It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 05:52 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

How did I cooperate in the killing of the dog? This happened in the course of My employment during the service of a Search Warrant. When I yelled "TIME OUT!!! the dog continued its attack. I was going to do the international symbol of "Time Out" in case the dog was hearing impaired but never got a chance as I was fighting said dog. If this is Your definition of "cooperating in the killing of this dog" then I admit My guilt.

I've been retired for 13 years now Thank Goodness, so I'm not constrained to what I type. This allows Me the freedom to type anything I want.

You seem to have a "short fuse" anything You'd like to type about? Why would You get upset at what someone You'll never meet types on an anonymous chat forum? If Your experiences are different than Mine, perhaps that is what differs from how We react to what someone else types...

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:08 PM
a reply to: JimNasium

Who has a short fuse? Where did I indicate I was upset?

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.

Nowhere in that description do you say ANYTHING about a time out. That description actually makes it sound like you moved to the dog into a better position to be shot. Surely you understand how you described it makes it sound like you intended for the dog to be shot.

In any case, it's disgusting of you to suggest an officer is on a power trip when he shoots a dog. Have you ever been treated for rabies? Your reply indicates which one of us has the "short fuse".
edit on 5-12-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:21 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

You win. I surrender. You're the best ever.

With Me answering this means I'll be getting that ever important 'last word' so go ahead and type something so I can surrender w/more dignity..

Have a better day!

Edit: What happened to "sticks and stones" "Fighting Words" must work in some suburb collecting mail for people on holiday.. Never mind Mr. Officer.. hahahahaha Anyone that can pull Supreme Court rulings on 'horse snip cases' got Me beat. You might look at some of My earlier work when I opined it was the lazy a$$ kissers that keep getting promoted in the police department because instead of handling their beat, they're too busy studying or hanging around the station 'kissing a$$ and polishing brass'
edit on 10/13/2014 by JimNasium because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:28 PM

originally posted by: silo13
Ok, so the cop admitted to shooting the dog.

And he shot him sure he did.

Then? Oh, but - you have to 'cut his head off?'


And a Fish and Game guy is there sayin' - 'I aint never seen this ****'! WOW.

What? Is he forcing him to 'cut his dogs head off' - to take it to check it for Rabies?

I don't get it.

This dude is Fish and Game - it's HIS JOB to cut that dog's head off.

If this is even the reason this weirdo is asking for the dogs head.

Oh man.

I know this sucks beyond belief but it is very important if the dog has bitten anyone to test for rabies.Yes, the owner is required to take the head off and send it to the lab if the animal is dead. That really sucks when the cops shot his dog. IF the dog was not dead, they could've impounded it for 10 days, at the owners expense. I had a dog who was a guard dog at a business my father owned who bit someone and we had to put her up for 10 days to prove she didn't have rabies.

As an environmentalist my first job in the field was to be a health inspector in a rural setting and we aided the wildlife agency by transporting the severed animal heads to the lab. Sad to hear this guys lost his dog!

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 06:31 PM

originally posted by: 772STi

originally posted by: Lolliek

I would’ve made them take me to jail. He probably loved that animal, and no sane person could do that dry eyed.

And another reason why I often wonder what the h*ll is wrong with people.

Agreed, I would have set the dog in the garage, shut the door and make them take me to jail. After I bailed out a couple hours later the dog would have got a proper burial with its head still on its body.

IF it bit someone then they would have to go ahead and take the shots for rabies and they are supposedly better these days, I hear they have inject a bunch of them into your belly.

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 09:24 PM
a reply to: JimNasium

From his misinterpretation of things, it sounds like he would be walking his beat

Better get a nice pair of walking shoes raymundoko

No way LEOs should just let dogs bite them. Rabies is relatively common in some areas, and that alone can be fatal easily. Ouch. And dog bites can easily be lethal if they are big enough, or bite the right area. Task force guy sounds like he could use some more crossfire and safety training, but overall sounds like you guys did what you had to

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

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 10:17 PM
a reply to: JBurns

As soon as I read "fighting words" it reminded Me of a time where I was asked to assist an outside agency. I was to assist 2 officers in finding and then interviewing 3 murder witnesses who were members of a well known and federally recognized 'outlaw gang' The interviewing officer started to interview wit#1) and it went to snip PDQ. I looked at the Sgt. w/that 'look' wondering when He was going to intercede. Long story short, He was saying the same type crap and threatening to lock up these 'would be witnesses' because the cop stirred the pot in the first 2 minutes thinking He knew the score. Accusatory, threatening versus trying to get 3 wits to "testilie"...

I just don't think it is Cricket, to come into contact w/the Public and antagonize that public and then when/if they do react, add any charges coming out of that contact. I always told the reporting parties "I work for You what would You like done?..."

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 10:21 PM
a reply to: JimNasium

Get a material witness warrant.

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 10:51 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm wondering whatever happened to 'Gerbal Voodoo' ? (Verbal Judo) "Is there anything I can say/do in order for You go along with the program?..."

Now it seems the fight is on as soon as the door on the CrownVic gets closed...

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 11:18 PM
a reply to: JimNasium

Sure - he can comply.

posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 11:28 PM

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.

OMG listen to yourself, a better description is butt hurt words, never ever use words that create butt hurt, now say after me in a cartman voice "respect my authoritah "

posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 12:53 AM
a reply to: raymundoko
Its not in the vid, but I think the OP's link in the story link, it has a snapshot of a Pitbull with one neck wide long gash cut. I think the owner actually did it, cut the head off that is. Or at least attempted to. At the end there he asked if he could go in the house to get a knife and just get this whole thing over with.

If so, he did it wrong.

People think its easy to cut a head off with a knife, its not, its a bloody mess, even on a dead dog, if that was a snapshot of the dead dog with its head cut off, WTF were they thinking, lucky for those dumbasses the dog did not have rabies, or else they would all be going crazed bout now, foaming from there mouths about who knows what. In fact the investigator should be checked rabies, he was far from thinking straight, like a mad dog.

And to the owner, if your going to do something as stupid as cutting of your own dogs head because a nutter told you, at least use a machete, or even a axe, one clean swift blow, instead of what looked like one messy long "oh its not coming off lets pull harder" type of deal #upery.

In fact from the picture it looked like he cut around the neck, but the head was still on, so they never got the head off, must have been a bloody mess, before they realized that it was not going to work that way and gave up and just left the head on and left it like that.

Asking people to cut there own dam pets head off, what kind of bat # crazy, bat #iness is going on there.

posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 01:12 AM
a reply to: Nothin
I don't think so, has been no shift which I have been able to detect. I think this is a case of normal behavior that rarely gets reported on, but, us living in this digital age with everybody having a cellphone and camera. Well, it got reported, by the power of social media.

Its most likely the dog did actually do something, but not far out from dog behavior, and likely the owner is more then a little indicative himself, and the cop, the cop was probably just responding to a case, and maybe a bit gun happy, but who would not be with a dog going for him, but then again who would put themselves in that situation knowing that big dogs will be big dogs. But the investigator. Dam that guy was not thinking straight that day, if he actually did tell the guy to cut the head of his own dog, which looks like he did.

It's a case of everybody's is an asshole, so lets switch point the light in the best way that makes us looks less bad, the owner is doing his way, the cop and investigator is likely doing it there way, and well, a normal day as usual, everybody just wants to be right, very few people in this world actually go out of there way to be wrong just for the fun of it, most people do not don't have the cajones for it. Everybody wants a dam cookie, what a world we live in.

Seems like all you hear on the news, is just bad news, that trend seems to also be spreading to the internets and social sites as well. Its a total bummer.

posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 09:05 AM
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

He was never asked to cut his own pets head off. Why is this lie still be perpetuated?

posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 09:06 AM
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Listen to me cite the law? How awful of me. Just because we disagree with a law doesn't mean we don't have to follow it. People in this thread have a very skewed view of what you are allowed to say to a police officer. The motto of the site is deny ignorance. That includes ignorance of the law.
edit on 6-12-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 09:10 AM
a reply to: JBurns

What misinterpretation of things?

posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 11:12 AM
a reply to: raymundoko

Clearly you need to brush up on your knowledge of the law or at least know that your interpretation is not what matters.

The first SCOTUS case I will cite in support of my argument is:

Lewis Vs City of New Orleans
No. 72-6156

The case involved New Orleans Ord-828M

"It shall be unlawful and a breach of the peace for any person to watonly curse or revile, or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or in reference to any member of the City Police while in the actual performance of his duty."

SCOTUS ruled the ordiance overly broad and included language that described words outside the definition of "fighting words" doctrine.

The court also determined that when "properly" trained that officers are reasonably expected to "excercise a greater degree of restraint than the average citizen."

Other SCOTUS cases protecting both the First and Fourteenth admendments include:

Gooding Vs Wilson
Cohen Vs California
Terminello Vs Chicago

Several cases have thundered decisions in favor of Free Speech and Freedom of Expression in state supreme courts, most recently in Washington state.

It would seem that the "fighting words" doctrine while not mute, its definition is limited in scope and not applied to public servants.

Now that is 5 cases that show you do have free speech so I rest my case and reiterate that you need to reeducate yourself when it comes to Free Speech.

And with all that said, the majority of our LEO community are outstanding men and women who put their lives at risk everyday for people they do not know and for some who don't deserve it.

I support them and would defend them if it came down to it, however, if found to be outside the law themselves they should be accountable and held to a higher standard.

Words are largely harmless and should never be justification for physical contact period.

You must not have even read the link you cited as it was not based on any SCOTUS decision but was only a legal blog which actually informed one that it was legal to say anything to an officer but not recimmended.

It cited a case itself of a couple who flipped the bird to an officer while on a traffic stop as they drove past.

The officer went after them and arrested the pair but lost the case at the local level when the court recognized Constitutionaly protected expression and currently his department is now batteling the lawsuit brought against them for constitutional rights violations.

edit on 12/6/2017 by DJMSN because: Addition

edit on 12/6/2017 by DJMSN because: Addition

edit on 12/6/2017 by DJMSN because: Correction

posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 12:33 PM
a reply to: DJMSN

First let's clear one thing up since you are highly confused. I was very clear I was not linking to rulings in the post you replied to. I already provided several rulings previously. Those links I clearly identified as articles discussing the legality of it.

My exact quote:

Here is an article on the legality of it

I also noticed you changed your post SIGNIFICANTLY from when you first replied as you realized some of your responses contradicted your initial statements. The problem is that you have been shown to be wrong, and instead of rolling with it you are digging in deeper.

Second. That article clearly says it is illegal in many cases based on public ordinance laws...Did you miss that part? I quoted it directly. Did you omit intentionally?

Third, my original link referenced all the cases you posted... It seemed obvious as we watched you edit your post that you were googling furiously to research fighting words. That's good that you are educating yourself, but don't try and pigeon hole your learning based on a wrong view you held. That court case made sure not to undermine Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. From my original post that you may have missed:


The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[3] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "# the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protesters' speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.

As you can see, fighting words are alive and well and enforceable with the power of the law. While cursing at a police officer isn't illegal, it's how you do it and the circumstances involved. Hence, the article I linked on how you have to remain calm and weigh exactly what you say. It is almost always left to officer discretion. The Chaplinsky decision makes it clear that attempting to provoke and officer with abusive speech is illegal. The Lewis decision makes it clear that the words have to be a direct attack on the officer personally. (In the OP he called the officer "faggoty", Mf, That Fing Cop". Those are direct insults.)

And one glaring mistake in your posts, and that you missed (maybe because you didn't read to the end of the Lewis case) is that the woman in question wasn't insulting the specific police officer. She was insulting the institution of police. The ruling cites that in the footnotes.

She said, `you god damn m. f. police - I am going to [the Superintendent of Police] about this

So she wasn't directly insulting the officer. Hence, they ruled that NO had been over broad in their view of the law, and I included that refinement in an earlier post. The SCOTUS was able to do that directly in 1989 via Texas v Johnson.

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

Considering that case is AFTER your cited cases, it would be the most recent precedent.
edit on 6-12-2017 by raymundoko because: Formatting

posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 12:44 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

I did not change anything, I added to the post. I supplied 4 SCOTUS rulings discussing one in great detail. Like it or not, I can call you an f'ing scumbag and there is nothing you can do about it, not as an LEO nor as a private citizen.

Read the cases I cited and explain why they are not relevant and destroy your stance completely ? You can't admit you are wrong because you are most likely a misguided LEO who believes he is above the law.

If this is the case, let me know what city you are in and I will come and cuse you out and after you arrest me for it, I will sue you out of existance based on my First and Fourteenth admendments rights.

And LAW is based on the oldest ruling which is why they call it a PRECEDENT...I know it maybe hard for a biased individual above the law to recognize that but its true
edit on 12/6/2017 by DJMSN because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 01:57 PM
a reply to: DJMSN

You both removed and added. Since I didn't reply immediately it's a moot point now. You destroyed nothing except your own credibility. Your post speaks volumes though. You dislike the police and have force fit your interpretation of law based on your personal narrative.

If this is the case, let me know what city you are in and I will come and cuse you out and after you arrest me for it, I will sue you out of existance based on my First and Fourteenth admendments rights.

Wrong, in my state (and most states) you would be arrested for harassment if I called the police or filed a police report, especially if there were witnesses. Yet more law you are unfamiliar with.

And LAW is based on the oldest ruling which is why they call it a PRECEDENT...I know it maybe hard for a biased individual above the law to recognize that but its true

Wrong, the initial precedent is set based on the oldest ruling. The precedent changes based on refinements. The latest refinement is very clear, and I quoted that for you (Texas v Johnson). You discussed the Lewis case at length (if you call a couple sentences at length) and I showed how you had a fundamental misunderstanding of that ruling. You can continue to dig into your ignorance deeper, that's up to you. How about you go up to an officer and personally insult them in a provoking way and tell us how it goes. You can record the incident and then blog about your court experience.

Edit: A good example would be a video that circulated recently of a man picking up his child from his ex wife. The ex father in law was calling him every name in the book. That video was used to press charges against the father in law. I am trying to locate that video.
edit on 6-12-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in