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.

 

Cops Kill Family’s Dog in Front of Kids, Force Dad to Cut Its Head Off Or Go To Jail

page: 10
68
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: notsure1
Yes TFTP is very bias. But in this instance we do have a video of the cop threatening to arrest him if he did not do it.

I dont know how you can even try and justify that.


*sigh*

When did I try to justify the officer's actions and threats?

When?

Allow myself to quote...myself:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So, yeah, as far as I can tell, this LEO was a complete assh0le in making the homeowner do what he did to his dog, and quite honestly, I would question his mental ability to be a police officer if he's willing to force someone to do this to their own dog right after it was shot.


originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So, while there is no mandate for all of this to occur, I think that the existence of these guidelines, at the very least, gives the homeowner cause for a lawsuit. If the investigator truly felt that the animal may have rabies, they should not have forced--or even allowed--a civilian to remove the head, not knowing if he has received a pre-exposure rabies vaccination.

At the very least, they should have had the fish-and-game guy do it, or called for a veterinarian to come do it properly.


originally posted by: SlapMonkey
What I still refuse to accept is that the investigator basically forced the homeowner to remove the dog's head under thread of detainment or arrest. That could have and should have been handled VERY differently, as the guidelines that I shared with you in a subsequent post indicate.... I cannot condone the way that officer acted in regards to the removal of the dog's head for rabies testing.



So, yeah, you were saying about me trying to justify the LEO's actions? Gimme a GD break.
Sry I dont think you have tried at all to justify it.

I was just saying in general not you specifically.




posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: MountainLaurel


There is just no way any officer would allow or recommend someone who is clearly upset/hostile to grab a knife. The liability of accidental injury alone would be staggering, let alone the liability if he were to attack one of the officers or another person.


And like I noted before, the possible exposure of a civilian to rabies...that's a massive lawsuit just waiting to happen.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

Yeah, while I was posting that, I was wondering if it was rhetorical or directed at me. My apologies if I came off over-harsh with my response.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Finally found a local story with video.
It appears a legit story, sadly.
13WMAZ

ETA: Is this officer Hollis the same as the video?
Bottom picture at Crawford County Sheriff Office


edit on 12 5 2017 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

It sure looks like him...



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

Hard to tell when he's not wearing shades of lady red with a bowtie.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

That was explained to the dog owner in the video. He was told where he could go take the dog. He volunteered to do it himself with a kitchen knife. The owner is scum.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


So he was never slammed against a truck for not cutting a dogs head off, he was slammed against a truck for verbally assaulting an officer.


Verbal assault is not illegal provided you don't threaten them. I love how people change the meaning of "insult" to "verbal assault" to make it sound so much worse, when it's the same thing. I'd insult them as well if they stormed onto my property without a warrant and shot my pet. It's piss poor planning. They should have contacted the owner first, to get a grip on his dog before they even went on the property.
edit on 12 5 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: soberbacchus

That was explained to the dog owner in the video. He was told where he could go take the dog. He volunteered to do it himself with a kitchen knife. The owner is scum.


That makes perfect sense. Also explains the wonky editing in the video and the actual discussion not supporting what was claimed.

Strange how people on this thread are gobbling up BS cuz they like the story more than the facts.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
Finally found a local story with video.
It appears a legit story, sadly.
13WMAZ

ETA: Is this officer Hollis the same as the video?
Bottom picture at Crawford County Sheriff Office



It sure looks like the same guy in the video. The news story certainly shows the pet owner in a much different light then the man I heard in the video. This guy will more then likely get paid, but I think this whole mess is a perfect example of how perception of a situation can be altered, IDK....



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: raymundoko


So he was never slammed against a truck for not cutting a dogs head off, he was slammed against a truck for verbally assaulting an officer.


Verbal assault is not illegal provided you don't threaten them. I love how people change the meaning of "insult" to "verbal assault" to make it sound so much worse, when it's the same thing.


????

How do you know what he said?
The video BEGINS with the officer saying "You are not going to talk to me or my deputies like that!"

AND by the way the video is edited, it looks like he was recording already before the beginning, so the filmer intentionally edited out what he said to the officers. Why? Obvious answer.

He also edited out other parts to apparently fit his story.

I call BS.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Wrong. Verbal assault that contains "fighting words" is absolutely illegal.

Fighting words

The Supreme court upheld that you can't use such words in the Chaplinsky decision.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

Wrong. Verbal assault that contains "fighting words" is absolutely illegal.

Fighting words

The Supreme court upheld that you can't use such words in the Chaplinsky decision.


Yeah, that's why I clearly put "provided you don't threaten them" in my post. We don't know that any "fighting" words were exchanged and no offense, but the law is different in every state regarding that, so quoting the wiki for "fighting words" and expecting it it to apply legally and universally is a bit silly, IMO.


edit on 12 5 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

We DO know fighting words were exchanged. He is cussing the entire time. He is told exactly why he was put against the truck. Cursing at an officer while in a provoked state is by definition fighting words.

Also, that's a federal precedent at the SCOTUS level, so it does NOT vary from state to state. States can choose different ways to enforce it/leave it at officer discretion, but the statute is there at a federal level.
edit on 5-12-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Short of a threat of bodily harm, you can call an Officer what ever you want and record everything and that is backed by SCOTUS decision, although not recommended.

You and your Tag Team partner have made it clear where you stand. Perhaps you two can meet at the doughnut shop on your break later



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN

Absolutely not true. The SCOTUS has previously ruled that calling an officer anything to provoke a reaction is illegal. A lot of officers ignore it though. You are NOT within your freedom of speech to directly attack others. There are laws around verbal assault for a reason.
edit on 5-12-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

No that is false and the other garbage about fighting words is false as well. I am mobile at the moment but will return with links to prove you wrong.



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN

I provided a link to a SCOTUS ruling, I am sorry you are confused.

Here is an article on the legality of it: Source=HG.org


Swearing at police officers or making rude gestures could be violations of these laws.

But, if you really, absolutely, positively must say something nasty to a cop, the best way to do it is calmly and quietly in a conversational tone, and preferably while on video.


Why does it specifically state "In a calm and quiet tone? Because that's where you get into "Fighting Words" territory.

Edit: Another source from Cornell

Clearly it states:


Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment



In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuff


So clearly you should brush up on the law my friend.
edit on 5-12-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
MountainLaurel-

I hear you loud and clear ! What amazes me is how "threatened" could any police officer feel to kill a dog , especially when they wear heavy clothes and shoes and have weapons if the dog actually does truly threaten their life. I really do see this in most cases as a sadistic way for cops to assert their power and terrorize people.

What happens to these two sick bastard cops will tell us A LOT , no details yet that I can find.


To answer Your question. I was a Ca. cop who got injured on the JOB (broken back and neck) while working Narcotics. My job was to 'ram the door' (banging the door down and then stepping aside to let other cops enter) on Dec. 21, 2001 We went to serve a Search Warrant on a cranker pad, both sales and manufacturing.

Anyways, I go and ram the door w/the key (78# iron bar w/a head) and as soon as I hit the door a rather large PitBull leapt out and attached to the business end. With the dog attached to the ram, I jumped back off the porch 40" high. After seeing that I'm fighting w/the dog, a guy from DEA™ shot the dog w/His .40 cal. Glock™ The first round bounced off the dog's skull and went through the front window of a rubber-necking neighbor. I'm still fighting with the dog, trying to keep it at bay. DEA™ guy shoots round #2 and just misses My right foot by approx. 4". I'm still fighting the dog, but I'm getting tired at this point. I finally get the dog attached to the ram again and bring Him towards DEA™ guy. DEA™ guy is finally able to dispatch the dog.

Maybe if the dog wasn't around the methamphetamine, but there is absolutely zero doubt in My mind that this dog wanted to chew My ass, basically doing it's "job". I'm also well aware of the breed getting a 'bad rap' (99% is 'owner error') so to show the 'unseen overlords' that I hold no grudge, I adopted a Weimaraner/Pitbull dog.

I did 19 months of Physical Therapy 90 min. day/4x week but finally had to retire from this incident.

5 years earlier on Dec. 21, I drove My BMW™ through a downed Eucalyptus tree and was "dead" for 4 min. so I "almost" was thinking Dec. 21 2012 was going to be 'final curtains'...

Stay Hydrated....

Proud Member of LEAP- Law Enforcement Action Partnership

P.S. I'll call a spade a shovel if need be, and would agree that 'some' cops got into the business because they got beat up in High School...



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JimNasium

I don't even know where to start with this post.

I won't embed the video because it shows a dog being killed, but here are two dogs who their owner released onto an officer: qnTJJfJLfo0 and you yourself stated you were attacked by a dog and cooperated in having it killed.

Also, what kind of heavy clothes do you see in the OP video and do you think dog's teeth can't penetrate a pair of pants or a shirt? I am not sure why we are even having this conversation...




top topics



 
68
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join