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.

 

Choking dog officer receives death threats

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Seriously, this is where common sense and compassion come in - any person in their right mind would not sacrifice the life of an animal for a stupid ticket. If he lost his job, which is just ridiculous to think, as least he could say that he did his part in trying to save a life.

It's really got nothing to do with the whole "they should have been performing CPR on the dog instead of taking him to hospital" scenario because the situation was different and should be looked at accordingly and the cop morally did the wrong thing in this particular situation.
Besides they may not have even known CPR in the first place...

That's not to say that he deserves the death threats. He probably feels like sh**. The death threats are a bit overboard IMO...




posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
If you guys cannot see where these two people were acting irresponsibly after ten pages of postings, you probably never will. I don't care if it's Lassie or Rin Tin tin choking in the backseat of the vehicle, it doesn't justify risking human lives to save them. If it's really necessary that someone explain to you why a person's life trumps that of an animal, then you need to rearrange your priorities and seek some spiritual and psychological counseling.

Pets are wonderful to own, and may afford a great deal of comfort to lonely individuals with no social outlets to speak of, but in the final analysis, they're still only animals. I'm not saying they're not entitled to good care, but there's a limit.

The officer acted appropriately in my opinion, and it was the city officials, and the community at large that overreacted. If I were him I'd find another job, and stop wasting my time trying to protect morons.

Rather than thanking him for trying to keep the roads safe for them and their families, they instead criticize and threaten him. I guess it's true what they say.. "No good deed goes unpunished." His words may have been harsh, but they're understandable given the erratic behavior of the dog's owners. The dog was already dead going by the tape, so I'm not sure what the emergency was.

Maybe if they had been more responsible they could have tried to save their pet themselves. It's not that hard to figure out what to do when someone is choking. Try to clear the airway obstruction, not drive thirty miles to a vet clinic.

You can disagree all you like with me, but that's how I feel..



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


I think the reason that children get bit in the face so often is because they have a tendency to put their face in a dog's face, which is why my aunt's dog bit me in the face i was on the stairs next to her petting her, but had my face in front of her's talking to her. My aunt had warned me to get away from her face like that, but i didn't believe she would bite me. I have the same problem with my grandaughter (she's 7) no matter how much i tell her that a dog sees that as a challange she just can't comprehend it and always want's to be hanging on them and in their faces. My son and i are constantly telling her about being on the dogs to much, but it's hard for children to understand they may get bit which is why it's so important for the adults in the household to make sure that the children are always supervised with any animals.


I know another big problem is that some people don't seem to understand that a dog will never see a small child as an alpha and therefore that child is always at a risk of being bit.

You're right a household with small children is not a proper household for a doberman and a lot of other breeds.


I've also heard about pits being very protective of the children in the family. My dog that recently had to be put down was a big 80 + lb male Shepard/ Pit mix, we had him since he was 5 weeks old, some idiot sold him way before he was old enough to be taken away from his mother and then the lady decided she didn't want him anymore so she brought him into the pet store where my oldest son worked and we took him in. Anyway he was the SWEETEST dog you'd ever see, never in his life even so much as growled at a child, but he was so protective over my grandchildren if my son raised his voice to the kids he would jump in front of the kids and yell at my son.


If people would take the time to really learn about dogs,pick the approppriate breed for their family, understand that ANY animal is capable of biting, and actually supervise their children around the dogs there would be far less attacks on children. It makes me sick the amount of children and dogs that suffer needlessly simply because the adults that bring these dogs into their house don't have a clue about how to live with them.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by chise61

I think the reason that children get bit in the face so often is because they have a tendency to put their face in a dog's face,


That must be a big part of it. There is definitely something going on, kids can’t read body language, and they probably do not pull back slightly like most other animals would, plus the skin on their face will tear easily. I have always had a pack, along with some cats, and no one EVER got bit in the face even with new animals, or animals that did not like them much. I think maybe they are just a bit smarter? There must be some reason for it.


Originally posted by chise61
I know another big problem is that some people don't seem to understand that a dog will never see a small child as an alpha and therefore that child is always at a risk of being bit.


Maybe it is because a lot of people naturally see their kids as a “superior species” and they just can’t understand why dogs (or other people for that matter) don’t see them the same way too!

Though I will say I think the social structure is a lot more complex than just alpha and beta. I am not really alpha among my dogs, and in the past I know my dobie male was pack leader, he was a sensible mellow boy so it was never an issue, it worked out quite well. Then again I do believe a lot of dogs are the alpha and because they are nice about it, their owners never have a clue. : )


[edit on 27-8-2008 by Sonya610]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I'm a dog owner myself, but when a person risks hurting others (humans) by reckless driving on the interstate just to save a dog then the police officer needs to do his job and pull them over and give them a ticket.

The officer was actually doing the man a favor, he could have arrested the man for wreckless driving.

Quite often people fail to realize that their rights end where another person's rights begin.

Other people on that same stretch of highway are also within their rights to have a drive free of civilians racing at 95 miles per hour.

Yes, it was unfortunate, but the officer was upholding the law, something he was sworn to do. "Protect and serve"

He was "protecting" law abiding civilians on that highway, who have a right to be safe from speeding civilians not in emergency vehicles.

*Remember, this observation comes from a man who owns 2 dogs himself.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



The officer was actually doing the man a favor, he could have arrested the man for wreckless driving.


Spoken like a true police apologist. Maybe he should have arrested the guy as a suspected terrorist while he was at it.


Wreckless driving is wreckless driving. Speeding is speeding. But of course "he might have killed someone" right? So maybe the next time you get caught speeding, the charge should be attempted murder?



EDIT to add: And by the way, that's coming from someone who hates dogs.

[edit on 8/31/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



The officer was actually doing the man a favor, he could have arrested the man for wreckless driving.


Spoken like a true police apologist. Maybe he should have arrested the guy as a suspected terrorist while he was at it.


Wreckless driving is wreckless driving. Speeding is speeding. But of course "he might have killed someone" right? So maybe the next time you get caught speeding, the charge should be attempted murder?



EDIT to add: And by the way, that's coming from someone who hates dogs.

Excuse me??

What I stated is FACT. Going 25 m.p.h. over the posted speed limit is wreckless driving.

Do you have a problem with facts sir?

I also like how you edited out the main part, (bolded), of my post:

"Many people forget that their rights end where another person's rights begin."

Meaning, the other people on the highway have a right to not have their safety jeopardized by some dude driving at 95 mph without lights and sirens.

You point out where what I said is factually incorrect.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



What I stated is FACT. Going 25 m.p.h. over the posted speed limit is wreckless driving.


Is this a fact in that jurisdiction? And wasn't it only 20 over in this case? The only state I found that considers speeding alone to be wreckless driving is Virginia.

EDIT to respond to:



"Many people forget that their rights end where another person's rights begin."


This much I could agree with to a large extent. And if anyone had been injured, or otherwise deprived of their "rights" as a result, then I would argue in their favor. If they had run someone over racing their dog to the hospital, and speed had been a factor, then they should be punished accordingly.

But what if they had hit someone and they weren't speeding at all? But instead were merely distracted by the fear of losing their dog?



[edit on 8/31/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



What I stated is FACT. Going 25 m.p.h. over the posted speed limit is wreckless driving.


Is this a fact in that jurisdiction? And wasn't it only 20 over in this case? The only state I found that considers speeding alone to be wreckless driving is Virginia.

1. The speed limit on I-35 is 65 mph, the person was doing 95.

2. "§ 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or
wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.
(b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor
punishable by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $200;
(2) confinement in county jail for not more than 30
days; or
(3) both the fine and the confinement.
(c) Notwithstanding Section 542.001, this section applies
to:
(1) a private access way or parking area provided for a
client or patron by a business, other than a private residential
property or the property of a garage or parking lot for which a
charge is made for the storing or parking of motor vehicles; and
(2) a highway or other public place.
(d) Notwithstanding Section 542.004, this section applies
to a person, a team, or motor vehicles and other equipment engaged
in work on a highway surface.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995."

Reckless Driving TX

Now, generally 25 mph over the posted speed limit is reckless driving, or in adverse conditions it can be lower than 25 over. Heavy rain, ice, snow etc.

Now, let's say that isn't the law for arguments sake. What that person did was still endangering the lives possibly of other HUMANS on the road to save his dog. The other people using I-35 that day had the right to get from point A to B without some person driving 95 mph without lights and a siren on their car.

I love animals, dogs especially, but it's very careless to endanger the lives of people in my car and other drivers to go that fast on a highway. The man deserved to be pulled over.

In fact, the officer would have been derelict in his duties to make that stretch of highway safe had he not pulled the man over. I love dogs dude, but what he did was very careless and in complete disregard for other people on the highway.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Okay, I'll meet you halfway there, and say that I do see your point.

I don't know that stretch of road, but I would venture a guess that going that fast on a lonely Texas highway in the middle of the night is not what most people would consider to be "wreckless" with a wanton disregard for human life. HOWEVER, I do see why the officer would pull the people over. Actually giving them a ticket though? And in such a manner as to have "wanton disregard" for these people's feelings?

EDIT to add: And by the way, there are highways around here that I would consider it "wreckless" to drive on even if you do follow the rules.


[edit on 8/31/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Okay, I'll meet you halfway there, and say that I do see your point.

I don't know that stretch of road, but I would venture a guess that going that fast on a lonely Texas highway in the middle of the night is not what most people would consider to be "wreckless" with a wanton disregard for human life. HOWEVER, I do see why the officer would pull the people over. Actually giving them a ticket though? And in such a manner as to have "wanton disregard" for these people's feelings?
I mean, it is a sad story indeed, no one wants to lose their family pet. But there are two sides to all stories, the police officer was doing his job too. People can't go that fast on highways without lights and sirens, it's not safe whatsoever. Even if it were a secluded highway a person on a perpendicular road might pull out on front of his not realizing the motorist was going that fast. See what I mean?

of course it's tragic, but in all honesty, the officer was doing his job. The man can't go that fast, it endangers others.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Well, technically it's not the speed that kills, it's the sudden stop.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Hahaha!!! You get a star for appealing to my desire for precision!



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

of course it's tragic, but in all honesty, the officer was doing his job.


So was he just doing his job when he told them that it was "just a dog" and could be replaced?



I guess I wasn't aware that being a massive tool was part of the job description.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by chickenshoes

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

of course it's tragic, but in all honesty, the officer was doing his job.


So was he just doing his job when he told them that it was "just a dog" and could be replaced?



I guess I wasn't aware that being a massive tool was part of the job description.
It's not part of the job of course not, but you are muddling the issue with irrelevant facts as it pertains to whether or not the officer was negligent or whether or not the dog owner broke the law.

That's an appeal to emotion fallacy.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
It's not part of the job of course not, but you are muddling the issue with irrelevant facts as it pertains to whether or not the officer was negligent or whether or not the dog owner broke the law.

That's an appeal to emotion fallacy.


You said originally that he was just "doing his job". (edited quotes)

Apparently, not entirely true.

Try telling the people with the dead dog that what he said was irrelevant.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by chickenshoes]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by chickenshoes

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
It's not part of the job of course not, but you are muddling the issue with irrelevant facts as it pertains to whether or not the officer was negligent or whether or not the dog owner broke the law.

That's an appeal to emotion fallacy.


You said originally that he was just "doing his job". (edited quotes)

Apparently, not entirely true.

Try telling the people with the dead dog that what he said was irrelevant.

Don't put words in my mouth, I said he was 'doing his job' by pulling the man over who was 30 mph in excess of the posted speed limit.

That "job" was done when the man put his car in park on the side of the road.

What he said to the man from that point on might be insensitive yes, but it's irrelevant to whether or not the policeman did his sworn job or not by pulling a dangerous speeder over for a ticket.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


of course it's tragic, but in all honesty, the officer was doing his job. The man can't go that fast, it endangers others.


Ok, let me show you what you typed again.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth.

And, yes, I can concede that possibly the comment was irrelevant to him "doing his job".

But, to me, his insensitive, cruel comment does not speak well of his character. Why did he get into this line of work anyway? It smacks of him being on a power trip (yes, I know, I'm making an assumption here, but I think it's a pretty good one).



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


In the overall scheme of things, I wish the police didn't pull people over for speeding. Give it a few years and the people would start relying on their own common sense, instead of being "fearful" of a ticket.

Take safety inspections for example. Here in NY we have to pay to have our vehicle inspected every year, and be subjected to road blocks supposedly to check that we have done that. If we haven't, you'll wind up paying a fine at the very least, and probably get your car searched. The stickers are bright color-coded by year, so that they can be spotted from a distance too. All this in the name of "safety."

Meanwhile, out in Colorado, they don't even have safety inspections at all. Is this because Colorado doesn't value life? No, it's because they do value freedom and the responsibilies that go along with it.

Then again back here in NY, you see how stupid the inspections are anyway. Shops giving a pass to cars with bald tires, brakes that go out a month after they were inspected, etc.

EDIT to add: When I am driving, the last person I expect to be looking out for my safety is a cop. I know full well that there are plenty of people out there who don't give a poop about paying a speeding ticket in the first place. So it only punishes the poor. Then of course there are all the dangers that the police themselves cause. Not a day goes by that I don't see at least one cruiser travelling at very high speeds, without running code.



[edit on 9/1/0808 by jackinthebox]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join