE GOAL, when taking out an "Animal Mortality" insurance policy on a dog, not to get "reimbursed", but rather to render the individual shooter uninsurable, or at the very least, with unpayable premiums, post claim.

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/LEO. 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. We want adjusters getting involved in these shooting claims, the sooner the better. 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. Imagine if the community in Buffalo had collectively and simultaneously taken out such polices on the dogs in a preemptive manner, would we be seeing TRUE policy change now? I'd bet my house we would.

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 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 continued 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.

Dog owners, at this point, should be teaching each other HOW to cause police departments additional logistical and paperwork headaches. "Activists groups" need to REFOCUS and target potential loopholes in police policy, then HIGHLIGHT them for the public to us AND abuse.

Here is my original thread on the topic:

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



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun




You do yourself a disservice as a moral human being when you claim you would harm an officer of the law or perhaps a neighbor that shot your dog (which we must always assume was done in self-defense other than when we know the exact details of the situation).


Why must we always assume that? We could just as easily assume someone was bit because they were somewhere they didn't belong. But then we know what they say about assumptions...




No dog is to be trusted nor owner's words believe in such an instance, today more so than in the past.


I would apply this equally to law enforcement, more so today than in the past.




Bad tempered dogs are held in big favor today by particular members of the public and the pit bull leads the pack. One has only to spend a minute looking up the stats for the breed of dog that bits most often--and especially KILLS most often--to understand why police frequently (or your neighbor) may shot first your animal as it charges. I wager the majority of those shootings are of pit bulls and other vicious types. So don't be so quick to blame the cop, blame the popularity of the breed of the dog and, let us not forget the culpability of the owner to the situation when that cute puppy grows up.


Bad tempered police officers are held in big favor by particular members of the public. One has only to spend a minute looking up the stats for police violence to understand why the public frequently calls for drastic action. I wager there are many more instances of police violence than what we read about on a daily basis. So I wouldn't be so quick to defend police officers who are running up a body count, be it animals or humans, unimpeded.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

1 We don't need to 'assume' it was done in self defense when they call the dog with a wagging tail over to shoot it. Get real.
2 I never trusted anyone's word about their dog biting or not to begin with,I would let the dog approach me and read it's body language and judge for myself. Mail carriers do tend to draw a dogs ire because they a.wear a uniform and b. travel onto people's property.Dog's like to protect their owners property and yeah there is a clash.That is the fault of the owners that the dog is out and about instead of in a fenced in yard for its and others protection.
3 Pepper spray is by far more potent and works better than they first attempts at marketing it to the masses.Dogs nose's are by far more sensitive than ours anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 times more so.Pepper spray would hurt them a lot more than us,they even have it for bears. Seriously,if something can stop a bear I think it can handle a dog.
4 Dogs that bite the most are Pit Bulls,Rottweilers,Presa Canarios and Wolf hybrids.These breeds all have high numbers of attacks and kills on humans.

Now after having groomed for 15 years I'll add something for the general public here. Groomers have their own list of dogs they really don't want to mess with usually. Here is the list I gathered from my own experience and by talking to other groomers. Chows,do lots of damage and I do have a story about one that I almost got to groom that ended up ripping up a groomers face that did it that day instead of me. Afghan Hounds,pretty but have long curled canines to rip through prey to immobile it. The woman that trained me saw one lay a groomers arm open in bite from wrist to elbow hitting the artery.Scottish Terriers, you wouldn't think that small of a dog could do much,and you would be wrong. Most groomers sweat bullets when grooming this breed,Scotties tend to have nasty dispositions when being groomed.They don't like their nails being done,knots brushed out,ears cleaned or just being messed with. There are a few exceptions,but on the whole,groomers are afraid of them.Due to the way the jaw muscles are over laid on the bone,they have about the same jaw power as a German Shepard. And I can attest that one since I did finally get bit by one that had never been groomed before. It was 4 years old and an invalid owned it and had passed away. So it never got used to grooming and I was the FIRST groomer to ever try and groom it. It came out beautiful,but I ended up with the muscle of my left arm almost tore out. I got my arm out of its mouth in time but had welts for every single tooth on me and it left 2 blood clots in my arm. I considered myself lucky. I had no hard feelings towards the dog. It had done well for the grooming but at the end became stressed and tired of it all. It never growled or lifted a lip. Just attacked. The number one dog that bites groomers? Cocker Spaniels.This is just a matter of which dog breeds are popular. Those that people like to own the most,the groomer sees the most of. More the groomer sees a certain breed,more likely they are to get bit by that breed.
edit on 19-11-2014 by Dimithae because: corrected word



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Dimithae




4 Dogs that bite the most are Pit Bulls,Rottweilers,Presa Canarios and Wolf hybrids.These breeds all have high numbers of attacks and kills on humans.


Is it truly that these breeds are more predisposed to biting or is it possible that bite statistics are skewed because those particular breeds bite can cause more damage and thus are almost always reported. My opinion is that these specific breeds shouldn't be considered potentially dangerous because they bite the most but rather they should be considered potentially dangerous because when they do bite it's going to do more damage.

I've had big dogs my entire life and have never encountered one that had any aggression. Those breeds include: German Shepard Husky mix, Alaskan Malamute, 2 Rottweilers, Golden Lab, American Staffordshire Terrier. The only dogs I've ever encountered that showed aggression were smaller breeds. So, at least in my experience, the breeds more likely to bite me were smaller breeds despite the fact that the dogs who would likely cause the most damage if a bite occurred would be bigger breeds I've owned.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: FraggleRock

This was a survey taken on dogs that had either killed or maimed people.The definition of maimed for them was permanent disfigurement or loss of limbs.

I've run into quite a few nasty Akitas over the years myself.These may be loyal dogs like chows,but to strangers they don't take too them well.

I can use the same argument when it comes to small dogs myself,I've had many small dogs over the years and mine didn't bite.But then I didn't let them do things like bite,yap and act nasty to people. Those were all no nos.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: douglas5
We have no way of knowing the circumstances of why the dogs were shot. Possibly, some were running wild and killing farm animals. Maybe the drug dealers/ cookers were being raided and the dogs were impeding the raids. You may have heard that those folks keep such animals for protection.
One solution is to make anyone owning a dangerous animal of any sort, big cats, pythons, attack dogs, etc. post a bond. Only licensed breeders could own non-spayed animals and would need a breeders license. This will eliminate many unwanted animals and the need to euthanize shelter dogs.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: douglas5
You used to hear stories about how some cops went a whole career without pulling a gun. This guy who shot 26..obvious psychopth, only a matter of time or perhaps he has shot people.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo
Do you really think a drug dealer who keeps an abused mutt pit bull chained outside the meth lab door is going to take out a policy on the dog? The dog is HIS insurance policy. These poor animals are abandoned to starve to death all the time and their owners can easily replace them.
If I happen to shoot a dog who is killing my sheep, do you think the owner will even know where Fluffy went? If my labs kill a strange dog in a field, I might not even know about it unless I see it happen.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Id be in favor of police receiving training and carrying a side arm with tranquilizers to deal with dogs. I do not blame any police officer ever for having to shoot dogs for fear of their own safety. I blame dog owners for knowingly keeping vicious animals. I read a police report awhile back (seriously) front to back in my home town about 3 months ago about such an incident. An officer was approaching a residence and two pit bulls get out of a fence chase him into the road and one has him by the arm and one by the leg. He then in fear for his life (I would be) pulls his fire arm yet refuses to fire realizing hes in the middle of a residential area. Is this man going to die? I might even be able to find this report.

Luckily the owner came outside and called the dogs. If I was that officer Id want both dogs put down. No one should own animals that want to kill human beings, period. You do not have the right to own an animal that wants to kill people and will kill people, ever. So no I do not and will not ever blame an officer for shooting anyone's dog if he feels threatened. If you have a problem with it then train your dog to not attack humans. No one gave you the right to own a killing machine. You have the right to own a firearm to defend yourself, your property and your family.


edit on 20-11-2014 by Pimpintology because: of fluoride!



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: boohoo
Do you really think a drug dealer who keeps an abused mutt pit bull chained outside the meth lab door is going to take out a policy on the dog? The dog is HIS insurance policy. These poor animals are abandoned to starve to death all the time and their owners can easily replace them.
If I happen to shoot a dog who is killing my sheep, do you think the owner will even know where Fluffy went? If my labs kill a strange dog in a field, I might not even know about it unless I see it happen.


What are you talking about?

Do you really believe all 92 dogs that were shot by Buffalo LEO's were kept by "drug dealers" to be used as guard dogs?

How many of the 92 dogs that were shot by Buffalo LEO's were in the process of killing sheep?

My point was to create a paperwork nightmare for police officers who shoot pet dogs, whose owners ARE NOT in the process, nor guilty of an illegal act.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: douglas5
You used to hear stories about how some cops went a whole career without pulling a gun. This guy who shot 26..obvious psychopth, only a matter of time or perhaps he has shot people.



It would be interesting to do a freedom of information request of that officer and see what is in his back ground ,psychopth i can agree with if he shoots animals at this rate what else has this man got away with in the past that might be hidden from view , i he shoots a dog every 2 weeks he might just beat his wife and kids , He comes across as that kind of a guy

Decades ago i did some work for a banker from Buffalo at his holiday home in the U.K and saw how paranoid about security he was , steering locks etc on a rental car and that was in the middle of nowhere , nearest neighbour was half a hour walk away .

Every time i went to my van for materials they locked the door behind me , when i knocked they would shout who is it
in the middle of frigging nowhere when i just went out 2 minutes ago .

Never did take them up on their offer to come over and work for them after that



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: douglas5
It would be interesting to do a freedom of information request of that officer and see what is in his back ground ,psychopath i can agree with if he shoots animals at this rate what else has this man got away with in the past that might be hidden from view , i he shoots a dog every 2 weeks he might just beat his wife and kids , He comes across as that kind of a guy


This has been tried already, by many individual people, law firms and human rights organizations. The main issue is that the data simply doesn't exist, either it was never collected in the first or it was "thrown away" or "lost". This also doesn't include the various known stonewalling tactics to prevent release. As a nation we need to pass a federal law that requires police departments to keep data and evidence on file and/or in physical storage in perpetuity. No auctions, no disposal, just an ever growing data storage and warehousing of digital and physical assets. I personally don't care what it costs either because police are so corrupt today, we have no other choices. If something gets lost or thrown away, jail time for the last responsible person and a fine for the department/jurisdiction responsible.
edit on 21-11-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join