Cops knockin'? Wrong Address? Shoot your dog and let him suffer unattended for 3 hours?

page: 6
55
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


wow!! this is so sad. I bet they won't even admit being wrong. police are no better than any other gang. dont get me wrong i respect the position of a police officer but find very few officer's worth respecting




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I reckon they waited 3 hours to make that address somehow the right one, or suffer the embarrassment on the tomorrow's news front page. I'm sure that woman downloaded some illegal copyrighted desktop wallpaper... or something... there's no way she's innocent
. But really sad story, making the dog suffer that long.... he could have just called the vet to put him down or at least ease the suffering - or do something.

So, basically this is the logic:
* A gangster accidentally shoots your dog: you call in emergency vet clinic asap, you pray for the best.
* A cop accidentally shoots your dog: you must watch him die in agony for additional three hours.

The irony.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Yesterday I posted article on my Facebook page about how they may have to lay off 180 officers here in Houston and I said Hurray! I said that if anarchy doesn't break out with 180 less officers maybe we should be wondering why they had so many police they don't need.

Less than 24hrs later they showed up at my house to pick me up for warrants, coincidence...possibly...but they also knew who my friends were. So when my brother told them they I wasn't here and named couple people they knew exactly who those people were. Me and my friends are not some criminals who run amok in the area, my tickets are for traffic only.
edit on 22-4-2011 by infiniteobserver because: add WHO



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Here is the problem though. Its her word against his word. She is "claiming" the dog was non threatening. That's her point of view. For all we know, her dog ripping heads off rabbits is considered non threatening. I just find it hard to believe a cop would just shoot a dog or anyone for nothing. The dog had to be doing something that disturbed the cop. The dog just wasn't wagging its tale.
edit on 22-4-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I've played out a similar scenario in my head many times. A "What would I do in this situation" kinda thing where the cops come to my door for no reason and start with their gestapo tactics. Suffice to say it turns out much differently than this instance.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LosLobos
Here is the problem though. Its her word against his word. She is "claiming" the dog was non threatening. That's her point of view. For all we know, her dog ripping heads off rabbits is considered non threatening. I just find it hard to believe a cop would just shoot a dog or anyone for nothing. The dog had to be doing something that disturbed the cop. The dog just wasn't wagging its tale.
edit on 22-4-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)


Or the cop was already disturbed - in the head. Bah, all cops are completely rational, right?



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LosLobos
Here is the problem though. Its her word against his word. She is "claiming" the dog was non threatening. That's her point of view. For all we know, her dog ripping heads off rabbits is considered non threatening. I just find it hard to believe a cop would just shoot a dog or anyone for nothing. The dog had to be doing something that disturbed the cop. The dog just wasn't wagging its tale.
edit on 22-4-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)


So disturbing a cop can get a round? My computer screwed up my last post in which I wanted to post who are these people who consistently defend the indefensible. If you do not know the difference between a dog approaching to attack and one approaching with a"who the hell are you" in my packs territory should you be put in such a situation? If your job requires you approach homes with pets it does not give ANYONE the right to kill the pet except animal control unless actively attacking or having attacked. Show me the bites cop and then you might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise be as brave as the mailman.
Oh and as to who defends the indefensible?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

seed



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mustard seed
 


I understand the social contract we all make.

A warrant was being served because someone broke the social contract. Right or wrong, the social contract must be protected. Live and let live is basically the contract we all signed up for if you are born American.

No one really addressed what I said. This is really a he said she said case right now. I find it hard to believe a cop (or anyone sane) would shoot a dog for no reason. We are a nation of laws. We can't parse intricacies of being threatened. If the evidence supports you, then so be it. If it doesn't, then may you rott in hell.

That is American Law!

But here is what's funny or sad depending on your moral fiber. If a minority was talking smack (barking) to a police office then some of you wouldn't even care if the officer pulled his revolver and shot the person. The human!. Yet, hand wringing over a dog seems like a nation of people who have their priorities all wrong.

edit on 22-4-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mustard seed


So disturbing a cop can get a round?



"You just fulfilled the first rule of law enforcement: make sure when your shift is over you go home alive. Here endeth the lesson."

--Sean Connery in the Untouchables

Why do people think everyday Americans won't harm cops during a basic traffic stop? Or during a basic warrant delivery? Anyone and everyone is a potential Jared Loughner to a cop. A cop never knows who or what they will run into with a basic traffic stop or serving a warrant. I mean really, a cop doesn't know what 310 million other folks are thinking at any given time.

Cops are here because people commit crimes. This isn't a case of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Crime came first. Crime is not something that is new. And just like cops perfect their trade so do the criminals.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Last thought...

Do you guys honestly think the cops should just trust everyone? This cop should have just trusted this lady was going to do the right thing? He should put his life or disfigurement in the hands of a lady he NEVER met before?

Come on man!



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LosLobos
Last thought...

Do you guys honestly think the cops should just trust everyone? This cop should have just trusted this lady was going to do the right thing? He should put his life or disfigurement in the hands of a lady he NEVER met before?

Come on man!


We put our lives and families lives in the hands of someone we have never meet every time we are pulled over. We never know if one of us is going to twitch wrong and the cop feel "threatened" enough to kill us.

Why should people who taze 80 yeasrold women on oxygen tanks, shot dogs rutinely, mace 6 yearolds, shoot folks that dont react quick enough to their hystarical screaming, etc.............why should THEY feel safer than we do when we are cornered by them?



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mustard seed
 


It is not a personal attack against the OP it is merely an observation after you study this post as well as all of his other posts on the subject.

All I am saying is you have to consider the source. If anyone is doing something underhandedly, it is the OP. He or She, in this particular thread, is playing on the people's love for their pets. Making people think how they would feel if their pet were killed. By doing this, he gets an extremely emotional response from some which, combined with the lack of complete information on the incident, creates an atmosphere where the police are painted as cruel, inhumane and completely wrong for even being there.

I merely present the flip side of the coin.

I believe my post contained reasonable points. That is all I ask for is for people to be reasonable. The OP clearly is not.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


There is a difference between arrest warrant and search warrant. To SERVE a search warrant, you go to the house, force entry if needed and search the residence for evidence of a crime. All after an application has been made to a judge who reviews it for probable cause.

To SERVE an arrest warrant means to simply arrest the person named in the warrant. That does not include forcing entry and searching a residence unless you know the person is in the residence at the time.

That means you have to look for said person. Which means gong back through their list of addresses, or associates addresses, and checking to see if they are there. Which means going and knocking on the door.

The warrant itself is not inaccurate, the person the warrant is for simply does not live there anylonger.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by lastrebel
 


The police put their lives in the hands of someone they have never met everytime they pull someone over, or go to a call or try to talk to someone on the street. The police never know if during the course of conducting their job, someone is going to pull a weapon and try to kill them.

All of the incidents you have listed in the second paragraph I am sure have happened before in the history of police work. But what you fail to realize is they are not routine. And without context can not be argued any further that what has already been said.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by lastrebel

Is it just me or are they not even pretending anymore?


Why should they pretend?

Like many other criminals they start out sort of petty and get away with it and just get more bold and brazen to satisfy the thrill.

Nobody is going to do anything about it.

The first time somebody was released from prison as wrongfully convicted the whole system should have been torn down and rebuilt. The first time a cop drew his weapon at or battered through the door of a wrong address the whole system should have been torn down and rebuilt.

But it wasnt. We just accepted that these "accidents" happen and keep on kicking in wrong addresses and locking up innocent people.

It would be funny if real lives werent being destroyed, real people werent being driven to despair and suicide, real people werent being killed but these things are all happening to us and we're paying for the pleasure to be random victims to a gang of thugs working for a corrupt system that seeks out convictions and revenge while ignoring the truth.

This is hell on earth for many many many people. And we're all okay with it.

Kafka's Trial isnt about some especially corrupt oligarchical system. Its about any system with this power. Where there are courts to judge you and police to arrest you there is corruption. Jury of your peers? That's the most Kafkaesque thing of all. The sick irony of having to put your life, liberty and property in the hands of 12 imbeciles who arent in your shoes is supposed to give you peace of mind that justice will be served? Sick.
edit on 21-4-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)


It is the last paragraph that really paints the picture of what you stand for.

What other judicial system would you choose.

Maybe we should just make you the "High Almighty Judge of Everything Right and Wrong, His Excellency." Now you can be the judge of everything and not leave it to the constitutionally protected right of all free people to be judged by a jury of their peers.

You should probably change the title of the position though. We wouldn't want the people to think you were some sort of a dictator or despot or anything.

Live Free or Die? A sick punch line in the grand joke that is your agenda.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


In the HISTORY of police work......your kidding right.......all those events and more than I could even list have happened over the last couple months and if they arent routine they are quickly becoming routine

If these were the actions of a street gang or motorcycle club these very same police would be screaming "terrorism"......guess they cant stand compition
edit on 23-4-2011 by lastrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LosLobos
reply to post by mustard seed
 


I understand the social contract we all make.
I entered no contract by any deliberate choice I am grandfathered in by birth.

A warrant was being served because someone broke the social contract. Right or wrong, the social contract must be protected. Live and let live is basically the contract we all signed up for if you are born American.
I am amazed you call this a contract and not a social edict. Contract implies some negotiation not dictation

No one really addressed what I said. This is really a he said she said case right now. I find it hard to believe a cop (or anyone sane) would shoot a dog for no reason. We are a nation of laws. We can't parse intricacies of being threatened. If the evidence supports you, then so be it. If it doesn't, then may you rott in hell.

And in all "he said ,she said cases with LE we have learned ho it turns out.your misdirection and other "tactics you have used in this spurious debate expose just how far certain things are out of kilter

That is American Law!

But here is what's funny or sad depending on your moral fiber. If a minority was talking smack (barking) to a police office then some of you wouldn't even care if the officer pulled his revolver and shot the person. The human!. Yet, hand wringing over a dog seems like a nation of people who have their priorities all wrong.

Dogs, kids, old folks it would not matter someone like you would pop up to defend the action as justifiable.As I have said who would defend the indefensible?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 22-4-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)


With power comes responsibility. When you carry a gun professionally you are held to a higher standard for it's use.If this dog were such a threat where are the complaints from the mailman and neighbors? What about everyone who interacted with the animal without killing it? what made them refrain from capping this dog your judging? You assume the righteousness of the cop as you discount every other person who dealt with the dog before and did not kill it. I fit was a person you would automatically attack the victim. I see this "op" on all these critical threads. So even if I grant you "he said ,she said" tell me why the dog was left 3 hrs? Now tell me what happens if a K-9 gets hurt? Crime scene? FEH! the dog is not a piece of evidence( it's wounds or actions are evidence while alive) unless dead so it was not part of a crime scene until they let it die.
Read this thread now and digest it please
seed
edit on 23-4-2011 by mustard seed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by lastrebel
 


Do you know how many cops there are in America? They are not ALL the same. If I were a cop, then going home alive and not disfigured is my goal every day.

Now I'm sure there are some who would like to take the chance of being disfigured because they trusted everyday Americans. "Oh yeah, I trust you will put that rabid dog away so I can serve this FELONY warrant." Come one man! Even you are not that naive to trust every dog owner to do the right thing.

Cops don't do that. Cops interact with our worst nightmares everyday.
edit on 24-4-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010


The police put their lives in the hands of someone they have never met everytime they pull someone over, or go to a call or try to talk to someone on the street.


And you wouldn't give a damn if it were an illegal shot dead instead of a dog. This is the problem with America.

Our priorites are WAY wrong!



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mustard seed


Dogs, kids, old folks it would not matter someone like you would pop up to defend the action as justifiable.As I have said who would defend the indefensible?


Obama was born here. Some folks say he wasn't against all the evidence.

Do you defend the indefensible in that case?

If not, then why do you hand wring if I question the validity of this woman's claim that the dog was not threatening?
edit on 24-4-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
55
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join