11 Pound Dog was "Presenting a Threat to an Officer"

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Stop saying that the cop had a right to think it was a good idea to shoot a dog. A gun is supposed to be a warning

Wat.

Less than a week in and we've already got a repetitive wank?

HOME AT LAST

By "A gun is supposed to be a warning", I personally believe that they're designed to kill and nothing else, but the insistent pillocks here think that they're designed to wave in people's faces to make them put their own bullshit away.

Of course that's not true but even if it was dogs wouldn't understand about it because how would a freaking dog know what a gun is?

It's quite a small step away from murder.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Notomys you MORON, what the fuck were we just saying about rodent bites not being comparable to dog bites?. Also, rats are traditionally carriers of disease. They hang in garbage bins and dumps. THAT is why you had to get the bite checked.

Actually it was a domestic animal and was probably less likely to carry rabies than a dog. I had to get the bite checked out because it was a deep puncture wound. Obviously a dog bite is not the same as a rodent bite, but the point I was trying to make is that the size of an animal does not directly correlate to the potential damage it can do.

Notomys mordax wrote:

Obviously a dog bite is not the same as a rodent bite, but the point I was trying to make is that the size of an animal does not directly correlate to the potential damage it can do.

Yes, but the thing is, you're making that point poorly. To paraphrase you in this thread: "I know rat bites aren't comparable to dog bites. But this one time I was bitten by a rat..."

Harley, if you're going to argue with people, make sure it's about things they actually said.

Harley, I had almost forgotten why you used to give me a headache. Thanks for reminding me.

I've seen quite a few dogs that know what guns are and high tail it at the meer sight of one. Yes, the cop did have a right to think the dog was a threat. It is his opinion. One that you or no one else can take away from him. Secondly, he followed police procedure which almost all departments that I know of have. It was clearly stated in the article if you had bothered to read it you would know. If you feel threatened by a dog no matter how big or small it is you can shoot it. The dog charged him snarling, and growling. It was a threat. I do not agree with his decision because I like dogs but you are not him, you do not know what he was feeling. Yes, this is sad but get over it. As much as I love animals, it is a fucking dog for Christ's sake. Damn.

Edited to add: Also Harley, you did not compare this to a small step away from murder. There is a difference between defending yourself and murder. It's a dog, not a human being. Cops are required before being hired to complete a mental evaluation. Those seen unfit will not be hired in most cases. Just because he shot a dog does not mean he's going to go shoot a shoplifter unless the shoplifter puts his life in danger. That's also police procedure. My God sometimes I wonder if you're completely retarded or not.

That's right, kids. Never question the motives or judgement of a police officer! It's just that no one understands them and what they're going through! You clearly cannot call them out for lack of discipline, because you weren't there yourself and you don't understand what it's like to be an officer of the law!

Okay, T.S. Orr. Do you know the difference between following the law and doing the right thing? There are times when following standard procedure doesn't work out- in fact, breaking the rules sometimes brings better results. You see, if it is standard procedure for a cop to shoot anything in sight, then literally he should shoot anything that poses a threat- but that's left for him to decide. But not everything is a threat, and things should be dealt with peacefully before it escalates. Sure, of course cops shouldn't go to their jobs unarmed, but they should be peacekeepers first, crimestoppers second.

If this cop shot a dog, it's unnecessary abuse of power. Sure, small dogs bite hard. I know- I have a 10 year old 9lb chihuahua who is one aggressive motherfucker. He's been kicked before by mailmen, newspaper delivery drivers, pizza delivery drivers, you name it- but he's never been hurt beyond a little bruising. You'd think that since he's aggressive I treat him poorly- but he's well-taken care of and has all his shots.

It just makes me wonder: if a cop will be violent right away and kill a dog or tase a grandma, then they could possibly be sociopaths who take pleasure in doing such a thing. The criminal justice sector, specifically the law enforcement division, is so full of starry-eyed folks so desperate to bite the world that kicked them in the face that they're just jumping at the attempt to watch someone else hurt. It's not just raindow-shitting ponies in the real world.

Nihilist wrote:

Okay, T.S. Orr. Do you know the difference between following the law and doing the right thing? There are times when following standard procedure doesn't work out- in fact, breaking the rules sometimes brings better results. You see, if it is standard procedure for a cop to shoot anything in sight, then literally he should shoot anything that poses a threat- but that's left for him to decide. But not everything is a threat, and things should be dealt with peacefully before it escalates. Sure, of course cops shouldn't go to their jobs unarmed, but they should be peacekeepers first, crimestoppers second.

If this cop shot a dog, it's unnecessary abuse of power. Sure, small dogs bite hard. I know- I have a 10 year old 9lb chihuahua who is one aggressive motherfucker. He's been kicked before by mailmen, newspaper delivery drivers, pizza delivery drivers, you name it- but he's never been hurt beyond a little bruising. You'd think that since he's aggressive I treat him poorly- but he's well-taken care of and has all his shots.

It just makes me wonder: if a cop will be violent right away and kill a dog or tase a grandma, then they could possibly be sociopaths who take pleasure in doing such a thing. The criminal justice sector, specifically the law enforcement division, is so full of starry-eyed folks so desperate to bite the world that kicked them in the face that they're just jumping at the attempt to watch someone else hurt. It's not just raindow-shitting ponies in the real world.

Yes, I know the difference between doing the "right thing" and following the law. Though many people have different morals so doing the right thing isn't so clearly defined in black and white. There is no law stating that he had to shoot the dog, but he had the right and the option to shoot as a police officer who could have felt threatened by a snarling, growling, aggressive dog no matter its size. Who's to say he didn't feel threatened by it? Why because he is a grown man and it's an eleven pound doxie? I'm not saying what he did was right I'm just trying to see it from his point of view rather than just running around screaming "hur hur the dog was small."

There is a similar story where a cop was being attacked by a chihuahua. Actually attacked, he tried kicking the dog away, it attacked again, he tried tasing the dog, it attacked still so finally he put three bullets in the dog in front of the family's son who was serverly attached to the damn thing. Was he wrong for it because of the dogs size? I don't think so while others may think he was. Was that unnecessary abuse of power there as well?

Yes, I think the cop should have picked a different approach rather than shooting the damn thing first. Fact is he didn't and that was his right to. As for the tasing of the grandma, I don't give a damn how old someone is tasing was better than the alternatives. Brute force in which she probably would have broken a bone. Yeah, that other cop tased the fuck out of her but she deserved it she almost pushed him into on coming traffic and resisted arrest. I know the world isn't just rainbow-shitting ponies, I never said it was but just because a person does something some people don't agree with he's automatically a sociopath? I'll be a cop by the end of this year, Am I starry-eyed and want to get back at the world? No, I'm becoming a cop because it's something I've wanted to do for a long time to try and help people.

A note to Verandering: Not once did I ever say that police officers are always right and that we shouldn't question their motives or judgements on somethings. I said that he might have felt threatened by the dog. He's human, just because he doesn't want to be bitten by a dog does not make him evil. But go head with the head hunt, it's on you.

That's my 25 cents.

T.S.Orr wrote:

Yes, I know the difference between doing the "right thing" and following the law. Though many people have different morals so doing the right thing isn't so clearly defined in black and white. There is no law stating that he had to shoot the dog, but he had the right and the option to shoot as a police officer who could have felt threatened by a snarling, growling, aggressive dog no matter its size. Who's to say he didn't feel threatened by it? Why because he is a grown man and it's an eleven pound doxie? I'm not saying what he did was right I'm just trying to see it from his point of view rather than just running around screaming "hur hur the dog was small."

The cop made a poor decision in reaching for the gun first. Yes, that an option, but that doesn't mean he should use that one first. A snarling, aggressive, dog could be handled in other ways than shooting it. I know it's been said throughout this thread that small dogs can hurt people, but from experience, I don't exactly see a threat from weenies. They're sensitive little things that think they're all big and mean until you yell at them. They usually then cower away like the weenies they are.

T.S. Orr wrote:

Yes, I think the cop should have picked a different approach rather than shooting the damn thing first. Fact is he didn't and that was his right to.

Yes, it was his right to, but the cop was relying on just one option.

T.S. Orr wrote:

A note to Verandering: Not once did I ever say that police officers are always right and that we shouldn't question their motives or judgements on somethings. I said that he might have felt threatened by the dog. He's human, just because he doesn't want to be bitten by a dog does not make him evil. But go head with the head hunt, it's on you.

Because he doesn't want to be bitten by a dog doesn't make him evil; shooting the dog as a first instinct is evil.

theweirdkind wrote:

The cop made a poor decision in reaching for the gun first. Yes, that an option, but that doesn't mean he should use that one first. A snarling, aggressive, dog could be handled in other ways than shooting it. I know it's been said throughout this thread that small dogs can hurt people, but from experience, I don't exactly see a threat from weenies. They're sensitive little things that think they're all big and mean until you yell at them. They usually then cower away like the weenies they are.

T.S. Orr wrote:

Yes, I think the cop should have picked a different approach rather than shooting the damn thing first. Fact is he didn't and that was his right to.

Yes, it was his right to, but the cop was relying on just one option.

T.S. Orr wrote:

A note to Verandering: Not once did I ever say that police officers are always right and that we shouldn't question their motives or judgements on somethings. I said that he might have felt threatened by the dog. He's human, just because he doesn't want to be bitten by a dog does not make him evil. But go head with the head hunt, it's on you.

Because he doesn't want to be bitten by a dog doesn't make him evil; shooting the dog as a first instinct is evil.

Bolding is mine. Point I'm trying to make is this, we do not know why he shot the dog. Maybe he's afraid of dogs. We don't know, we may never know, only he knows. But calling a guy evil because he reacted in what we consider the wrong way is just...wow.

T.S.Orr wrote:

Yes, I know the difference between doing the "right thing" and following the law. Though many people have different morals so doing the right thing isn't so clearly defined in black and white.

So you're saying that people have different morals, so in someone's eyes it is indeed right to shoot dogs or taze grandmas instead of kicking the dog or trying to calm down the grandma. Has police academy left you this brainwashed for your job? Just because the person committing a crime is a cop doesn't mean he should get off scot-free because he's supposed to be keeping the peace. There's a thin line between enforcing the law and abusing it.

T.S.Orr wrote:

There is no law stating that he had to shoot the dog, but he had the right and the option to shoot as a police officer who could have felt threatened by a snarling, growling, aggressive dog no matter its size. Who's to say he didn't feel threatened by it? Why because he is a grown man and it's an eleven pound doxie? I'm not saying what he did was right I'm just trying to see it from his point of view rather than just running around screaming "hur hur the dog was small."

It's like saying a cop has a right to feel threatened by most anything, and have the right to shoot at it before seeing whether it's actually a threat. I might as well shoot at the sky to keep it from falling.

T.S.Orr wrote:

There is a similar story where a cop was being attacked by a chihuahua. Actually attacked, he tried kicking the dog away, it attacked again, he tried tasing the dog, it attacked still so finally he put three bullets in the dog in front of the family's son who was serverly attached to the damn thing. Was he wrong for it because of the dogs size? I don't think so while others may think he was. Was that unnecessary abuse of power there as well?

Yeah. They really don't do much damage. Have you ever been bitten by a chihuahua? Not a big deal, really. The cop was a pussy to say the least.

T.S.Orr wrote:

Yes, I think the cop should have picked a different approach rather than shooting the damn thing first. Fact is he didn't and that was his right to. As for the tasing of the grandma, I don't give a damn how old someone is tasing was better than the alternatives. Brute force in which she probably would have broken a bone. Yeah, that other cop tased the fuck out of her but she deserved it she almost pushed him into on coming traffic and resisted arrest. I know the world isn't just rainbow-shitting ponies, I never said it was but just because a person does something some people don't agree with he's automatically a sociopath? I'll be a cop by the end of this year, Am I starry-eyed and want to get back at the world? No, I'm becoming a cop because it's something I've wanted to do for a long time to try and help people.

Okay, I love how you are being so circular, first saying he had every right to shoot the dog, then he shouldn't have, then he should have. If you're going to be a civil servant, pick a point and stick with it. At the very least we need good leadership skills with our cops, not starry-eyed rookies who think shooting every damn thing in sight would help people when in reality it doesn't. Maybe it does in Terminator or Robocop, but not here. There are times when it is justified, and times when it isn't. You, as a civil servant, need to make a responsible call- not a trigger-happy one.

Okay let's end this.

Quote :

As the officer returned to his car, “he was surprised by a growling dog running through the yard directly at him from the rear, leaving him with just seconds to consider his options,“ according to the news release. The options for the officer in that type of situation include running to the squad car; distracting the dog; or using pepper spray, a baton or firearm. The dog lunged at the police officer and attacked him as the officer fired one shot that hit and killed the dog, Broadfoot said.
An investigation by the Danville Police Department found that the dog displayed aggressive tendencies before other people.

Quote :

The officer leaned against his patrol car, smoking a cigarette, and Tawaiin walked over to talk to him. He said the officer told him that he had to shoot the dog because he was barking at him.

Cop is a dick, yes. Did the dog attack him, yes. Cop shot dog. Aggressive dog is dead. The End. I'm through.

I would simply ask how many of you in the "Oh poor widdle doggie!" camp would be as hard on the officer in question was this one?* (Yes, that's a purebred that probably weight less than the dog in question here)


*Other than Harley, who hates guns and cops with equal passion and reason.

T.S.Orr wrote:

Though many people have different morals so doing the right thing isn't so clearly defined in black and white.

T.S.Orr wrote:

But calling a guy evil because he reacted in what we consider the wrong way is just...wow.

:smoke:

T.S.Orr, you will certainly make a fine cop and you will make your department and city proud.

Freezer wrote:

I would simply ask how many of you in the "Oh poor widdle doggie!" camp would be as hard on the officer in question was this one?* (Yes, that's a purebred that probably weight less than the dog in question here)


*Other than Harley, who hates guns and cops with equal passion and reason.

I think that dog's cute. And yes, a little restraint should be shown.

Quote :

Cops are
required before being hired to complete a mental evaluation. Those seen
unfit will not be hired in most cases.

Wha- MOST cases?

Quote :

There is no law stating that he had to shoot the dog, but he had the right and the option to shoot as a police officer

He had the option, yes, but that doesn't mean he had the right. The solutio to small, angry dogs is not smearing their brains all over the fucking wall. THINK before you say that, you MORON.

Quote :

Yes, I think the cop should have picked a different approach rather than shooting the damn thing first. Fact is he didn't and that was his right to.

TS, do you have ANY FUCKING IDEA how hypocritical those words are? That you think he shouldn't have shot the dog but he had the right to? He had the OPTION to shoot the dog because he had a gun. That does not equal a right. If I had a knife, I would have the option to gut you like a fish but it wouldn't mean I had the right. I have a computer and internet access, and I have the OPTION to look at child pornography over the internet, and I could claim a load of shit about freedom of this and that, but that doesn't mean I SHOULD.

(and I'm not)

That dog was NOT a threat to him. It could have bit him yes, but shooting an 11lb dog should NOT be your reflex solution to it displaying aggressive behaviour. He TOTALLY misjudged his reaction with that animal, and what really worries me is that if he can do it with a small dog, he may do it in other situations with human beings.

@T.S.Orr:

If the guy felt threatened, then I will repeat my point earlier about him being poor at threat assessment. Kind of a vital quality to have in a cop, or as someone else stated, they can make the excuse that they felt threatened in any situation.

Also, as for his "right" to shoot the dog, in certain states the laws against home invasion go so far as to say that any citizen has a right to shoot anyone who sets foot on their property, under any circumstances. Let's imagine a situation where a neighbor is drunk and does the responsible thing and gets a cab home from the bar. He gives a cabby bad directions and has him drop him off a few houses up the street from where he lives, and accidentally wanders onto the wrong lawn. Then the person who lives there shoots his head off the moment he puts one foot on his grass. According to the law it was his "right" to do that. Does that make it any less overkill and poor judgment, not to mention downright morally bankrupt?

Quote :

I would simply ask how many of you in the "Oh poor widdle doggie!" camp would be as hard on the officer in question was this one?* (Yes, that's a purebred that probably weight less than the dog in question here)

*Other than Harley, who hates guns and cops with equal passion and reason.

Oh, so the cop had the right to shoot the dog but I don't have the right to think he should have a little god damn self-restraint?

And regardless of that dog being hideously ugly, it WASN'T the one that got shot so that isn't applicable. And I wouldn't want it to get shot anyway. I'm sticking with VB. Having the option to do something doesn't mean you should. And hell, even having the right to do something doesn't mean you should. The dog wasn't a threat. The CLAIM that it was a threat was made in a frantic attempt to keep the idiot trigger-happy-cop from looking like an irresponsible prick, and in relation the police force for looking like idiots for hiring somebody like that.

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but not every word that flows from the lips of the authorities is truth.

Mae Bedlam wrote:

Less than a week in and we've already got a repetitive wank?

HOME AT LAST

All we need now is for Spigot to return and the rebirth of GAFF/HOBAFA/WGW will officially be complete.

I also love the argument, "It's a DOG!" As if that statement is supposed to mean something.

I love animal stories here. Wank always ensues.

So I'm going to throw a bit of fuel on the fire and suggest than anyone who thinks a fucking dachshund is a threat should not be carrying a gun.

Unless it's a modified robo-dachshund that fires laser beams out of its eyes.

VB wrote:

I also love the argument, "It's a DOG!" As if that statement is supposed to mean something.

I'm more on the "It's an eleven pound dog that I could restrain with one foot without injuring" side. I love dogs, but I'm certainly not going to say that a dog can't cause damage. I've got some scars on my right thigh that support the claim "Dogs have teeth and they know how to use them."

Lapin wrote:

VB wrote:

I also love the argument, "It's a DOG!" As if that statement is supposed to mean something.

I'm more on the "It's an eleven pound dog that I could restrain with one foot without injuring" side. I love dogs, but I'm certainly not going to say that a dog can't cause damage. I've got some scars on my right thigh that support the claim "Dogs have teeth and they know how to use them."

Lapin, I mean T.S.Orr and Freezer justifying the officer using his weapon by saying it's just a dog, so who cares? I'd love for one of them to explain just what it is about dogs that make them deserve to be shot.