posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by pteridine
The dog was not a threat at the time of 'arrest'.
But let's run with your theory, shall we?
A man has a history of wreaking havoc in a neighborhood. He beats and rapes women, sodomizes children, vandalizes the property of others and has been
known to brandish a firearm sporadically.
When the police finally catch up with him, the raises his arms above his head and says "I give up."
The officers shoot him. He's injured but still breathing. They shoot him again. Now he's dead.
How would THAT play out in the courts? Is it justice? Was he a danger to himself or the public at that point? No. He was submissive and no weapons
were drawn on the officers.
This is exactly what they did to the dog. The purpose of Law Enforcement is exactly that, to enforce the laws by arresting and handing out citations.
They are NOT Judge, Jury or the legislative party. But hey! The next time you get pulled over or the cops stop by your home, hopefully you get treated
the way this dog was, since it appears to be the law you believe in.
Where I come from, the police can give the owner citations and take the dog in. However, a dog is not shot dead unless it is an immediate danger to
society and no other means can control or subdue the animal. Period.