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.
Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by TinkerHaus
I love dogs, and MOST dog shootings make me really angry at police, but in this case I believe the responsibility falls on the dog owner for allowing his dogs to run outside and attack an officer. Imagine if that were a girl scout trying to sell cookies... The officer even announced it was the police department. The idiot behind teh door should have put his dogs away before opening the door. The moral of the story is this; If you cannot control your dogs, you shouldn't have dogs. Sad that this dog had to pay the price for his owner's irresponsible ways.
I was thinking the exact same thing. I'm a dog lover too. I've had a dog around me since I was just child. This owner was irresponsible for letting his dog run out of the house. Whether he was a police officer, a stranger or a child, the owner has the responsibility to keep their dog from intimidating or possibly harming another person. It's the reason why we have leash laws.
Strangers don't know if your dog will bite, so why would you put a police officer or a stranger in that defensive, and frightening position? Why would you take the chance of being liable if your dog would bite or attack someone? I feel bad for the dog, but if the owner had any common sense, he would have made sure his dogs were put somewhere in the house to keep them from getting loose and intimidating the officer.
Originally posted by Miri08
I'm not going to watch the video because it will put me in a depressed mood for the rest of the day, however I did read your description and so I am going off of that alone.
You state the dogs were barking and coming towards the officers. If the dogs didn't actually lunge at them, than I do not think they should have shot. If the dogs had made to pounce then I could justify (in my mind) that they did what they had to do. To me, I feel they should have waited until an attack was imminent. (Again, I did not watch the video)
I've been very vocal about my distrust of police officers as a whole - still I believe they should have guns, as criminals have guns as well. I just feel that they should be more selective in choosing to use their guns and that when a police officer does use their gun, the policies need to change on reviewing the incidents and on appropriate consequences.
Originally posted by MeesterB
Seems justified. After all, both of the dogs were all over the cop.
Worst case scenario the cops are jumped on by the dogs and the homeowner comes out with a gun...
It's not like they can just push the dogs off until the owner politely gets them under control.
Originally posted by Miri08
.
You state the dogs were barking and coming towards the officers. If the dogs didn't actually lunge at them, than I do not think they should have shot. If the dogs had made to pounce then I could justify (in my mind) that they did what they had to do. To me, I feel they should have waited until an attack was imminent. (Again, I did not watch the video)
Originally posted by Miri08
reply to post by MeesterB
Alright thank you. Yes, in that case it makes more sense to me that the officer shot. I'm not saying I like that he shot, but I can at least see some reason for it having happened if that's the case.
It would be better for me to have just watched the video but I can't bring myself to.
Originally posted by CALGARIAN
Why do cops have guns at all? Guns can KILL PEOPLE. They should all only have tazers.
Originally posted by sylent6
OK, what we have here is a case of police officers operating within department policy.
They're taking a call for service to check the welfare and safety of the children at this home
Officer identified himself as Police Officers
The idiot who resides at the home acknowledge the fact that their were officers at the door.
The animals should have been detain in a safe locations away from the officers.
The dogs were "not" contain and subsequently attack the officers in a aggressive manner, not one dog but two.
The officer had every right to shoot the dogs because of their actions and it was all film during the call.
Yes it was justified. The boy should have use some common sense.
Originally posted by chaos79
Just curious, has anybody bothered to read the attached story to this one?
but the video is changing opinions - even the opinion of the dog owner.
After seeing the video even the dog owner thinks the cops were justified in shooting the dog... It was defiantly an attack... Not a deliberate one by the owner, but has the owner says "somehow the door was left open" which led to an accidental attack and the police were more then justified to defend their selves...
Chaos
reply to post by abeverage
Look I believe the officer should defend himself. But what about private property?
Originally posted by chaos79
Just curious, has anybody bothered to read the attached story to this one?
but the video is changing opinions - even the opinion of the dog owner.
After seeing the video even the dog owner thinks the cops were justified in shooting the dog... It was defiantly an attack... Not a deliberate one by the owner, but has the owner says "somehow the door was left open" which led to an accidental attack and the police were more then justified to defend their selves...
Chaos