Hero mom saves dog from sadistic cop, then gets arrested

a reply to: Kapusta

Um so it was cool that he arrested her for preventing him for shooting the dog?..not sure what your excusing here..WTF.
Also what kind of backwoods sh#thole would force someone to keep a court appointed lawyer who is married to the loser cop.
This why it's impossible to have any respect..the whole f'n thing has nothing to do with justice or public interest.

I don't even want to start on the illegal search & seizure aspect of it. Honestly it pisses me off to even think that these people let the suspected LEO's in their house after that entire spectacle.

Reminds me of the naked woman fresh out the shower to which an officer forced himself inside and just so happened to forcebly detain her so that her towel "accidentally fell off".

If you don't have a warrant or someone screaming bloody murder inside my house good luck making your way in because pow and bang will be waiting.

originally posted by: Kapusta The LEO still trying to asses the situation still had his gun drawn and instead oftrying to deescalate the situation the woman decided to confront the officer in a negative manor.

I am not going to justify his actions after that , I feel he was a little excessive after that . but in his defense he was prob a bit shaken up .


I am sure I am going to get flamed for this , but you can really clearly hear the dog what sounds like to me trying to attack the LEO.

Kap

Why don't these predicaments happen to people who justify pulling out a gun immediately even when its a dog... or a 6 year old...
I wonder what tune people will be singing if these began to hit close to home. how justified will those LEO's actions be then...

a reply to: alienjuggalo

What an asshole cop, what else can I say, the guy was real tool to point that gun at a dog on a chain wagging it's tail. But arresting the chick, what a wanker. Should be fired and charged with possession of criminal stupidity.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: alienjuggalo

What an asshole cop, what else can I say, the guy was real tool to point that gun at a dog on a chain wagging it's tail. But arresting the chick, what a wanker. Should be fired and charged with possession of criminal stupidity.

Cheers - Dave

agreed.

I know a lot of 8 and 9 year olds who can deal with barking dogs better than this ass with a deadly weapon.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Kapusta

Um so it was cool that he arrested her for preventing him for shooting the dog?..not sure what your excusing here..WTF.
Also what kind of backwoods sh#thole would force someone to keep a court appointed lawyer who is married to the loser cop.
This why it's impossible to have any respect..the whole f'n thing has nothing to do with justice or public interest.

Ummm, Did you read my whole post ?

I am not going to justify his actions after that , I feel he was a little excessive after that .

Fact is and still remains , He didn't shoot the dog , and NOBODY Here can make the claim that HE WAS GOING to shoot the dog . Nobody knows what was going though his head or what his intentions were. Yet everyone here Is Assuming he was going to SHOOT the dog .

People are still Ignoring the fact that the dog aggressively lunged at the Officer you can Clearly hear it in the video ! .



Why everyone here is ignoring these facts ? it's beyond me.

The only possible Violation i see here in the video is the excessive force the officer used towards the woman . THAT i cannot except, he was out of bounds line by doing so. This whole thing about not being able to switch lawyers .... Hogwash! Her whole case can get thrown out if she is prevented from switching lawyers. Its her right to Hire and fire any attorney. I don't believe she was prevented from doing so . I would need proof of this and I doubt it can be brought 4th .


The video and description are misleading.

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Kapusta

Fact is and still remains , He didn't shoot the dog , and NOBODY Here can make the claim that HE WAS GOING to shoot the dog . Nobody knows what was going though his head or what his intentions were. Yet everyone here Is Assuming he was going to SHOOT the dog .

People are still Ignoring the fact that the dog aggressively lunged at the Officer you can Clearly hear it in the video ! .



Why everyone here is ignoring these facts ? it's beyond me.

The only possible Violation i see here in the video is the excessive force the officer used towards the woman . THAT i cannot except, he was out of bounds line by doing so. This whole thing about not being able to switch lawyers .... Hogwash! Her whole case can get thrown out if she is prevented from switching lawyers. Its her right to Hire and fire any attorney. I don't believe she was prevented from doing so . I would need proof of this and I doubt it can be brought 4th .


The video and description are misleading.

No he did not shoot the dog, he drew his weapon on the dog... that is called 'intent to use deadly force'... One of the things they teach you when you are obtaining a lawful permit to carry is do not draw your weapon unless you intend to use it. Because whether you use it or not the intent is still there.

You are missing the fact that as soon as the suspected officers pulled into the driveway they entered private property. Cops have no jurisdiction to be on private property unless a suspect has fleed which was not the case. The cop had no right to be walking up to the house. The cop was probably pissed because they were recording, which prompted him to approach the house in an aggrivated manor, which ended in aggrivated asault as far as im concerned. Excessive force only works if someone was being lawfully detained. The woman in question was not being detained or questioned. Infact i suspect they only hand cuffed her after he threw her to the ground because it would have otherwise been no question that this was assault. The woman did not raise her hand at the officer. The most he got was a mouth full from her, which last time I checked is not a reason to detain someone on their own property.

Anything else you'd like to point out?

a reply to: AlongCamePaul


So is this the story you are painting as if you know exactly what happened.

How do you know he didn't have permission to be on the property ?

he looked calm to me walking up to the house , they didn't appear to be acting out of duty prior .

It was a neighborhood dispute , they were conducting an investigation , once you start talking to an LEO you enter into a contract with them for their services .

Simply Put you don't know exactly what happened , yet you are painting a whole story based on hearsay.

Why do you discount the aggressive dog ? , The LEO had every right to pull his gun if he felt threatened and based off the sound that dog made and his actions I would say he felt threatened. You nor anyone here can assume he was going to pull the trigger on that dog . That's all speculation, yet everyone acts as if THEY KNOW he was going to shoot the dog if had that woman not jumped in the way .


His force upon the woman was a excessive no doubt and maybe disciplinary action should be in order for him.

Need I say more ?

ETA:

No he did not shoot the dog, he drew his weapon on the dog... that is called 'intent to use deadly force'... One of the things they teach you when you are obtaining a lawful permit to carry is do not draw your weapon unless you intend to use it. Because whether you use it or not the intent is still there.

That's crap , When I obtained my CCW, the gun should only be drawn when necessary to act as a deterrent , this is why trigger safety is important . you pull the gun to deter a possible attack and you fire when you know you are going to be harmed or someone else is being harmed . the gun should be used as a means of intimidation and not necessarily used to take a life , when dealing with these types of situations . This is why cops pull people over at gun point .

When I was a cadet/explorer , I went on many ride along , and got to witness felony stops . When they pulled someone over with guns drawn one LEO would be on the right side of the car and every time a person would step out if their were multiple people in the car , he would cock his empty shotgun to intimidate whoever was getting out of the car. It was a safety measure.

but if we go with what you said then , pulling a gun means to shoot every time ? ....right ?

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Nothing wrong here. Learn the law before you put your bias commentary post up.

originally posted by: staticfl
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Nothing wrong here. Learn the law before you put your bias commentary post up.

No..

a reply to: alienjuggalo

An officers job is to protect the peace. Things get confusing when their personal safety becomes a conflict.

What kind of paranoia do you have to be suffering to pull a gun on a dog that is chained up? Could this genius not back off from the dog so that the dog wouldn't be a "danger" to him or his buddies? To my eyes the cop is definitely the "danger" in this scene.
He needs a "time-out" in the local jail to think about assault and how law enforcement aren't above the laws that say not to assault another citizen. Then a tattoo across the forehead indicating that he should never be allowed to carry a gun again in any job.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

....from the article

The courts appointed her an attorney whom actually is married to a state trooper, and they have denied her request for new legal counsel. We have a hearing set for Thursday 9 am, the 13th of August. We have been informed that we have no legal grounds for a lawsuit, due to lack of physical injury. Although my 4-year-old grandson is now terrified of police, I’m told at every door, there will be no justice.

Can you imagine if it were the other way around, someone pushing the state trooper to the ground ..... would the state drop the case because of a " lack of physical injury " to the trooper...? Highly unlikely.

Disclaimer: I don't know how this all went down though or how the dog got loose. It could also be the officers fault, but I have not seen the start of this incident.

However,

In most street situations, dogs should not be off leash. Unless secured on a property or under control from their owner.

This is a civility and a civil issue. Don't go telling me that dogs have the right to run around in a republic to their own accord just because they love their owner.

Its like that in most municipalities, you need to keep your barking, lunging razor teeth under control. Dogs can be a safety hazard, and should someone need to defend themselves from one, the first thing in the news will be "animal cruelty" because apparently in our amazing culture if a dog gets you and you need 180 stitches it's "tragic" but if you manage to stop the animal before it disembowels you, the story tells differently and all pet lovers send you death threats.

There's a good reason dog control is strict liability because avoiding the issue is the best way to deal with it.

The officer doesn't know your dog, and an owner needs to be responsible and let them know there is a dog, or restrain the dog before coming out for the officer. And an even sadder aspect is the dogs are as much a victim as those who must walk the streets. People who use dogs as tools or don't respect courtesy with owning dogs are HUGE problems in today's culture.

originally posted by: eNaR
a reply to: alienjuggalo

....from the article

The courts appointed her an attorney whom actually is married to a state trooper, and they have denied her request for new legal counsel. We have a hearing set for Thursday 9 am, the 13th of August. We have been informed that we have no legal grounds for a lawsuit, due to lack of physical injury. Although my 4-year-old grandson is now terrified of police, I’m told at every door, there will be no justice.

Can you imagine if it were the other way around, someone pushing the state trooper to the ground ..... would the state drop the case because of a " lack of physical injury " to the trooper...? Highly unlikely.

Well they consider a suspect armed if he incapacitates an officer. Because then the suspect has access to the gun.

a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy

Dogs should not be off leash. Unless secured on a property.

Really....so how will you explain this then ?..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy

did you even read anything but the title before posting?

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy

did you even read anything but the title before posting?

I assume you didn't read my entire response because you got upset reading my opinion near the top.

But if you check it again, you may have your question answered.

Edit - The OP describes the dog as being chained up, but I do not see it as restrained?

Can someone show me where this dog is restrained?

a reply to: Kapusta

Maybe they shouldn't hire pussies that are scared of little dogs and petite women to be state troopers. Then instead of blowing away pets and throwing women to the ground, they'll calmly assess the situation and figure out who's really a threat and who's not, protect the innocent, and not worry so much about being "respected."

When they give a bit of respect, they'll get a bunch of it back.

a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy

this is wh yI ask.

n most street situations, dogs should not be off leash. Unless secured on a property or under control from their owner.

This dog was chained up.

originally posted by: Kapusta I am not going to justify his actions after that

cool, because you didn't justify them up 'til that. continuity