Animal Cruetly By Police

page: 11
43
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 

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.


If the owner was incapable of controlling their dog, then why not take it to a shelter and get her surrendered, or legally removed from her caretaker? And no, this isn't about saving time and saving money. It's about the unlawful destruction of property (a licensed dog IS property, from what I'm aware) and quite possibly how and where the animal was destroyed.

Can you legally shoot a dog in town, based on MO law? Would this be, based on state law, considered animal cruelty? I don't know, I'm not familiar with MO law. But, moving on...

Sure, a couple of bullets are much more efficient than a trip to the vet, but it minimizes the suffering on the animal's part. Morally speaking, it's the right thing to do. Efficiently speaking, well, I'm sure the vet wouldn't mind earning a few more bucks for the service (in some places, from my knowledge, vets are struggling with the economy because people are more reluctant to spend precious money on their animals). So depending on which way you look at it, time and money can be either saved or lost.

Yes, it's just another dog, and shooting it spares one the trouble of actually having to -gasp- drive or call to get it dumped off at the local SPCA, for them to deal with. What the hell do you think pounds and shelters are for anyway?

Swore I went post anymore after this but, yeah.




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
10 USPS postal workers are bitten DAILY by dogs.

This means the USPS postal worker in not just bitten near your house where your dog runs loose, but every body else's house that the dog has marked as HIS area.

This means the little old lady across the street who needs medications paid for by her SSI check, that did not get delivered due to the loose dog, or she may have been trying to get her check herself from her mailbox and your dog prevented her from doing so.

Me, in that seeemingly isolated location would have shot the dog myself and dumped the body.

Feel free to get your bowels in an uproar about that if you want to.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Anyone who has seen my posts on this site knows animal cruelty makes me go insane. Anyone doing this is bad enough. But someone in a position of authority? I like to believe most cops are basically decent. I like to. And I know two cops who could have reacted very differently in my case when called to my house when I had a seizure. My cat tried to eat one of them. Fortunately, kitty sunk his teeth into one of the cops Kevlar vests.

But I thought is there a psychological fingerprint that identifies cops, as well as those who are more likely to abuse their authority? I have a friend I've known since I was 13. I'll call him "John" He became a cop, and he was the perfect cop. Seriously. Totally honest, very considerate (I heard when people he arrested spit, etc. on John, he did nothing. Another cop in the same tiny suburban dept. did something but was settled in civil court,) I know there is a personality trait that associates people who are cruel to animals with sociopathic behavior. They crave control, and infliction of cruelty and terror. Being a cop is perhaps the most visible "power position" in the US, and many other societies. As people on ATS know, true power, is not visible, or if it is, it's not recognizable. Trust me, it's better this way.

I know John had said to me several times he was often very uncomfortable with people being so nervous around him when in uniform. I asked "and this is a surprise"? If John has a negative trait, I'd say his world is very, 2 dimensional. My guess he would not do well in the covert world, in the uniform military he'd be perfect. I am not knocking the services, I have often envied his clarity of thought, and sense of purpose, and in other uniform members. I also admire the self discipline which for me seems to coincide with phases of the moon. In my case, I may be very creative, but I'm also more then a little devious, and a certifiable flake.

10 years ago he asked to come over out of the blue. He was upset. He said someone on the force had hurt a dog in a home of a guy they were serving a summons, or something like that. But he was not being arrested. A terrier was in the kitchen, about 10ft from the side door. It stayed where it was told to by the owner. The owner was polite, sober,etc. The dog was barking, but not moving. The other cop grabbed his baton and smacked the dog on the muzzle.

My friend was shocked, the owner broke into tears. The dog later died of an aneurysm. I know because John checked on him and the owner after the fact. I said to John that cop has demonstrated an inability to compartment certain responses with co-corresponding emotion's, like those associated with perceived threats. That makes him worse then a loaded gun because even then someone has to aim and pull the trigger. I said this guy has got to go. What does your superior think? He can't stand the guy, but he needs "a good excuse". How about a lawsuit a lot bigger then the depart. settled for $650,000? They got rid of the guy in 2 days. Got 3months severance. Etc.

I would really like to see as part of a psychological test for "power positions", cops in particular, visable to everyone, including plain cloths a test based on how one responds to different animals. You don't have to like, or have animals to "pass". Like many tests it would gauge the "appropriateness" of a response. Untypical animals, as long as they can be properly handled might be useful, but I could see goats as a problem. They don't play well with others. Hell, they don't play well with themselves. But I could also just stick with dogs, cats, maybe a parrot who really swore. Perhaps it could weed out the bad, and specifically the dangerous ones. Some people were not meant to have power over others, seen or not. Those who enjoy it to much would be at the top of my list.

[edit on 21/6/10 by arbiture]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I’m an animal activist, and animal lover. I know dog – behavior, the dog was no threat to them at all. The dog was nervous, nothing else. We call ourselves a civilized nation, but our act proved that how uncivilized and cruel we are.

Those so called finest police officers were not trained at all, and I think every police officer must carry a tranquilizer gun or keep one in his/her car. This was in insane, I couldn’t take it.

Those police officers must be off from the force, and must pay for their inhuman act. Let’s rock it, and sent the video to Washington, saying no more cruelty to animals. Our elected President Mr. Obama must stop this kind of animal cruelty. We want justice.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
No, but anyone who has ever worked with dogs, (I worked for 2 years in a humane society) will tell you that a dog that is stressed is more likely to bite and attack.


Apparently you missed my post where I stated that I have been working with humans and animals for nearly 30 years. I have a Ph.D. and my specialty is behavior modification. So, yeah. I know what I'm talking about.

If you look at the video again (just the first few minutes), you can see a distinct change in the dog's behavior every time it is faced head-on with a pole in the cop's hand. These actions are read by pack animals as a sign of dominance and aggression.

The leader of the pack carries the stick. This dog was not an alpha dog and submitted according to the 'rules' of pack behavior.

The dog appeared more fearful of the pole than when faced with just the human w/o the pole. Which would also lead me to surmise the dog had been hit with a stick of some sort, even if only once by a neighbor shoo-ing it out of their yard.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The officers were acting on verified legitimate orders signed by a judge stating that the dog was to be shot.
The owner had appearences in court he did attend or reply to, to be fined and penalized for letting his dog run loose.
His failure to comply with court ordered sanctions led the judge to order the terminaton of the dog. PERIOD.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Slugger no one is even listening to you anymore, also I'd like your name and address for my activist letter going out (I asked for this pages ago you didn't answer.). You seem to be very certain this wasn't "cruelty", so be a man and stand by your words in public in front of people that think this is cruelty. I do it all the time and you know something... Your types leave pretty fast when they have not much more to say then, so what, big deal, ignore the facts. Enough said.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Also could I see those verified orders from the judge??? If it was written it's open for public record... THANKS!

[edit on 22-6-2010 by NoJoker13]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


Doesn't it? You should be able to openly shoot people like this, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Since I see dogs as being just like humans (along with many other animals) this is basically the same thing to me as murder. I vomited, that was hard to watch. Anyone here who claims this is justifiable can like I said give me your name and address and I'll add you to an activist letter I'm putting together, so you can stand by this cruel act in public. FUNNY SO FAR NO ONE HAS GIVEN ME THERE INFORMATION, HIDE BEHIND THEIR COMPUTERS AND SUPPORT THIS CRUELTY!!! COWARDS. Nice post.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by NoJoker13]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NoSmoker13
 


I think that police do shoot people like this -- if they are breaking the law.

I think citizens do shoot people like this--if they are breaking the law.

The dog broke the law. It would not stay chained up and the resultant social problems that caused are now over and done with.

The dog has been buried, lets us pause for a monent of silence---while we bury this dead thread.
AMEN



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Deny ignorance folks, deny ignorance. You should all be done trying to enlighten this man. Be like me and just ignore him!!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by NoSmoker13
 


I think that police do shoot people like this -- if they are breaking the law.


Which law would you be thinking of? People are ok to shoot for sitting in the driveway? If it is not their driveway?


I think citizens do shoot people like this--if they are breaking the law.


Jeffrey Dahmer was desiging a table and chair said made of human remains. People do things. Can you find any people that shoot another person because of where they were sitting that gets justified? I might not be surprised if you can find one though.



The dog broke the law. It would not stay chained up and the resultant social problems that caused are now over and done with.


Does everyone you meet like you?


The dog has been buried, lets us pause for a monent of silence---while we bury this dead thread.
AMEN


Feigned reverence is an ugly ugly thing.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
im actuualy pretty bummed about this. I hate the fact that we accept this.
Have we seriously not realized that animals are smarter and more conscious than we are willing to admit.
I had to have my dog put down for cancer and he knew when i started calling around asking about putting him down.
He knew I was putting him down, and that kills me.
Coward cops. BS.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


If you trail through his other posts, you'll realize he's not logical at all and is basically just a little green troll running around here that we can't get rid of. He says an idiotic comment then gives bogus facts, such as "the judge ordered this dog to be killed", I'm still awaiting the court order from that... but wouldn't a dog dispute be handled by Animal Control? Anyway he's a waste of time read his posts you'll see, case and point. Smelly troll.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by NoJoker13]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Does ANY viable information exist about the circumstances in
this video, other than the video itself?

If not, then conclusions are being drawn prematurely. It is
understandable that most of you are upset, because from the video
alone we are looking at two frightened (and cruel cops) killing a dog
for no apparent reason. But this is an emotional scene, and logic gets
in the back-seat, if you will, when high emotions are involved.

I posted in the other thread that it appears likely that the dog was killed
purposefully. I know I'm out on a thin branch here, with dog lovers below
barking away, but perhaps there was an order to put this dog down. Some
of the officer's actions give credence to this; the phone call, the officer with
gun in hand during a time when the dog was apparently posing no
threat, his continuance to bear his gun after the dog was completely subdued
by the pole-collar, and what appears to be the positioning of the dog
before the fatal shot---the cop knew he was going to kill this dog.

Anyway, before you begin hating on me personally for applying
a little logic and empathy, here is a post I made to the "Cruelty at
Conklin Farms" thread....

----------
After watching this I have to say I do not feel the same emotions some of you have
experienced. I am not saddened, nor sickened, nor outraged, nor
disgusted...

My first emotion was blind rage...I wanted to find this evil *****r and break
his bones...feel them break...hear him cry for mercy and then break some
more.
-----------

In that thread it is clear what is happening, and my post was not an internet
boast, I meant what I said, and doubt I could have kept myself from
attacking the the man in the video...NO, I KNOW I would have attacked him.
I have no self control around evil such as that.

Point is, do we have enough information yet to pass judgment?

Okay...flame away



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
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.


So now I have made points? Many in fact? Odd, I thought you said I twisted and distorted things to take them off topic and never make any valid points. Your posts confuse me.


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.


Are you just explaining the video to me as if I had not seen it? I saw that too. What is your point? More-so, what does it have to do with anything I said?


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.


Again, point?


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.


I never once assumed children were present. I made the point that they could have easily come to the window in time to see that kill shot. Could you see all around the area, including the windows of the nearby buildings when the dog was shot? I could not so if you have a different video of this, I would like to see it. You are missing the point entirely.

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.


No, because I have not assumed anything. Can you show me where in the video precautions were taken to make sure that no witnesses surfaced, child or adult? You are assuming none were present. I am simply stating it happened in a place easily accessible to young eyes when an alternative was clearly possible.

I am thinking that this thread may be too much for you to understand at this point.


4. After the dog was shot, the body was covered to reduce any spectacle.


OKEY DOKEY! Whatever that is in response to is beyond me and how it helps against anything I said escapes me as well.


I hope that I have addressed your important points.



[edit on 6/21/2010 by pteridine]


Actually it seems that you did not address any one of them.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
Does ANY viable information exist about the circumstances in
this video, other than the video itself?


Ask Slugger, he has verified court orders that the dog be shot in the street.


If not, then conclusions are being drawn prematurely. It is
understandable that most of you are upset, because from the video
alone we are looking at two frightened (and cruel cops) killing a dog
for no apparent reason. But this is an emotional scene, and logic gets
in the back-seat, if you will, when high emotions are involved.


The video is all I need. The video clearly shows that the dog was easily contained and could then just as easily be transported to another location. Instead, it was shot in the street for anyone to watch.


I posted in the other thread that it appears likely that the dog was killed
purposefully. I know I'm out on a thin branch here, with dog lovers below
barking away, but perhaps there was an order to put this dog down. Some
of the officer's actions give credence to this; the phone call, the officer with
gun in hand during a time when the dog was apparently posing no
threat, his continuance to bear his gun after the dog was completely subdued
by the pole-collar, and what appears to be the positioning of the dog
before the fatal shot---the cop knew he was going to kill this dog.


Not a dog lover, does that help or hurt what I have to say about it? Orders or no orders, the dog was easily contained. The dog did not need two bullet holes in the head at the edge of the lawn. Two shots means that one made the dog suffer unnecessarily. Now we have a bad place to do this and a bad way to have it done.


Anyway, before you begin hating on me personally for applying
a little logic and empathy, here is a post I made to the "Cruelty at
Conklin Farms" thread....


No personal anything with me at least but I am curious where empathy fits in here?


In that thread it is clear what is happening, and my post was not an internet
boast, I meant what I said, and doubt I could have kept myself from
attacking the the man in the video...NO, I KNOW I would have attacked him.
I have no self control around evil such as that.

Point is, do we have enough information yet to pass judgment?

Okay...flame away



It is nice that you can get upset about animal cruelty and still not think it would have been less cruel for the dog and anyone else in the area to have it put down properly in a closed facility.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
The officers were acting on verified legitimate orders signed by a judge stating that the dog was to be shot.


Shot? That is what the orders stated? It could not be put down properly, only shot? Can we see what you are seeing?


The owner had appearences in court he did attend or reply to, to be fined and penalized for letting his dog run loose.


Then his dog should have been taken from him and he should have been fined or jailed depending on the level of criminal activity involved in not properly caring for his dog.


His failure to comply with court ordered sanctions led the judge to order the terminaton of the dog. PERIOD.


So I guess if the mans kids wandered into the street while he was not looking, the kids should be shot as well?

You have not shown that the dog was a nuisance beyond human control. Could you?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



I'm not saying it wasn't cruel, I'm saying it may have been ordered.
Empathy, as in observing the cops instead of the dog and attempting
to place myself in their position and deduce why, and what, their
actions represent from their perspective.

Point is, if this was ordered, the cops have a choice, obey or not.
If, in fact, it is found they acted of their own accord then a blanket
party wouldn't be out of the question.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



I'm not saying it wasn't cruel, I'm saying it may have been ordered.


Oh, ordered. That makes it all ok then. Silly me, thanks.


Empathy, as in observing the cops instead of the dog and attempting
to place myself in their position and deduce why, and what, their
actions represent from their perspective.


Empathy should lead you to a more conclusive determination than "They were following orders." That is about the same level of empathy you could extend to any machine. See how it is confusing?



Point is, if this was ordered, the cops have a choice, obey or not.
If, in fact, it is found they acted of their own accord then a blanket
party wouldn't be out of the question.


How do orders make an action more or less right?





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join