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: 12
68
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
People say lots of s*** when they're angry. "Fighting words" shouldn't be grounds to violently throw someone down and arrest them. That's making more problems than we need. But it seems to be the future. Thought control is very close now. For all intents and purposes, we've had thought control for a while, it just wasn't direct. I'm not sure I'd want to live in that kind of world, since I'm already getting a taste of it now.

About the OP, I think it's insane to demand the owner cut the head off. Reminds me of the movie Nothing But Trouble.

en.wikipedia.org - Nothing But Trouble...
edit on 12/6/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

Nobody demanded the owner cut the head off. Nobody forced the owner to cut the head off. Again, how is this lie still being told?



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: jonnywhite

Nobody demanded the owner cut the head off. Nobody forced the owner to cut the head off. Again, how is this lie still being told?

I'm looking at hte OP and the link. If that's not the full story or it's fabricated, could you provide a link or something.

This is the original link from the OP:
thefreethoughtproject.com - WATCH: Cops Kill Family’s Dog in Front of Kids, Force Dad to Cut Its Head Off Or Go To Jail...
edit on 12/6/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

Watch the FULL video embedded in the OP as well as on the mans Facebook page.

He cut out the beginning where he was told he had to have the dogs head removed to be sent off for testing. In the full video we get the details that he didn't wait for that explanation to finish and started acting threatening and cursing at the officers. He was put against the front of the truck for how he was addressing the officer in a personally insulting way, not for refusing to cut the head off.

The Sheriff got confirmation from the dog owner that he was refusing to comply with the command for the dogs head to be removed and went off to get more details on what they needed to do. During that time, we find out that the man had been given an address of where he could take the dog to have the head removed. He declined and volunteered to cut the dogs head off with a kitchen knife rather than pay the fee.

He is later on the phone being instructed on how to handle the dogs head because he volunteered to do it himself. Never was he forced to do anything. He completely volunteered rather than pay to take the dog somewhere.

Edit: You have to understand that the source site in the OP does this a lot. They give half the information and a crazy story. The news teams were not given the entire video, they were given a 10 second clip of it without the proper context.
edit on 6-12-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.


If that's the actual law than that is extremely stupid. If you are angry and curse at somebody, it is automatically considered "fighting words" even if you don't do any harm or threaten the person at all? This country keeps getting pussified more and more. If that's true it's simply unbelievable how mere curse words can be equated to threats of physical violence. Sorry I'm just not buying that.

Charging somebody with verbal assault after cursing at an officer who just gunned down the family pet without taking any actions or precautions to prevent it, is absurdity of the highest degree. Cursing is not assault. I have freedom to curse all I want, even if I'm angry at a cop.

Can you quote me the exact law that says cursing is equivalent to threatening somebody with bodily harm? Every definition I find for verbal assault includes threats of violence, rather than just cursing. How does one define " in a provoked state". Yeah he was provoked, his dog was gunned down. That means any time a cop abuses power we have to sit there and take it? Hell no. Police are people just like everyone else. They aren't above anything.
edit on 12 6 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Who got charged in the video? He was put against a truck and told what he was doing wrong and then he was released. The officers showed restraint given the situation.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

For Missouri -
RSMO 656.090 - tle XXXVIII CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS - Harassment, first degree, penalty.


1. A person commits the offense of harassment in the first degree if he or she, without good cause, engages in any act with the purpose to cause emotional distress to another person, and such act does cause such person to suffer emotional distress.

  2. The offense of harassment in the first degree is a class E felony.

  3. This section shall not apply to activities of federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement officers conducting investigations of violation of federal, state, county, or municipal law.

­­

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 2008 S.B. 818 & 795, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)

Effective 1-01-17

(1981) Statute defining offense of harassment was not unconstitutionally vague, and was not overbroad and did not deny due process. State v. Koetting (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 822.

1985) Held not unconstitutionally overbroad. The caller's intent to disturb or frighten need not be the sole intent or purpose of the call. State v. Koetting (A.), 691 S.W.2d 328.

(1987) Four harassing phone calls made directly to an individual's telephone answering machine falls within the purview of this section. State v. Placke, 733 S.W.2d 847 (Mo.App.).


Defined by a Mo supreme court decision in 2012 and is an extension from Supreme Court ruling already cited in this thread.

Why SCOTUS defined it it set a precedence in the sense that it gave guidelines to states to enact their own laws in this area. So long as the laws fall within the box they are legal / constitutional. As with any law violation it is situation dependent and totality of circumstances comes into play. As you can see above several rulings were made that further defined it in Mo.


RSMo 565.002 - Definitions
(7) “Emotional distress”, something markedly greater than the level of uneasiness, nervousness, unhappiness, or the like which are commonly experienced in day-to-day living;


With that stated I dont know of any officers who have ever charged anyone with being a dick to them in that regard. Even if they did I doubt our prosecuting attorney would actually entertain the charge given legal implications since the statute does not apply to law enforcement engaged in their duties (IE the cop can cuss at the person they are dealing with but the person cussing back could be charged for it). Mo also prohibits a law enforcement officer from having their peace disturbed.
Just my 2 cents with regards to Mo law. I would imagine Georgia would be somewhat similar and if anyone cares, and since im bored to death and depressed today, I can research the topic if someone wants.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: jonnywhite

Watch the FULL video embedded in the OP as well as on the mans Facebook page.

He cut out the beginning where he was told he had to have the dogs head removed to be sent off for testing. In the full video we get the details that he didn't wait for that explanation to finish and started acting threatening and cursing at the officers. He was put against the front of the truck for how he was addressing the officer in a personally insulting way, not for refusing to cut the head off.

The Sheriff got confirmation from the dog owner that he was refusing to comply with the command for the dogs head to be removed and went off to get more details on what they needed to do. During that time, we find out that the man had been given an address of where he could take the dog to have the head removed. He declined and volunteered to cut the dogs head off with a kitchen knife rather than pay the fee.

He is later on the phone being instructed on how to handle the dogs head because he volunteered to do it himself. Never was he forced to do anything. He completely volunteered rather than pay to take the dog somewhere.

Edit: You have to understand that the source site in the OP does this a lot. They give half the information and a crazy story. The news teams were not given the entire video, they were given a 10 second clip of it without the proper context.

Seems you're right, mostly right. The trouble is it requires digging to get these things right. Most of us don't have the time. I saw the OP and link and assumed that's what occurred. I think I was wrong.

Video source is at the bottom of this post.

Beginning of video:
Dad loudly cussed and insulted the cops after thinking he had to cut the dogs head off. (Reasons for thinking he has to are he's angry/confused or he's trying to save money by doing it himself or the cops were not fully informed what to do and he was misled) The investigator Hollis comes over and presses him against the truck. He says he could take him to jail. The deputy says he could be charged with disorderly conduct.

At 0:50 mark:
Investigator says "We asked you to remove the dogs head. (asking sarcastically) You're refusing right?" Then walks away and says nothing.

At 0:58 mark (deputy explaining their side of the story):
Deputy says "Now if you would have just listened to us and let him get done explaining when she explained everything to him. We don't know this process either."

Video changes or cuts off at 1:15 and restarts--apparently some amount of time later. Not sure what's.

At 1:17 mark (dad explains his side of the story):
Dad says "I have to cut my dog's head off because the cop just told me to or if not I'm going to jail... then when I told him I did not want to cut my dog's head off he grabs me by the back of the damn shirt and slams me on my ***** truck because I'm cussing."

At 3:07 (dad explaining more of his side)
Dad says "My kids just watched you shoot their ***** dog dude."

Up until 3:40 the video is aimed at the investigator and the dad is complainng about him. The dad talks to the deputy about him shooting his dog. Deputy defends his actions.

At 3:43, the deputy corrects the dad--after being told the investigator said the dad had to cut the dog's head off or go to jail:
Deputy says "That's not what he said afterwards. You didn't let him get done explaining because she was explaining it to him. We don't know this process either. If you wouldn't have walked away and started cussing outloud and all that. (garble). You could have... you can carry the dog out there tonight and have them do it. Either you can do it or have them do it.

At 4:08, the dad says he'll get a knife after being informed someone else could remove the head:
Deputy says "But we cannot leave this thing until..."
Dad interrupts and says "We'll get a knife. Let me get, you got a knife?
Deputy responds "I can't do that."
Dad says "Well WTF am I going to do buddy."
Deputy replies "I think you're going to have to carry it up there. That's all I can tell you. I don't know."
Deputy says he couldn't cut the head off his dog either.

The rest of the video is the dad mad about the investigator and about having to remove the head. Near the end, it shows him tying up a bag with the dog or the head. I'm unsure if he actually removed the head. The deputy was telling them it would be sent somewhere to freeze and be tested.

I couldn't get the facebook page to work.

I do think some fault might fall on the investigator and deputy because the deputy says they didn't know the process. This might have misled the dad, especially early on. But I think the dad clearly wasn't listening and was too angry to think coherently, so I'm not sure if them knowing the process would have made a difference.

edit on 12/6/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

POST should be on this immediately. Some of the stuff they have overlooked will come back to haunt them on the other side, but here is a good chance to start doing their job.

Hear me POST? Hello?



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite


Great post. The context of the video really appeared to call the officer's integrity into question, and I personally admit I was mistaken. I also issued a summary opinion, without digging for the real facts. This was largely in part due to total lack of news sources. I had also initially suspected it may be a hoax or spoof, which is also incorrect.

Thanks for correcting the record though



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
What are you talking about, I think that's what this whole mess was about. Duh! I mean I thought I didn't bother reading or watching to much into threads, but if you missed that part, boy do you take the cake on that, I mean I have only skimed this thread and gleamed that much.

Its for the most part what this whole fiasco with the almost headless dog is about. And I say almost headless, because it looks like they could not even do that right. Like duh!

To bad the dog did not have rabies, all those involved could have used a case of it, then maybe we can dissect there brains latter to see what makes them tick. Just joking, or not, would be good to know though.

You know people generally avoid answering back to me, you should do so to. I am quite tempted to give a stupid answer to a stupid question, as per one you posed there. You know the old saying, ask a stupid question get a stupid answer, or play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Congratulations!



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Your quote:


Seems almost much more likely, then a cop or investigator wanting the owner to cut some dead dogs head off for whatever reason.


It wasn't for whatever reason. Please watch the full video if you have not. He was told what the law was. His dog bit a neighbor (confirmed by owner on Facebook, that's why the police were called) and charged an officer. The dog had to be tested for rabies. That requires the head to be removed and sent to a lab.

Edit: This is on the owner for raising a violent dog. You can tell he's one of those white trash people who perpetuate the pitbull stereotype.
edit on 7-12-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
WTF?

It's like watching some 3rd world nazi #. Not a nation with the self appointed label 'leader of the free world'....

I'd be going to jail. Probably for assaulting a cop and not for refusing to behead my dog.
I'd not bother suing for cash, that only punishes the tax payer.

But yeah, WTF? That is some backwards dark ages # right there.

edit on 7-12-2017 by AtomicKangaroo because: typo



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
WTF?

It's like watching some 3rd world nazi #. Not a nation with the self appointed label 'leader of the free world'....

I'd be going to jail. Probably for assaulting a cop and not for refusing to behead my dog.
I'd not bother suing for cash, that only punishes the tax payer.

But yeah, WTF? That is some backwards dark ages # right there.


You need to read the last few pages. The guy in question with the dog lied / left out some major facts about what occurred.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


XC, I can't think of any examples where someone was arrested for merely acting like a d### either. Although I certainly believe the law rightfully protects officers (like any other citizen) from harassment and other assaults. I think the exemptions are also important due to the language used in verbal compliance techniques, and I really find it surprising how easy the narrative of this incident was changed initially.

In the context, the circumstances in the video appeared completely opposite of the true situation. The only clue the original narrative was dishonest was when the deputy standing in the background stated "that isn't what he said at all, you cut him off before he could finish explaining."

Very interesting though, and thanks for the research with the MO ruling
I had read a lot of comments claiming the investigators were harassing or otherwise targeting this individual for whatever reason which we now know is untrue.

I am personally ashamed at how quickly I denounced these guys, who were clearly just doing their job. It seems no one is immune to spin and weaponized narrative these days though.


edit on 12/7/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


It isn't stupid, it is an effective way to determine whether someone's words constitute an assault or protected speech.

Look at it this way, how much time did the investigators waste dealing with this case? The owner's abusive behavior toward the officers delayed them in exercising their duties, and he was clearly being aggressive toward the officers.

It is understand he would be upset after his dog was shot, but it is his responsibility to keep people safe from that dog who are lawfully on his property. Even though they weren't invited, the officers were present lawfully in accordance with the discharge of their official duties. The legal threshold for self defense against an animal is very low, and we know the dog bit at least one other person before the deputy (which is why they were there in the first place).

That being said, he didn't allow them to finish explaining what needed to be done and continued to delay that neccesary step by being assaultive. It has nothing to do with "pus####fication" and everything to do with interfering and delaying. You have the freedom to curse, but not to the point it puts that officer in fear for their safety. That is assault, much like it is assault on any citizen. You're absolutely right in saying LEO are people just like everyone else, but the law provides them certain leeway in order to carry out their duties. For instance, exceptions to the MO law quoted above that permits such language for verbal compliance commands and other lawful purposes.

By your acknowledging their "people" status (glad to see, btw), you also admit they are protected against assaults and other violent acts like any other citizen right?

You should read the law in regard to "fighting words" and assault. Putting your hands on another person unlawfully is battery, putting someone in fear for their safety is assault. If you watch the conduct of this individual, you can see how this definition can be met.

The real question is, did he go to jail? From what I see, that answer is no.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

Who got charged in the video? He was put against a truck and told what he was doing wrong and then he was released. The officers showed restraint given the situation.


I never said he got charged, I said it would be absurd to be charged with verbal assault after what happened. You seemed to miss the entire point of my post.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Sorry if I did. My apologies. Sometimes text based conversations are horrible.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
It isn't stupid, it is an effective way to determine whether someone's words constitute an assault or protected speech.

Look at it this way, how much time did the investigators waste dealing with this case? The owner's abusive behavior toward the officers delayed them in exercising their duties, and he was clearly being aggressive toward the officers.


That's a huge exaggeration. He barely did anything wrong at all. He cursed. He wasn't being aggressive. He was insulting them in a pretty calm manner. He never once moved toward the cops in an aggressive manner or threatened them. He cursed a lot and called them names. Calling that verbal assault or harassment is absurd.

I do not agree that cursing is an effective way to determine assault. For many folks, cursing is part of their every day life. Threatening them is a completely different thing and should never be equated to cursing.


That being said, he didn't allow them to finish explaining what needed to be done and continued to delay that neccesary step by being assaultive. It has nothing to do with "pus####fication" and everything to do with interfering and delaying. You have the freedom to curse, but not to the point it puts that officer in fear for their safety. That is assault, much like it is assault on any citizen. You're absolutely right in saying LEO are people just like everyone else, but the law provides them certain leeway in order to carry out their duties. For instance, exceptions to the MO law quoted above that permits such language for verbal compliance commands and other lawful purposes.


What did he do that made the officer fear for his safety? How was he "assaultive". I really don't see anything wrong with what he said. He didn't go at them. He didn't threaten them. He got annoyed, walked away cursing, then got taken to the ground for it. Then he complained about it for the next 8 minutes. Using adult language around other adults is not assault in any way shape or form.


You should read the law in regard to "fighting words" and assault. Putting your hands on another person unlawfully is battery, putting someone in fear for their safety is assault. If you watch the conduct of this individual, you can see how this definition can be met.


I literally just watched that video again and I don't see it. He didn't put a hand on the officer, and I saw nothing at all that put anyone in fear for their safety. He cursed and complained about being taken to the ground. He made fun of them. He didn't move toward the officers, he stayed in the same spot, and used a calm tone for the most part. Cursing isn't verbal assault. That's the point I've been trying to make.
edit on 12 7 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

When he said he was going into the house to get a knife, I thought this would have been a terribly wrong move. Coming out of the house wielding a knife, all irate. They probably could have shot him by law.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join