It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cop UN-restrains dog, throws it down a flight of stairs then shoots it dead

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DjangoPhat
 





It was in your own qoute, buddy. Pay attention buddy. Or do you not know the definition of subdue, buddy?


Wow somebody doesn't like dissenting opinions. I do know the definition of subdue chief. That's why I questioned the choice of wording. The owner was attempting to subdue his dog. A dog that flew into a rage for whatever reason and was behaving uncontrollably. My point was that this dog was not restrained. He bit another dog, he bit his owner and according to the police report, bit a cop. I know you think the cops were wrong to intervene, but there was an injury to a 3rd party. They were going to intervene either way. If I go to a fair and punch someone in the face, whether provoked or not, the cops are going to intervene. If I try to attack them, bad things are going to happen.




Seems like the dog to me


Of course it does boss. That's why they used that photo to sway public opinion. They wouldn't have added the unrelated incident part if it wasn't relevant. Think back to the article. Where's the stairwell? Where's the bleeding owner? They put a sucker photo up for people disinclined to think for themselves. It's the same reason they posted happy Parrot pictures. Look at the peaceful doggy.

I don't think you understood my last sentence pal. The choice of his wording is important. You in fact proved it yourself


Her own dog bit it off

You could have said she almost cut it off on her dog's tooth like the owner in question did but you didn't. Why? Because you weren't trying to spin a story and deny culpability. She got bit separating 2 dogs; he cut his hand in his dog's mouth separating 2 dogs. See the difference?

I'm sorry if you've been butthurt by cops in the past, but sometimes the bad outcomes aren't their fault and before you resort to your "affiliations" argument, I'm not a cop, related to a cop or in any way pro-police to the point of being blinded to facts.




posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by johneffendoe
 





Wow somebody doesn't like dissenting opinions.


No, the problem is your lack of reading skills, or at least comprehension.




I do know the definition of subdue chief.


You, do, then what is the confusion about?


3. subdued - quieted and brought under control; "children were subdued and silent" tame - very RESTRAINED or quiet;


www.thefreedictionary.com...




I know you think the cops were wrong to intervene, but there was an injury to a 3rd party.


He had no business touching a subdued, restrained dog.




You could have said she almost cut it off on her dog's tooth like the owner in question did but you didn't. Why? Because you weren't trying to spin a story and deny culpability. She got bit separating 2 dogs; he cut his hand in his dog's mouth separating 2 dogs. See the difference?


Hardly, in both cases the dog didn't deliberately attack and bite a human, and certainly not any other human but their owner.




Where's the stairwell? Where's the bleeding owner?


You can hardly see the surroundings, can you?



They put a sucker photo up for people disinclined to think for themselves.



Police fatally shoot dog at Adams Morgan festival By Matt Zapotosky Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 13, 2010




A District police officer restrains one of two dogs that were involved in an unrelated incident in Adams Morgan on Sunday, September 12. (Photo by Dylan Singleton )


So there was another incident involving 2 dogs, fitting the description, at Adams Morgan at Sept. 12 2010?

That's what you are saying? It is possible, quite a coincidence.




I'm sorry if you've been butthurt by cops in the past, but sometimes the bad outcomes aren't their fault and before you resort to your "affiliations" argument, I'm not a cop, related to a cop or in any way pro-police to the point of being blinded to facts.


You have to take my word for it when I say that I left more cops butthurt, than the other way around.

I think you are a cop, btw.

edit on 10-8-2012 by DjangoPhat because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DjangoPhat
 





He had no business touching a subdued, restrained dog.


Do you not understand verb tenses and their different meaning? The word "subdued" or "restrained" is not used in the article or the police report. The owner said "subduing". Since you like freedictionary.com here is their definition of subduing

1. To conquer and subjugate; vanquish. See Synonyms at defeat.
2. To quiet or bring under control by physical force or persuasion

www.thefreedictionary.com...

He was in the process of bringing the animal under control.




Hardly, in both cases the dog didn't deliberately attack and bite a human, and certainly not any other human but their owner.


He bit the cop. It's in the report. Even without biting the cop, he caused injury to another dog. He would have been impounded just for that since it happened on city property.




So there was another incident involving 2 dogs, fitting the description, at Adams Morgan at Sept. 12 2010? That's what you are saying?


No. That's what the Washington Post is saying.

On a side note- has anyone actually taken the time to find out about the other dog involved?

Martins said that after she finished talking to police, she took Sushi to an animal hospital, where he stayed overnight. He has two broken bones and a large gash, she said, and she will find out Tuesday whether he needs surgery.

Source

Old Parrot wasn't a vicious dog in the least



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by johneffendoe
 





Do you not understand verb tenses and their different meaning? The word "subdued" or "restrained" is not used in the article or the police report. The owner said "subduing". Since you like freedictionary.com here is their definition of subduing


If you want to play semantics. I don't see the difference. He was subduing, or restraining his dog. Meaning it was not running loose.

From your own link,


At that time, she said, the owner of the dog that looked like a pit bull was laying on top of his pet.


Seems it was subdued.




He bit the cop. It's in the report. Even without biting the cop, he caused injury to another dog. He would have been impounded just for that since it happened on city property.


I can imagine a frightened dog would snap at a stranger that is holding it down to the ground. He had no business touching it.




No. That's what the Washington Post is saying.


So the pic is from a totally different place and time?




On a side note- has anyone actually taken the time to find out about the other dog involved?


If two dogs fight, one is bound to get hurt. Doesn't mean the dog was vicious towards humans and needed to be killed.




Old Parrot wasn't a vicious dog in the least



“I could tell like how aggressive the dog was,” she said. “If he would start running around, he would attack somebody.”


Of course the hysterical owner of the wounded poodle would say that.

In reality, pet dogs don't run around and randomnly attack people. Dogbites are usually in situations where a human approaches a dog, and rubs it the wrong way. When it is jealous, or someone messes with its food.

The cop is a scared pussy. You know how often I have been charged by big farm dogs. You just act like a man and stand your ground, nothing ever happens, I end up petting them.

You will still think the cop was right so let's end it there.

The most dangerous thing that day was the cop firing his gun in a crowded area.




edit on 13-8-2012 by DjangoPhat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
No conviction.
Cops: LOL! GG
Dogs: 0

No conviction for dog killing cop



new topics

top topics
 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join