Cops Sic Dogs On Suicidal Teen:

these guys didn't just show up on their own - every police call is not accompanied by a K-9... So.

Every time to police "show up", they have guns. Does that mean someone needs to be shot every time?

Good loophole - "don't blame us, it was the dog".

a reply to: Spider879

He heard the cops coming and jumped into a trash can, which they then overturned and sic the dogs on him, I don't know the procedure for detaining someone for being suicidal but how hard could it be to just hand cuff the kid after dumping him on the floor.

His first instinct was to run? and then hide? Why? How many times did they order him out? Was he not responding when they asked if he had a weapon? Did he have a weapon? Did his mother maybe imply he did when she called? Could it have been a miscommunication between the dispatch and the police concerning that?

So many unanswered questions and internet warriors are SO quick to jump down the LEO's throat because the internet has told them to be afraid of them and that they are always wrong.

So because they ordered him out rather than trying to coax him out the action was correct?? the kid was suicidal which by definition off his rockers, not that he was being violent or had a weapon or anything, I just don't see the justification for that.

I wasn't there so I can't claim to know what is correct...unlike other people on this site. Must be nice to be omnipotent. All I was trying to get across to the people that cannot see two sides, is that there are two sides. Yes, I now see the futility and the stupidity in trying to do that.

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Spider879

Everyone seems to think that the medias portrayal of LEO's are bloodthirsty goons looking to kill someone is 100% accurate. I wish they would take the time to read the whole story and realize there is more than one accounting of the story. There are bad people, citizens and LEO's.

In all reality the media is not that brutal to LEO's. There are dozens (even hundreds) of stories out there that they could pick up but they don't.

originally posted by: keenmachine
a reply to: superman2012

you are kidding right? they send texts beforehand saying come get some i'm going to get some and if you don't hurry im gonna be the only one to get in on the fun "get my bite" and I assume this is before he has even reached the scene of a suicidal teen. You really think maybe the situation called for letting the dog lose when the cop had already decided he was gonna get his bite before even arriving at the scene? Then afterword there are congratulations. A kid's face is mauled and there are congratulations and you think maybe we should not judge as there may be more to the story? I see nothing that could make me feel different unless the teen had a weapon and even then i would wanna know why the cop had already made his mind up as how this was gonna go down before even arriving.

As I stated before, get my bite on, might be their slang for K9. Is it right? No. Distasteful? Yes. Against the law? No.

Congratulations? Yes. I would be too, the kid is alive, but the other people on here would still bemoan a LEO for shooting a man in the shoulder to stop him from shooting himself.

originally posted by: charolais

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Spider879

Everyone seems to think that the medias portrayal of LEO's are bloodthirsty goons looking to kill someone is 100% accurate. I wish they would take the time to read the whole story and realize there is more than one accounting of the story. There are bad people, citizens and LEO's.

In all reality the media is not that brutal to LEO's. There are dozens (even hundreds) of stories out there that they could pick up but they don't.

Sorry, I meant the cherrypicking of the bad LEO's on ATS that is regurgitated from a slow news day because they have a problem with authority.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Spider879
Give them a pass? No. Said there's more to the story? Yes.
Give them a pass for using their own slang? Yes. Believe that it isn't distasteful slang? No.

I did read the article, thanks for reposting exactly what I was talking about though. I fail to see how copying and pasting something that we all have (presumably) read makes your argument?

If he had complied, the dog would not have been let loose (presumably). How is that hard to understand?

Don't put words in my mouth because you fail to see there are two sides.

The kid wasn't wanted to questioning in a crime, nor did he seem to be acting in a violent, aggressive way. You don't think having a dog maul his face is excessive force?

Further, you don't see an issue with their stated mindset of "do what we say or we will have our dogs maul you"? Or that they congratulate each other on having their dogs attack people, actually aiming for the need of skin grafts?

That all seems ok?

Glad to see you know exactly how it went down. Which officer were you? Care to share how it went down exactly so we can make up our minds?

Comply or get hurt? They are charged with protecting people, even ones that want to do damage to themselves. I'd say they were successful in stopping this idiot from killing himself.

a reply to: superman2012

For my part I generally give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt. I also agree that there are a number of unanswered questions regarding this particular incident. However, from the statistics published in the article it would appear to me that this particular police department overuses their K9 forces. If a rebuttal to this article is available, I would be quite happy to read it and consider how the view from the other side plays into the narrative.

Furthermore we have several law enforcement officers, both active duty and retired, who are rather prolific contributors here on ATS. ATS citizen Shamrock answered a question that I asked the other day that shifted my opinion on the Tamir Rice shooting. I will now, at least, give the officers involved the benefit of reasonable doubt concerning their actions. To the best of my knowledge, none of them have weighed in here with their opinion on this topic.

With respect to the suicide issue, I really think this was a scared kid who had no intention of committing suicide. That's just my opinion without really knowing all the details. Just a gut feeling. You mentioned in an earlier post that there would be some on here that would have issues with a cop who shoots someone in the shoulder to stop them from shooting themselves. I am one of those people. But my issue is not with what the officer is doing to try to save the victim's life. My issue is that the officer is simply delaying the inevitable. He probably would do the inconsolable person a favor by targeting center mass and releasing him from his pain.

-dex

On the surface (to me as a LEO) this seems wrong.

I have worked many cases of suicidal individuals and have never had to have a K9 deployed. Of course that doesn't mean there would never be a situation in which it would be justified.

That said, I would definitely like to know more about the case. The linked website is far from being unbiased.

What information was given when the call was dispatched? Was there ever mention or suspicion of the man having a weapon by the reporting party? Does he have a history of suicide attempts (attention seeking or not) involving weapons?

However, I can definitely see how people would be appalled after reading the article.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Spider879
Give them a pass? No. Said there's more to the story? Yes.
Give them a pass for using their own slang? Yes. Believe that it isn't distasteful slang? No.

I did read the article, thanks for reposting exactly what I was talking about though. I fail to see how copying and pasting something that we all have (presumably) read makes your argument?

If he had complied, the dog would not have been let loose (presumably). How is that hard to understand?

Don't put words in my mouth because you fail to see there are two sides.

The kid wasn't wanted to questioning in a crime, nor did he seem to be acting in a violent, aggressive way. You don't think having a dog maul his face is excessive force?

Further, you don't see an issue with their stated mindset of "do what we say or we will have our dogs maul you"? Or that they congratulate each other on having their dogs attack people, actually aiming for the need of skin grafts?

That all seems ok?

Glad to see you know exactly how it went down. Which officer were you? Care to share how it went down exactly so we can make up our minds?

Comply or get hurt? They are charged with protecting people, even ones that want to do damage to themselves. I'd say they were successful in stopping this idiot from killing himself.

I thought we were discussing an article? My comments relate directly to quotes taken from the article.

It amounts to moving the goal posts: of course we don't know exactly what happened. We weren't there. Thats not what is being discussed....we are discussing the article and the information that actually is available. Including quotes from the offiers.

originally posted by: superman2012
I'd say they were successful in stopping this idiot from killing himself.

Yep. The only thing not going through that kid's mind as the dog was eating him alive was, "I'm gonna hang myself right after this is over with." LOL

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: superman2012
I'd say they were successful in stopping this idiot from killing himself.

Yep. The only thing not going through that kid's mind as the dog was eating him alive was, "I'm gonna hang myself right after this is over with." LOL

Oh you guys got jokes..

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: keenmachine
a reply to: superman2012

you are kidding right? they send texts beforehand saying come get some i'm going to get some and if you don't hurry im gonna be the only one to get in on the fun "get my bite" and I assume this is before he has even reached the scene of a suicidal teen. You really think maybe the situation called for letting the dog lose when the cop had already decided he was gonna get his bite before even arriving at the scene? Then afterword there are congratulations. A kid's face is mauled and there are congratulations and you think maybe we should not judge as there may be more to the story? I see nothing that could make me feel different unless the teen had a weapon and even then i would wanna know why the cop had already made his mind up as how this was gonna go down before even arriving.

As I stated before, get my bite on, might be their slang for K9. Is it right? No. Distasteful? Yes. Against the law? No.

Congratulations? Yes. I would be too, the kid is alive, but the other people on here would still bemoan a LEO for shooting a man in the shoulder to stop him from shooting himself.

yeah i'm sure they were congratulating each other on the dog only snacking on the kids face and saving his life. you really believe that? I hope you never have a friend on the verge of suicide with no weapon but suicidal just the same would you beat him with a baseball bat and then go see him later so he can thank you for saving his life? I gotta believe there is a better way to help someone contemplating suicide than to sic an attack dog on him, but thats just me.

originally posted by: keenmachine

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: keenmachine
a reply to: superman2012

you are kidding right? they send texts beforehand saying come get some i'm going to get some and if you don't hurry im gonna be the only one to get in on the fun "get my bite" and I assume this is before he has even reached the scene of a suicidal teen. You really think maybe the situation called for letting the dog lose when the cop had already decided he was gonna get his bite before even arriving at the scene? Then afterword there are congratulations. A kid's face is mauled and there are congratulations and you think maybe we should not judge as there may be more to the story? I see nothing that could make me feel different unless the teen had a weapon and even then i would wanna know why the cop had already made his mind up as how this was gonna go down before even arriving.

As I stated before, get my bite on, might be their slang for K9. Is it right? No. Distasteful? Yes. Against the law? No.

Congratulations? Yes. I would be too, the kid is alive, but the other people on here would still bemoan a LEO for shooting a man in the shoulder to stop him from shooting himself.

yeah i'm sure they were congratulating each other on the dog only snacking on the kids face and saving his life. you really believe that? I hope you never have a friend on the verge of suicide with no weapon but suicidal just the same would you beat him with a baseball bat and then go see him later so he can thank you for saving his life? I gotta believe there is a better way to help someone contemplating suicide than to sic an attack dog on him, but thats just me.

As I said before, it's easy to play internet expert, much harder to be there. That is why I was attempting to show people that from a logical and dispassionate viewpoint. I should have known better...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Spider879
Give them a pass? No. Said there's more to the story? Yes.
Give them a pass for using their own slang? Yes. Believe that it isn't distasteful slang? No.

I did read the article, thanks for reposting exactly what I was talking about though. I fail to see how copying and pasting something that we all have (presumably) read makes your argument?

If he had complied, the dog would not have been let loose (presumably). How is that hard to understand?

Don't put words in my mouth because you fail to see there are two sides.

The kid wasn't wanted to questioning in a crime, nor did he seem to be acting in a violent, aggressive way. You don't think having a dog maul his face is excessive force?

Further, you don't see an issue with their stated mindset of "do what we say or we will have our dogs maul you"? Or that they congratulate each other on having their dogs attack people, actually aiming for the need of skin grafts?

That all seems ok?

Glad to see you know exactly how it went down. Which officer were you? Care to share how it went down exactly so we can make up our minds?

Comply or get hurt? They are charged with protecting people, even ones that want to do damage to themselves. I'd say they were successful in stopping this idiot from killing himself.

I thought we were discussing an article? My comments relate directly to quotes taken from the article.

It amounts to moving the goal posts: of course we don't know exactly what happened. We weren't there. Thats not what is being discussed....we are discussing the article and the information that actually is available. Including quotes from the offiers.

If we were just discussing the article and not any viewpoints, then why bother having a forum for ATS? Just push for it to be MSM regurgitation...

My thoughts are exactly what people are responding to. We don't know what happened because we weren't there. It couldn't be more simple. I was attempting to show that there might be a different way it happened because we don't have all the information....

a reply to: DexterRiley

But my issue is not with what the officer is doing to try to save the victim's life. My issue is that the officer is simply delaying the inevitable. He probably would do the inconsolable person a favor by targeting center mass and releasing him from his pain.

You never know though...
There are quite a few people that were saved from suicide that never went through with it afterwards...if someone is really going to do it, they will.

originally posted by: superman2012

I was attempting to show that there might be a different way it happened because we don't have all the information....

To that Ill whole heartedly agree.

But the facts we do have (quotes from officers involved) sure isn't very positive.

a reply to: superman2012

ok I can see that and maybe I react a little too passionately and I can only hope that there is more than the article shows but given what we know and the lack of human compassion in the cops text it pains me to see what this world has become and not just cops but as a society as a whole. The discussion both before and after sickens me even more. No regret, no sympathy, just he should have complied justifying their actions and attitude placing full blame on the kid who probably will have no will to live at all after this. Some will say he should just grow a pair, learn to cope but like you said before we don't know the whole story and if we gotta reserve judgement on men who release dogs on suicidal teens and then congratulate one another afterward, then surely we can for the kid who thinks life ain't worth living.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: superman2012
I'd say they were successful in stopping this idiot from killing himself.

Yep. The only thing not going through that kid's mind as the dog was eating him alive was, "I'm gonna hang myself right after this is over with." LOL

If he really wanted to do it, there are much more quicker and efficient ways...but keep up with the jokes.

a reply to: Spider879

And the best part is if you do anything to protect yourself from this vicious animal you will be charged with assaulting a "police officer", assuming the dog's handler doesn't blast you out of existence first.