Animal Cruetly By Police

Originally posted by butcherguy
Not looking for a fight, friend.

Just wanted to let you know that many states have laws allowing people to shoot dogs if they are in the act of running deer. It is the dog owners responsibility to keep their dog restrained, especially if it has been known to run deer.

I know that. That is not what I asked about. I cannot find any statute, law, order, etc that states there is an exemption for the neighbors dog. I also do not see any dogs chasing any deer in the video. I am trying to understand what pteridine is even talking about because none of it applies.

I remember my grandfather shooting one of his own rabbit dogs because he could not break it of it's habit of running deer.

Thanks for trying to help and even being so nice about it. I did not help though because I am not sure how any of it applies here.
Am I the only one missing deer being run down in the video?

[edit on 21-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by K J Gunderson
Absolutely, no deer on this video!

Cops handled this call in the worst possible manner that they could, IMO.

Just saying that in a lot of states, if your dog is not restrained, and on someone else's property, it may get a hot lead injection, with no wrongdoing legally speaking on the shooting parties part.

Not saying that I agree with that in most cases, just that is how it is.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


There is no "neighbor law," it is just a neighborly thing to do. Your dog running loose on your property would be a normal thing and no one would step on your land without permission. It is your land. Your children and others children generally get the run of all the neighboring farms without question and dogs going along to protect the children are considered under control. Dogs running free on others' lands are the problem but they have to be doing something wrong to get shot. Usually, all the dogs know whose turf is whose.
Whatever your business is, it would have to adapt to reality in rural Appalachia.

Edit to add: What Pteridine was saying was in explanation of the other poster's comments.

[edit on 6/21/2010 by pteridine]

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Absolutely, no deer on this video!

Cops handled this call in the worst possible manner that they could, IMO.

Just saying that in a lot of states, if your dog is not restrained, and on someone else's property, it may get a hot lead injection, with no wrongdoing legally speaking on the shooting parties part.

Not saying that I agree with that in most cases, just that is how it is.

Then maybe you just did not understand what bothers me about this video. I understand that things happen, animals get killed, cause trouble, etc. I specifically have a problem with a calm, restrained dog being executed on the spot, in front of all those other houses. That is my problem. If the dog was determined to be a danger or a threat and it was put down humanely in a facility, that would be a bit different. Shooting a calm dog in the head where my kids would most likely see it happen is appalling.

Like I said before, my father had a dog that was huge problem for the town he lived in. The dog was a vicious threat, because my dad was a very bad dog owner. The dog was captured and then a judgment was made. It worked out well for the dog and the new owner. He was a very good protector and never bit anyone else again.

My problem is with the fact that the dog was executed on the spot when it posed no threat but my bigger problem is that even if they really had to do that, they did not at least move it someplace where it would not be a public spectacle. Some things are very hard to explain to children, especially when they know they just saw a friendly looking dog get shot in the head as it wagged it's tail. What bothers me further is that this completely asinine result came after all discussion about how best to handle it. We know at least 3 brains were going to town on that one and this was there solution? Not even a "how about we do it in the backyard, out of view?" Nothing?

reply to post by K J Gunderson
We have no disagreement on this.

Look at my previous posts in this thread, and you will see.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

There is no "neighbor law," it is just a neighborly thing to do.

Right. It is how you roll, or how you think others should but there is no law or statute or code or any other such nonsense as you tried to portray.

Your dog running loose on your property would be a normal thing and no one would step on your land without permission.

What are you even talking about? No crap if you came onto my land to shoot my free running dog you would be in trouble. Since you brought it up, who's property was the dog on when it was captured and shot?

It is your land. Your children and others children generally get the run of all the neighboring farms without question and dogs going along to protect the children are considered under control.

Thanks for the civics lesson. All this time I thought my stuff meant something else. Thank goodness you came along to tell me I can let my dogs and kids walk around on my property. I think there is a 9/11 thread missing you right now.

Dogs running free on others' lands are the problem but they have to be doing something wrong to get shot. Usually, all the dogs know whose turf is whose.

What?????? Did you even watch the video this thread is about? What on earth are you rambling on about? Did you just miss me?

Whatever your business is, it would have to adapt to reality in rural Appalachia.

Yes, I have no indoor plumbing or electricity and that is why I think what we saw in the video was wrong. Obviously.

Edit to add: What Pteridine was saying was in explanation of the other poster's comments.

[edit on 6/21/2010 by pteridine]

Please. tell me which post of "pteridines" you are talking about.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

We have no disagreement on this.

Look at my previous posts in this thread, and you will see.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I did not think that you did. No problem here. Just seemed like you were trying to explain Pteridine's justification and I still did not see where it fit. He closed with saying that just shooting a dog for running loose is all that is needed to be cool. I do not agree. How would this play out...

Me: Pterry, your dog is over here in my yard.
Pteridine: I am so sorry. I am not sure how that happened. Maybe one of the kids let it out. I will over there right away to get him, did he cause any trouble???
Me: Trouble? No. He licked himself for a bit and is now just laying there watching the birds. Not causing any trouble at all.
Pteridine: Oh thank goodness. I am really sorry for any inconvenience. I am glad he did not cause any trouble. He is a really good dog and the kids just love him, you know.
Me: Yeah um, Pterry there is just one thing though.
Pterry: What? Is something wrong?
Me: Well he is loose and on my property so bring a bag and a shovel. (cocks gun and hangs up)

To me, seems like Pterry is trying to justify something not represented by the video and not the actual discussion here for no good reason. I hate to see anyone get caught up in trying to explain it for him.

I get ya. You were just trying to inform me of the rules that Pterry thought he was referencing. I just do not see how any of what he was saying applies and apparently neither do you? I was not arguing with you, just pointing out that it still did not apply.


[edit on 21-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Whatever your business is, it would have to adapt to reality in rural Appalachia.



[edit on 6/21/2010 by pteridine]

Not sure how it pertains to the video, but as a rural Appalachian, let me assure you that if you untie a dog from the bumper of a feller's truck and then put a bullet in it's head, you've just begun a feud.

reply to post by 23refugee


Gunderson likes to misinterpret and churn these threads. I was explaining that when a previous poster said he shot loose dogs, that it was not uncommon. Then I explained about dogs running deer and chasing livestock. I didn't suggest that going on another man's property and shooting his dog was a common practice. In fact it is a good way become the shootee rather than the shooter.
The police were following instructions when they shot the dog. No one knows the details, but many are quick to condemn the police. Maybe the dog needed to be killed and this was a quick and expedient way to do it. If the dog was just another dog, why would the police show up, anyway? It is apparent that the dog must have been a problem but many posters want to use this as an example of the police being out of control. A few have even stated that now the shooter will likely become a serial killer, so you can see how some like to rile themselves up.

reply to post by pteridine


That's reasonable, but what does rural Appalachia have to do with police in Lagrange. MO?

1 that dog was totally placid around the cops even though THEY were behaving in a threatening manor.
2 the dog had some sort of rope /lead on so it surely must of just escaped .
3 the fat cop could'nt wait to unholster his side arm.
4 the cop that shot the dog which was not moving could'nt hit a barn door with a shot gun . 2 shots to kill a still dog from 8ft even then he let it suffer for some time between shots.
bet both the pricks wanted to be marines but could'nt leave home!

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by 23refugee

 

Gunderson likes to misinterpret and churn these threads.

That must be why I brought up chasing deer, loose running dogs, and Appalachia then huh? Oh wait. That is right. I have actually stuck the the VIDEO IN THE OP. Nice try though. I guess there is a reason you have to say stuff like that to others instead of challenging me with it.

I was explaining that when a previous poster said he shot loose dogs, that it was not uncommon.

I explained that neither is rape.

Let me show you what he actually said ONE MORE TIME
"I have shot lots of things when I was a young boy, when am I going to turn into a serial killer? "

It does not say "loose dogs" and it does say "lots of things" Who is misconstruing and twisting things? If he was out shooting loose dogs, I would expect he would say loose dogs. He said - lost of THINGS. He also said "lots" so even if it was loose dogs. How many loosed dogs do you reckon the average boy has opportunity to shoot before the number seems a little suspicious? I vote for "lots."

Please stop trying to accuse me of twisting things when you cannot even get a quote correct enough to defend it properly.

What you missed is what was missing from that claim. Are they loose dogs running around town? Causing damage? chasing anyone? or just sitting a foot over the property line? Dogs run free in my neighborhood all the time. That is how we are here. Your little buddy, who I believe is also you - clearly stated that the dogs in my neighborhood are fair game to him. Sorry but that is just not right and if you come here and shoot my dog because YOU THINK he is running loose, then you will have problems. Maybe specificity is a quality that eludes you but it is kind of important to me.

Then I explained about dogs running deer and chasing livestock.

For no good reason. Must have been to "misinterpret and churn" the thread? I see no deer in that video and your little buddy did not mention deer. You found a way to get more off topic though didn't you.

Pay attention. In neither the video, nor the example cited were any deer being chased or any livestock being menaced in any way. What the hell does it have to do with anything I said?

I didn't suggest that going on another man's property and shooting his dog was a common practice. In fact it is a good way become the shootee rather than the shooter.

At least you can make some sense now and again.

The police were following instructions when they shot the dog.

The only thing more annoying than Nazi references is an argument that desperately cries out for one.

No one knows the details, but many are quick to condemn the police.

No one knows the details, but you are quick to condemn the dog.


If I am wrong, the dog is still dead and nothing happens to the cop.

If I am right, the dog is still dead and what happens to the cop aside from people complaining to a temp 911 operator about him? I think I feel qualified to make a preliminary assumption based on the respective consequences. Can you say that?

Maybe the dog needed to be killed and this was a quick and expedient way to do it.

Lot's of people sitting on death row. If your argument is the expedience of justice, I think we have whole new thread.

Can you tell me who was in position to determine if said dog NEEDED to be killed?

If the dog was just another dog, why would the police show up, anyway?

Lot's and lot's and lot's of reasons.

Let me tell you a little story about why sometimes you need arbitration on some level.

It is late at night and dog is out in field terrorizing your livestock. You find dead chickens in the morning. After some time it happens again and again so you start getting ready. You lie in wait. You catch the dog off-guard and get a really good look at it. You unload but miss. The next day you call the cops and tell them you know which dog is doing this because you have identified it. They go to the owners home and decide to shoot it on the lawn. That night, you lose more chickens. See why I would like to know a little more reason a cop would have for shooting a docile domestic pet on the spot like that? Who proved that dog did anything and who looked at the proof and decided an OWNER (You know, a person with rights - remember those?) needed to lose his dog as soon as it was spotted. I guess maybe in all the eagerness to switch screen names and try and say I was derailing the thread by not taking your Appalachian bait kept you too busy to remember that this dog was owned by a person who is not one dog less. I feel that someone should be able to explain exactly why they deserved to have their property permanently confiscated with now legal recourse whatsoever.

Would love to hear all about the different ways you agree cops should be allowed to doll out justice and punish people permanently just because they decided to. Have a list?

It is apparent that the dog must have been a problem but many posters want to use this as an example of the police being out of control.

It helps to pay attention. There are plenty of us admitting that it is more than likely BOTH. That gives you nothing to argue with or twist though, huh?

A few have even stated that now the shooter will likely become a serial killer, so you can see how some like to rile themselves up.

Some even brought up livestock and Appalachian road rules to justify things. Silly, I know.

p.s. Pteridine, you did not address one single point I have made about the video or the OP. I honestly would have enjoyed hearing a well thought out opposing view but at this point, all I see is you defending someone because you misunderstood what they said, giving yourself up as a double poster, saying things about me, and trying to tell me that loose dogs chasing deer in the hills get shot.

Anything on topic at all? Anything to respond to my points about this topic?



[edit on 21-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


KJ,
I suspected that you must be a lawyer given the way you can compress a sentence into a few paragraphs. But the veiled threat of "introducing people" to your business suggested undertaker. Ah well, close enough.
That said, what were the points you made? I know that they are in there somewhere.

My points were that the dog was likely a problem for the community. The owner apparently couldn't control the animal. The police safely destroyed the animal on the spot rather than transporting it to a vet for ketamine dispatch. Time and money are saved and the results are the same.

Perhaps you wish to discuss doggy due process? Have at it, KJ.

I dont even like ice cube but honestly I think im gonna start blasting cop killer. Local police shot my cousins dog 5 times then pressed charges for not having the dog on leash

reply to post by pteridine


Since I've been paraphrased in an open thread, I'll post my response to your earlier U2U so that others may judge the validity of my points and the manner in which I used "due process".


I've never heard of someone shooting a dog for running a deer, the only people here in eastern Ky who would do so would be the dog's owner. I certainly understand the need to protect property, but here a dog that someone has gone to the expense of tagging is property as well. If it has a collar, it's not just a stray. Had the dog damaged property, he would be returned to the owner with the expectation of remuneration. The need to keep a million dollar horse from running through a fence is understandable, but a dog can be a pretty expensive peice of property too. Killing a pet without some "due process" does not make for good neighbors, and many people feel it doesn't make for a good cop. Had the police responded to this outcry by proving the dog was a problem animal, I'm sure most would agree it was the corrrect decision. I haven't seen anything posted that would make me agree they were in the right.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

KJ,
I suspected that you must be a lawyer given the way you can compress a sentence into a few paragraphs.

Obviously if I can compress something to make it bigger, I am a magician.

But the veiled threat of "introducing people" to your business suggested undertaker. Ah well, close enough.

Makes me wonder what yours might be that causes you to lose track so often and so easily. It was quite obviously just a reference to your post

As the line in "The Godfather" goes, "Nothing personal, just business."

Maybe getting screen names confused was not the result of dual posting after all. I see a very different trend. I was just mocking your lame quote. Get real. If you think cops getting a calm dog restrained and shooting it in the head twice is some glorious mafioso situation, you need a break from ATS.

That said, what were the points you made? I know that they are in there somewhere.

Try responding to the things I said in some of those past quotes. You never even tried. You just tossed out insults and twisted logic till it broke to come up with some pseudo comparable situation that never arose in order to deflect any attention for the actual points being made to you. Who do you think you are fooling? Want me to list them for you? I will, if you will actually respond to them. That might mean you would have to address the actual topic of this thread and included video - so far I am doubtful that you can manage.

My points were that the dog was

Could care less what your points are now. I have addressed them. I actually responded to you and what you said. I thought I was just doing what ya do here but apparently I was being super generous.

Seriously. I have read your points. I have responded to them. You have not addressed either my points or my rebuttals. No need to read your points again.

Let me know when you or your other screen name are willing to have a real conversation abut this and I will gladly highlight every point I made, and my rebuttals to your nonsense and see where you go from there. Otherwise, save your off-topic personal attacks for the 9/11 threads, k?

Originally posted by pteridine
Perhaps you wish to discuss doggy due process? Have at it, KJ.

Seems an odd thing to say after the poster above me pointed out this was part of a U2U conversation you two were having. What is wrong with you, exactly? Your last post was about my job, before that it was to another poster to accuse me of what you were doing. Now you have a conversation with someone about due process and toss it at me?
If you do not understand the illegality of just going around destroying private property, you really have no business pretending to have an opinion on this.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

FYI, in rural areas, if a stray dog is running deer,

I have to ask you to clarify this for me if you would. I have been looking and I see nothing stating that you can shoot a dog for running deer. In fact, it makes absolutely no sense where I live so if you could help me out there?

I did NOT watch the video. Most activities surrounding law enforcement are violent anyway. Why can't a low dose from the tazer gun work instead of bullets for animals? What happened to baiting them with meat and then a big net or something?

It appears that today's cops are taking the easy approach to dealing with problems - either beat it up bad or kill it. I feel more sorry for those animals without opposable thumbs than the likes of `jackboots` high on coffee and fat on donuts.

[edit on 2010-6-21 by pikypiky]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I'll try to address your points. You have many posts with many points but I've selected this one, succinct paragraph.
"My problem is with the fact that the dog was executed on the spot when it posed no threat but my bigger problem is that even if they really had to do that, they did not at least move it someplace where it would not be a public spectacle. Some things are very hard to explain to children, especially when they know they just saw a friendly looking dog get shot in the head as it wagged it's tail. What bothers me further is that this completely asinine result came after all discussion about how best to handle it. We know at least 3 brains were going to town on that one and this was there solution? Not even a "how about we do it in the backyard, out of view?" Nothing?"

1. The dog was killed on the spot. There is not enough information to know why, but the dog was restrained and two shots were made downward into soft earth for safety.
2. During much of the video, the officers were talking on cell phones. For all we know the owner had a choice of paying for the dog to be picked up and observed for 30 days after a bite or having the dog destroyed. There is not enough information to condemn the officers except by those who jump to conclusions.
3. No one knows how isolated this location was in the trailer park or whether children were present or within earshot. In the intial few frames, another trailer seems distant. For most of the video, two houses were seen in the background. No other buildings were seen nearby. No children were seen in the window of the residence or playing in the area, so your assumption that children were present is unfounded. Your claim that it was a public spectacle is also unfounded. There is no evidence of anyone else being present, except a possible cameraman. The videocam is what made this public.
4. After the dog was shot, the body was covered to reduce any spectacle.

I hope that I have addressed your important points.



[edit on 6/21/2010 by pteridine]