It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs
Wrong. Verbal assault that contains "fighting words" is absolutely illegal.
The Supreme court upheld that you can't use such words in the Chaplinsky decision.
Here is an article on the legality of it
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), 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.
She said, `you god damn m. f. police - I am going to [the Superintendent of Police] about this
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
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