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

page: 7
55
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Most of you by your own admission would draw your weapon to defend your property against cops trying to serve a LEGAL warrant. It's not the cop's fault the address is wrong right?

My God!!!!!!!!!!!

That's what cops have to deal with every single day of the year. Some nut defending his trailer and trailer park.

Why the heck should cops take the chance that some nut won't sic their dog on them?
edit on 24-4-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LosLobos
Why the heck should cops take the chance that some nut won't sic their dog on them?
edit on 24-4-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)

Why the heck WE be forced to take the chance that he is going to feel "threatened" and shoot us?

Or is it only the cops life that is special?

BTW I am in no way calling for shooting cops......but I am damn sure tired of hearing daily about them murdering, raping and abusing their power. There are 1000s of good cops out there but if they dont starting policing the bad ones the people will and the outcome will be bad for everyone. REAL BAD



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by lastrebel
 


I said the history of police work because I do not know the timeframe in which these events happened because you have not provided a source for all the events.

Without the full story from sources on these events it would be speculation to say that there was not a justification behind the actions.

That is the difference between the police and criminals. For the most part, there is a justification behind what the police do. And if there is not then there is someone to complain to who will do something about it. I would like to see you try to make a complaint against a street gang or motorcycle club. When you sue the police for misconduct they settle with you and pay out of court. You can not sue a street gang or motorcycle club.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by lastrebel
 


I agree with your comments. You disgree with the events that are described in this instance and you disagree with police corruption but you do not discount all police.

Thank you for your rational though in this matter. If more people thought like you maybe a productive conclusion could be drawn from these types of posts.

You are absolutely correct that it is not only the public's responsibility to identify the bad police and do something about it, but also other police officers and their supervisors.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mustard seed
 


You are correct about the comments on carrying a gun professionally. That is why the police have to go through extensive backround checks, polygraph and training before they are trusted to carry said weapons. They are held to a higher standard.

How do you know there were no complaints from the mailman or other people in the neighborhood? Just because the OP did not say it makes it fact. See, once again we are playing on peoples emotions and lack of the facts to paint your own picture.

If a K-9 gets hurt, it is a tragedy. The dog is being used to apprehend a human being that committed a crime. Although it is hard to say whether the dog's intentions are nobel, they are loyal working dogs that are being used for a nobel cause.

Was it wrong to not help the dog in this instance? I have already said YES. Is the dog and scene now evidence because the officer discharged his firearm? Yes.

Like I said, the department will probably be sued and settle with the family for the negligence of not helping the dog. And rightfully so.

But unless you were there, YOU do not know if the dog was acting visciously or not and if it was, the officer was justified in shooting it. Justified, yes. Right, No. A simple dose of pepper spray would have worked much easier and would have been much more safe to everyone involved.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by mustard seed
 


You are correct about the comments on carrying a gun professionally. That is why the police have to go through extensive backround checks, polygraph and training before they are trusted to carry said weapons. They are held to a higher standard.
And yet these stories are regularly appearing in which the officer kills the family pet and it is "justified" and not just pets innocent people get hurt due to the military tactics used. My point is that if they did their job the dog would be accounted for and neutralized , every occupant would be known inside the dwelling and they would not go in until they know what to expect and have contained dangers to and from pets and or children

How do you know there were no complaints from the mailman or other people in the neighborhood? Just because the OP did not say it makes it fact. See, once again we are playing on peoples emotions and lack of the facts to paint your own picture.

I can reasonably infer their had been no prior problem from the fact that no prior problems were mentioned. If there had been previous problems they would have been included in the "justification" statements. Also, Mail carriers report all fractious animals within the delivery area. if this dog had history the police would be using it to cover their arse

If a K-9 gets hurt, it is a tragedy. The dog is being used to apprehend a human being that committed a crime. Although it is hard to say whether the dog's intentions are nobel, they are loyal working dogs that are being used for a nobel cause.

A family pet barking at a uniformed person no doubt giving off a very intense energy that a dog could easily perceive as threatening , protecting their pack and home is as noble a deed as any performed by a K-9 and you avoided answering what would have happened had it been a K-9 down, would it have been 3 hrs for help? Is it still not a "crime" scene? You carry a blatant bias in defense of the indefensible. Cops are NOT , exactly picked for stability, they are picked for their ability to do things without questioning the validity

Was it wrong to not help the dog in this instance? I have already said YES. Is the dog and scene now evidence because the officer discharged his firearm? Yes.

See statements above about the "crime" scene and tell me the difference of if it was a K-9 down and the family pet down why the K-9 would not be part of the "crime scene" and get immediate help, while a family pet is an object in a "crime scene and must not be moved while they die

Like I said, the department will probably be sued and settle with the family for the negligence of not helping the dog. And rightfully so.

But will the officer face ANY repercussion? We know the answer don't we? The issue is not about paying off the folks you have damaged it is making the ones who do the damage truly accountable the way you or I would be

But unless you were there, YOU do not know if the dog was acting visciously or not and if it was, the officer was justified in shooting it. Justified, yes. Right, No. A simple dose of pepper spray would have worked much easier and would have been much more safe to everyone involved.

Sorry I totally disagree Even if the dog was a trained attack dog it is NOT justified until an attack, NOT the fear of one.Your logic is that should any LE be a bit scared it is OK to cap whatever is giving them the heebies. It is simple they drive by and there is a dog animal control is there with a dart or noose to contain the dog. And no loose bullets in the neighborhood no dead pets to gripe about.


When one attempts to defend an indefensible act there are no solid points to make your case from.That those we expect to apprehend humans safely cannot deal with ~ 50lbs of canine does not make me feel very good about them dealing with 200lbs of human. I think you will find this to be one of the back issues besides the unjustified death of a pet as an armed man approached a house with insufficient intel to do the job correctly that fuels the outrage in these threads.That and the fact that there is ALWAYS some one who pokes in defending the cop with cliche` crap like " he felt threatened" Man what a world if a gun came out for that reason alone. Every traffic stop could be a shoot out. I do not know many people who would not feel threatened by a challenge by LE.
So yeah, if feeling threatened is enough to use a gun God help us all. And to all those who defend this crap I LOL at how you will feel if you get a taste of the seedy side of LE someday. The biggest zealots are converts. So most of the folks ,like me, have back story for knowing LE is out of control.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mustard seed
 


I have already provided you with why the scene was labeled a "crime" scene. I have provided you with a reason, not a justification and already said it was wrong to not help the dog.

No, the officer will not receive any repercussions because the shooting was probably inside of the police department's policy on shooting dogs. The department, however, will be sued and will pay for the damages.

I have already said I disagree with the policy on shooting a dog unless it is in the process of attacking you and have already said that it is my personal opinion that pepper spray is much more effective and safe then discharging a firearm.

My question to you is can one be seriously injured or mamed by a dog?

Obviously, the answer is yes. So, why should the officer be subject to further risk of serious injury the dog acts aggressively towards him or her. Are you saying that the officer should wait until he is injured before shooting the dog? Then it is too late. That is like telling a police officer not to shoot a person until they have shot or stabbed you first.

There are indefensible acts perpetrated by police officers but this is not an indefensible act. To the contrary, I have made many good points which have not been successfully countered by you or the OP.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


Refer to where I posit that animal control should handle the situation and that the situation should be known before the cop ever shows his face, as in so many other cases the police's ignorance of the tactical situation is no excuse for unprofessional behavior. That is what this boils down to a pattern of unprofessional behavior that ends up with someone hurt.
If they can gather the intel for a warrant why not the intel on where it will be served? It is unacceptable, it is wrong and not just pets paying the price of it.
As for if a dog can hurt a human, depends upon the human and the dog. As to whether a dog can hurt a cop with all their supposed training seems possible, it is unlikely given the non-lethal tools they carry like the pepper spray mentioned or even his night stick.What is indicative and indicting is that he went for his gun ,first.
For myself approaching ANY dog is a exercise in canine behavior and I can and do approach ANY canine at MY will without pepper spray or club or gun and have NEVER been bitten. A cop is supposedly trained to read human behavior, why not canine? Are they not a ubiquitous companion to the people they seek? do they not learn about the peers, possible weapons any thing they can use to get the warrant? Can't you see the gaping holes in the process?
seed



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mustard seed
 



I am glad we can agree that a department's policy should be more restrictive when dealing with viscious animals. The policy should mandate that a less lethal means should be attempted and the dog should be clearly attempting to attack before discharging a firearm.

I did refer to your post where you would want animal control to respond to handle the situation.

Animal control will not respond to a scene where there is a potentially wanted person present. It will not happen. Why? Because it is their job to deal with animals and not potentially dangerous persons. Just like the fire department. If there is a potentially dangerous person at the scene of a call they are going to, they stage and wait until the police arrive and deem the scene safe.

In an ideal situation, yes there should be surveillance on an potential address where a wanted person is staying. But, many police departments do not have the resources to set up surveillance on EVERY house a wanted person may be staying at. So, they reserve their resources to either felony warrants (i.e. murder or robbery) or warrants for persons known to be extremely violent. The rest of the less serious warrants are served by the police either happening across the person by chance or going to a possible residence, knocking on the door and counting on them coming peacefully.

So let me get this straight. You expect the police to be experts in the law, in excellent physical shape, expert drivers, expert marksman (so they can shoot the gun out of someone's hand instead of killing them), experts in martial arts (so they dont have to punch anyone, use a taser or baton, instead they can just use grapple holds), experts in psychology, experts in first aid, social workers, experts in conflict resolution, and NOW experts in animal behavior TOO.

A reasonable person would not expect a police department to spend tax dollars training officers in depth in animal behavior. A change in the policy to limit the use of lethal force on animals to extreme cases would probably be a more legitimate response.
edit on 26-4-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: edit



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by mustard seed
 



I am glad we can agree that a department's policy should be more restrictive when dealing with viscious animals. The policy should mandate that a less lethal means should be attempted and the dog should be clearly attempting to attack before discharging a firearm.

I did refer to your post where you would want animal control to respond to handle the situation.

Animal control will not respond to a scene where there is a potentially wanted person present. It will not happen. Why? Because it is their job to deal with animals and not potentially dangerous persons. Just like the fire department. If there is a potentially dangerous person at the scene of a call they are going to, they stage and wait until the police arrive and deem the scene safe.

In an ideal situation, yes there should be surveillance on an potential address where a wanted person is staying. But, many police departments do not have the resources to set up surveillance on EVERY house a wanted person may be staying at. So, they reserve their resources to either felony warrants (i.e. murder or robbery) or warrants for persons known to be extremely violent. The rest of the less serious warrants are served by the police either happening across the person by chance or going to a possible residence, knocking on the door and counting on them coming peacefully.

So let me get this straight. You expect the police to be experts in the law, in excellent physical shape, expert drivers, expert marksman (so they can shoot the gun out of someone's hand instead of killing them), experts in martial arts (so they dont have to punch anyone, use a taser or baton, instead they can just use grapple holds), experts in psychology, experts in first aid, social workers, experts in conflict resolution, and NOW experts in animal behavior TOO.

A reasonable person would not expect a police department to spend tax dollars training officers in depth in animal behavior. A change in the policy to limit the use of lethal force on animals to extreme cases would probably be a more legitimate response.
edit on 26-4-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: edit



"So let me get this straight. You expect the police to be experts in the law, ABSOLUTELY
in excellent physical shape,IDEALLY
expert drivers, FOR TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAY PATROL YES
expert marksman (so they can shoot the gun out of someone's hand instead of killing them)AS IN HIGHLY TRAINED YES AND NOT FOR THE ABSURDITY YOU MENTION,
experts in martial arts (so they dont have to punch anyone, use a taser or baton, instead they can just use grapple holds)PROFICIENT IN SUCH GRAPPLING SEEMS LOGICAL,
experts in psychology THEY ALREADY TAKE EXTENSIVE TRAINING IN THESE AREAS AND CONTINUING EDUCATION IN PROFESSIONAL FIELDS IS MANDATORY ANY WAY,
experts in first aid AS FIRST RESPONSE AS YOU MENTION, ABSO FREAKING LUTLEY!,
social workers, experts in conflict resolution NOPE IF WE HAD MORE OF THESE WE COULD USE FEWER COPS,
and NOW experts in animal behavior TOO.EXPERT, NO, NO MORE THAN WHAT I SAID ABOUT PSYCH AND EDUCATION.
As for animal reg you made my point about intel For what is spent on paying off mistakes and para military tactics and gear will easily pay a full time investigator to "clear" a warrant service site or have the info to contain it if not.


"A reasonable person would not expect a police department to spend tax dollars training officers in depth in animal behavior. A change in the policy to limit the use of lethal force on animals to extreme cases would probably be a more legitimate response."

I agree here and have outlined how I think a reasonable society would handle the issues and really a day course can teach someone to deal with a dog.

"In an ideal situation, yes there should be surveillance on an potential address where a wanted person is staying. But, many police departments do not have the resources to set up surveillance on EVERY house a wanted person may be staying at. So, they reserve their resources to either felony warrants (i.e. murder or robbery) or warrants for persons known to be extremely violent. The rest of the less serious warrants are served by the police either happening across the person by chance or going to a possible residence, knocking on the door and counting on them coming peacefully."

How about just the house they intend to serve?! And you are justifying this action? Because it obviously not a "serious" crime or all the stuff you mentioned would have been done ,right?.Man what is so hard to grasp about having the place given a look see before sending the cop in? I have said how to do it ,how to pay for it, and why it is a logical and reasonable action for a sane society. That these outcomes are becoming more prevalent is a scream that it does not work the way it is being done.
seed



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mustard seed
 


If you expect a police officer to be an EXPERT in all those different fields you are obviously not a very reasonable person.

All police are trained in all of those fields. Most are highly trained. And some are experts. But a reasonable person can not expect all police officers to be an EXPERT in everything they do. The tasks the public calls on the patrol officer to do are numerous and vary greatly. There is no other job in the world where you are required to have the skills to do such a wide variety of things.

Training in animal behavior? Nope. That is why they have the policy allowing the officer to shoot the animal if they feel threatened.

Also, there are many different reasons warrants are issued and most are for non violent crimes. It depends on what you mean by gathering "intelligence" on a house before attempting to walk up and knock on the door. If you mean drive by and see what is there, I am sure that is being done. If you mean sit down the street and watch for a few minutes, that could be done but that still would not give you adequate "intelligence" on the residence. In this case, maybe the officer did do these things but the woman did not let the dog out in that timeframe.

Where are you getting the idea that this is becoming more prevalent? I would like a source saying that this is happening more often. I think you are putting your own spin on it by saying it is becoming more prevalent. I think this is something that rarely happens.

I think we can chalk this one up to changing the policy of the police department to provide for not shooting animals unless absolutely necessary. I do not think this is something that should be blown way out of proportion and paint all police as bad.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I have answered All you points individually and you just think I am being "unfair or mean" and put the words to me I never said, that all cops are bad. This is getting ridiculous. Do a weekly post count of stories like these and tell it is acceptable
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If not, I rest MY case which is not just about this incident but a pattern of excessive force. If this IS acceptable we have no common grounds from which to continue this discussion.

Demanding higher quality, more professional personnel and giving them the training I noted is a logical and reasonable response to unprofessional behaviors and acts which, yes, are being more reported as a quick search of Youtube and google will show.
Unless someone has a real argument about why deadly force was the officers first thought I have made my points.
seed



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mustard seed
 


The post that you linked to is absolutely absurd. And after you read the original article, you can see where many, many facts were once again left out. Why you can not tell the overall tone of the article is obviously slighted to one side, against the police, is beyond me.

This just proves my point that it is more prevalent that people are taking articles from these "news" outlets, taking them at face value and instantaneously passing judgement that the police were totally wrong when that may not be the case.

I could go in depth arguing this new topic but i would submit that it is a completely different situation with completely different circumstances and draws the attention away from this post.

Thank you for brining it to my attention though as I will follow up in this new thread.





top topics
 
55
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join