And you thought Black Friday was bad ha!
newssun.suntimes.com/8069279-418/round-lake-beach-cops-shoot-familys-barking-puppy.html
Javel Townsend said his two sons, ages 10 and 11, are crying and hollering in their sleep, calling out their beloved puppy’s name.
That’s because the Townsend family is grieving the loss of Altgeld, their shepherd/hound mix puppy. Townsend alleges a Round Lake Beach police officer shot and killed the dog earlier this week.
“I guess police got fed up with him barking and shot him,” Townsend said Thursday. “I want to know why they had to shoot him.”
Townsend moved into the 1600 block of Lotus Drive about a week before school started. As a new tenant, he was unaware of a hole in the fence enclosing his yard until Altgeld escaped Tuesday.
He heard gun shots around the time he realized Altgeld was missing. He has a second, older dog that did not escape the yard.
“I didn’t think the actual gunshots had to do with my dogs, but when I heard (the shots), I tried to call my dogs in,” Townsend said.
He was initially concerned that a stray bullet would hit one of his dogs. When Altgeld didn’t respond, Townsend went outside where a neighbor said police were dealing with a dog on the next block.
Townsend found his dog dead near two police officers.
Christy Matthews of Johnsburg said she witnessed the dog’s shooting.
She grew up on Woodridge Street (which intersects with Lotus near Townsend’s home) and was driving down the street when she said she saw a Round Lake Beach police officer aiming a weapon at a barking dog.
“It was by chance that day when we (Matthews and her sister) turned down the road,” Matthews said.
She watched the dog, later identified as Altgeld, barking. The dog walked three to four feet toward the police officer, then backed away into a yard.
Altgeld was barking a lot, but was not foaming at the mouth or acting aggressively, Matthews said.
“The dog did not do anything. It wasn’t even a big dog — it came up maybe to the officer’s knee,” Matthews said.
She said she saw the officer fire four to five shots at the dog.
“I can’t believe a dog would get shot for barking,” Matthews said. “I don’t believe any living thing should be executed that way. It was horrible.”
She described herself as an animal lover. She also owns a shepherd mix, which is a vocal breed, she said.
“I couldn’t believe my eyes ... I’m completely devastated. I don’t understand how an officer can justify shooting a dog like this,” Matthews said.
Townsend was issued tickets for the dog not having shots, for owning a dangerous dog and for the dog being at large. He is due in court Nov. 1 and is in discussions with an attorney.
“I’m going to fight this,” Townsend said.
Altgeld was named after John Peter Altgeld, an Illinois governor in 1896.
Round Lake Beach police did not return a phone call seeking comment.
Javel Townsend said his two sons, ages 10 and 11, are crying and hollering in their sleep, calling out their beloved puppy’s name. Seems like an attempt to have you side with the writer by using children
“I guess police got fed up with him barking and shot him,” Townsend said Thursday. “I want to know why they had to shoot him.” Key word here, guess
Christy Matthews of Johnsburg said she witnessed the dog’s shooting.
She grew up on Woodridge Street (which intersects with Lotus near Townsend’s home) and was driving down the street when she said she saw a Round Lake Beach police officer aiming a weapon at a barking dog. Ok, a witness to the event, this gives us an idea of what happened
Altgeld was barking a lot, but was not foaming at the mouth or acting aggressively, Matthews said. A stray dog barking at you sounds pretty agressive to me
“The dog did not do anything. It wasn’t even a big dog — it came up maybe to the officer’s knee,” Matthews said. Big enough to cause you harm if they wanted to
She described herself as an animal lover. She also owns a shepherd mix, which is a vocal breed, she said. Red flag here. Her opinions could very well be shaping her interpretation of events
Townsend was issued tickets for the dog not having shots, for owning a dangerous dog and for the dog being at large. He is due in court Nov. 1 and is in discussions with an attorney. Witness has just lost credibility
My question is instead of shooting and killing the animal why not shot it with a dart and ensure that the animal doesn't die. Just put into captivity holy moly.
Well, not every police HQ has a tranq rifle handy. I would imagine the officer in question felt it better to put down a stray barking dog, then go to all the trouble of catching it. Then again, I really don't know, as I wasn't there to see it. However, I've got a feeling the "eye witness" is clouding the truth here.
Worst thing is the guy is going to court for not having a shot for the dog. Seems a little excessive to shoot a german sheperd especially if all they do is bark. They take care of sheep. Of course they are going to bark. Eh IL police are really bad.
Necroshea wrote:Javel Townsend said his two sons, ages 10 and 11, are crying and hollering in their sleep, calling out their beloved puppy’s name.
Seems like an attempt to have you side with the writer by using children
“I guess police got fed up with him barking and shot him,” Townsend said Thursday. “I want to know why they had to shoot him.”
Key word here, guess
Christy Matthews of Johnsburg said she witnessed the dog’s shooting.
She grew up on Woodridge Street (which intersects with Lotus near Townsend’s home) and was driving down the street when she said she saw a Round Lake Beach police officer aiming a weapon at a barking dog.
Ok, a witness to the event, this gives us an idea of what happened
Altgeld was barking a lot, but was not foaming at the mouth or acting aggressively, Matthews said.
A stray dog barking at you sounds pretty agressive to me
“The dog did not do anything. It wasn’t even a big dog — it came up maybe to the officer’s knee,” Matthews said.
Big enough to cause you harm if they wanted to
She described herself as an animal lover. She also owns a shepherd mix, which is a vocal breed, she said.
Red flag here. Here opinions could very well be shaping her interpretation of events
Townsend was issued tickets for the dog not having shots, for owning a dangerous dog and for the dog being at large. He is due in court Nov. 1 and is in discussions with an attorney.
Witness has just lost credibility
My question is instead of shooting and killing the animal why not shot it with a dart and ensure that the animal doesn't die. Just put into captivity holy moly.
Well, not every police HQ has a tranq rifle handy. I would imagine the officer in question felt it better to put down a stray barking dog, then go to all the trouble of catching it. Then again, I really don't know, as I wasn't there to see it. However, I've got a feeling the "eye witness" is clouding the truth here.
What in the world is going on with my coding...trying to fix it...
If you lived in IL, you would know that in the sururbs the police here get horribely bored because there are no major problems, they usually just pull people over and they are usually trigger happy. A police officer literally told me this. "I would shoot a kid if I saw that he had an airsoft gun. I don't care its a Lethal weapon." Then he said. "If we didn't know any better we would of gotten a sniper and no questions asked, fired upon you kids." Two parents turned around and told the officer to leave the property. *facepalm*
The police just like to shoot stuff. And the ones in the city. some of them haven't even fired a shot because they don't want to kill anyone. But the ones in the urbs. Are trigger happy. I heard that from a Detective from Chicago.
Altgeld was barking a lot, but was not foaming at the mouth or acting aggressively, Matthews said.
A stray dog barking at you sounds pretty agressive to me
All dogs bark. My dog barks all the time, and she's never bitten a thing. That doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
“The dog did not do anything. It wasn’t even a big dog — it came up maybe to the officer’s knee,” Matthews said.
Big enough to cause you harm if they wanted to
Key word: Wanted to. The police had no reason to believe that this dog was dangerous, they simply shot it.
Townsend was issued tickets for the dog not having shots, for owning a dangerous dog and for the dog being at large. He is due in court Nov. 1 and is in discussions with an attorney.
Witness has just lost credibility
The witness has lost credibility because the dog hadn't had shots?
Altgeld was barking a lot, but was not foaming at the mouth or acting aggressively, Matthews said.
A stray dog barking at you sounds pretty agressive to me
All dogs bark. My dog barks all the time, and she's never bitten a thing. That doesn't give you the right to shoot them.
“The dog did not do anything. It wasn’t even a big dog — it came up maybe to the officer’s knee,” Matthews said.
Big enough to cause you harm if they wanted to
Key word: Wanted to. The police had no reason to believe that this dog was dangerous, they simply shot it.
Townsend was issued tickets for the dog not having shots, for owning a dangerous dog and for the dog being at large. He is due in court Nov. 1 and is in discussions with an attorney.
Witness has just lost credibility
The witness has lost credibility because the dog hadn't had shots?
I think that dog might of being going to get it's shots hell we couldn't get my dog shots until he was 2 because he just taken several different shots. Doesn't give the right to the police to shoot my dog for barking at them.
Oh no a barking dog. Plus this pup is incredibely small how could this be considered a threat?
A cop, who's job is to maintain the peace of the community, has an encounter with a stray dog showing signs of aggression (yes people, barking can be a sign of aggression). If you cannot make sense out of why the cop would shoot such a dog then I don't know what to tell you.
Maybe the cop was trigger happy, maybe not, but the idea of a cop shooting an aggressive stray dog makes more sense than a cop waltzing about the neighborhood looking for something to shoot at.
Also, the fact that the dog was stray seems to be overlooked here.
xxmatt85 wrote:Who shoots a dog for barking? Thats like a person shooting a woman for being pregnant, the cop must of have really serious issues.
I didn't realize that pregnancy was potentially an aggressive response triggered by approaching a woman's territory.
Barking can mean a lot of thing. From "oh hey! Lookatme! Lookatme!" to "in about four seconds, I'm going to hop this fence, run over there, and tear your throat out with my teeth."
Necroshea wrote:A cop, who's job is to maintain the peace of the community, has an encounter with a stray dog showing signs of aggression (yes people, barking can be a sign of aggression). If you cannot make sense out of why the cop would shoot such a dog then I don't know what to tell you.
Maybe the cop was trigger happy, maybe not, but the idea of a cop shooting an aggressive stray dog makes more sense than a cop waltzing about the neighborhood looking for something to shoot at.
Also, the fact that the dog was stray seems to be overlooked here.
The dog is the size of my fething foot (size 17), bro. It isn't harming anyone, and the cop is a huge prick.
Barking isn't aggression, and the article said the Dog was backing into a yard likely because it was scared.
Just because he's a police officer doesn't mean he is of any higher status than us. He's a bastard who abuses his authority because he can get away with it.
Karon wrote:
The dog is the size of my fething foot (size 17), bro. It isn't harming anyone, and the cop is a huge prick.
Sorry, what kind of dogs do the most damage to small children?
Oh that's right. Small dogs. Terriers, weiner dogs, etc all can do some serious damage to a small child--or even an adult if the adult is careless. If the police are called to deal with a stray(which they shouldn't be, but that's a different matter entirely)
Barking isn't aggression, and the article said the Dog was backing into a yard likely because it was scared.
And dogs bite "when they're scared".
Barking can be the onset of aggressive behavior though.
The article is also clearly a puff piece, but that's again another matter entirely.
Just because he's a police officer doesn't mean he is of any higher status than us.
Actually, it does. It's why police have to go through training and can temporarily revoke someone's freedoms in the form of arrest while you can't without potentially facing a kidnapping charge.
He's a bastard who abuses his authority because he can get away with it.
Sorry, so you know the officer personally? You were at this event?
Please. Fill in the rest of the circumstances.
Oh. You can't, because you don't know this officer personally and you weren't at this event.
You defending that is nothing but pathetic.
And your anti-authority lectures and "eff the po-po" stance are getting tiresome.
Kilkrazy wrote:This has happened before.
The conclusion is that the police are fully entitled to shoot dogs that might possibly bite them.
Yes and no. It has to do with the circumstances. If it's during a breach or serving a warrant, they usually are. Animal control occasionally are present at these breaches or serving of these warrants if there's known to be a dog and it's "safe" for them to be present without endangering either the law enforcement officers or animal control officers.
In this circumstance it sounds like there might be more than this puff piece is telling us, but what else is new. We know that the dog escaped through a hole in a fence and didn't have its shots, and might not even have had a collar on.
Necroshea wrote:A cop, who's job is to maintain the peace of the community, has an encounter with a stray dog showing signs of aggression (yes people, barking can be a sign of aggression). If you cannot make sense out of why the cop would shoot such a dog then I don't know what to tell you.
Maybe the cop was trigger happy, maybe not, but the idea of a cop shooting an aggressive stray dog makes more sense than a cop waltzing about the neighborhood looking for something to shoot at.
Also, the fact that the dog was stray seems to be overlooked here.
The dog is the size of my fething foot (size 17), bro. It isn't harming anyone, and the cop is a huge prick.
The size doesn't matter as even small teeth can rip and tear, there's a reason that Dachshunds were used to hunt badgers.
Also the sites that were listed in the OP don't give signs of the cops being complete dicks. Cops shooting a charging pitbull is a sign of defense, shooting dangerous animals(tiger and cougar) is also pretty standard because they're fething dangerous animals. Also its beneficial to kill an injured deer and part of the hunter's code of ethics to make clean kills so the animal doesn't suffer too much.
As well, its important to make sure that your dogs don't, you know, wander around. That's part of being a responsible pet owner.
This case though is bad and from what I can read it seems that the officers should be punished for shooting the puppy for little reason.
"Sorrys Sir...we had a runaway weapon....and we couldn't brak the links...um saftey issue...no gloves....so 250 rounds belt through the tube...well um.....it started off with the occupier barking...prior training took over".
This is clearly a killing machine that the american police cannot handle. Can the police not solve things without A:using guns, Bepperspray or C:Ganging up on someone?
Asherian Command wrote: If you lived in IL, you would know that in the sururbs the police here get horribely bored because there are no major problems, they usually just pull people over and they are usually trigger happy. A police officer literally told me this. "I would shoot a kid if I saw that he had an airsoft gun. I don't care its a Lethal weapon." Then he said. "If we didn't know any better we would of gotten a sniper and no questions asked, fired upon you kids." Two parents turned around and told the officer to leave the property. *facepalm* The police just like to shoot stuff. And the ones in the city. some of them haven't even fired a shot because they don't want to kill anyone. But the ones in the urbs. Are trigger happy. I heard that from a Detective from Chicago.
do you believe you are special for having police that will do that? the same thing happens everywhere in the world. A police officer is requred to assume that any weapon held by another person is lethal. What, do you suppose police offers would not shoot a man wearing a ski-mask becuse he has a gun spray-painted blue with an orange tip painted around its tip? Don't be naive, its increadible easy repaint a weapon. When it comes to firearms police have a shoot first ask questions later policy if the offending individual does not surrender himself and his firearm immediately. Consider that police still have families and lives of their own. THey also need to think of their own safety under the circumstnace. If being an officer was a 24/7 take it up the *cave* kind of job, it would be counterproductive to what the police are there to do.
As for the dog, german shephards are aggro, why the seven hells do you think police use them? Here is a dog that is probably unlicensed, without the correct vaccinations, loose in the street. Officers are still required to act in the best interests of their own safety. I don't think you people understand how badly even a jack russell terrier can savage you. My mother had to get 7 stitches on her finger because the russell bit her as she was trying to separate our dog from the russell before my dog got PO'd and destroyed it. Size doesn't matter. If it comes up to your knees, and its an aggro breed, its big enough to cause serious damage. Under the information provided in this article, the police acted accordingly.
You have to realise that police are also human. Any parents in this thread can realise how frustrating it is when you have 3 little ones that are causing all sorts of gak all the time, eventually, you just snap on all three of them, and don't care who started it, because you sure as damn well are going to finish it. They get a *little* tired of having to deal with people's dumb exploits when those people have been warned, told or otherwise dealt with, or have to deal with the same thing several times over, especially when you know that these people should know better.
EDIT(s): finished thoughts, grammar and removed some expletives.
This is clearly a killing machine that the american police cannot handle. Can the police not solve things without A:using guns, Bepperspray or C:Ganging up on someone?
Can you ever chime in on anything about "American police" with anything that isn't trolling?
What's that? You can't, because you really have no clue what in the world you're talking about?
Well that's okay then. Let me educate you:
Police aren't supposed to "handle" dogs. If they're called, usually it's because a dog has attacked someone and the person who was attacked wants to file charges against the owner for negligence. In this case it sounds like the officers were called in about a stray, and seeing as how they don't carry tranquilizer guns(since tranquilizer guns require very specific ratios of tranquilizer to mass of the animal, metabolism, etc) they likely would have tried to approach or call the dog to get it to come to them to check it for tags.
If the dog had bitten someone or was acting like it was rabid, pretty much the only humane thing they can do is shoot it. Pepper spray, tasers, etc can all cause death or permanent injuries fairly easily in dogs. Which if that had happened would be construed as "animal cruelty".
And just as an FYI: there's a reason pepper spray or "ganging up on someone"(what the feth is this supposed to mean? Cops "gang up on someone"? Where? You mean during an arrest? That's called forcing submission) are used. They don't result in harmful side-effects even used relatively improperly...you know, side-effects like death.
if there is a cat on your lap, do you immediately stop touching it the moment it hisses at you? Yes. It's a sign of aggression. Barking is a neutral sign in and of itself. This article does not give us the information of what posture the dog had. If the dog was low, ears back and teeth bared when it was barking, then it was an aggressive stance .
If you think police are overagressive self-superior types, and you think they need to be put in their place, maybe why don't you go ahead and join the police force and restore the balance if you are so just? Then we can criticize you every time you do absolutely anything, and then crap down your neck when you don't do anything, and blame you for not keeping criminals off the street every time the court releases them back out into public.
How the feth is a tiny dog barking at you threatening?
Gak, I'd just kick the damn thing and send it flying...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
poda_t wrote:if there is a cat on your lap, do you immediately stop touching it the moment it hisses at you?
You fail at interpreting animal body language / sounds.
Our family dogs bark in excitement any time someone pulls up the driveway because they want attention. Now if the dogs were GROWLING, yeah, they're being aggressive. But barking? They're just saying hello.
Geeze, I know this much and I'm a cat lover, I hate dogs. You must have never really had any interactions with animals in your life... if you only know your cat is angry when they're hissing, you're REALLY not paying attention. To someone whom actually KNOWS their cat and pays attention, the signs are obvious well before then.
Melissia wrote:How the feth is a tiny dog barking at you threatening?
Gak, I'd just kick the damn thing and send it flying...
I don't think you appreciate just how badly a dog can savage you. Coming up to your knees is more than big enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
poda_t wrote:if there is a cat on your lap, do you immediately stop touching it the moment it hisses at you?
You fail at interpreting animal body language / sounds.
Our family dogs bark in excitement any time someone pulls up the driveway because they want attention. Now if the dogs were GROWLING, yeah, they're being aggressive. But barking? They're just saying hello.
No, I actually I do not fail at interpreting animal body languge or sounds. Dogs do bark when they are agressive, it's something that was bred into dogs so that they could raise an alarm. There is also a clear distinction between the way an excited bark and an aggressive bark sounds. If the dog is maintaining a low posture and growling or barking, its an agressive stance, it's one I watch out for every time I encounter other dogs when I'm in the park, and sure enough whenever either dog has that posture, one of them starts trying to snap at the other's face. Generally speaking, an excited dog does not stand 6 feet from you, staring you down, maintaining a low/ready posture while growling OR barking at you. I have never seen an excited dog behave like that.
We've had a large number of dogs, and my mother was a dog trainer. She worked with the police department training some of their dogs. One dog wound its way into our hands after it had been through a few other trainers to try and calm the dog down (german shaphard). We had limited success and had to put the animal down because it was simply too aggressive to use as a police dog and posed a real danger to anyone entering the property, invited or otherwise.
This article does not give enough information, but I'm pretty sure that the dog wasn't barking in joy.
poda_t wrote:I don't think you appreciate just how badly a dog can savage you
I know how badly a dog can savage me.
But I also am more competent than around animals the police officer indicated in the original post, and am able to recognize body language and know that barking is by itself not an indicate aggression.
poda_t wrote:No, I actually I do not fail at interpreting animal body languge or sounds.
Yes you did. It did not say growling. It didn't say snapping. It didn't say there's any aggressive stance being taken, or a defensive stance for that matter. Only that it was barking.
Dogs can bark when they're happy. Dogs can bark when they're just plain bored. Dogs can bark when they're mad. Or when they're just saying hi. Barking alone does not indicate aggression, no matter how much you might try to claim otherwise. You might as well say that greeting someone is aggressive, and therefor you should be able to shoot anyone who greets you.
Sorry to tar them all with the same brush, but american police seem a bit trigger happy when it comes to animals, bit like when they shot all them endangered lions / tigers etc that some idiot let loose, (couldn't they have darted them?).
monkeyh wrote:Sorry to tar them all with the same brush, but american police seem a bit trigger happy when it comes to animals, bit like when they shot all them endangered lions / tigers etc that some idiot let loose, (couldn't they have darted them?).
Once again:
POLICE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DEALING WITH ANIMALS.
When police are called in, there is only one feasible way for them to deal with a situation involving animals.
And really, the "lions/tigers" that some idiot let loose were actually running wild. As in, out of their enclosures where they could attack people if they weren't put down. And once again, "just darting" something isn't that easy. It requires knowledge of the basics of the animals weight, metabolism, reaction to tranquilizers, etc.
But since police have at least some stupid and/or bored members, as well as some level of corruption, should they be able to interpret "cat sniffing their boots" as "aggressive" and shoot the cat?
Melissia wrote: Barking alone does not indicate aggression, no matter how much you might try to claim otherwise.
The claim was that it is a neutral thing that can go either way.
Melissia wrote: It didn't say there's any aggressive stance being taken, or a defensive stance for that matter. Only that it was barking.
"This article does not give enough information, but I'm pretty sure that the dog wasn't barking in joy."
Where in his post are you getting that he said that the dog was acting one way or another. It seems to me that he stated quite clearly that he has no way of knowing. He says that chances are it was aggressive in nature, but he never claims that that was the case.
Why do you always come into these threads trying to start argument? Maybe you should spend some time away from OT and get into the 40k tactics thread or something. Spend your time posting helpful articles for people instead of getting riled up over silly threads.
Melissia wrote:But since police have at least some stupid and/or bored members, as well as some level of corruption, should they be able to interpret "cat sniffing their boots" as "aggressive" and shoot the cat?
What does this have to do with anything?
The "stupidity", "boredom" or "corruption" have nothing to do with SOP regarding animals.
Cats also can't really cause that much harm to a person, not like a dog could.
Now, if we're talking about a mountain lion or something it's a different story. A mountain lion getting that close to someone behaving relatively peaceably probably would be shot, just because as people will tell you: "wild animals are unpredictable animals".
Melissia wrote:Necroshea: When he compared barking to hissing, any respect I have for his apparently imaginary experience with animals was thrown out the window.
The two are not equivalent, not even close.
I agree with you totally, cats and dogs work in totally different ways. However, I've never seen a cat hiss in a friendly way. I won't pretend to understand cats, but I do know through experience that a hiss is not a good thing. While a hiss is generally negative a bark is neutral.
Howz about this guys. We just step away from the thread, or watch it unfold from a distance. When and if we get more info on what exactly happened we can get back to discussing things with new found facts and angles regarding the situation.
Growling is the equivilant of hissing not barking...
Barkign has many uses and functions. Barking is a means of warning others of danger, bringing attention to intruders/agressors, letting others know that they are not welcome, communicating stress, tension, nervousness,etc.
barking often preceedes agression, but agression oftencomes when attempts to scare/drive away via barking has failed...
Can we simply file this away under "cops being gung-ho a-holes" where it belongs?
poda_t wrote:No, I actually I do not fail at interpreting animal body languge or sounds.
Yes you did. It did not say growling. It didn't say snapping. It didn't say there's any aggressive stance being taken, or a defensive stance for that matter. Only that it was barking.
Dogs can bark when they're happy. Dogs can bark when they're just plain bored. Dogs can bark when they're mad. Or when they're just saying hi. Barking alone does not indicate aggression, no matter how much you might try to claim otherwise. You might as well say that greeting someone is aggressive, and therefor you should be able to shoot anyone who greets you.
and intentionally misreading me and rephrasing my statments as arguments against me is not conducive of me appreciating your statments. I know that dogs can bark for any reason, but their stance and posture go a long way to explaining the dogs intent. I repeat again that there is a clear difference in the sound of an excited bark and the sound of an aggressive bark. The dog's posture and behaviour also contribute to the dog's intent, and from what I read in the article of the dog's behavior is completely inconsistent with the behaviour of a happy excited puppy.
Under the circumstances the article mentions several crucial things; Townsend was charged with having a dangerous dog The dog was at large Townsend was charged with not having the dog vaccinated. The dog was barking at the officers and maintaining a wary distance
The police were patently aware of the danger posed by this dog. It came up to the officers knee, which is large enough to cause extensive damage if the dog attacked, and the dog was a german shephard (mix). Considering that German Shephards are used as attack dogs specifically because of their capacity for agression, there are already plenty of flags that give reasonable evidence that the officers acted in accordance. (in fact, the ideal dog size is one that comes up between knee and mid-thigh, as attack dogs need to be transported between locations, if the animal is too large it poses the danger of having a bite that is too large and cause life-threatening damage, and of course, avoiding health problems that are the bane of every over-sized dog) There are no details given as to growling, and that coudl very well be, as it states in the article, that the two witnesses had just turned onto the street, and the only thing might have been capable of hearing is the barking. Either way, german shephards are not that renowned for being incredibly friendly people loving dogs. Collies are friendly. In fact they are annoying in how friendly they are. Poodles, friendly. Labs? Friendly. Greyhounds? Relatively harmless. German Shephards? There is a clear and patent reason they are classed as attack/guard dogs. The same thing with rotweilers and pitbulls. There's a good reason why those breeds are also heavily policed because of their use as pit dogs.
as insistently as you want to misread me melissa, there are things absent in this article. For instance, was the dog growling or not. That's irrelevant. I've encountered dogs that were agressive that haven't growled. As I mentioned, I have to watch out for this type of behaviour whenever I go to the park because my dog is not castrated, and while he is usually docile, I can't know how he will react to another uncastrated dog, or how it will react in response.
If the dog was happy and friendly, it would not have been barking at the officers walking towards them and backing off. It would ahve come and nuzzled right up to them. I have never seen an excited dog bark at someone because they are happy, while at the same time avoid at all costs coming near the source of their happiness. This article screams sensational anti-establishment bias.
Since I own dogs...one of the first thing I would do...is check the fence line to see any opening my two knuckleheads might get through....even if it hints as a possible route of escape. It gets 2 by 4 or 4 by 4. I spent enough money on my two dogs. Also...I am very aware on what could happen if they get loose. I would not fault the cops if they shoot my shiba if he acted in that way against them. I even replace their rounds expended
Well my main complaint is that they opened fire on the poor bastard. The Police just seem trigger happy especially if they charged the poor guy even though literally they pulled out their guns and fired the darn thing five times. You only need one bullet for a puppy. Even then the problem is if there is a stray animal call animal control.. Thats their job.....
Not the officers.
I mean i live right next to a friggen forest. I see wolves, coyotes, foxes, helk i even saw a bear. I am not going to call the police. I am going to tell the rangers at the forest preserve which is like 2 miles away and tell them there is a bear in the area, and they will grab their twelve gauge and kill the darn thing.
Police aren't supposed to "handle" dogs. If they're called, usually it's because a dog has attacked someone and the person who was attacked wants to file charges against the owner for negligence. In this case it sounds like the officers were called in about a stray, and seeing as how they don't carry tranquilizer guns(since tranquilizer guns require very specific ratios of tranquilizer to mass of the animal, metabolism, etc) they likely would have tried to approach or call the dog to get it to come to them to check it for tags.
If the dog had bitten someone or was acting like it was rabid, pretty much the only humane thing they can do is shoot it. Pepper spray, tasers, etc can all cause death or permanent injuries fairly easily in dogs. Which if that had happened would be construed as "animal cruelty".
And just as an FYI: there's a reason pepper spray or "ganging up on someone"(what the feth is this supposed to mean? Cops "gang up on someone"? Where? You mean during an arrest? That's called forcing submission) are used. They don't result in harmful side-effects even used relatively improperly...you know, side-effects like death.
During the Occupy protests, several police officers ganged up on a protester that was in a ball hitting and kicking him. Then they stop, the protester curls out and the cops go back to kicking him. Your closing was flame bait and could have simply left out a skin color to be a lot less offensive.
Let me further paint a clearer picture. Has anyone ever actually tried controlling a dog that was actively ingaged in lockings jaws around someone's body and savaging it? At this point, the only thing you can do, becuase of the inherent danger to the subject the dog is attacking, is to try to remove the dog from the other person. Try and do that, and now it bites you instead, and startes gleefully sawing its teeth through your hand/wrist etc. Trying to control a dog after it has attacked and is still attacking is near impossible, unless the dog is trained to respond to your commands. Once the dog has attacked, the officers would be not be in a position to control the dog. They can't shoot now because they will strike the other officer, and producing the baton also poses a risk of striking the partner and injuring him further.
I guarantee that Jihadin or any others that have served in the military can back me up on this. When you are in a dangerous position, you don't have the minutes to assess your response. You need to make the decision now and hope to god it was the right one.
How about backing off and calling animal control? Imagine if they took this attitude towards bombs-- instead of backing off and calling the bomb squad, they just shoot the damn thing.
If the dog had charged at the officer or somesuch it'd be understandable. But a dog that's merely barking... the damned canines at this house bark at EVERYTHING. Even eachother.
What would happen if the police back off and called animal control and then the dog ranned off and bit a kid? Then everyone be on the cops for not doing their job on protecting the public
Me personnaly...I peppered spray the little fuzzy bastage. I do not like popping rounds off in a residential area since Murphey a mofo. I wouldn't take a chance of a misplaced round. Me pepper spraying the dog is in no reference to OWS
Jihadin wrote:Me personnaly...I peppered spray the little fuzzy bastage. I do not like popping rounds off in a residential area since Murphey a mofo. I wouldn't take a chance of a misplaced round.
Makes sense to me.
Actually, many gardeners mix hot sauce in to their watering specifically to discourage dogs or cats from nosing around in the garden.
Jihadin wrote:Me personnaly...I peppered spray the little fuzzy bastage. I do not like popping rounds off in a residential area since Murphey a mofo. I wouldn't take a chance of a misplaced round.
Makes sense to me.
Actually, many gardeners mix hot sauce in to their watering specifically to discourage dogs or cats from nosing around in the garden.
Random Tangent... I tried making a mix like that to discourage a gerbil from chewing on stuff it wasn't supposed to. Turns out the gerbil Really liked the stuff and would lick it all off. Then chew on the objects anyway.
poda_t wrote:Under the circumstances the article mentions several crucial things; Townsend was charged with having a dangerous dog The dog was at large Townsend was charged with not having the dog vaccinated. The dog was barking at the officers and maintaining a wary distance
So what we can conclude from this (given that these are simply charges that the cops threw on the guy after the fact): the dog was barking at the cops from a distance.
This justified shooting the dog five times.
I'm sure you can see the absurdity of this defense of the assailants.
poda_t wrote:Under the circumstances the article mentions several crucial things;
Townsend was charged with having a dangerous dog
The dog was at large
Townsend was charged with not having the dog vaccinated.
The dog was barking at the officers and maintaining a wary distance
So what we can conclude from this (given that these are simply charges that the cops threw on the guy after the fact): the dog was barking at the cops from a distance.
This justified shooting the dog five times.
I'm sure you can see the absurdity of this defense of the assailants.
I'm pretty sure what happened was this Townsend guy was annoying them and perhaps even being an arse to them and to "one-up" him they killed his dog to spite him as they knew they could claim it was a danger on the grounds that those defending them are citing here.
Bottom line: oh you want to be difficult? Well your dog is dead. We win.
Because the owner was a dick the dog died.
As for the needing to protect the community/local kids? I'd be pissed if cops came into my neighborhood and fired off five rounds to kill a stray dog without tryng to capture/eliminate it in a way that doesn't allow the possability of bullets flying around my neighborhood...
Asherian Command wrote:
If you lived in IL, you would know that in the sururbs the police here get horribely bored because there are no major problems, they usually just pull people over and they are usually trigger happy.
When I was 15 a distinguished member of the Naperville police department drew his weapon on my friends and I while attempting to arrest us for TPing a house belonging to the parents of another friend. The running joke is that Naperville is an awful lot like Sandford.
poda_t wrote:Under the circumstances the article mentions several crucial things;
Townsend was charged with having a dangerous dog
The dog was at large
Townsend was charged with not having the dog vaccinated.
The dog was barking at the officers and maintaining a wary distance
So what we can conclude from this (given that these are simply charges that the cops threw on the guy after the fact): the dog was barking at the cops from a distance.
This justified shooting the dog five times.
I'm sure you can see the absurdity of this defense of the assailants.
I'm pretty sure what happened was this Townsend guy was annoying them and perhaps even being an arse to them and to "one-up" him they killed his dog to spite him as they knew they could claim it was a danger on the grounds that those defending them are citing here.
That's grasping for some serious straws. Nowhere does it say that Townsend had any contact with the officers who shot the dog, until after he "went looking for his dog".
Bottom line: oh you want to be difficult? Well your dog is dead. We win.
Because the owner was a dick the dog died.
No, because the dog got loose, acted in a manner consistent with a rabid dog, and barked at officers who likely were called in about a rabid animal--the dog died.
I understand the urge to play "Fill in the Blanks" with news stories is great, but it only leads to ridiculous and outlandish theories. What next, are you going to say the cops bashed a hole in the fence so that they could kill the children's "beloved puppy" and traumatize them as a way to get back at Townsend?
Necroshea wrote:Javel Townsend said his two sons, ages 10 and 11, are crying and hollering in their sleep, calling out their beloved puppy’s name.
Seems like an attempt to have you side with the writer by using children
Of course it is, because it has little or no relevance to the story.
“I guess police got fed up with him barking and shot him,” Townsend said Thursday. “I want to know why they had to shoot him.”
Key word here, guess
The key words here are, "I want to know why"
Christy Matthews of Johnsburg said she witnessed the dog’s shooting.
She grew up on Woodridge Street (which intersects with Lotus near Townsend’s home) and was driving down the street when she said she saw a Round Lake Beach police officer aiming a weapon at a barking dog.
Ok, a witness to the event, this gives us an idea of what happened
Altgeld was barking a lot, but was not foaming at the mouth or acting aggressively, Matthews said.
A stray dog barking at you sounds pretty agressive to me
Yes, and stray cats mewling is aggressive behavior too, it's not like cats or dogs have a specific action that could be interpreted as aggression; like growling or hissing.
“The dog did not do anything. It wasn’t even a big dog — it came up maybe to the officer’s knee,” Matthews said.
Big enough to cause you harm if they wanted to
Fair enough
She described herself as an animal lover. She also owns a shepherd mix, which is a vocal breed, she said.
Red flag here. Her opinions could very well be shaping her interpretation of events
Just like you (see below)
Townsend was issued tickets for the dog not having shots, for owning a dangerous dog and for the dog being at large. He is due in court Nov. 1 and is in discussions with an attorney.
Witness has just lost credibility
Your opinion seems to have shaped your interpretation of credibility. I find it odd that a man named "Townsend" being issued a ticket makes a witness named "Matthews" statements not credible. The two being unrelated short of the woman holding a "PETA against KFC" sign while she carries more credibility than the cop that needed 5 shots to down a mid-to small size dog. He either missed 4 times, endangering the community, or discharged his weapon excessively into an animal that was already dead or dying after hit one. But I digress.
monkeyh wrote:Sorry to tar them all with the same brush, but american police seem a bit trigger happy when it comes to animals, bit like when they shot all them endangered lions / tigers etc that some idiot let loose, (couldn't they have darted them?).
I'm interested to know weather or not the police in your country carry dart guns with them wherever they go, or if the London metro police own tranquilizer guns at all, and then further if more rural departments have them. I can say with certainty that a majority (if not all) patrol officers in the States do not carry such "devices" with them on a regular basis. A more correct statement is "couldn't he have contacted Animal Control and let them deal with the problem."
I was a little disappointed when I read the article. Before opening I had this vision of the cop leaning over the owners fence and shooting the dog. Then I bothered to read the article. The poor animal got loose, either because his owner was negligent or because he was curious and made a way out to explore. Unless I missed it the article just kept calling the dog a "shepherd mix" I see that at least one person has assumed that means German Shepard but it could easily be an Old English Sheep Dog...which is about as non threatening as sheep dogs get, or a Collie mix which used to be quite popular. I don't generally think of Collies barking as threatening.
Granted Rough Collies are a fairly large breed and dangerous when they want to be.
Kanluwen wrote:Yeah, well there's not crap they can do about it. SOP for police is if an animal is threatening themselves or someone else, put it down.
That's nonsense, of course. The officers in question aren't automatons, after all. Then there's the whole "Current SOP is not very good." line of argument. Then there's argument from threat perception. The argument from dispatch error. The argument from disproportionate force. You get the idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
No, because the dog got loose, acted in a manner consistent with a rabid dog, and barked at officers who likely were called in about a rabid animal--the dog died.
I understand the urge to play "Fill in the Blanks" with news stories is great, but it only leads to ridiculous and outlandish theories. What next, are you going to say the cops bashed a hole in the fence so that they could kill the children's "beloved puppy" and traumatize them as a way to get back at Townsend?
Kanluwen wrote:
Cats also can't really cause that much harm to a person, not like a dog could.
That's only because you associate "cat" with a domestic house cat instead of including mainecoons, bobcats, and ocelots. Let alone the more exotic cougar cheetah and lynx. I take that back cougars aren't that exotic, mountain lions wander into town fairly often.
Kanluwen wrote:No, because the dog got loose, acted in a manner consistent with a rabid dog, and barked at officers who likely were called in about a rabid animal--the dog died.
A dog barking at someone is "a manner consistent with a rabid dog"? Is this behavior any different than a non-rabid dog might engage in?
Kanluwen wrote:Yeah, well there's not crap they can do about it. SOP for police is if an animal is threatening themselves or someone else, put it down.
That's nonsense, of course. The officers in question aren't automatons, after all. Then there's the whole "Current SOP is not very good." line of argument. Then there's argument from threat perception. The argument from dispatch error. The argument from disproportionate force. You get the idea.
Then there's the argument of "if the cops didn't do it and something happened, they'd still be strung up for it".
With animals, if it's safely contained--they can call animal control. If it's running wild, it's a sad fact but the cops do sometimes have to put them down.
Kanluwen wrote:
No, because the dog got loose, acted in a manner consistent with a rabid dog, and barked at officers who likely were called in about a rabid animal--the dog died.
I understand the urge to play "Fill in the Blanks" with news stories is great, but it only leads to ridiculous and outlandish theories. What next, are you going to say the cops bashed a hole in the fence so that they could kill the children's "beloved puppy" and traumatize them as a way to get back at Townsend?
Bold indicates ironic statements.
Oh I'm sorry. How could I forget that clearly, the story did not state that the dog slipped out through a hole in the fence or that it barked repeatedly at the officers and kept backing itself into someone's yard when they approached it.
Look up the behavior of rabid animals sometime. That's how they behave. "Foaming at the mouth" is not the end all, be all indicator of a rabid or sick animal.
AustonT wrote:
That's only because you associate "cat" with a domestic house cat instead of including mainecoons, bobcats, and ocelots. Let alone the more exotic cougar cheetah and lynx. I take that back cougars aren't that exotic, mountain lions wander into town fairly often.
Kanluwen wrote:
Cats also can't really cause that much harm to a person, not like a dog could.
That's only because you associate "cat" with a domestic house cat instead of including mainecoons, bobcats, and ocelots. Let alone the more exotic cougar cheetah and lynx. I take that back cougars aren't that exotic, mountain lions wander into town fairly often.
Are you really going to say that when talking about "cats" in a thread about a dog getting loose that we're referring to bobcats, ocelots, and mainecoons?
biccat wrote:A dog barking at someone is "a manner consistent with a rabid dog"? Is this behavior any different than a non-rabid dog might engage in?
Please pay attention. I'm not going to explain this again.
A dog constantly barking at someone and alternating between passive and aggressive behavior frequently in one encounter is a manner consistent with a rabid dog at the outset of rabies taking hold. A non-rabid dog will display some very tell-tale behavior that will let you be able to tell between "play"/"investigative" barking and "warning" barking. Most notably, their tails and their posturing will be a dead give-away. In most breeds, when a dog feels threaten they will not wag their tails. Their tails stiffen and point straight up, while they'll also draw their head slight back into their neck so as to bare less of their throat.
When a dog is playing or being friendly, they'll continually wag their tails or expose their throats as it's a kind of "trust" factor.
Do the cops have special "rabid dog" training?
Of course not, other than "if it's acting strangely and won't engage with humans properly--it very well might be rabid".
Animal Control is (shock!) the people who are supposed to be called, but most people just call the cops instead and we get this kind of thing.
Kanluwen wrote:
Then there's the argument of "if the cops didn't do it and something happened, they'd still be strung up for it".
Too bad, you don't like criticism, choose a different profession. Its like a politician whining because some part of the body politic is displeased.
Kanluwen wrote:
With animals, if it's safely contained--they can call animal control. If it's running wild, it's a sad fact but the cops do sometimes have to put them down.
Alternatively, general police could be trained to handle animals. I mean, especially in the location in question, that's a large part of what they're called on to do.
Kanluwen wrote:
Oh I'm sorry. How could I forget that clearly, the story did not state that the dog slipped out through a hole in the fence or that it barked repeatedly at the officers and kept backing itself into someone's yard when they approached it.
Look up the behavior of rabid animals sometime. That's how they behave. "Foaming at the mouth" is not the end all, be all indicator of a rabid or sick animal.
The joke is never as good when you have to explain it, but the point being made was that you are reading details into a news story while telling someone off for reading details into a news story. The details you're adding being related to the nature of the call on police.
Also, I once had a dog that ran away, it slipped through a hole in our, admittedly rather shoddy, fence and barked at numerous people. This dog was not rabid. Why assume that the dog is rabid?
Kanluwen wrote:
Then there's the argument of "if the cops didn't do it and something happened, they'd still be strung up for it".
Too bad, you don't like criticism, choose a different profession. Its like a politician whining because some part of the body politic is displeased.
I didn't say "I don't like criticism". I'm saying no matter what, there would be complaints. You cannot please everyone, especially when it comes to law enforcement.
Kanluwen wrote:
With animals, if it's safely contained--they can call animal control. If it's running wild, it's a sad fact but the cops do sometimes have to put them down.
Alternatively, general police could be trained to handle animals. I mean, especially in the location in question, that's a large part of what they're called on to do.
Illinois? I'm fairly certain that "handling animals" is not part of the police job description.
For that matter, even being trained to "handle animals" does not magically make a solution appear out of thin air. Unless officers start carrying tranquilizer guns(unlikely) or start tazing dogs(just as dangerous for the dog as a human), there's not really an easy solution outside of properly tag and monitor your animals.
Kanluwen wrote:
Oh I'm sorry. How could I forget that clearly, the story did not state that the dog slipped out through a hole in the fence or that it barked repeatedly at the officers and kept backing itself into someone's yard when they approached it.
Look up the behavior of rabid animals sometime. That's how they behave. "Foaming at the mouth" is not the end all, be all indicator of a rabid or sick animal.
The joke is never as good when you have to explain it, but the point being made was that you are reading details into a news story while telling someone off for reading details into a news story. The details you're adding being related to the nature of the call on police.
I'm aware of the irony in the statement. However, like I said: The story stated that the dog escaped and that it barked repeatedly at the officers, while the dog had no collar, no leash, no owner, and no tags running around in a neighborhood that intersects with the owner's.
As to your joke: I just didn't see it as anything funny, just assumed it was another attempt to discredit someone's argument by making dry commentary.
Also, I once had a dog that ran away, it slipped through a hole in our, admittedly rather shoddy, fence and barked at numerous people. This dog was not rabid. Why assume that the dog is rabid?
Was your dog backing itself into a corner while barking at people?
Was it properly tagged with a collar on?
Did it only stay in your direct neighborhood, where people who might know the dog would see it?
Because in this case, none of those criteria seemingly were met. People treat dogs that they "know" very differently than those they see wandering around.
Also, I once had a dog that ran away, it slipped through a hole in our, admittedly rather shoddy, fence and barked at numerous people. This dog was not rabid. Why assume that the dog is rabid?
because the owner is already up on charges for having been in posession of a dangerous dog at one point in his lifetime, and because the owner was also charged with not having the 9 month old german shepherd immunized. specifically, I quote:
Townsend was issued tickets for the dog not having shots
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
dogma wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
With animals, if it's safely contained--they can call animal control. If it's running wild, it's a sad fact but the cops do sometimes have to put them down.
Alternatively, general police could be trained to handle animals. I mean, especially in the location in question, that's a large part of what they're called on to do.
Illinois? I'm fairly certain that "handling animals" is not part of the police job description.
I am going to be that technical ass, and say "Canine Unit". Again, even if a canine unit was present, they would probably have shot the dog to avoid any risk to their own.
When do they start school in Illinois? This article is dated Oct 6, and says he moved in a week before school started. seems an awful long time to not know that there is a hole in the fence where you are keeping potentially harmful animals. not saying his dogs are trained killers, but general rule of thumb is to regard all pets as potentially dangerous, hence supervising them and ensuring their security. Neither of which he did, it seems.
The cop acted as he saw fit and I believe he was justified. A "dangerous dog" according to most state laws is an unattended dog that acts in a way that could be conceived as harmful to the surrounding public. Just because a dog comes up to a cops knees, a full grown man, doesn't mean it couldn't still cause serious harm to a child if its left to its own devices.
Its one thing if the owner was chasing after his loose dog and the cop just walked up while he was trying to apprehend the animal and filled it with lead right in front of the owner. But that wasn't the case here. Owner was negligent on multiple counts and the cop used his discretion on what was best for this situation, as is his right.
NELS1031 wrote:Just because a dog comes up to a cops knees, a full grown man, doesn't mean it couldn't still cause serious harm to a child if its left to its own devices.
Or a grown man, too. Dogs have strong jaws and sharp teeth, and the femoral artery isn't difficult to get to.
NELS1031 wrote:Just because a dog comes up to a cops knees, a full grown man, doesn't mean it couldn't still cause serious harm to a child if its left to its own devices.
Or a grown man, too. Dogs have strong jaws and sharp teeth, and the femoral artery isn't difficult to get to.
True enough. And a police officer is well accustomed to the damage a german shep can do, as its their most prolific service dog.
Kanluwen wrote:
Cats also can't really cause that much harm to a person, not like a dog could.
That's only because you associate "cat" with a domestic house cat instead of including mainecoons, bobcats, and ocelots. Let alone the more exotic cougar cheetah and lynx. I take that back cougars aren't that exotic, mountain lions wander into town fairly often.
Are you really going to say that when talking about "cats" in a thread about a dog getting loose that we're referring to bobcats, ocelots, and mainecoons?
Yes how could the second most popularly reistered cat in North America that can grow as large as 25 lbs POSSIBLY be considered as feasible, why that's just absurd! Why you would have to reduce the entire supply of ONE other cat breed to make it the MOST likely possibility. And NOBODY owns bobcats either, not even this crazy cat lady
or this dedicated breeder
http://www.bobcatsmt.com/index.htm And even if they weren't owned as pets they would NEVER attack a person.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284635,00.html Why you're more likely to run into a black footed ferret while working the beat than such rare and elusive creatures as mainecoons and bobcats.
Black footed ferret range
Bobcat range
On a second look at this map, perhaps the vigilance of the police is the reason bobcats have been pushed out of Illinois.
Kanluwen wrote:
I didn't say "I don't like criticism". I'm saying no matter what, there would be complaints. You cannot please everyone, especially when it comes to law enforcement.
I was using "you" in the nonspecific sense. But, even if you want it to be specific, the point stands. Arguing that criticism X is unimportant because criticism Y would occur if the proscribed action were taken does not invalidate criticism X. Its just deflection.
Kanluwen wrote:
Illinois? I'm fairly certain that "handling animals" is not part of the police job description.
And yet they apparently get dispatched to handle animals, rabid and otherwise; frequently if news reports are any indication.
Are you implying that the average officer lacks the general human competence to internalize basic training regarding the handling of animals?
Kanluwen wrote:
For that matter, even being trained to "handle animals" does not magically make a solution appear out of thin air. Unless officers start carrying tranquilizer guns(unlikely) or start tazing dogs(just as dangerous for the dog as a human), there's not really an easy solution outside of properly tag and monitor your animals.
In the Chicago suburb in which I grew up all squad cars are equipped with an assault rifle or shotgun. Are you implying that people entrusted with the operation of an assault rifle or shotgun cannot be trusted to operate a device that expels, via air pressure, a dart designed to subdue a target without killing it?
Kanluwen wrote:
As to your joke: I just didn't see it as anything funny, just assumed it was another attempt to discredit someone's argument by making dry commentary.
Of course you don't see anything funny, the joke was at your expense. And yes, it was meant to discredit your argument, and was quite dry. However, neither of those things imply failure on my part.
Kanluwen wrote:
Because in this case, none of those criteria seemingly were met. People treat dogs that they "know" very differently than those they see wandering around.
Which doesn't make such treatment any less foolish, or predicated on other than reason. You're deflecting again.
Kanluwen wrote:
I didn't say "I don't like criticism". I'm saying no matter what, there would be complaints. You cannot please everyone, especially when it comes to law enforcement.
I was using "you" in the nonspecific sense. But, even if you want it to be specific, the point stands. Arguing that criticism X is unimportant because criticism Y would occur if the proscribed action were taken does not invalidate criticism X. Its just deflection.
And your point of criticism is not deflection?
Kanluwen wrote:
Illinois? I'm fairly certain that "handling animals" is not part of the police job description.
And yet they apparently get dispatched to handle animals, rabid and otherwise; frequently if news reports are any indication.
Are you implying that the average officer lacks the general human competence to internalize basic training regarding the handling of animals?
Sigh.
Yes. Let's totally waste time and resources training officers to deal with something which by its very nature is very difficult to train for.
Kanluwen wrote:
For that matter, even being trained to "handle animals" does not magically make a solution appear out of thin air. Unless officers start carrying tranquilizer guns(unlikely) or start tazing dogs(just as dangerous for the dog as a human), there's not really an easy solution outside of properly tag and monitor your animals.
In the Chicago suburb in which I grew up all squad cars are equipped with an assault rifle or shotgun. Are you implying that people entrusted with the operation of an assault rifle or shotgun cannot be trusted to operate a device that expels, via air pressure, a dart designed to subdue a target without killing it?
Pay attention. I'm trying not to use big words here.
Tranquilizer guns are not simple devices. You following me so far?
There are a lot of specifics to know when tranquilizing an animal, just like sedating a human being. There's a reason that cops don't run around with tranquilizer guns loaded up to take down people committing crimes. You need to be able to tell very specific characteristics of an animal. Metabolism, age, and weight are three of the biggest factors to take into account when tranquilizing any animal especially mammals. Too little and it's ineffective, too much and you can kill the animal as surely as if you put a bullet into its head.
Kanluwen wrote:
As to your joke: I just didn't see it as anything funny, just assumed it was another attempt to discredit someone's argument by making dry commentary.
Of course you don't see anything funny, the joke was at your expense. And yes, it was meant to discredit your argument, and was quite dry. However, neither of those things imply failure on my part.
They certainly don't imply success.
Kanluwen wrote:
Because in this case, none of those criteria seemingly were met. People treat dogs that they "know" very differently than those they see wandering around.
Which doesn't make such treatment any less foolish, or predicated on other than reason. You're deflecting again.
Yes, I'm totally deflecting. Never mind your anecdote about how your dog escaped through a hole in your fence and didn't get shot.
Kanluwen wrote:
And your point of criticism is not deflection?
No, because I directly attacked the point you made.
To wit:
You: If the police had done X, instead of Y, people would still be mad.
Me: Whether or not X inspires different criticism is not relevant to the criticism of Y.
Kanluwen wrote:
Sigh.
Yes. Let's totally waste time and resources training officers to deal with something which by its very nature is very difficult to train for.
So you're saying we shouldn't train officers to deal with hostile citizens?
Kanluwen wrote:
Pay attention. I'm trying not to use big words here.
I am paying attention, which is really the cause of this problem you seem to be having.
Kanluwen wrote:
Tranquilizer guns are not simple devices. You following me so far?
There are a lot of specifics to know when tranquilizing an animal, just like sedating a human being. There's a reason that cops don't run around with tranquilizer guns loaded up to take down people committing crimes. You need to be able to tell very specific characteristics of an animal. Metabolism, age, and weight are three of the biggest factors to take into account when tranquilizing any animal especially mammals. Too little and it's ineffective, too much and you can kill the animal as surely as if you put a bullet into its head.
Again, are you implying that people entrusted with lethal weapons cannot be trusted, or trained, to carry weapons not so designed?
Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, I'm totally deflecting. Never mind your anecdote about how your dog escaped through a hole in your fence and didn't get shot.
This is also deflection. As compared to my anecdote regarding my dog, and the criteria you set forth, which was not.
Kanluwen wrote:
That was 100%, Grade-A on topic. Bravo!
Thank you, I aspire to be complimented by junior college graduates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
poda_t wrote:
because the owner is already up on charges for having been in posession of a dangerous dog at one point in his lifetime, and because the owner was also charged with not having the 9 month old german shepherd immunized. specifically, I quote:
Townsend was issued tickets for the dog not having shots
Police in the Chicago suburbs have a history of using unnecessary force, clearly then I should assume police in the Chicago suburbs will use unnecessary force and protect my person by way of active violence towards them.
Do you see the problem in this reasoning?
poda_t wrote:
I am going to be that technical ass, and say "Canine Unit". Again, even if a canine unit was present, they would probably have shot the dog to avoid any risk to their own.
Which ignores the point being made. Would is not should, and all that.
AustonT wrote:Big cat stuff, ferrets and some maps
Not to be rude, but how is any of that relevant to this discussion?
because i brought up the fact that you do not aggravate a hissing cat, so you shouldn't aggravate a barking dog whose behavior cannot be described as "friendly". For some reason people thought it was a good idea to expand upon the cat idea beyond my comparative pet behaviour anecdote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
poda_t wrote:
I am going to be that technical ass, and say "Canine Unit". Again, even if a canine unit was present, they would probably have shot the dog to avoid any risk to their own.
Which ignores the point being made. Would is not should, and all that.
While would and should are not the same thing, that dog should still have been shot. The owner was known to police as an offender, the dog was a risk for a number of reasons, and the officers had to act according to the best interests of the community. In this case the best interests of the community at large were served by the actions taken by the officers. Am I comfortable with the fact that it is what they would do to my dog under similar circumstances? Of course I would not be comfortable with it, but all things considered, they acted to the best of social interest with the information they had available to them.
I can guarantee you that if they had not done this, the news story would have read "Dog severely attacks neighbors, officers stand by" and people would be crapping down the necks of those officers anyway, and the dog would have been put down anyway, because if that dog was released, the entire community would be in uproar about the release of a violent dog.
Suppose I am walking down the street with a rifle. Do you think the officer is going to sit down and have a nice cup of tea with me? The moment I start raving and waving the rifle around, the first the he will do is shoot me. He won't be interested in whether or not I am suffering from clinical depression, on drugs, or just... or causeing mischief with a toy gun. The information is suspicious individual, armed, and not in control of himself. Why do you think police will open fire on an individual armed with what they suspect might be a toy/airsoft gun? If a police officer is not permitted to defend himself until after he has been shot at or maimed, the officer will firstly not be in a position to do his job, second, be unwilling to perform his job because he would need to be physically injured before he could make a response. The dog is the same thing. Officer arrives, made the assessment, and based on the available information acted in the best interests.
If you firmly think you can do an officer's job better, then why not join the force?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
poda_t wrote:
because the owner is already up on charges for having been in posession of a dangerous dog at one point in his lifetime, and because the owner was also charged with not having the 9 month old german shepherd immunized. specifically, I quote:
Townsend was issued tickets for the dog not having shots
Police in the Chicago suburbs have a history of using unnecessary force, clearly then I should assume police in the Chicago suburbs will use unnecessary force and protect my person by way of active violence towards them.
Do you see the problem in this reasoning?
Except that police are in the business of enforcing law and maintaining safety. When a police officer shows up because of your activity, it is generally a bad idea to continue to aggravate the police officer. Congratulations on trying to be clever. It has failed dismally. The fundamental fact is that we trust the police to protect us, and the police trust us to cooperate when we are in violation of the law. When that cooperation is not forthcoming police are fully within their right to subdue an individual and take that individual into custody. When a community happens to have a history of disobedience, then it comes as natural that authorities will respond with a heavy hand. Is that right? No, it's not, but the authorities, which you have entrusted with your protection, use their reasonable expectations of suspect behavior to gauge their response to a given call.
Precedent is enforced from the top down, not from the bottom up. It's why federal law bears precedent over state law, and why state law bears precedence over bylaw. The public at large is not within its right to detain police officers, because that would be an inherent corruption of the system. Do you want to clock the police officer in the face when he fines you for speeding or being drunk in public? Of course we all do, but if we start dictating how a police officer should conduct himself, it defeats the purpose of the police officer's duty to maintain law and order. We don't live in Ye Olde Englande anymore. We no longer live in communities where we all know each other and police each other anymore. So, your perversion of my argument is an amusing exercise in logic, and while it shows the thought processes of humanity, is unhelpful, because your line of thought suggests that given that there are criminals who assault people in this world, I should expect everyone in my daily interactions to be an aggressive criminal and pepper-spray them the moment they stray within 5 feet of my person.
The officers were within their right to shoot the dog, and given the circumstances, acted accordingly. I'm not advocating they shoot every dog, but they knew townsend was an offender. Suppose every time you played with a specific opponent, some of your models went missing. You have no proof that its him, but you know that he's the one doing it. Are you suggesting that your suspicion is unwarranted and you should not be more cautious around the individual?
poda_t wrote:
I can guarantee you that if they had not done this, the news story would have read "Dog severely attacks neighbors, officers stand by" and people would be crapping down the necks of those officers anyway, and the dog would have been put down anyway, because if that dog was released, the entire community would be in uproar about the release of a violent dog.
If the dog attacked someone, yes, that's likely what would have happened; this is a risk of the occupation. Police get paid to put themselves at hazard, physical and political, so that members of the body politic do not have to. As I said before, if a policeman is not willing to do this, then he shouldn't be a policeman.
As for whether or not the dog would have attacked someone, there is insufficient information available, and you seem to apply self-reinforcement rather than a critical eye.
poda_t wrote:
Suppose I am walking down the street with a rifle. Do you think the officer is going to sit down and have a nice cup of tea with me? The moment I start raving and waving the rifle around, the first the he will do is shoot me. He won't be interested in whether or not I am suffering from clinical depression, on drugs, or just... or causeing mischief with a toy gun. The information is suspicious individual, armed, and not in control of himself. Why do you think police will open fire on an individual armed with what they suspect might be a toy/airsoft gun? If a police officer is not permitted to defend himself until after he has been shot at or maimed, the officer will firstly not be in a position to do his job, second, be unwilling to perform his job because he would need to be physically injured before he could make a response. The dog is the same thing. Officer arrives, made the assessment, and based on the available information acted in the best interests.
Well, not physically injured, but physically threatened. You seem to be equivocating, perhaps unintentionally.
Anyway, while the officer may have made an assessment based on available information, that is not cause to absolve him of criticism, or consequence. Indeed, you seem to be placing the cart before the horse in assuming that the officer acted ithe best interests of the public, given the somewhat strategic nature of the assumptions and tenuous leaps of logic you have thus far committed to.
poda_t wrote:
If you firmly think you can do an officer's job better, then why not join the force?
Because the pay is poor, and I'm sufficiently well educated and connected to acquire superior positions.
poda_t wrote:
Except that police are in the business of enforcing law and maintaining safety. When a police officer shows up because of your activity, it is generally a bad idea to continue to aggravate the police officer. Congratulations on trying to be clever. It has failed dismally.
You're argument is confused.
First, while it might be a good idea to avoid aggravating a police officer, that does not mean that all things done by police officers are just, fair, good, honorable, etc.
Second, my argument was an inversion of the point you made initially regarding assumptions and tendencies. The thrust of it being that I should conclude that the police here, being in the Chicago suburbs, used an innapropriate degree of force because police in the Chicago suburbs use an inappropriate degree of force. This is a fallacious argument, and was meant to given you pause in order to appreciate why your initial argument was fallacious. Instead of recognizing this, you pushed right on through.
poda_t wrote:
Precedent is enforced from the top down, not from the bottom up. It's why federal law bears precedent over state law, and why state law bears precedence over bylaw.
Irrelevant to the argument at hand.
poda_t wrote:
The public at large is not within its right to detain police officers, because that would be an inherent corruption of the system.
Actually, that's false in every state except North Carolina.
poda_t wrote:
Suppose every time you played with a specific opponent, some of your models went missing. You have no proof that its him, but you know that he's the one doing it. Are you suggesting that your suspicion is unwarranted and you should not be more cautious around the individual?
If I had no proff that it was him, I would not say I knew he was the one doing it. I might feel that he was likely doing it, but that is distinct from knowledge. The conflation of these concepts is the cause of a great deal of human stupidity.
What's that, Kanluwen comes in to reflexively defend police action and refuses to consider that SOP should be reviewed in the wake of an entirely unnecessary incident?
sebster wrote:What's that, Kanluwen comes in to reflexively defend police action and refuses to consider that SOP should be reviewed in the wake of an entirely unnecessary incident?
That really, genuinely surprises me.
Does it suprise you? Does it?
Because Kanluwen's pronounced tendency to come to the defense of ANY cop ANYWHERE doing ANYTHING has grown tired.
ridiculous hypothetical wrote:AP- Houston
"Houston Police officer smothers Quadrapelegic, blind, geriatric woman with a pillow"
Kanluwen wrote:she was asking for it, it was sop, they aren't trained to deal wit that situation, she constituted a threat
I need to know more before I can make a judgement here.
As usual, I'm here to tell you that shooting a barking dog CAN be justified. It can also NOT be justified. Tons of circumstances can come into play. A lot of you seem to think that shooting a barking dog is NEVER justified, which is nonsense.
Unfortunately, as has been pointed out earlier. The article posted is quite biased from the start. It's full of emotional appeals and supposition. Based on the information we actually have right now, I'm "undetermined" on this.
I WILL say that the situation would LIKELY have been better if animal control had responded instead of police, but there may be a circumstantial explanation for that. Maybe they were way too far away or maybe it's a bad enough area that they won't send them without the cops clearing the area first. Idk, those are questions that I'd need to have answered before changing my position.
AustonT wrote:Because Kanluwen's pronounced tendency to come to the defense of ANY cop ANYWHERE doing ANYTHING has grown tired.
No more tired than the constant "feth the PO-lice" from certain other posters.
Yeah, both are extremely tiresome and should function in a more considerate fashion. Two cops shot a puppy five times. It could of been threatening in a theoretical fashion, but that's stupid. Leaping to the defense is equally foolish and betrays a nerdy fandom that exists beyond reality. Cops can make mistakes and from face value this seems to be such a situation. They're human and the media is good at exposing situations wherein they do poorly. They don't need a mighty internet defense force, but one apparently exists anyway.
AustonT wrote:Because Kanluwen's pronounced tendency to come to the defense of ANY cop ANYWHERE doing ANYTHING has grown tired.
No more tired than the constant "feth the PO-lice" from certain other posters.
Im going to ignore the increasingly complex argument and simply attack the problem from another angle.
Cops are grown men.
Sure they aren't steely eyed, one fingered dealers of death that straddle the battlefield's of the earth like a mighty colossus like me, but you don't have to be ultimate bad-asses to deal with a dog. When I was doing A&E it was explained that dogs can be easily dealt with, but you shouldn't ever kill a dog if evading capture because you are far more likely to get caught if they are aware of your escape within 4 hours of doing so. And if they and dogs are on your trail, your pretty much fethed anyway. And if you kill the dog, (we bond very closely with dogs) the handler's will be enraged and your far less likely to survive your capture.. But im going off on a tangent!
The point is, even If you are alone, if you are over the age of 16 and you are that scared by an irate dog you feel the need to shoot it, you are a girly man.
I would happily fight any dog with my bare hands. Even a Pit-bull or a Rottweiler or a fething wolf or something. I mean, I'm willing to bet i may have a severe limp and a requirement for stitches by the end of a brawl with a Pitbull, but I would be confident. A fully grown man should be able to kill almost any dog if it really comes down to it.
But a dog that is only knee high, and said grown man is with numerous colleagues, all armed with a guns and big sticks!? Do me a favour!
Thus, ignoring everything else in the thread I have conclusively proven that the police did indeed use totally unnecessary force.
The point is, even If you are alone, if you are over the age of 16 and you are that scared by an irate dog you feel the need to shoot it, you are a girly man.
I would happily fight any dog with my bare hands. Even a Pit-bull or a Rottweiler or a fething wolf or something. I mean, I'm willing to bet i may have a severe limp and a requirement for stitches by the end of a brawl with a Pitbull, but I would be confident. A fully grown man should be able to kill almost any dog if it really comes down to it.
But a dog that is only knee high, and said grown man is with numerous colleagues, all armed with a guns and big sticks!? Do me a favour!
This. This right here. This is important. This is some real fething wisdom that you all need to listen to.
My normally sarcastic ways? Not here. Those dudes are whiny childlike cowards.
The point is, even If you are alone, if you are over the age of 16 and you are that scared by an irate dog you feel the need to shoot it, you are a girly man.
I would happily fight any dog with my bare hands. Even a Pit-bull or a Rottweiler or a fething wolf or something. I mean, I'm willing to bet i may have a severe limp and a requirement for stitches by the end of a brawl with a Pitbull, but I would be confident. A fully grown man should be able to kill almost any dog if it really comes down to it.
But a dog that is only knee high, and said grown man is with numerous colleagues, all armed with a guns and big sticks!? Do me a favour!
This. This right here.
When Shuma and Frazzled agree on something, then the righteousnous of that statement is not in doubt.
I'm confident in my ability to fight breeds of non bigwolf dogs. Wolves are bigwolf dogs though, so that'd be a tossup! Matty could fight a tiger.
Matty once fought a woman twice his size, armed only with chips. True story.
Incidentally, I agree with you about the whole 'fighting a dog' thing - I wouldn't relish it, but it's definitely do-able . Give me a nightstick, on the other hand, and it wouldn't even be a contest.
Suppose it depends where your knees are. My wife is 5'1 and my mothers toy poodles come up to her knee, vicous animals poodles.
But I get your point. I still maintain he could have called animal control and waited unless the dog attacked him, and he has more than one less than lethal solution on his belt. Any one of those five shots (presumably from a 9mm) could have either overpenetrated or flat out missed and killed someone. I would love to see a picture of the scene to look at his backdrop.
Rented Tritium wrote:Wow guys. Really? Not wanting to fight a dog makes you a girly man?
Sure then, I'm a girly man. I'm also not stupid.
Yea, thats pretty stupid actually. A ricochet can kill someone, and the idiot pulling a gun on a barking dog (O origially typed dad, thats amazingly appropriate in my case) is just the kind of idiot to get someone kiled. . Biffy the wonder shetland collie puppy isn't.
It screams incompetence. Seriously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:Up to your knee is not a small dog. You can fit 80 pounds of dog under your knee in some breeds.
Also are we talking shoulder or head? Any exaggeration? If it's 2 or 3 inches above the knee, that represents a pretty big increase in power.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But really it doesn't matter because I'm not gonna fight a dog of any size.
really, outside of a fatass basset hound, name one. A baby can outurn a basset hound.
The closest I can think of thats a danger would be a pure blood British version pit bull, but even they are taller than that. Further, if its just barking its not a threat. Its just, you know barking - the dog version of yelling at you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:Up to your knee is not a small dog. You can fit 80 pounds of dog under your knee in some breeds.
Also are we talking shoulder or head? Any exaggeration? If it's 2 or 3 inches above the knee, that represents a pretty big increase in power.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But really it doesn't matter because I'm not gonna fight a dog of any size.
So if a chihuahua comes at you you're ok with blasting away with the Mossberg? Wo....
Monster Rain wrote:ITT wargaming forum denizens tell of their ability to best rottweilers in unarmed single combat.
Where's Golden Eyed Scout when you need him?
Pah! That punk kid just made gak up, Im all man!
Im over in the states soon, meet me In LA, bring a camera.
...........
and a Rottweiler!
GES is probably fighting a dog right now. Also, if you're ever up in the Maine area Matty we should get a brew. Not that you ever would be, this place is a blasted hellscape of frost.
Monster Rain wrote:ITT wargaming forum denizens tell of their ability to best rottweilers in unarmed single combat.
Where's Golden Eyed Scout when you need him?
Pah! That punk kid just made gak up, Im all man!
Im over in the states soon, meet me In LA, bring a camera.
I am in that area, I'd love to meet up. Did they train you in how to fight a dog in the Military? We got a couple classes on it, but no real practical application.
I'd rather avoid a "Michael Vick" situation and just get pissed instead. Though I will say that if Michael Vick had been fighting those dogs with his own bare hands it would have been a much more interesting news story.
mattyrm wrote:
I have conclusively proven that the police did indeed use totally unnecessary force.
Because you can fight a wolf.
Have I told you lately that I love you, Matty?
Mate, a wolf only has one primary weapon, all you do is, you offer it up your arm, and then GOUGE ITS fething EYES OUT!
Or, say your stuck on the Arctic Tundra right? And your only wearing a Tshirt because...er.. you were flying to somewhere nice like Hawaii but you crash landed in Northern Canada.
You find a wolf right, you get into a grip of death with it, and then jam your hand into its mouth, and then when it tries to chow down on your hand, instead of withdrawing your hand instinctively causing severe bleeding, what you do is, your ball your fist and then using as much force as possible ram your fist down its throat, and you keep on pushing and pushing and the dog asphyxiates.
And then you keep pushing until your hand pretty much pops out of its arse, and then you just sorta leave it on there, and then go and find yourself another wolf and repeat the process, and then you basically have two awesome arm warmers.
So your tshirt has turned into a jumper.
Not only have I just killed the two wolves, I have added extra insulation to my dress and I am fully prepared for the Winter.
mattyrm wrote:
I have conclusively proven that the police did indeed use totally unnecessary force.
Because you can fight a wolf.
Have I told you lately that I love you, Matty?
Mate, a wolf only has one primary weapon, all you do is, you offer it up your arm, and then GOUGE ITS fething EYES OUT!
Or, say your stuck on the Arctic Tundra right? And your only wearing a Tshirt because...er.. you were flying to somewhere nice like Hawaii but you crash landed in Northern Canada.
You find a wolf right, you get into a grip of death with it, and then jam your hand into its mouth, and then when it tries to chow down on your hand, instead of withdrawing your hand instinctively causing severe bleeding, what you do is, your ball your fist and then using as much force as possible ram your fist down its throat, and you keep on pushing and pushing and the dog asphyxiates.
And then you keep pushing until your hand pretty much pops out of its arse, and then you just sorta leave it on there, and then go and find yourself another wolf and repeat the process, and then you basically have two awesome arm warmers.
So your tshirt has turned into a jumper.
Not only have I just killed the two wolves, I have added extra insulation to my dress and I am fully prepared for the Winter.
Matty's lying. He never killed a wolf. He's just being charitable to the wolf's feelings.
Wolves, sensing the natural manliness of Matty, stay north now. Thats why wolves don't come down south any more, out of fear.
Monster Rain wrote:ITT wargaming forum denizens tell of their ability to best rottweilers in unarmed single combat.
Where's Golden Eyed Scout when you need him?
Pah! That punk kid just made gak up, Im all man!
Im over in the states soon, meet me In LA, bring a camera.
I am in that area, I'd love to meet up. Did they train you in how to fight a dog in the Military? We got a couple classes on it, but no real practical application.
I'd rather avoid a "Michael Vick" situation and just get pissed instead. Though I will say that if Michael Vick had been fighting those dogs with his own bare hands it would have been a much more interesting news story.
Are you in CA mate? Im doing Santa Barbara, LA, San Diego (Stone brewery!)
mattyrm wrote:
I have conclusively proven that the police did indeed use totally unnecessary force.
Because you can fight a wolf.
Have I told you lately that I love you, Matty?
Mate, a wolf only has one primary weapon, all you do is, you offer it up your arm, and then GOUGE ITS fething EYES OUT!
Or, say your stuck on the Arctic Tundra right? And your only wearing a Tshirt because...er.. you were flying to somewhere nice like Hawaii but you crash landed in Northern Canada.
You find a wolf right, you get into a grip of death with it, and then jam your hand into its mouth, and then when it tries to chow down on your hand, instead of withdrawing your hand instinctively causing severe bleeding, what you do is, your ball your fist and then using as much force as possible ram your fist down its throat, and you keep on pushing and pushing and the dog asphyxiates.
And then you keep pushing until your hand pretty much pops out of its arse, and then you just sorta leave it on there, and then go and find yourself another wolf and repeat the process, and then you basically have two awesome arm warmers.
So your tshirt has turned into a jumper.
Not only have I just killed the two wolves, I have added extra insulation to my dress and I am fully prepared for the Winter.
Wouldn't it be easier just to pick it up and smash it into something? If it's got a firm grip on your limb one would think you would then have the leverage to just smack it into a tree. Combative dogs aren't very hard to pick up in my experience, they don't fight the act.
Rented Tritium wrote:Wow guys. Really? Not wanting to fight a dog makes you a girly man?
Sure then, I'm a girly man. I'm also not stupid.
He will not fight dogs to prove his manly power. Everyone point at this man and laugh!
Puny! /points and laughs
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
Albatross wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
I have conclusively proven that the police did indeed use totally unnecessary force.
Because you can fight a wolf.
Have I told you lately that I love you, Matty?
Mate, a wolf only has one primary weapon, all you do is, you offer it up your arm, and then GOUGE ITS fething EYES OUT!
Or, say your stuck on the Arctic Tundra right? And your only wearing a Tshirt because...er.. you were flying to somewhere nice like Hawaii but you crash landed in Northern Canada.
You find a wolf right, you get into a grip of death with it, and then jam your hand into its mouth, and then when it tries to chow down on your hand, instead of withdrawing your hand instinctively causing severe bleeding, what you do is, your ball your fist and then using as much force as possible ram your fist down its throat, and you keep on pushing and pushing and the dog asphyxiates.
And then you keep pushing until your hand pretty much pops out of its arse, and then you just sorta leave it on there, and then go and find yourself another wolf and repeat the process, and then you basically have two awesome arm warmers.
So your tshirt has turned into a jumper.
Not only have I just killed the two wolves, I have added extra insulation to my dress and I am fully prepared for the Winter.
Wouldn't it be easier just to pick it up and smash it into something? If it's got a firm grip on your limb one would think you would then have the leverage to just smack it into a tree. Combative dogs aren't very hard to pick up in my experience, they don't fight the act.
Yeah you could just pick it up and then swing it into a bear or something... But you want it for your sleeve's so that's a waste of a Wolf.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and all joking aside, I really was serious about the whole man v dog thing. Even if you dont feel confident fighting a dog, a cop with several other cops, all of them armed, have no need at all to shoot the dog.
poda_t wrote:I don't think you appreciate just how badly a dog can savage you. Coming up to your knees is more than big enough.
It probably will be more than enough if the victim was either elderly, young, or not capable of defending him/herself. A dog that comes up to your hip is reasonable shooting at if it's about to attack you. But anything smaller can be dealt with using a heavy/hard and blunt object. A police officer can easily handle such a dog as being reported shot without a gun. A police officer should be responsible when doing things like this. Sometimes some of them aren't.
mattyrm wrote: The point is, even If you are alone, if you are over the age of 16 and you are that scared by an irate dog you feel the need to shoot it, you are a girly man.
I would happily fight any dog with my bare hands. Even a Pit-bull or a Rottweiler or a fething wolf or something. I mean, I'm willing to bet i may have a severe limp and a requirement for stitches by the end of a brawl with a Pitbull, but I would be confident. A fully grown man should be able to kill almost any dog if it really comes down to it.
But a dog that is only knee high, and said grown man is with numerous colleagues, all armed with a guns and big sticks!? Do me a favour!
Thus, ignoring everything else in the thread I have conclusively proven that the police did indeed use totally unnecessary force.
On a less serious note: Did I ever tell you about the time I wrestled a Grizzly Bear for two days and three night's bare handed? True Story.
Frazzled wrote:really, outside of a fatass basset hound, name one. A baby can outurn a basset hound.
The closest I can think of thats a danger would be a pure blood British version pit bull.
I went to the garage and measured, my knee is about 21inches. That puts boxers, and American pit bull terriers in the running for both "knee high" and "80lbs" but they'd have to be on the thick side. I'm sure other dogs fit that description but in any case I'd say they were the exception rather than the rule.
As a side note I didn't know there was a pure blooded British pit bull, which is rather silly. I learned something today...that the English bull terrier is the ugliest dog on the planet.
Frazzled wrote:really, outside of a fatass basset hound, name one. A baby can outurn a basset hound.
The closest I can think of thats a danger would be a pure blood British version pit bull.
I went to the garage and measured, my knee is about 21inches. That puts boxers, and American pit bull terriers in the running for both "knee high" and "80lbs" but they'd have to be on the thick side. I'm sure other dogs fit that description but in any case I'd say they were the exception rather than the rule.
As a side note I didn't know there was a pure blooded British pit bull, which is rather silly. I learned something today...that the English bull terrier is the ugliest dog on the planet.
Frazzled wrote:really, outside of a fatass basset hound, name one. A baby can outurn a basset hound.
The closest I can think of thats a danger would be a pure blood British version pit bull.
I went to the garage and measured, my knee is about 21inches. That puts boxers, and American pit bull terriers in the running for both "knee high" and "80lbs" but they'd have to be on the thick side. I'm sure other dogs fit that description but in any case I'd say they were the exception rather than the rule.
As a side note I didn't know there was a pure blooded British pit bull, which is rather silly. I learned something today...that the English bull terrier is the ugliest dog on the planet.
Frazzled wrote:really, outside of a fatass basset hound, name one. A baby can outurn a basset hound.
The closest I can think of thats a danger would be a pure blood British version pit bull.
I went to the garage and measured, my knee is about 21inches. That puts boxers, and American pit bull terriers in the running for both "knee high" and "80lbs" but they'd have to be on the thick side. I'm sure other dogs fit that description but in any case I'd say they were the exception rather than the rule.
As a side note I didn't know there was a pure blooded British pit bull, which is rather silly. I learned something today...that the English bull terrier is the ugliest dog on the planet.
No it doesn't American bull terriers are larger than that. British bull terriers are shorter. It is of course natural that an American pit bul is bigger.
It would have to be a short boxer. In the instance I again will be clear. If a dog is threatening and is a threat then appropriate action can be taken. IN the OP the dog was not a physical threat (its crap small) and was actually backing off barking. Thats animal control or even better a stern "shut up and go home!" No call for playing target practice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Frazzled wrote:really, outside of a fatass basset hound, name one. A baby can outurn a basset hound.
The closest I can think of thats a danger would be a pure blood British version pit bull.
I went to the garage and measured, my knee is about 21inches. That puts boxers, and American pit bull terriers in the running for both "knee high" and "80lbs" but they'd have to be on the thick side. I'm sure other dogs fit that description but in any case I'd say they were the exception rather than the rule.
As a side note I didn't know there was a pure blooded British pit bull, which is rather silly. I learned something today...that the English bull terrier is the ugliest dog on the planet.
Matty I be in Seattle this coming Jan. You can come up and drool over my arsenal of um....well...I'm fully prepared for the melt down. Frazz be there to to tote my gofbag of weapons... need his weiner dogs for inner security
Who in their right mind is going unarm to wrestle wolves...2nd round to a grizzly....
Frazzled wrote: IN the OP the dog was not a physical threat (its crap small) and was actually backing off barking.
Said the untrained dog lover witness in the news story that opened with an appeal to emotion.
Not good enough.
We do not know what happened yet.
Short of that dog having a knife I don't think there's a reasonable claim to be made for personal endangerment if the physical description of the animal holds up. If the witness testimony holds up then it's blatant misuse of a firearm and certain animal cruelty.
Frazzled wrote:
IN the OP the dog was not a physical threat (its crap small) and was actually backing off barking.
Said the untrained dog lover witness in the news story that opened with an appeal to emotion.
Not good enough.
We do not know what happened yet.
Short of that dog having a knife I don't think there's a reasonable claim to be made for personal endangerment if the physical description of the animal holds up. If the witness testimony holds up then it's blatant misuse of a firearm and certain animal cruelty.
Depends on a whole host of circumstances that we simply do not know. We don't know how aggressive it was being, we don't know it's demeanor. All we have is a vague eyewitness account from a dog lover printed by a newspaper that was fine opening the column with a hugely unethical appeal to emotion.
Also, you're advocating that people have fistfights with dogs and you're screaming animal cruelty? Using anything BUT a gun on a dangerous dog is animal cruelty. Also if you are shooting at all, you shoot until the threat stops. Shooting a dog once and letting it bleed out is a lot more cruel than shooting it 5 times. It's like you've got the entire thing backwards.
Frazzled wrote:
IN the OP the dog was not a physical threat (its crap small) and was actually backing off barking.
Said the untrained dog lover witness in the news story that opened with an appeal to emotion.
Not good enough.
We do not know what happened yet.
Short of that dog having a knife I don't think there's a reasonable claim to be made for personal endangerment if the physical description of the animal holds up. If the witness testimony holds up then it's blatant misuse of a firearm and certain animal cruelty.
Exactly. Without getting sidetracked with more comedy wolf-fights, the serious point was very simple.
A dog is only a threat to a grown man's life if said man is alone and particularly puny.
If he's a cop, with plenty of other cops. There is no real need to shoot it. If it was actually savaging one of your fellow officers (I would stamp on its head personally but I could forgive a firearm being used, YMMV) then shooting it would be acceptable, but as it stands, there was just no need for it.
In Iraq one of my section mates shot a dog, and we had an argument about it. Basically, he shot it simply because he could, he was a young daft lad, we had weapons free clearance and he thought "feth it" and slotted a dog that was pretty aggressive. It was a dirty stray, and I still had a go at him because there was just no need for it.
This was a family fething pet and the point remains that it wasnt actually biting anyone!
There really was no need for it. The cop probably shot it for the same reason that my stupid mate did.
Simply because he could. But was it really necessary?
Frazzled wrote:
IN the OP the dog was not a physical threat (its crap small) and was actually backing off barking.
Said the untrained dog lover witness in the news story that opened with an appeal to emotion.
Not good enough.
We do not know what happened yet.
Short of that dog having a knife I don't think there's a reasonable claim to be made for personal endangerment if the physical description of the animal holds up. If the witness testimony holds up then it's blatant misuse of a firearm and certain animal cruelty.
Depends on a whole host of circumstances that we simply do not know. We don't know how aggressive it was being, we don't know it's demeanor. All we have is a vague eyewitness account from a dog lover printed by a newspaper that was fine opening the column with a hugely unethical appeal to emotion.
Also, you're advocating that people have fistfights with dogs and you're screaming animal cruelty? Using anything BUT a gun on a dangerous dog is animal cruelty. Also if you are shooting at all, you shoot until the threat stops. Shooting a dog once and letting it bleed out is a lot more cruel than shooting it 5 times. It's like you've got the entire thing backwards.
But I'm not. I know full well a dog can be a danger. But that contravenes this:
1. Witness that dog was retreating.
2. Testimony that the dog was not large.
And no I am not willing to give the cop a presumption here.
Frazzled wrote:No it doesn't American bull terriers are larger than that. British bull terriers are shorter. It is of course natural that an American pit bul is bigger
It doesn't what?
If you mean it isn't knee high I read on the infallible Wikipedia that APBT are 14-22 inches tall which makes them solidly knee high. And yeah it'd have to be a real short boxer...but I've seen a lot of them lately and not puppies...also not even mildly threatenig or 80lbs.
I'll leave room to say I could easily be wrong...you know citing Wikipedia and stuff.
Frazzled wrote: IN the OP the dog was not a physical threat (its crap small) and was actually backing off barking.
Said the untrained dog lover witness in the news story that opened with an appeal to emotion.
Not good enough.
We do not know what happened yet.
Short of that dog having a knife I don't think there's a reasonable claim to be made for personal endangerment if the physical description of the animal holds up. If the witness testimony holds up then it's blatant misuse of a firearm and certain animal cruelty.
Depends on a whole host of circumstances that we simply do not know. We don't know how aggressive it was being, we don't know it's demeanor. All we have is a vague eyewitness account from a dog lover printed by a newspaper that was fine opening the column with a hugely unethical appeal to emotion.
No, it depends on the dogs capability. As stated the dog was young and of a small breed. There are few other viable circumstances beyond the officers assuming it was rabid that could of slipped past this article. The dog did not have a knife. There was no baby in it's mouth. It wasn't wearing a turban. It was standing there and growlingbarking. It may have approached and even done so aggressively (though that directly contrasts the actual witness statement), but given the size of the animal that doesn't constitute the kind of threat that warrants use of deadly force. There is little here to defend.
Also, you're advocating that people have fistfights with dogs and you're screaming animal cruelty? Using anything BUT a gun on a dangerous dog is animal cruelty.
Nets? Cages? Those grabby claw things? The nooses at the end of a pole? There are alternatives. Animal control doesn't walk up with a nine mil and a licence to kill.
Also if you are shooting at all, you shoot until the threat stops. Shooting a dog once and letting it bleed out is a lot more cruel than shooting it 5 times. It's like you've got the entire thing backwards.
Nets? Cages? Those grabby claw things? The nooses at the end of a pole? There are alternatives. Animal control doesn't walk up with a nine mil and a licence to kill.
I'd like to point out that Matty was so outraged that I would think him unable to fight a wolf that he texted me this:
What? You're saying I can't fight wolves? You're having a laugh...
Total fething lunatic, but that's why we're bros. FWIW mate, I didn't doubt you for a second - I'd back you against a fething rhinocerous!
@MonsterRain - You should definitely meet up with mattyrm for a wee drink in LA. It'll change your whole perspective on gak. Gutted I can't be there, as it'd be legendary craic.
Nets? Cages? Those grabby claw things? The nooses at the end of a pole? There are alternatives. Animal control doesn't walk up with a nine mil and a licence to kill.
Cumberland County animal control officers say they will now use deadly force against dangerous animals as a last resort.
I wonder what the first resorts are...oh yeah that whole list of gak Shuma said plus any we've forgotten...like whistling and patting your leg.
As a resident of North Carolina I'll come out and say this is necessary. The dog in the OP was not a threat, even if it had attacked the officer, a grown man should have the ability to kick a small dog like that halfway into the next county without shooting it. Then there are real dogs, like the one on that target. If one of those is coming at you, mucking around will only get you into serious trouble. I use the term "coming at you" because if a dog is standing off and barking then you have time to assess the situation, maybe back off, or get a non-lethal option ready. When a dog wants to hurt you, it doesn't bark, or growl, or stand still. Once a dog decides you're enough of a threat to attack it just attacks. I assume (and am probably wrong) that if the Police in the article are being trained on things like that, not just the best way to use 12g buck on a dog.
I've had my face torn open by a dog before, 10 hours with a plastic surgeon and I was pretty much fine, I still like dogs, but I'll never forget how nonthreatening the dog that attacked me was. Not a single bark, or growl, it didn't come running at me with fangs bared. I had no idea what was about to happen, which scares me more than any barking or growling dog ever will.
Another thing. If you have dogs, and you don't live out in the boonies it is your responsibility to keep them from harm. We don't let our dog wander around, even though we don't have a leash law in this town. People are stupid when it comes to dogs, dogs get hurt all the time because cops don't know how to handle them or are trigger happy. Even I will fully admit if there is a dog near my house that is threatening looking I'll have a shotgun loaded just in case it goes after someone (when I say dog I mean pit-bull or larger).
I have a Boxer, who is the nicest dog you could ever meet, not just saying that because he is my dog, people who know him agree. But he has a big powerful mouth full of big powerful teeth, so we keep him in a fenced yard so things like the OP's article don't happen to him. Now if someone comes into our yard and hurts him, they'll wake up at the pearly gates wondering what happened.
AustonT wrote:Does it suprise you? Does it?
Because Kanluwen's pronounced tendency to come to the defense of ANY cop ANYWHERE doing ANYTHING has grown tired.
Yeah, I've danced that merry dance with Kanluwen before. And now I've read through this thread, in which a whole lot of posters have shown very clearly that there was no justification for shooting the dog. In fact, frazzled and mattyrm have actually made me kind of jealous with how quickly and succinctly they made their points.
But I really don't think Kanluwen will change his mind. In his eyes, everything done by a policeman is justifiable, and reason will not challenge that position.
ShumaGorath wrote:Short of that dog having a knife I don't think there's a reasonable claim to be made for personal endangerment if the physical description of the animal holds up. If the witness testimony holds up then it's blatant misuse of a firearm and certain animal cruelty.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility to think that they found a knife on the dog after he was shot.
Also, there's no prosecutor in the world that would bring charges against a cop for misuse of a firearm or animal cruelty. Even laying aside qualified immunity, it's a death sentence for a prosecutor's career to be labelled "anti-cop"
AustonT wrote:Does it suprise you? Does it?
Because Kanluwen's pronounced tendency to come to the defense of ANY cop ANYWHERE doing ANYTHING has grown tired.
Yeah, I've danced that merry dance with Kanluwen before. And now I've read through this thread, in which a whole lot of posters have shown very clearly that there was no justification for shooting the dog. In fact, frazzled and mattyrm have actually made me kind of jealous with how quickly and succinctly they made their points.
A "whole lot of posters" have shown no such thing. They've effectively shown that in their understanding of the situation, there's no justification.
Every situation is not the same, and facts sadly do change the nature of a situation. That said...
But I really don't think Kanluwen will change his mind. In his eyes, everything done by a policeman is justifiable, and reason will not challenge that position.
Reason will challenge that position plenty. A mediocre piece of what amounts to emotional blackmail disguised as 'real journalism' won't challenge that position.
Does it suck that the dog's dead? Of course. Dogs are awesome, and should be treasured. That said, as I already put forward: we don't know the entirety of the situation and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to police simply because discharging firearms in a residential area is a Very Big Deal. If there's some kind of abuse of authority here, then I damn well expect to see some kind of punishment meted out to the officer who shot the dog--and if in fact another officer was standing by watching the first commit this act, then they goddamned well better be held culpable as an accomplice.
As for your sarcastic commentary about "everything done by a policeman is justifiable", I very well do believe that. Do you know why?
Because I really do have to believe we're not being protected by people who have no business holding firearms, let alone being permitted outside without a fething helmet on. I'd also like to be able to reasonably say that the field I'm pursuing is not full of incompetent twits, but if you'd like to keep badmouthing it go right ahead.
I've been wanting to shoot the dog next door for its incessant barking for months. Can somebody pass on the phone number of these alleged pet-snuffers? I'd do it myself, but the number of hoops you have to dive through just to get a firearm now means it is not worth the effort of DIY in this case.
(Before you ask, no - I'm not a dog-lover. Never was, never will be. Doesn't matter if it's a hyper little yappy rat-creature or a big-mean-bastich to me.)
Kanluwen wrote: "everything done by a policeman is justifiable", I very well do believe that.
It's a good thing you spent all your creditability on this statement, and I'm glad you did.
Spoiler:
May 5, 2011: Former Iraq veteran Jose Guerena was shot to death by Pima County Sheriff SWAT officers. They suspected Guerena of being part of a drug dealing operation (he was not involved). The five person team fired 71 rounds at Guerena in seven seconds, who died after being hit 22 times.The officers prevented the ambulance from getting Guerena medical attention until they searched the house. The officers even pointed their guns at Guerena's wife and 4-year-old son. Despite that dozens of neighbors testified that the officers never knocked or identified themselves when they entered the house, the SWAT team was cleared of any wrongdoing and never apologized to Guerena's family. Neighbors also said that the SWAT officers burst into their houses after the shooting and intimidated them, which the officers deny.
July 5, 2011: Kelly Thomas was a 37 year old homeless man suffering from schizophrenia and living on the streets of Fullerton, California. He was fatally beaten by members of the Fullerton Police Department. He passed away from his injuries on the 10th of July 2011. Unarmed and mentally ill, Thomas was shocked with tasers and beaten with flashlights by up to six police officers. An investigation into the beating has been launched and the FBI has become involved. A protest over the beating was held outside the Fullerton Police Department on 18 July 2011.[4] Four officers have been suspended and two have been charged with second degree murder and manslaughter.
Jan 22, 2010. Yao Wei Wu was beaten by officers from Vancouver Police Department who knocked on the wrong door while investigating a report of a violent domestic dispute.[5] Speaking through a translator, Yao Wei Wu told CBC News that as soon as he opened the door the officers pulled him out of the house and beat him.
April 1, 2009. Passing through the G20 summit protests in London, Ian Tomlinson was struck in the back of his legs and pushed to the ground by a police constable with the Territorial Support Group in South London. He died soon afterwards. The initial police statement said that police had been alerted that a man had collapsed, and were attacked by "a number of missiles" as they tried to save his life.[6] Several videos from citizen passersby surfaced about one week after the incident and sparked public outcry. The officer has been interviewed on suspicion of manslaughter.
good luck on your career, hopefully they disband the IAB before you start at the Sugar Plum Land PD.
Because I really do have to believe we're not being protected by people who have no business holding firearms, let alone being permitted outside without a fething helmet on. I'd also like to be able to reasonably say that the field I'm pursuing is not full of incompetent twits, but if you'd like to keep badmouthing it go right ahead.
Full of and free from are not the same thing. Deal with it.
Because I really do have to believe we're not being protected by people who have no business holding firearms, let alone being permitted outside without a fething helmet on. I'd also like to be able to reasonably say that the field I'm pursuing is not full of incompetent twits, but if you'd like to keep badmouthing it go right ahead.
Full of and free from are not the same thing. Deal with it.
It's a frightening day when I agree without reservation to something you say.
Kanluwen wrote: "everything done by a policeman is justifiable", I very well do believe that.
It's a good thing you spent all your creditability on this statement, and I'm glad you did.
Spoiler:
May 5, 2011: Former Iraq veteran Jose Guerena was shot to death by Pima County Sheriff SWAT officers. They suspected Guerena of being part of a drug dealing operation (he was not involved). The five person team fired 71 rounds at Guerena in seven seconds, who died after being hit 22 times.The officers prevented the ambulance from getting Guerena medical attention until they searched the house. The officers even pointed their guns at Guerena's wife and 4-year-old son. Despite that dozens of neighbors testified that the officers never knocked or identified themselves when they entered the house, the SWAT team was cleared of any wrongdoing and never apologized to Guerena's family. Neighbors also said that the SWAT officers burst into their houses after the shooting and intimidated them, which the officers deny.
July 5, 2011: Kelly Thomas was a 37 year old homeless man suffering from schizophrenia and living on the streets of Fullerton, California. He was fatally beaten by members of the Fullerton Police Department. He passed away from his injuries on the 10th of July 2011. Unarmed and mentally ill, Thomas was shocked with tasers and beaten with flashlights by up to six police officers. An investigation into the beating has been launched and the FBI has become involved. A protest over the beating was held outside the Fullerton Police Department on 18 July 2011.[4] Four officers have been suspended and two have been charged with second degree murder and manslaughter.
Jan 22, 2010. Yao Wei Wu was beaten by officers from Vancouver Police Department who knocked on the wrong door while investigating a report of a violent domestic dispute.[5] Speaking through a translator, Yao Wei Wu told CBC News that as soon as he opened the door the officers pulled him out of the house and beat him.
April 1, 2009. Passing through the G20 summit protests in London, Ian Tomlinson was struck in the back of his legs and pushed to the ground by a police constable with the Territorial Support Group in South London. He died soon afterwards. The initial police statement said that police had been alerted that a man had collapsed, and were attacked by "a number of missiles" as they tried to save his life.[6] Several videos from citizen passersby surfaced about one week after the incident and sparked public outcry. The officer has been interviewed on suspicion of manslaughter.
good luck on your career, hopefully they disband the IAB before you start at the Sugar Plum Land PD.
I think Rodney King can back up Kans statement as well. If the cops hadn't been good enough to stop and give him an all over baton massage he would have been stiff for a week!
Truth be told. I've never ranked the Rodney King incident among unwarranted police brutality. In that: I'm not saying it wasn't brutal or that the police were involved, but that after leading the cops in a 100+ mph car chase on motorways and residential streets, exhibiting odd behavior, and physically tossing two full grown men off his back like King Kong (they thought he was on PCP...he wasn't), and being Tased once to no apparent lasting effect. He basically received the bootstomping his actions required. It's not like the left him to die, the took him immediately to the hospital. In those arcane days before YouTube and a video camera in every hipsters hand that read out like, "ok we kicked this guys stinkhole in, let's get him patched up, run a collar and hope we never see him again"
Nowadays I liken it to capturing HVTs, it's weird how the after capture pictures always have swollen cheekbones and dark eyes when he squirts out of a raid. Because if I had to chase you through six blocks of an Iraqi city I'd deliver a swift buttstroke or muzzle punch to the face too.
Kanluwen wrote:
As for your sarcastic commentary about "everything done by a policeman is justifiable", I very well do believe that. Do you know why?
Because I really do have to believe we're not being protected by people who have no business holding firearms, let alone being permitted outside without a fething helmet on. I'd also like to be able to reasonably say that the field I'm pursuing is not full of incompetent twits, but if you'd like to keep badmouthing it go right ahead.
Being competent is not the same thing as being perfect, or completely free from the capacity to err.
Unless by "justifiable" you mean in the sense that all things are able to be justified provided that one is willing to accept any and all possible sources of justification. Unfortunately, that's not true of any reasonable person, and what you've said here is essentially the same as justifying the actions of police officers by virtue of their being police officers, which is ridiculous for a number of very obvious reasons.
The only thing that doesn't make the least bit of sense to me here is the "five shots is too much" crowd. I mean, all other things aside, once the cops decide this dog needs to die, unless they are wildly spraying bullets throughout the neighborhood who cares how many bullets you put into the thing? It's the same argument I hear when a guy pulls a gun and the nine cops there all unload a mag into the guy, Why did we need 47 bullets? It doesn't matter, one bullet or fifty, they are killing whatever they shoot at. If they aren't trying to kill it, don't shoot. Bullets are cheap, making sure what you want to be dead is dead is f'ing priceless.
unless they are wildly spraying bullets throughout the neighborhood who cares how many bullets you put into the thing? Why did we need 47 bullets? It doesn't matter, one bullet or fifty, they are killing whatever they shoot at.
Must be something about the part where bullets don't just stop when they hit the magic wall of your target. Or that the mass of a human rarely arrests the velocity of a modern automatic pistol round, let alone an underweight dog.
So yeah, I question how many rounds and why are fired since I don't want to be shot in my living room two blocks away by one of the 46 extra bullets you think the cops should rip off at every chance they get.
Kanluwen wrote:
As for your sarcastic commentary about "everything done by a policeman is justifiable", I very well do believe that. Do you know why?
Because I really do have to believe we're not being protected by people who have no business holding firearms, let alone being permitted outside without a fething helmet on. I'd also like to be able to reasonably say that the field I'm pursuing is not full of incompetent twits, but if you'd like to keep badmouthing it go right ahead.
Being competent is not the same thing as being perfect, or completely free from the capacity to err.
Unless by "justifiable" you mean in the sense that all things are able to be justified provided that one is willing to accept any and all possible sources of justification. Unfortunately, that's not true of any reasonable person, and what you've said here is essentially the same as justifying the actions of police officers by virtue of their being police officers, which is ridiculous for a number of very obvious reasons.
I don't even think the police en masse ARE competent. Their training is too short, not comprehensive enough, and far too easy. The training bleed is non existent as well. The whole reason elite military formations like the SEALs have difficult training is because the training bleed ensure's a good standard of soldier.
Thus, 99% of SF soldiers are competent. But maybe only half of the run of the mill grunts are. And it's basically the luck of the draw with civvies for that same reason. The selection just ain't rigorous enough. The guy who works in Subway might be great.. but he might suck too. Same difference.
Some cops are brilliant. Some are incompetent fools. Kans logic is terribly flawed. Even with year long rigorous selection you can't guarantee that every single bloke in the green berets is going to be switched on. You just minimise the risk.
But look how short and easy police training is. If you get a good or a bad one your basically relying on luck.
ShumaGorath wrote:Short of that dog having a knife I don't think there's a reasonable claim to be made for personal endangerment if the physical description of the animal holds up. If the witness testimony holds up then it's blatant misuse of a firearm and certain animal cruelty.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility to think that they found a knife on the dog after he was shot.
Also, there's no prosecutor in the world that would bring charges against a cop for misuse of a firearm or animal cruelty. Even laying aside qualified immunity, it's a death sentence for a prosecutor's career to be labelled "anti-cop"
Thats not what would occur. They had a situation here where a cop shot a wiener dog or beagle or something. The cop was suspended (eventually after great outcry) and quietly offered the opportunity to seek alternate employment.
halonachos wrote:Remember that these are supposedly Illinois police officers, Illinois is known for corruption.
What do you mean, "supposedly" Illinois police officers?
At least they aren't from NO, the only force ever to be accused (to my knowledge) of having a serial killer on the payroll. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "book him Dano."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: I'd also like to be able to reasonably say that the field I'm pursuing is not full of incompetent twits, but if you'd like to keep badmouthing it go right ahead.
See there's your problem right there. Every field is full of incompetent twits. If you think this is bad wait until you deal with live people.
Hey guys, what do you think happens to dogs that fight cops? You keep saying he should have been able to just fight it or grab it or step on it or whatever? But man, in those instances, the dog is getting put down afterwards NO MATTER WHAT.
If a dog is aggressive toward a cop, it is probably going to die no matter what. If animal control had gotten there first things would have been much better, but if the dog was aggressive, animal control would catch it, take it back, and put it down. That is what animal control does to aggressive dogs.
The cop doesn't have an obligation to stand around and get bitten for the benefit of a dog that is ABSOLUTELY going to get put down for biting him later.
Rented Tritium wrote:Hey guys, what do you think happens to dogs that fight cops? You keep saying he should have been able to just fight it or grab it or step on it or whatever? But man, in those instances, the dog is getting put down afterwards NO MATTER WHAT.
If a dog is aggressive toward a cop, it is probably going to die no matter what. If animal control had gotten there first things would have been much better, but if the dog was aggressive, animal control would catch it, take it back, and put it down. That is what animal control does to aggressive dogs.
The cop doesn't have an obligation to stand around and get bitten for the benefit of a dog that is ABSOLUTELY going to get put down for biting him later.
Dogs that fight cops? What are you stuck in steel cage match land? Does Mr. Blastaway not have a voice or a foot? In the words of the Immortal Bard: Sucker please.
dogma wrote:Additionally, per the witness report, the dog doesn't seem to have been particularly aggressive.
Again, from the OBVIOUSLY BIASED ACCOUNT from a self described dog lover and printed in an article that had NO PROBLEM opening with an insulting appeal to emotion.
I DO NOT BUY anything that article says until corroborated by someone else. They are selling outrage.
Automatically Appended Next Post: When you print things like
Javel Townsend said his two sons, ages 10 and 11, are crying and hollering in their sleep, calling out their beloved puppy’s name.
“I guess police got fed up with him barking and shot him,” Townsend said Thursday. “I want to know why they had to shoot him.”
Rented Tritium wrote:
Again, from the OBVIOUSLY BIASED ACCOUNT from a self described dog lover and printed in an article that had NO PROBLEM opening with an insulting appeal to emotion.
I DO NOT BUY anything that article says until corroborated by someone else. They are selling outrage.
I don't necessarily believe it either, but nor am I willing to believe that the dog must have, necessarily acted aggressively. I've seen too many case of similar incidents in the same region in which police used unnecessary force against dogs to simply grant them the benefit of the doubt.
dogma wrote:
I don't necessarily believe it either, but nor am I willing to believe that the dog must have, necessarily acted aggressively. I've seen too many case of similar incidents in the same region in which police used unnecessary force against dogs to simply grant them the benefit of the doubt.
How is it any less bad to just automatically assume the other way, that the cop MUST have been a dog murdering monster?
Javel Townsend said his two sons, ages 10 and 11, are crying and hollering in their sleep, calling out their beloved puppy’s name.
“I guess police got fed up with him barking and shot him,” Townsend said Thursday. “I want to know why they had to shoot him.”
You are no longer a journalist.
Journalists are not obligated to provide value-neutral accounts of events in order to be considered journalists.
If you think THAT's my problem with this, you're being purposefully obtuse. The article is dripping in weasel words. It's crafted specifically to outrage, not inform, the reader.
Rented Tritium wrote:
How is it any less bad to just automatically assume the other way, that the cop MUST have been a dog murdering monster?
I've not made that assumption here, and only a few other people have. Most of the objection seems to be in regards to using a firearm (which carries significant risks in a residential setting), and the general policy of police departments towards animals, particularly in the region in question (suburban Chicago).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
If you think THAT's my problem with this, you're being purposefully obtuse. The article is dripping in weasel words. It's crafted specifically to outrage, not inform, the reader.
I don't see very much in there that specifically invites outrage. The author relays information garnered from the dog owner, the witness, and notes that the police did not offer a statement on the event. There isn't any blatant equivocation, or any particular attempt to mislead.
dogma wrote:
I don't necessarily believe it either, but nor am I willing to believe that the dog must have, necessarily acted aggressively. I've seen too many case of similar incidents in the same region in which police used unnecessary force against dogs to simply grant them the benefit of the doubt.
How is it any less bad to just automatically assume the other way, that the cop MUST have been a dog murdering monster?
Rented Tritium wrote:
How is it any less bad to just automatically assume the other way, that the cop MUST have been a dog murdering monster?
I've not made that assumption here, and only a few other people have. Most of the objection seems to be in regards to using a firearm (which carries significant risks in a residential setting), and the general policy of police departments towards animals, particularly in the region in question (suburban Chicago).
Ok.
Well I can address both of those. First, the firearm is appropriate for an aggressive animal if animal control can't get there because nothing else is actually ok to use. Pepper spray, batons, punches. Those things are actually more likely to count as animal cruelty than a fast death. Do dogs get sprayed sometimes in narrow circumstances? Yeah, but it's not really recommended in most cases.
Second, the general policy for using guns on animals is because of the following. If an animal is aggressive, it's going to be put down. Absolute fact. If a dog is aggressive toward a cop, you can either wait around and risk getting bitten so you can capture it, take it to the shelter and have it killed or you can shoot it and not get bitten.
The concerns about overpenetration are overblown and show a lack of understanding of firearms. A bullet EITHER overpenetrates or it ricochets. It can't ricochet AND penetrate things. If a dog is dangerous enough to be shot, anyone close enough to be hit by a bullet fragment may face more danger from the dog itself. Unless the dog is standing on something at eye level, overpenetration is not a risk. Think about the angle from a standing firing stance to a dog. There's nothing but ground behind the dog.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: The author relays information garnered from the dog owner, the witness
And they've done it in a way designed to bring outrage. You are just choosing not to admit it because it hurts your case. You've argued the other side of this in other threads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Because the cop pulled a GUN on a Barking DOG.
And I've explained it pretty well I think.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bottom line: If the dog was doing anything aggressive, then the gun was the right call. If the dog REALLY WAS just barking and wagging its tail etc, then it was not justified.
But since all we have is the biased untrained witness, we don't know the actual demeanor of the dog. Depending on that, this could go either way. But to say that pulling a gun on a barking dog all by itself makes a cop a monster is actually a horrible and ignorant position to have.
May 5, 2011: Former Iraq veteran Jose Guerena was shot to death by Pima County Sheriff SWAT officers. They suspected Guerena of being part of a drug dealing operation (he was not involved). The five person team fired 71 rounds at Guerena in seven seconds, who died after being hit 22 times.The officers prevented the ambulance from getting Guerena medical attention until they searched the house. The officers even pointed their guns at Guerena's wife and 4-year-old son. Despite that dozens of neighbors testified that the officers never knocked or identified themselves when they entered the house, the SWAT team was cleared of any wrongdoing and never apologized to Guerena's family. Neighbors also said that the SWAT officers burst into their houses after the shooting and intimidated them, which the officers deny.
Want to point out. He was armed with a M4. The cops were at the front door when the door was forced open. One cop stumble into the dorrway. Gunfire ensued. SWAT bolo the entry like a newb. The helmet cam video has poor audio pick up so one could not say they identified themselves or not. SWAT going to lose in court due to unrestrained shooting and bolo entry.
July 5, 2011: Kelly Thomas was a 37 year old homeless man suffering from schizophrenia and living on the streets of Fullerton, California. He was fatally beaten by members of the Fullerton Police Department. He passed away from his injuries on the 10th of July 2011. Unarmed and mentally ill, Thomas was shocked with tasers and beaten with flashlights by up to six police officers. An investigation into the beating has been launched and the FBI has become involved. A protest over the beating was held outside the Fullerton Police Department on 18 July 2011.[4] Four officers have been suspended and two have been charged with second degree murder and manslaughter.
Fry em. The fact they were unrestrained. Simple remedy...zipcuff. If six cops couldn't figure that out....
Jan 22, 2010. Yao Wei Wu was beaten by officers from Vancouver Police Department who knocked on the wrong door while investigating a report of a violent domestic dispute.[5] Speaking through a translator, Yao Wei Wu told CBC News that as soon as he opened the door the officers pulled him out of the house and beat him.
Thats to questionable....possible attempt for a payday?
April 1, 2009. Passing through the G20 summit protests in London, Ian Tomlinson was struck in the back of his legs and pushed to the ground by a police constable with the Territorial Support Group in South London. He died soon afterwards. The initial police statement said that police had been alerted that a man had collapsed, and were attacked by "a number of missiles" as they tried to save his life.[6] Several videos from citizen passersby surfaced about one week after the incident and sparked public outcry. The officer has been interviewed on suspicion of manslaughter.
I was ducking and dodging actual missiles...well rockets but missile enough...but...say again Duck Dodgers?
The concerns about overpenetration are overblown and show a lack of understanding of firearms. A bullet EITHER overpenetrates or it ricochets. It can't ricochet AND penetrate things. If a dog is dangerous enough to be shot, anyone close enough to be hit by a bullet fragment may face more danger from the dog itself. Unless the dog is standing on something at eye level, overpenetration is not a risk. Think about the angle from a standing firing stance to a dog. There's nothing but ground behind the dog.
Horse gak. A bullet can (and likely will) over penetrate through a dog. If there's concrete nearby (sidewalk/street/parking) then odds of ricochet are high. Thats why you don't play Yoseimite Sam in the real world in a suburb. Add in there might be children about and this just gets stupid fast.
The concerns about overpenetration are overblown and show a lack of understanding of firearms. A bullet EITHER overpenetrates or it ricochets. It can't ricochet AND penetrate things. If a dog is dangerous enough to be shot, anyone close enough to be hit by a bullet fragment may face more danger from the dog itself. Unless the dog is standing on something at eye level, overpenetration is not a risk. Think about the angle from a standing firing stance to a dog. There's nothing but ground behind the dog.
Horse gak. A bullet can (and likely will) over penetrate through a dog. If there's concrete nearby (sidewalk/street/parking) then odds of ricochet are high. Thats why you don't play Yoseimite Sam in the real world in a suburb. Add in there might be children about and this just gets stupid fast.
If the kids are close enough to take a ricochet, they are in serious danger from the dog. You are SERIOUSLY overestimating the energy in a ricochet from a regular old police gun. This isn't the movies.
I'll give you that if there is a group of kids standing right behind the dog, the cop shouldn't shoot the dog, but um, duh. And I don't see anything in the witness statement about a gaggle of kids behind the dog, soooo yeah.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Again, from the OBVIOUSLY BIASED ACCOUNT from a self described dog lover and printed in an article that had NO PROBLEM opening with an insulting appeal to emotion.
I DO NOT BUY anything that article says until corroborated by someone else. They are selling outrage.
I don't necessarily believe it either, but nor am I willing to believe that the dog must have, necessarily acted aggressively. I've seen too many case of similar incidents in the same region in which police used unnecessary force against dogs to simply grant them the benefit of the doubt.
That is exactly my point, gak, I normally side with people that resort to violence!
I don't doubt that there is some bias, I also don't buy the ridiculous "my kids are crying for their beloved puppy" gak, and the family may even be known to the police and be local dirtbags, but the simple underlying point remains, that big burly policemen have no need to shoot a dog that isn't as angry as a rattlesnake with a hangover and biting a small child's face off.
The concerns about overpenetration are overblown and show a lack of understanding of firearms. A bullet EITHER overpenetrates or it ricochets. It can't ricochet AND penetrate things. If a dog is dangerous enough to be shot, anyone close enough to be hit by a bullet fragment may face more danger from the dog itself. Unless the dog is standing on something at eye level, overpenetration is not a risk. Think about the angle from a standing firing stance to a dog. There's nothing but ground behind the dog.
Horse gak. A bullet can (and likely will) over penetrate through a dog. If there's concrete nearby (sidewalk/street/parking) then odds of ricochet are high. Thats why you don't play Yoseimite Sam in the real world in a suburb. Add in there might be children about and this just gets stupid fast.
If the kids are close enough to take a ricochet, they are in serious danger from the dog. You are SERIOUSLY overestimating the energy in a ricochet from a regular old police gun. This isn't the movies.
I'll give you that if there is a group of kids standing right behind the dog, the cop shouldn't shoot the dog, but um, duh. And I don't see anything in the witness statement about a gaggle of kids behind the dog, soooo yeah.
Are you saying a ricocheting .40 can't hurt a child? Seriously?
I'm going to have to withdraw from this thread to avoid contravening Rule #1 now. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Again, from the OBVIOUSLY BIASED ACCOUNT from a self described dog lover and printed in an article that had NO PROBLEM opening with an insulting appeal to emotion.
I DO NOT BUY anything that article says until corroborated by someone else. They are selling outrage.
I don't necessarily believe it either, but nor am I willing to believe that the dog must have, necessarily acted aggressively. I've seen too many case of similar incidents in the same region in which police used unnecessary force against dogs to simply grant them the benefit of the doubt.
That is exactly my point, gak, I normally side with people that resort to violence!
I don't doubt that there is some bias, I also don't buy the ridiculous "my kids are crying for their beloved puppy" gak, and the family may even be known to the police and be local dirtbags, but the simple underlying point remains, that big burly policemen have no need to shoot a dog that isn't as angry as a rattlesnake with a hangover and biting a small child's face off.
Ok, but do you get that even a low level of aggression means the dog is going to have to be put down? So beating it up is pretty cruel if you're just going to put it down afterwards.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The concerns about overpenetration are overblown and show a lack of understanding of firearms. A bullet EITHER overpenetrates or it ricochets. It can't ricochet AND penetrate things. If a dog is dangerous enough to be shot, anyone close enough to be hit by a bullet fragment may face more danger from the dog itself. Unless the dog is standing on something at eye level, overpenetration is not a risk. Think about the angle from a standing firing stance to a dog. There's nothing but ground behind the dog.
Horse gak. A bullet can (and likely will) over penetrate through a dog. If there's concrete nearby (sidewalk/street/parking) then odds of ricochet are high. Thats why you don't play Yoseimite Sam in the real world in a suburb. Add in there might be children about and this just gets stupid fast.
If the kids are close enough to take a ricochet, they are in serious danger from the dog. You are SERIOUSLY overestimating the energy in a ricochet from a regular old police gun. This isn't the movies.
I'll give you that if there is a group of kids standing right behind the dog, the cop shouldn't shoot the dog, but um, duh. And I don't see anything in the witness statement about a gaggle of kids behind the dog, soooo yeah.
Are you saying a ricocheting .40 can't hurt a child? Seriously?
Not to the extend that you're saying, no.
If it were THAT big of a risk, cops would never be allowed to use guns ever because there might be kids somewhere.
The effective range of a ricochet is very low and the odds of it occurring are low. You're also arguing from the position that there MIGHT be a sidewalk behind the dog. How about the cop decides if there is a sidewalk behind the dog rather than not ever using the gun because there MIGHT be. He has freaking eyes. How do you know this cop didn't say "oh good, there's just dirt behind the dog, it's safe" before drawing? How do you know?
@Jihadin
Have been following the Jose Guerena case with great interest. It IS fair to mention he was armed, so would I be if I heard my front door come crashing in...so probably would you. The whole thing is fishy, totally willing to discuss...probably not in this thread.
Not properly announcing is a BIG DEAL. If someone can establish that cops didn't properly announce and didn't have special permission to do so, I can't really support anything that happens subsequently. You should make that thread, I want to hear about it.
Rented Tritium wrote:If the kids are close enough to take a ricochet, they are in serious danger from the dog. You are SERIOUSLY overestimating the energy in a ricochet from a regular old police gun. This isn't the movies.
one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen on this board. A "regular old police gun" in the here and now is no less than a 9mm, probably one of the most efficient and powerful modern cartridges, and notorious for it's ability to overpenetrate. So much so that police departments trade in thief fancy pants MP5s for AR15s because the rifle round is less likely to endanger the public. So let's go ahead and dispense with that nonsense here and now. A ricochet from a hand gun has the potential to kill or wound from miles away, so I suppose by that somewhat faulty logic if a dog is close enough for a ricochet to kill it's close enough to endanger a child (think of the children) we should entertain the idea that this dog will jump the fence run a mile down the block, crash through a window, and attack a sleeping child.
No it's ridiculous, you probably also believe the FN 5.7 pistol is a cop killer just because you saw one punch through a Cylon on BSG.
Rented Tritium wrote:If the kids are close enough to take a ricochet, they are in serious danger from the dog. You are SERIOUSLY overestimating the energy in a ricochet from a regular old police gun. This isn't the movies.
one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen on this board.
rule 1
A "regular old police gun" in the here and now is no less than a 9mm, probably one of the most efficient and powerful modern cartridges, and notorious for it's ability to overpenetrate.
Which is it, ricochet or over-penetration? It can't be both.
So much so that police departments trade in thief fancy pants MP5s for AR15s because the rifle round is less likely to endanger the public. So let's go ahead and dispense with that nonsense here and now. A ricochet from a hand gun has the potential to kill or wound from miles away, so I suppose by that somewhat faulty logic if a dog is close enough for a ricochet to kill it's close enough to endanger a child (think of the children) we should entertain the idea that this dog will jump the fence run a mile down the block, crash through a window, and attack a sleeping child.
You were just talking about over-penetration and now you're talking about ricochet? Which one is it. Which one does a police gun do?
No it's ridiculous, you probably also believe the FN 5.7 pistol is a cop killer just because you saw one punch through a Cylon on BSG.
First, that's a personal attack, second, you think that police pistols are notorious for BOTH over-penetration AND ricochet. Those are two mutually exclusive problems. But of course, I'm the one with unrealistic gun expectations.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And lets not forget this whole thing is happening because you guys think a cop shouldn't shoot because there MIGHT be a sidewalk.
If it's a real problem, I'm pretty sure the cop can tell by LOOKING WITH HIS EYES that there is a sidewalk.
Ricochets are more likely the less energy the round has. So which is it? Does the bullet slow down too much or does it retain too much energy?
In austinT's argument, the gun is so dangerous they should never use it because there MIGHT BE KIDS WITHIN A MILE OH NOOOOO which is obviously terrible policy.
If you're really concerned about it, make sure cops avoid shooting into sidewalks. Is there any evidence there was a sidewalk behind the dog? Because right now people ITT are arguing that the cop shouldn't have used a gun because there MIGHT have been a sidewalk behind the dog.
Well if the dog is big enough to hide an entire sidewalk, then man, he REALLY needs to get shot.
ITT the simple absurdity of a small, young dog being a threat to two fully grown police officers is lost on some people as they ignore the established foundational aspects of the situation to focus on hypotheticals.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Again, from the OBVIOUSLY BIASED ACCOUNT from a self described dog lover and printed in an article that had NO PROBLEM opening with an insulting appeal to emotion.
I DO NOT BUY anything that article says until corroborated by someone else. They are selling outrage.
I don't necessarily believe it either, but nor am I willing to believe that the dog must have, necessarily acted aggressively. I've seen too many case of similar incidents in the same region in which police used unnecessary force against dogs to simply grant them the benefit of the doubt.
That is exactly my point, gak, I normally side with people that resort to violence!
I don't doubt that there is some bias, I also don't buy the ridiculous "my kids are crying for their beloved puppy" gak, and the family may even be known to the police and be local dirtbags, but the simple underlying point remains, that big burly policemen have no need to shoot a dog that isn't as angry as a rattlesnake with a hangover and biting a small child's face off.
Ok, but do you get that even a low level of aggression means the dog is going to have to be put down? So beating it up is pretty cruel if you're just going to put it down afterwards.
I don't agree mate. I think if I was there I would have ignored the dog, and if it did actually bite someone, I would boot it in the face two or three times and it would whimper and flee. A dog that isn't starving or mad will whimper/yelp and run when It knows it isn't going to win. That is how dogs work, they aren't as smart as you seem to think, and if it is only biting you for "gaks and giggles" it doesn't have enough invested in the situation to want to deal with numerous kicks to the face.
And a dog that has been booted about a bit doesn't even need to see a vet, let alone get put to sleep! And I can testify to that because my border terrier is great with humans but hates dogs. He slipped his leash two years ago and started savaging a black Labrador while it yelped in terror (it was the bigger of the two and did an awful job of self defence to be fair!) the owner stamped on his head about ten times, until I caught up and scooped him into my arms, and he was only groggy for about 30 seconds. I didn't take him to the vet, and I gave him a slap myself for good measure.
If I was a cop and said dog was gnashing on my mate's leg, then I would kick it 3 or 4 times and expect it to flee, your talking numerous large men here! If at that point it still wasn't slowing its attack, I might get my baton out and possibly beat it half to death yes, or possibly shoot it If I really really felt the need but only AT THAT MOMENT.
The point is, in this instance, it didn't NEED to be shot because it wasn't even snaffling anybody!
You have a logical escalation of threat that is trained to soldiers and policemen for use when dealing with humans, why isn't it the same with other animals?
With a human you go from passive to aggressive posture, then you give verbal warnings, then you use physical restraint, then force, THEN deadly force. Why not with a dog?
So with a barking dog why not just try and ignore it? If that is impossible, why not attempt to reassure the animal - then posture aggressively- then minor physical warning such as a threatning swipe with a baton - then an actual strike with a baton - then numerous strikes with a baton, THEN shoot it.
mattyrm wrote:
I don't agree mate. I think if I was there I would have ignored the dog, and if it did actually bite someone, I would boot it in the face two or three times and it would whimper and flee. A dog that isn't starving or mad will whimper/yelp and run when It knows it isn't going to win. That is how dogs work, they aren't as smart as you seem to think, and if it is only biting you for "gaks and giggles" it doesn't have enough invested in the situation to want to deal with numerous kicks to the face.
Doesn't matter. Dogs are not allowed to be aggressive in the street.
And a dog that has been booted about a bit doesn't even need to see a vet, let alone get put to sleep!
Do you think I meant because of its injuries? No dude, it's going to be put to sleep because it went after a cop. A JUDGE is going to order the animal destroyed. This is VERY COMMON.
And I can testify to that because my border terrier is great with humans but hates dogs. He slipped his leash two years ago and started savaging a black Labrador while it yelped in terror (it was the bigger of the two and did an awful job of self defence to be fair!) the owner stamped on his head about ten times, until I caught up and scooped him into my arms, and he was only groggy for about 30 seconds. I didn't take him to the vet, and I gave him a slap myself for good measure.
If he had pursued it with the legal system, your dog would have been put down and I would have agreed.
If I was a cop and said dog was gnashing on my mate's leg, then I would kick it 3 or 4 times and expect it to flee, your talking numerous large men here! If at that point it still wasn't slowing its attack, I might get my baton out and possibly beat it half to death yes, or possibly shoot it If I really really felt the need but only AT THAT MOMENT.
And you would be a horrible officer. That dog just attacked a police officer and you let it go like it was nothing. When it goes off to kill someone's animal or child, you are now responsible.
The point is, in this instance, it didn't NEED to be shot because it wasn't even snaffling anybody!
We don't know what it was doing, since all we have is questionable newspaper testimony.
You have a logical escalation of threat that is trained to soldiers and policemen for use when dealing with humans, why isn't it the same with other animals?
Because animals do not have constitutional rights. Legally animals are property.
With a human you go from passive to aggressive posture, then you give verbal warnings, then you use physical restraint, then force, THEN deadly force. Why not with a dog?
Really? I don't even know how to respond to this one.
So with a barking dog why not just try and ignore it?
If the dog was JUST barking, then they should have waited for animal control. My argument isn't that this wasn't the case, just that we don't actually know what happened and that there IS a scenario where shooting is justified even with a dog this small.
If that is impossible, why not attempt to reassure the animal - then posture aggressively- then minor physical warning such as a threatning swipe with a baton - then an actual strike with a baton - then numerous strikes with a baton, THEN shoot it.
Because dogs have teeth. If you MUST force it into the use of force matrix, it's at the level of a person with a knife. A very fast person with a knife and a small outline.
Not just rock up, see it barking - slot it.
There was really no need for it.
Based on your flawed understanding of police work combined with your interpretation of a horribly written news piece designed to get you angry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Shuma....would that be called situational awareness?
Which is it, ricochet or over-penetration? It can't be both
Yes you can have both. Doesn't take much to punch through flesh
He can't argue both. He can't use a gun's propensity to do one as an argument for the other. He said that police guns are notorious for over-penetration, then said they could ricochet a mile. Which is it? A gun with high energy is going to ricochet LESS. A gun that is NOTORIOUS for over-penetration is a gun that's overpowered. If it's overpowered, then it's going to have a LOWER risk of ricochet
He can't argue both. He can't use a gun's propensity to do one as an argument for the other. He said that police guns are notorious for over-penetration, then said they could ricochet a mile. Which is it? A gun with high energy is going to ricochet LESS.
You are not the king of physics it would seem.
A gun that is NOTORIOUS for over-penetration is a gun that's overpowered. If it's overpowered, then it's going to have a LOWER risk of ricochet
A more energetic projectile is going to maintain more velocity when it ricochets. It has less of a chance of doing so due to the propensity to enter the object it would otherwise bounce off of, but asphalt at a 30 degree angle would to ricochet a 50 caliber round.
ShumaGorath wrote:
A more energetic projectile is going to maintain more velocity when it ricochets. It has less of a chance of doing so due to the propensity to enter the object it would otherwise bounce off of, but asphalt at a 30 degree angle would to ricochet a 50 caliber round.
Ok, but see we're talking about what the cops should take into account when doing a thing.
The argument made was that they shouldn't have IRRESPONSIBLE used guns when there could be ricochets.
The likelihood and danger of a ricochet has got to be greater than the danger to nearby people.
If the dog wasn't going after anyone, I actually don't think they should have shot, that's not even what I'm arguing anyway.
But on the assumption that it WAS, shooting is fine. If there is ANY judgement about ricochets to be made, it's that the cop can see behind the dog. Is there a sidewalk, Y/N? But the armchair cops all want to assume that there might have been and guns are NEVER ok.
And like I said, if the dog is big enough to block a sidewalk, maybe a regular gun isn't the right call anyway.
Ok, but see we're talking about what the cops should take into account when doing a thing.
I was talking about you being bad at physics, which given your thorough lack of understanding of dog scale is starting to make this whole kit and kaboodle pretty farcical.
Ok, but see we're talking about what the cops should take into account when doing a thing.
I was talking about you being bad at physics, which given your thorough lack of understanding of dog scale is starting to make this whole kit and kaboodle pretty farcical.
You should stop.
Are you still on about the dog thing? Do you really not get how small a dog can be and still do serious damage? Half of the small breeds were for hunting. I saw the picture, if that dog was being aggressive, I would absolutely fething shoot it.
You can call me a girly man all you want. Nothing is worth that bite.
Are you still on about the dog thing? Do you really not get how small a dog can be and still do serious damage?
Correct. Because it's bull gak. A housecat can do serious damage too. We're not invincible rock men. The point is how difficult it is to do, and it's exceptionally difficult for a small young dog to harm fully grown adult males even when trying it's damnedest.
Half of the small breeds were for hunting. I saw the picture, if that dog was being aggressive, I would absolutely fething shoot it.
Hunting dogs track and retrieve prey, they don't run up and kill the fething deer.
You can call me a girly man all you want. Nothing is worth that bite.
Killing a small animal because you're afraid of a few scratches is cowardly.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Killing a small animal because you're afraid of a few scratches is cowardly.
Telling a cop that they need to stand there and get bitten in the name of honor and courage is stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: When you are a cop, you cannot be worried about courage. You're worried about getting home in one piece at the end of the day. Nothing justifies telling someone on the job that they should get extra holes in them because stopping it would be cowardly.
That's the same nonsense that makes people break OSHA rules because of peer pressure. It's a job. Nobody gets to tell you to take an injury in the name of a job.
You can call me a girly man all you want. Nothing is worth that bite.
Killing a small animal because you're afraid of a few scratches is cowardly.
Yeah, nothing is worth that bite?!
Nothing at all?
An old woman's Jack Russell bit my foot once, the little gak went for me as we passed on the pavement and got the tongue of my sneaker in its mouth and started going mental. I found it amusing, ripped my shoe from its mouth and leapt away as she tugged on tugged on the lead and apologised.
Ill tell you what I should have done, shot it in the head.
5 times.
I mean, it might do that to another kid, and nothing is worth the bite. In fact, Im going to go find out where she lives and stove its head in with a spade in an act of vigiliantism that way well spare the life of a child one day. I mean, it might do that again, and it might sever a major artery. It might do that, and then run over a busy road, and then a truck driver might swerve to miss it and then it might hit a gas station and blow up.
And then it might like.. the Iranians might see the resulting explosion on satellite, and they might think its the USA launching a Nuclear device! And then the Israelis and the Americans will retort and half of the world will die in nuclear fire because of that cursed hound!
And that is pretty much how this thread has gone. I'm sick of hearing "might" and "perhaps" and "maybe it will hit the femoral artery"
Big blokes don't need to shoot dogs 5 times if they aren't rabid and savaging people.
Rented Tritium wrote:Telling a cop that they need to stand there and get bitten in the name of honor and courage is stupid.
It's easy to post about courage from behind a keyboard though.
mattyrm wrote: Big blokes don't need to shoot dogs 5 times if they aren't rabid and savaging people.
I think if there's a potential that they could savage people, something does need to be done though. I think having animal control come and collect the dog would have been a better call, but if they had decided to wait and the dog did end up biting someone the cops would have a similar media problem.
Did you guys see the picture of this dog? It's head was above the couch cushion and it had AT LEAST 4 or 5 inches of bite. That is PLENTY.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If it turns out the dog was NOT being aggressive at all, then it doesn't matter how big it was, it was not justified.
If it turns out the dog WAS being aggressive, then it doesn't matter how SMALL it was.
Monster Rain wrote:It's easy to post about courage from behind a keyboard though.
Well sure it is, were just talking, I dont actually feel THAT strongly about the topic, and I do think that an officers life is more important than a dogs clearly, it just seems unnecessary to me, and I do think we all have the right to disagree with things that coppers do.
All I'm saying is I personally don't think you should slot a dog for barking, I think it is either a bloke being particularly cowardly or was done purely to be malicious, and I think its likely to be the latter because I don't know a grown man who is that scared of a gakky little dog that isn't foaming at the mouth.
Rented Tritium wrote:If the kids are close enough to take a ricochet, they are in serious danger from the dog. You are SERIOUSLY overestimating the energy in a ricochet from a regular old police gun. This isn't the movies.
one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen on this board.
rule 1
Your right I do find your ignorance appallingly impolite.
A "regular old police gun" in the here and now is no less than a 9mm, probably one of the most efficient and powerful modern cartridges, and notorious for it's ability to overpenetrate.
Which is it, ricochet or over-penetration? It can't be both.
yes facts be damned, if a bullet RICOCHETS in the body of the intended target and proceeds beyond the intended target. Since bullets have a well documented tendency to ricochet off bones and penetration through and beyond an intended target is OVERPENETRATION this demonstrates one of countless occasions wherein a bullet may ricochet and overpenetrate.
So much so that police departments trade in thief fancy pants MP5s for AR15s because the rifle round is less likely to endanger the public. So let's go ahead and dispense with that nonsense here and now. A ricochet from a hand gun has the potential to kill or wound from miles away, so I suppose by that somewhat faulty logic if a dog is close enough for a ricochet to kill it's close enough to endanger a child (think of the children) we should entertain the idea that this dog will jump the fence run a mile down the block, crash through a window, and attack a sleeping child.
You were just talking about over-penetration and now you're talking about ricochet? Which one is it. Which one does a police gun do?
Well I was talking about overpen, but you mentioned ricochets I answered, do try to keep up.
No it's ridiculous, you probably also believe the FN 5.7 pistol is a cop killer just because you saw one punch through a Cylon on BSG.
First, that's a personal attack, second, you think that police pistols are notorious for BOTH over-penetration AND ricochet. Those are two mutually exclusive problems. But of course, I'm the one with unrealistic gun expectations.
Since you seem to have a little difficulty with determining what a personal attack is, I'd help you out but it's not allowed here.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Ok, but see we're talking about what the cops should take into account when doing a thing.
I was talking about you being bad at physics, which given your thorough lack of understanding of dog scale is starting to make this whole kit and kaboodle pretty farcical.
You should stop.
To be fair ballistics is 78 percent math 20 percent voodoo and 2 percent blind dumb luck.
It's acknowledged that muzzle ENERGY, will reduce overpen, as Muzzle VELOCITY will increase that tendency, the ratio between the two blah blah. I don't care enough. That is to say that velocity also increases the Likly hood of ricochet, in ratio with the angle of attack. Blah blah...you get it I'm sure if not I'll care more in a few hours.
Monster Rain wrote:It's easy to post about courage from behind a keyboard though.
Well sure it is, were just talking, I dont actually feel THAT strongly about the topic, and I do think that an officers life is more important than a dogs clearly, it just seems unnecessary to me, and I do think we all have the right to disagree with things that coppers do.
It wasn't really aimed at you, boss.
I get your point, I'm saying that others trying to make the point that people should get bitten by dogs to prove their courage or honor is delusional.
Monster Rain wrote:It's easy to post about courage from behind a keyboard though.
Well sure it is, were just talking, I dont actually feel THAT strongly about the topic, and I do think that an officers life is more important than a dogs clearly, it just seems unnecessary to me, and I do think we all have the right to disagree with things that coppers do.
It wasn't really aimed at you, boss.
I get your point, I'm saying that others trying to make the point that people should get bitten by dogs to prove their courage or honor is delusional.
Of course it's delusional...
That's like saying 'You should cut yourself to show you are manly'
Yeah, again, shooting the dog wasn't the best move no matter what the situation if only from a PR perspective, let alone all of the other considerations.
It does seem that there's more to this story than this clearly one-sided news piece is giving us, however.
AustonT wrote:It's acknowledged that muzzle ENERGY, will reduce overpen, as Muzzle VELOCITY will increase that tendency, the ratio between the two blah blah. I don't care enough. That is to say that velocity also increases the Likly hood of ricochet, in ratio with the angle of attack. Blah blah...you get it I'm sure if not I'll care more in a few hours.
Physics 101. Muzzle energy is the relevant stat. Muzzle velocity is part of what defines energy. What you are looking for is the ration between velocity and MASS, not velocity and energy as velocity is already PART of energy.
What determines over penetration is muzzle energy (and a bunch of other non-velocity things like shape of the round etc etc etc, but you know that)
So for our purposes, energy really is the only thing that matters.
purplefood wrote:
That's like saying 'You should cut yourself to show you are manly'
What about "I don't mind carrying a man-bag, watching Twilight with my girlfriend, or fellating big gangs of sailors to prove how secure I am with my heterosexuality"
Kilkrazy wrote:The British police seem capable of dealing with barking dogs without shooting them.
Perhaps dogs are more aggressive in the US.
And I'll bet more officers are injured by dogs there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, again, shooting the dog wasn't the best move no matter what the situation if only from a PR perspective, let alone all of the other considerations.
It does seem that there's more to this story than this clearly one-sided news piece is giving us, however.
Unfortunately, it's a small enough town that to get the report, one of us needs to put in a public records request.
purplefood wrote:
That's like saying 'You should cut yourself to show you are manly'
What about "I don't mind carrying a man-bag, watching Twilight with my girlfriend, or fellating big gangs of sailors to prove how secure I am with my heterosexuality"
purplefood wrote:
That's like saying 'You should cut yourself to show you are manly'
What about "I don't mind carrying a man-bag, watching Twilight with my girlfriend, or fellating big gangs of sailors to prove how secure I am with my heterosexuality"
Rented Tritium wrote:Unfortunately, it's a small enough town that to get the report, one of us needs to put in a public records request.
It's enough for me to know that this is a gakky news piece, that if the cops truly did something as unlikely as shooting a dog because it was barking they'll be disciplined, and that it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Rented Tritium wrote:Unfortunately, it's a small enough town that to get the report, one of us needs to put in a public records request.
It's enough for me to know that this is a gakky news piece, that if the cops truly did something as unlikely as shooting a dog because it was barking they'll be disciplined, and that it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Yep.
I think it's totally possible that they were trigger happy. But there's just not enough evidence in this story to actually say so.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Killing a small animal because you're afraid of a few scratches is cowardly.
Telling a cop that they need to stand there and get bitten in the name of honor and courage is stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: When you are a cop, you cannot be worried about courage. You're worried about getting home in one piece at the end of the day. Nothing justifies telling someone on the job that they should get extra holes in them because stopping it would be cowardly.
That's the same nonsense that makes people break OSHA rules because of peer pressure. It's a job. Nobody gets to tell you to take an injury in the name of a job.
Last I saw
1. Cops don't have to blast away at every dog that barks at them. Do they shoot screaming babies too? (answer 'no!')
2. Cops have non lethal avenues as well. In addition to that whole A) "shut up dog!" ; B) foot thing they have C: Pepper spray/tear gas. Pulling a gun is off the shart for increasing risk to everyone, including themselves.
Frazzled wrote:1. Cops don't have to blast away at every dog that barks at them.
Hey dude, last I saw, I made like 10 fething posts in this thread saying that if it was JUST BARKING, that it wasn't justified. So drop this strawman nonsense, it is not what I said.
2. Cops have non lethal avenues as well. In addition to that whole A) "shut up dog!" ; B) foot thing they have C: Pepper spray/tear gas. Pulling a gun is off the shart for increasing risk to everyone, including themselves.
I made ANOTHER post in this thread about why those things were not a good idea, but I guess you didn't read it either.
Hey dude, last I saw, I made like 10 fething posts in this thread saying that if it was JUST BARKING, that it wasn't justified. So drop this strawman nonsense, it is not what I said.
Technically you're the one strawmanning by constructing an alternate reality to the one presented in the article. He isn't.
Hey dude, last I saw, I made like 10 fething posts in this thread saying that if it was JUST BARKING, that it wasn't justified. So drop this strawman nonsense, it is not what I said.
Technically you're the one strawmanning by constructing an alternate reality to the one presented in the article. He isn't.
We don't know what happened. The article doesn't present anything worth believing, so I'm presenting potential scenarios.
You said several of them were IMPOSSIBLE and that's false.
You said there was NO POSSIBLE SCENARIO where the shooting was justified. I crafted SEVERAL that are plausible. We have no idea which one is what HAPPENED, but that doesn't matter. What we are arguing about is the idea that there are NONE that are justified.
I'll let the fact that you don't know what strawman means slide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:No. I didn't accept your arguments.
So you just posted it again?
I answered the question. Are you expecting a different answer when you just repost it?
We don't know what happened. The article doesn't present anything worth believing, so I'm presenting potential scenarios.
You said several of them were IMPOSSIBLE and that's false.
You said there was NO POSSIBLE SCENARIO where the shooting was justified.
I said "reasonable" and "viable" in my posts. You're a troll. At this point thats pretty solidly obvious.
I crafted SEVERAL that are plausible. We have no idea which one is what HAPPENED, but that doesn't matter. What we are arguing about is the idea that there are NONE that are justified.
I'll let the fact that you don't know what strawman means slide.
We don't know what happened. The article doesn't present anything worth believing, so I'm presenting potential scenarios.
You said several of them were IMPOSSIBLE and that's false.
You said there was NO POSSIBLE SCENARIO where the shooting was justified.
I said "reasonable". You're a troll. At this point thats pretty solidly obvious.
Well I gave you several that are reasonable. I guess you call people trolls when you don't like them?
I crafted SEVERAL that are plausible. We have no idea which one is what HAPPENED, but that doesn't matter. What we are arguing about is the idea that there are NONE that are justified.
I'll let the fact that you don't know what strawman means slide.
Trolly troll troll.
Nope, but if that's what lets you sleep at night, sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:
Hey dude,
Shuma/Frazz...if I ever start a line like that...shoot me.
Shuma/Frazz...if I ever start a line like that...shoot me.
Stil wuv joo Rent
My Wife says that sometimes (she hangs around with the youngins due to band participation and sometimes she say something like "thats sick!" and I do a double take)
Well I gave you several that are reasonable. I guess you call people trolls when you don't like them?
I call people trolls when they intentionally misquote me. Did you not do that? Did that not just happen? I think it happened. I can see it. My screen resolution is pretty high, so i can see both the quote and this textbox while I type.
Well I gave you several that are reasonable. I guess you call people trolls when you don't like them?
I call people trolls when they intentionally misquote me. Did you not do that? Did that not just happen? I think it happened. I can see it. My screen resolution is pretty high, so i can see both the quote and this textbox while I type.
Well I gave you several that are reasonable. I guess you call people trolls when you don't like them?
I call people trolls when they intentionally misquote me. Did you not do that? Did that not just happen? I think it happened. I can see it. My screen resolution is pretty high, so i can see both the quote and this textbox while I type.
I think it might have actually happened.
It was from like a lot of pages ago, so sue me.
Then check, don't just build an argument against a figment of your imagination. But hey, you've been doing that this entire thread so I guess it would be weird to expect you to stop now.
Well I gave you several that are reasonable. I guess you call people trolls when you don't like them?
I call people trolls when they intentionally misquote me. Did you not do that? Did that not just happen? I think it happened. I can see it. My screen resolution is pretty high, so i can see both the quote and this textbox while I type.
I think it might have actually happened.
It was from like a lot of pages ago, so sue me.
Then check, don't just build an argument against a figment of your imagination. But hey, you've been doing that this entire thread so I guess it would be weird to expect you to stop now.
it's the same argument.
You said there were no "reasonable" scenarios.
I gave you some.
Yeah, same argument. Stop nitpicking and defend your position.
purplefood wrote:Well this has gone rather badly...
Well, it was really sad from one perspective and highly amusing from another.
I'm torn.
If we go with highly amusing we can stave off the depression of realising how society does seem to be ever so slowly sliding into some horrible decline...
Well I gave you several that are reasonable. I guess you call people trolls when you don't like them?
I call people trolls when they intentionally misquote me. Did you not do that? Did that not just happen? I think it happened. I can see it. My screen resolution is pretty high, so i can see both the quote and this textbox while I type.
I think it might have actually happened.
It was from like a lot of pages ago, so sue me.
Then check, don't just build an argument against a figment of your imagination. But hey, you've been doing that this entire thread so I guess it would be weird to expect you to stop now.
it's the same argument.
You said there were no "reasonable" scenarios.
I gave you some.
Yeah, same argument. Stop nitpicking and defend your position.
Your only reasonable scenario amounted to "the dog could of bitten someone". That is not a reasonable scenario in which to fire a gun. It was a small young dog in the presence of fully grown officers. The fact that you continued to repeat that over and over again doesn't suddenly make it sensical.
purplefood wrote:Well this has gone rather badly...
Well, it was really sad from one perspective and highly amusing from another.
I'm torn.
If we go with highly amusing we can stave off the depression of realising how society does seem to be ever so slowly sliding into some horrible decline...
Well I gave you several that are reasonable. I guess you call people trolls when you don't like them?
I call people trolls when they intentionally misquote me. Did you not do that? Did that not just happen? I think it happened. I can see it. My screen resolution is pretty high, so i can see both the quote and this textbox while I type.
I think it might have actually happened.
It was from like a lot of pages ago, so sue me.
Then check, don't just build an argument against a figment of your imagination. But hey, you've been doing that this entire thread so I guess it would be weird to expect you to stop now.
it's the same argument.
You said there were no "reasonable" scenarios.
I gave you some.
Yeah, same argument. Stop nitpicking and defend your position.
Your only reasonable scenario amounted to "the dog could of bitten someone". That is not a reasonable scenario in which to fire a gun. It was a small young dog in the presence of fully grown officers. The fact that you continued to repeat that over and over again doesn't suddenly make it sensical.
Sigh. Whatever. My position didn't include "could of", it might have included "could HAVE", but not "could of"
But really, you have no interest in my arguments if you want to simplify them that far. Enjoy your irrational cop-hating.
Well I gave you several that are reasonable. I guess you call people trolls when you don't like them?
I call people trolls when they intentionally misquote me. Did you not do that? Did that not just happen? I think it happened. I can see it. My screen resolution is pretty high, so i can see both the quote and this textbox while I type.
I think it might have actually happened.
It was from like a lot of pages ago, so sue me.
Then check, don't just build an argument against a figment of your imagination. But hey, you've been doing that this entire thread so I guess it would be weird to expect you to stop now.
it's the same argument.
You said there were no "reasonable" scenarios.
I gave you some.
Yeah, same argument. Stop nitpicking and defend your position.
Your only reasonable scenario amounted to "the dog could of bitten someone". That is not a reasonable scenario in which to fire a gun. It was a small young dog in the presence of fully grown officers. The fact that you continued to repeat that over and over again doesn't suddenly make it sensical.
Sigh. Whatever. My position didn't include "could of", it might have included "could HAVE", but not "could of"
But really, you have no interest in my arguments if you want to simplify them that far. Enjoy your irrational cop-hating.
And here we have come full circle, where the straw manning troll who repeated sentiments about the danger of tiny dogs and consistently claimed that he was misrepresented once again fully misrepresents the postings of another and claims that one simply has no interest in reading his "wholly salient" points.
It's like a funhouse mirror of how discussions should go. We all probably have goatees now.
Well, looks like there's another angle on the story here.
A Round Lake Beach police officer shot and killed a dog that was acting aggressively toward neighbors and had lunged at police, authorities said Wednesday.
John Townsend, 40, of the 1600 block of Lotus Drive in Round Lake Beach, was charged with having a dog at large, harboring a dangerous dog, and not having proper rabies or inoculations for his German shepherd prior to it being shot at 10:52 a.m. Tuesday, Deputy Police Chief Rich Chiarello said.
Officers were called to the 1600 block of Woodridge Drive because a 74-year-old man and an unidentified neighbor were holding a stick toward the dog and trying to keep it from attacking, Chiarello said.
The neighbor saw the dog lunge at the elderly man, so he intervened, officials said.
As officers exited the vehicle, the German shepherd lunged at them but did not bite, Chiarello said. He said a second dog was also in the vicinity and barking at officers.
Officers called out for the dog’s owner, as the German shepherd continued to lunge at them, Chiarello said.
The third time the dog jumped forward to attack, Chiarello said, an officer fearing for his safety, shot the animal once. The dog didn’t stop and the officer fired two more shots to kill it, he said.
After the shooting, the other dog ran back to Townsend’s house. Townsend, the owner of both dogs, arrived and said the dog had escaped the yard through his fence.
Both witnesses released statements claiming they feared for their lives, Chiarello said, and saw the dog attempt to attack the officer.
Rented Tritium wrote:I'll be over here collecting concession statements.
The parts about where the dog never bit anyone or the part where it's size didn't miraculously change? Interestingly, the fundamentals of the story don't change. As I posted four pages ago, short of suspecting it had rabies there are no reason to employ a deadly weapon.
I'd like everyone to reflect on the past 6 ish pages, and how ridiculous it is that we've been arguing about what may have been a false story from the get go.
You know, kind of like what myself and several others have been trying to point out.
Necroshea wrote:I'd like everyone to reflect on the past 6 ish pages, and how ridiculous it is that we've been arguing about what may have been a false story from the get go.
You know, kind of like what myself and several others have been trying to point out.
Except the establishment of aggressive behavior was the only thing that changed. That still isn't enough to warrant use of deadly force against a small pet that has yet to actually attack anyone.
Necroshea wrote:I'd like everyone to reflect on the past 6 ish pages, and how ridiculous it is that we've been arguing about what may have been a false story from the get go.
You know, kind of like what myself and several others have been trying to point out.
Except the establishment of aggressive behavior was the only thing that changed. That still isn't enough to warrant use of deadly force against a small pet that has yet to actually attack anyone.
Rented Tritium wrote:I'll be over here collecting concession statements.
The parts about where the dog never bit anyone or the part where it's size didn't miraculously change?
The part where there was a reasonable scenario that justified the shooting.
The part where the original news story was wrong in basically every way.
The part where the dogs tried to bite people.
All of these things.
Tried to bite? If it wanted to bite it would have bitten. Posturing and attacking are different behavioral patterns. There was no attack, the story establishes that. This is the exact reason animal control exists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Necroshea wrote:I'd like everyone to reflect on the past 6 ish pages, and how ridiculous it is that we've been arguing about what may have been a false story from the get go.
You know, kind of like what myself and several others have been trying to point out.
Except the establishment of aggressive behavior was the only thing that changed. That still isn't enough to warrant use of deadly force against a small pet that has yet to actually attack anyone.
Really?
Yeah, you were right. We're done here.
Sorry that you're high horse got shot by some officers, but honestly, it shouldn't of been lunging like that. I mean, it didn't bite anyone, but I felt threatened.
Rented Tritium wrote:I'll be over here collecting concession statements.
The parts about where the dog never bit anyone or the part where it's size didn't miraculously change?
The part where there was a reasonable scenario that justified the shooting.
The part where the original news story was wrong in basically every way.
The part where the dogs tried to bite people.
All of these things.
Tried to bite? If it wanted to bite it would have bitten. Posturing and attacking are different behavioral patterns. There was no attack, the story establishes that.
So you read that second one and you're actually not changing your position?
That's dedication, but uhhh, you're gonna be pretty alone here.
Necroshea wrote:I'd like everyone to reflect on the past 6 ish pages, and how ridiculous it is that we've been arguing about what may have been a false story from the get go.
You know, kind of like what myself and several others have been trying to point out.
Which don't mean gak. The original article noted none of that and you were essentially arguing taking out a puppy that barked at a cop. This is a completely different situation.
If you say "those evil people should quit bombing and killing innocent civilians" thats one set of facts.
If the person saying is it is Emperor Hirohito and its January 1944, thats a completely different set of facts.
Necroshea wrote:I'd like everyone to reflect on the past 6 ish pages, and how ridiculous it is that we've been arguing about what may have been a false story from the get go.
You know, kind of like what myself and several others have been trying to point out.
Which don't mean gak. The original article noted none of that and you were essentially arguing taking out a puppy that barked at a cop. This is a completely different situation.
Nobody in this thread has argued that the dog should be shot just for barking. People were arguing that the dog might have been doing more than just barking and the witness was wrong/couldn't see it, etc etc.
I CHALLENGE YOU to find a post ANYWHERE in this thread where someone says that dog should be shot JUST for barking where they didn't also talk about posture and aggression or other circumstances.
Rented Tritium wrote:I'll be over here collecting concession statements.
The parts about where the dog never bit anyone or the part where it's size didn't miraculously change?
The part where there was a reasonable scenario that justified the shooting.
The part where the original news story was wrong in basically every way.
The part where the dogs tried to bite people.
All of these things.
Tried to bite? If it wanted to bite it would have bitten. Posturing and attacking are different behavioral patterns. There was no attack, the story establishes that.
So you read that second one and you're actually not changing your position?
That's dedication, but uhhh, you're gonna be pretty alone here.
My position was based in reference to what constitutes a threatening situation and what constitutes an attack. The new article establishes that no attack occurred and did not alter the size of the dog, merely it's behavioral patterns from agitation to aggression and posturing. The use of deadly force was still unnecessary. This is the gak you never understood from the very beginning because you were too busy straw-manning some sort of snowman made of puppies.
Necroshea wrote:I'd like everyone to reflect on the past 6 ish pages, and how ridiculous it is that we've been arguing about what may have been a false story from the get go.
You know, kind of like what myself and several others have been trying to point out.
Which don't mean gak. The original article noted none of that and you were essentially arguing taking out a puppy that barked at a cop. This is a completely different situation.
If you say "those evil people should quit bombing and killing innocent civilians" thats one set of facts.
If the person saying is it is Emperor Hirohito and its January 1944, thats a completely different set of facts.
If you think the last 6 pages of discussion are worth a damn, I'm not going to even bother attempted to convince you otherwise.
And no, I argued that the story was based on an untrusted source. I argued that it was a stray dog acting aggressively. An aggressive stray that a cop shot. Now we have a story that makes the dog and dog owner look worse.
Even now you guys are still getting up in arms over this.
ShumaGorath wrote:
My position was based in reference to what constitutes a threatening situation and what constitutes an attack. The new article establishes that no attack occurred and did not alter the size of the dog, merely it's behavioral patterns from agitation to aggression and posturing. The use of deadly force was still unnecessary. This is the gak you never understood from the very beginning because you were too busy straw-manning some sort of snowman made of puppies.
So you're arguing that a dog has to literally sink teeth into someone before it's a threat?
I think you should look up threat in the dictionary.
If by strawman, you mean "i was assuming that you were using the real life definition of the word "threat" and not a madeup space word" then yeah, I guess that's a strawman.
ShumaGorath wrote: My position was based in reference to what constitutes a threatening situation and what constitutes an attack. The new article establishes that no attack occurred and did not alter the size of the dog, merely it's behavioral patterns from agitation to aggression and posturing. The use of deadly force was still unnecessary. This is the gak you never understood from the very beginning because you were too busy straw-manning some sort of snowman made of puppies.
So you're arguing that a dog has to literally sink teeth into someone before it's a threat?
I think you should look up threat in the dictionary.
If by strawman, you mean "i was assuming that you were using the real life definition of the word "threat" and not a madeup space word" then yeah, I guess that's a strawman.
A dog has to be capable of causing injury beyond what can be handled without the use of a firearm. That dog was not capable of that. You have no idea what consitutes a threat that warrants the use of deadly force. You have attempted to establish time and time again that a 40 pound dog can maul an officer severely. That's bull gak. You know it's bull gak. Everyone knows thats bs. Is this some sort of longdog? Some sort of super dense 200 pound dog made of titanium? Where the hell is the threat? You allergic to dogs?
Did anyone call animal control? No. Did the officers employ non lethals? No. did they attempt any course of action other then observation and then use of deadly force? No.
They didn't do their fething jobs. Get over it. Get over your fear of small animals. I know you're pretty comfortable in your position of waiting for the ivory tower to build around your legs, but it isn't coming. The posture of the animal did not establish need of deadly force. An attack would of done that. Size or breed might have done that. None of that changed though, so you're still out in the rain.
ShumaGorath wrote:You have attempted to establish time and time again that a 40 pound dog can maul an officer severely. That's bull gak. You know it's bull gak. Everyone knows thats bs.
You know, everyone except everyone involved in the case who decided the other way.
40 pounds is plenty of dog to do some damage. My roomate had a 40 pound boxer, that was a pretty powerful dog and she was like 18 inches to the shoulder.
Have you ever had a medium-small sized dog? They're not weak.
ShumaGorath wrote:You have attempted to establish time and time again that a 40 pound dog can maul an officer severely. That's bull gak. You know it's bull gak. Everyone knows thats bs.
You know, everyone except everyone involved in the case who decided the other way.
40 pounds is plenty of dog to do some damage. My roomate had a 40 pound boxer, that was a pretty powerful dog and she was like 18 inches to the shoulder.
Have you ever had a medium-small sized dog? They're not weak.
Clearly they decided the other way. We wouldn't be here saying they made a bad call otherwise. Do you live in the smuf village or something?
ShumaGorath wrote:
My position was based in reference to what constitutes a threatening situation and what constitutes an attack. The new article establishes that no attack occurred and did not alter the size of the dog, merely it's behavioral patterns from agitation to aggression and posturing. The use of deadly force was still unnecessary. This is the gak you never understood from the very beginning because you were too busy straw-manning some sort of snowman made of puppies.
So you're arguing that a dog has to literally sink teeth into someone before it's a threat?
I think you should look up threat in the dictionary.
If by strawman, you mean "i was assuming that you were using the real life definition of the word "threat" and not a madeup space word" then yeah, I guess that's a strawman.
Well at this point my issue is more satisfied. While I'd still proffer pepper spray/mace are effective, the statement that that the two bystanders were in fear of attack, puts it into an altogether different scenario and the police are defintiely justified to do something. If the cops wheel up and the dog puts them in a threatened situation, and is of a size to be an actually threat. then again they have the right to defend themselves.
ShumaGorath wrote:You have attempted to establish time and time again that a 40 pound dog can maul an officer severely. That's bull gak. You know it's bull gak. Everyone knows thats bs.
You know, everyone except everyone involved in the case who decided the other way.
40 pounds is plenty of dog to do some damage. My roomate had a 40 pound boxer, that was a pretty powerful dog and she was like 18 inches to the shoulder.
Have you ever had a medium-small sized dog? They're not weak.
Wait, really? Thats what you consider a lethal level threat? a 40lb dog?
Frazzled wrote:While I'd still proffer pepper spray/mace are effective.
This is fuzzy, but yes in theory. Pepper spray on animals is kind of complicated. It's been tested a LOT less and the thing is, it's less humane.
Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down. There is no scenario where a dog gets to lunge at an officer when it's ALREADY on someone else's property lunging at the elderly without being put down for it.
So in the case where the dog has ALREADY crossed the line where the law is going to put it down, pepper spraying it is just an extra risk that it doesn't work and you get bitten anyway and the payoff is that the dog still gets put down the next day.
If the dog had constitutional rights to due process or something, then you'd have an argument, but they don't . They're property.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So yes, we treat dogs differently than people for use of force. Surprise.
Kilkrazy wrote:The British police seem capable of dealing with barking dogs without shooting them.
Perhaps dogs are more aggressive in the US.
And I'll bet more officers are injured by dogs there.
Let's take a look.
The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population).
Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301.
NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm
It seems as if dog attacks are about 150 times more common in the USA than in the UK.
This might be thought to argue two things; firstly, that the police were justified in their caution around the puppy, secondly, that easy availability of guns is of little use in defending against dog attacks.
This is fuzzy, but yes in theory. Pepper spray on animals is kind of complicated. It's been tested a LOT less and the thing is, it's less humane.
Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down. There is no scenario where a dog gets to lunge at an officer when it's ALREADY on someone else's property lunging at the elderly without being put down for it.
Where in the hell do you live if people have eachothers small dogs put down the moment they get off the leash and start acting aggressively? I know Maine is kinda rural so maybe I'm used to more bumpkinisms, but that just seems douchey.
If the dog had constitutional rights to due process or something, then you'd have an argument, but they don't . They're property.
Animals also have behavior, something a car doesn't have. Thus it's important to parse their behavior and capability before acting like they're automoton killbots and putting them down on the spot.
Kilkrazy wrote:The British police seem capable of dealing with barking dogs without shooting them.
Perhaps dogs are more aggressive in the US.
And I'll bet more officers are injured by dogs there.
Let's take a look.
The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population).
Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301.
NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm
It seems as if dog attacks are about 150 times more common in the USA than in the UK.
This might be thought to argue two things; firstly, that the police were justified in their caution around the puppy, secondly, that easy availability of guns is of little use in defending against dog attacks.
I'm talking about the officers, not the general population. I'm saying that I'll bet more officers are bitten by dogs on duty in the UK than in the US, where they can shoot them.
This is fuzzy, but yes in theory. Pepper spray on animals is kind of complicated. It's been tested a LOT less and the thing is, it's less humane.
***Its a hellofalot more humane than blowing its brains out. But agreed its more ambiguous, and some breeds tend to ignore it (especially those lovable pit bulls and rottweilers). In the situation (taking both articles into effect), I'd put pepper spray as the next best option. A 40lb animal is highly controllable (and capable of getting its ass kicked if necessary).
Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down.
***No. The cop might. The city pound will impound it, but unless there's an attack then no reason to put it down.
There is no scenario where a dog gets to lunge at an officer when it's ALREADY on someone else's property lunging at the elderly without being put down for it.
***Again it depends on the actual situtaion as you so correctly pointed out. So far the dog hasn't actually done anything. Using a kill order is more likely when an actual attack has occurred.
Frazzled wrote:
Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down.
***No. The cop might. The city pound will impound it, but unless there's an attack then no reason to put it down.
This really isn't true. If the dog is aggressive and it lunges at an officer, it's gonna get put down. It happens every day. It doesn't have to actually get teeth into a person to be considered a threat or a dangerous dog.
Again, this comes back to the faulty definition of "threat" that people like to use that only covers actual injury actually literally occurring before your very eyes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:So far the dog hasn't actually done anything.
Frazzled wrote: Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down. ***No. The cop might. The city pound will impound it, but unless there's an attack then no reason to put it down.
This really isn't true. If the dog is aggressive and it lunges at an officer, it's gonna get put down. It happens every day. It doesn't have to actually get teeth into a person to be considered a threat or a dangerous dog.
Again, this comes back to the faulty definition of "threat" that people like to use that only covers actual injury actually literally occurring before your very eyes.
Apparently Animal control does not exist. There are not trained people whose job it is to handle these exact situations in non lethal ways. Officers dispense justice quickly and quietly in every single situation. Little timmy can just get a cat if he doesn't like it.
Except lunging at an elderly couple and a cop?
Except that?
If it is lunging but not biting then it is exhibiting territorial or defensive aggression and is not intent on attacking. It is attempting to establish dominance and appear threatening. A dog that is genuinely aggressive bites you. That is the inherent and incredibly important difference.
Frazzled wrote:
Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down.
***No. The cop might. The city pound will impound it, but unless there's an attack then no reason to put it down.
This really isn't true. If the dog is aggressive and it lunges at an officer, it's gonna get put down. It happens every day. It doesn't have to actually get teeth into a person to be considered a threat or a dangerous dog.
Again, this comes back to the faulty definition of "threat" that people like to use that only covers actual injury actually literally occurring before your very eyes.
I'm not using a faulty definition and yes the standard is lower, but the standard for shooting a car is almost nonexistence. Yet, strangely, going Dirty Harry on an Edsel generally is frowned upon.
Frazzled wrote:
Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down.
***No. The cop might. The city pound will impound it, but unless there's an attack then no reason to put it down.
This really isn't true. If the dog is aggressive and it lunges at an officer, it's gonna get put down. It happens every day. It doesn't have to actually get teeth into a person to be considered a threat or a dangerous dog.
Again, this comes back to the faulty definition of "threat" that people like to use that only covers actual injury actually literally occurring before your very eyes.
Apparently Animal control does not exist. There are not trained people whose job it is to handle these exact situations in non lethal ways. Officers dispense justice quickly and quietly in every single situation. Little timmy can just get a cat if he doesn't like it.
Right, I suppose the cops should have just sat there and let the dogs attack the elderly couple and themselves while they waited for animal control to get there.
Ok, well back over here in reality land, nobody reasonable is going to wait when an active threat is happening.
If animal control had gotten there first? That would have OBVIOUSLY been better. The dogs would probably STILL have ended up being put down, though. They went into someone else's yard and lunged at them, pinning them on a porch.
Kilkrazy wrote:The British police seem capable of dealing with barking dogs without shooting them.
Perhaps dogs are more aggressive in the US.
And I'll bet more officers are injured by dogs there.
Let's take a look.
The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population).
Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301.
NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm
It seems as if dog attacks are about 150 times more common in the USA than in the UK.
This might be thought to argue two things; firstly, that the police were justified in their caution around the puppy, secondly, that easy availability of guns is of little use in defending against dog attacks.
I'm talking about the officers, not the general population. I'm saying that I'll bet more officers are bitten by dogs on duty in the UK than in the US, where they can shoot them.
The stats presented include attacks on officers. There's no reason to suppose that police in either country are more or less liable than the general population to be attacked by dogs.
ShumaGorath wrote:
If it is lunging but not biting then it is exhibiting territorial or defensive aggression and is not intent on attacking. It is attempting to establish dominance and appear threatening. A dog that is genuinely aggressive bites you. That is the inherent and incredibly important difference.
Except that it was happening on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. You do not get to have a dog that does that. I'm sorry man, but you just don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:The British police seem capable of dealing with barking dogs without shooting them.
Perhaps dogs are more aggressive in the US.
And I'll bet more officers are injured by dogs there.
Let's take a look.
The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population).
Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301.
NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm
It seems as if dog attacks are about 150 times more common in the USA than in the UK.
This might be thought to argue two things; firstly, that the police were justified in their caution around the puppy, secondly, that easy availability of guns is of little use in defending against dog attacks.
I'm talking about the officers, not the general population. I'm saying that I'll bet more officers are bitten by dogs on duty in the UK than in the US, where they can shoot them.
The stats presented include attacks on officers. There's no reason to suppose that police in either country are more or less liable than the general population to be attacked by dogs.
Considering the point that was argued was that police in the UK "seem capable" of dealing with dogs without guns. It's kind of important to restrict our sample size to the actual thing we're talking about because... you know... science.
I guess maybe you think all Americans have guns and will use them on dogs? That's not how it is. Those datasets are too broad and too dirtied up with hundreds of unrelated variables and policy differences.
ShumaGorath wrote:
If it is lunging but not biting then it is exhibiting territorial or defensive aggression and is not intent on attacking. It is attempting to establish dominance and appear threatening. A dog that is genuinely aggressive bites you. That is the inherent and incredibly important difference.
Except that it was happening on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. You do not get to have a dog that does that. I'm sorry man, but you just don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:The British police seem capable of dealing with barking dogs without shooting them.
Perhaps dogs are more aggressive in the US.
And I'll bet more officers are injured by dogs there.
Let's take a look.
The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population).
Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301.
NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm
It seems as if dog attacks are about 150 times more common in the USA than in the UK.
This might be thought to argue two things; firstly, that the police were justified in their caution around the puppy, secondly, that easy availability of guns is of little use in defending against dog attacks.
I'm talking about the officers, not the general population. I'm saying that I'll bet more officers are bitten by dogs on duty in the UK than in the US, where they can shoot them.
The stats presented include attacks on officers. There's no reason to suppose that police in either country are more or less liable than the general population to be attacked by dogs.
Considering the point that was argued was that police in the UK "seem capable" of dealing with dogs without guns. It's kind of important to restrict our sample size to the actual thing we're talking about because... you know... science.
Who says? You? It's not police procedure to kill small animals that are acting aggressively without the establishment of a threat. They contain until animal control gets there and then animal control deals with it. There are a few situations wherein use of force can be condoned. They are:
If the animal attacks someone
If the animal is of a dangerous breed or species
If the officers suspect that the Animal could be diseased
If the animal is causing undue property damage
If the animal is a threat to motorists
If the animal is of a species considered "vermin"
Being on someone elses property does not give carte blanche to kill it. Acting aggressively does not give carte blanche. Without attacking or being dangerous then it doesn't warrant that kind of force, even on someone elses property. Did that man own chickens or small animals he was worried about? If not then there wasn't undue stress concerning property damage either. Were they next to a main thoroghfare or freeway? If not then it's not much of a threat to motorists. Pets aren't vermin. None of the articles stated that the officers suspected rabies.
We're left scratching our heads wondering why the officers didn't just disable the dog in the ways they are trained to do. Putting on a jacket and sitting on the thing should of been more then enough to disable it until the end of time and I'm not even particularly trained outside of the wrestling I do with dogs anyway (I <3 dogs).
ShumaGorath wrote:
Who says? You? It's not police procedure to kill small animals that are acting aggressively without the establishment of a threat. They contain until animal control gets there and then animal control deals with it. There are a few situations wherein use of force can be condoned. They are:
If the animal attacks someone
If the animal is of a dangerous breed or species
If the officers suspect that the Animal could be diseased
If the animal is causing undue property damage
If the animal is a threat to motorists
If the animal is of a species considered "vermin"
Being on someone elses property does not give carte blanche to kill it. Acting aggressively does not give carte blanche. Without attacking or being dangerous then it doesn't warrant that kind of force, even on someone elses property. Did that man own chickens or small animals he was worried about? If not then there wasn't undue stress concerning property damage either. Were they next to a main thoroghfare or freeway? If not then it's not much of a threat to motorists. Pets aren't vermin. None of the articles stated that the officers suspected rabies.
We're left scratching our heads wondering why the officers didn't just disable the dog in the ways they are trained to do. Putting on a jacket and sitting on the thing should of been more then enough to disable it until the end of time and I'm not even particularly trained outside of the wrestling I do with dogs anyway (I <3 dogs).
You keep saying that a 40 pound dog lunging at an elderly couple that it has pinned on a porch isn't a threat.
This is nonsense.
Stop posting nonsense.
You are saying that an elderly couple should have been left on a porch with dogs lunging at them until animal control could get there with their nooses. Did you see where the officers even TRIED it your way before shooting them?
ShumaGorath wrote: Who says? You? It's not police procedure to kill small animals that are acting aggressively without the establishment of a threat. They contain until animal control gets there and then animal control deals with it. There are a few situations wherein use of force can be condoned. They are:
If the animal attacks someone If the animal is of a dangerous breed or species If the officers suspect that the Animal could be diseased If the animal is causing undue property damage If the animal is a threat to motorists If the animal is of a species considered "vermin"
Being on someone elses property does not give carte blanche to kill it. Acting aggressively does not give carte blanche. Without attacking or being dangerous then it doesn't warrant that kind of force, even on someone elses property. Did that man own chickens or small animals he was worried about? If not then there wasn't undue stress concerning property damage either. Were they next to a main thoroghfare or freeway? If not then it's not much of a threat to motorists. Pets aren't vermin. None of the articles stated that the officers suspected rabies.
We're left scratching our heads wondering why the officers didn't just disable the dog in the ways they are trained to do. Putting on a jacket and sitting on the thing should of been more then enough to disable it until the end of time and I'm not even particularly trained outside of the wrestling I do with dogs anyway (I <3 dogs).
You keep saying that a 40 pound dog lunging at an elderly couple that it has pinned on a porch isn't a threat.
This is nonsense.
Stop posting nonsense.
It doesn't matter if it was a threat to them at some point. When the police fired it was focusing on the police. The police could of then employed non lethal means. They didn't fething max payne dive and shoot the dog as it was going for grandpas throat. They watched it a few feet away, drew on it, then fired while grandpa watched. The police didn't punish the dog for being a threat five minutes ago, they dealt with the here and now. They dealt with it wrongly and stupidly.
I am flabberghasted that you could consider an animal that size to be meaningfully threatening outside of the capacity for spreading disease. We are very large animals.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I am flabberghasted that you could consider an animal that size to be meaningfully threatening outside of the capacity for spreading disease. We are very large animals.
Ok, I've got to ask. What size dogs have you had? Because you seem utterly unaware of how small a dog needs to actually be to be a threat.
Kilkrazy wrote:I've provided some comparative statistics while you have just made a bet based on nothing more than a hunch.
Yet you doubt my information because of "science".
Yeah, see, I appreciate you trying to find the data, but unfortunately what you found was too broad to tell us much. There are 700,000 cops in the us, so if literally every single one of them was bitten by a dog, it would barely change the numbers you posted. That's a problem.
In a perfect world, we'd have number of calls responded to involving dogs, number of dogs shot by cops, number of cops bitten by dogs. And we could compare those.
But who would have actually measured those things, right?
So we'll want to settle on dogs shot by cops, cops bitten by dogs and number of patrol hours worked total. Still not perfect, but probably the best we could do reasonably just cruising the internet for it.
It might be useful to figure out the rate of dog ownership just to see if it's different, but my guess is the rate is similar. If we were total stat pros, we'd also adjust for population density factored by police patrol density, but man that's way too much work.
So basically, you just disagree with my assertion about the dog bites and we move on since neither of us can reasonably show it.
Rented Tritium wrote:In a perfect world, we'd have number of calls responded to involving dogs, number of dogs shot by cops, number of cops bitten by dogs. And we could compare those.
But who would have actually measured those things, right?
So we'll want to settle on dogs shot by cops, cops bitten by dogs and number of patrol hours worked total. Still not perfect, but probably the best we could do reasonably just cruising the internet for it.
It might be useful to figure out the rate of dog ownership just to see if it's different, but my guess is the rate is similar.
See here you're wrong. In a perfect world Dashundskrieg will have already occurred, and cats and squirrels will finally have been put in their rightful place.
Rented Tritium wrote:In a perfect world, we'd have number of calls responded to involving dogs, number of dogs shot by cops, number of cops bitten by dogs. And we could compare those.
But who would have actually measured those things, right?
So we'll want to settle on dogs shot by cops, cops bitten by dogs and number of patrol hours worked total. Still not perfect, but probably the best we could do reasonably just cruising the internet for it.
It might be useful to figure out the rate of dog ownership just to see if it's different, but my guess is the rate is similar.
See here you're wrong. In a perfect world Dashundskrieg will have already occurred, and cats and squirrels will finally have been put in their rightful place.
That would certainly make the number crunching easier, huh.
mattyrm wrote: I went and painted for two hours but you lads are still hard at it.
I'm impressed!
All this text is so small, it can't take up much time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: I am flabberghasted that you could consider an animal that size to be meaningfully threatening outside of the capacity for spreading disease. We are very large animals.
Ok, I've got to ask. What size dogs have you had? Because you seem utterly unaware of how small a dog needs to actually be to be a threat.
Roughly 40 pounds at peak (i've only had one, but I horsed around with friends dogs throughout my childhood and into my adulthood if that counts). More of a cat person myself these days (and again, 40 pounds at peak. I love my squishy pillow cat). I'm also not particularly phased by the kinds of minor injuries a dog that size doles out.
mattyrm wrote: I went and painted for two hours but you lads are still hard at it.
I'm impressed!
All this text is so small, it can't take up much time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: I am flabberghasted that you could consider an animal that size to be meaningfully threatening outside of the capacity for spreading disease. We are very large animals.
Ok, I've got to ask. What size dogs have you had? Because you seem utterly unaware of how small a dog needs to actually be to be a threat.
Roughly 40 pounds at peak. More of a cat person myself these days (and again, 40 pounds at peaks. I love my squishy pillow cat).
35 lb fat furry short legged mutt. 85lb American Bull Terrier with jaws suffiicient to crush a brass doorknob. 125lb German Short Haired Pointer (aka da Horse) 80lb Caucasian Mountain dog / something else mix (Rusty TIger-world's largest lap dog) 16 lb tweenie dachshund 8 lb mini ancient dachshund, but thats 8 lbs of RRRRAAAAAGGGGEEEE (and three teeth).
Necroshea wrote:A cop, who's job is to maintain the peace of the community, has an encounter with a stray dog showing signs of aggression (yes people, barking can be a sign of aggression). If you cannot make sense out of why the cop would shoot such a dog then I don't know what to tell you.
Maybe the cop was trigger happy, maybe not, but the idea of a cop shooting an aggressive stray dog makes more sense than a cop waltzing about the neighborhood looking for something to shoot at.
Also, the fact that the dog was stray seems to be overlooked here.
The dog is the size of my fething foot (size 17), bro. It isn't harming anyone, and the cop is a huge prick.
Barking isn't aggression, and the article said the Dog was backing into a yard likely because it was scared.
Just because he's a police officer doesn't mean he is of any higher status than us. He's a bastard who abuses his authority because he can get away with it.
You defending that is nothing but pathetic.
The dog was said to be of a size to come up to a grown man's knee. I know a healthy 37 year old thatwas mauled and almost lost fingers to a dog smaller that.
Assuming the cop didn't shoot and he got bit. What then? Thats a serious offence. An animal bite shouldn't be treated casually. People aren't looking at this objectively. They are looking at it with a dog lover's view.
This is the exact reason why the UK has problems with kids being seriously mauled by dogs...which were tiny.
The problem I have is with the idea that the cop shot the dog and the dog kept coming. Now, some breeds have a ridiculous amount of resistance to pain, so it's not the wound that bothers me - after all, there was that case of the man who had to stab his pitbull six times just to get it to release his arm. It lived, and was later destroyed by the authorities. No, it's the combination of that and the loud bang that accompanies a gun-shot. Dogs hate, HATE, loud bangs. Untrained dogs will flinch from them at least. A loud gun-shot would certainly be enough to frighten off a small, young, untrained puppy.
Mr Hyena wrote:Assuming the cop didn't shoot and he got bit. What then? Thats a serious offence. An animal bite shouldn't be treated casually. People aren't looking at this objectively. They are looking at it with a dog lover's view.
This is the exact reason why the UK has problems with kids being seriously mauled by dogs...which were tiny.
I would suggest that this isn't the reason people have a problem with dogs in the UK.
It's the owners and the dog breed rather than the fact our policemen aren't armed and willing to put 5 shots into a dog because they think it might bite them. I don't want to live in that country.
Mr Hyena wrote:Assuming the cop didn't shoot and he got bit. What then? Thats a serious offence. An animal bite shouldn't be treated casually. People aren't looking at this objectively. They are looking at it with a dog lover's view.
This is the exact reason why the UK has problems with kids being seriously mauled by dogs...which were tiny.
I would suggest that this isn't the reason people have a problem with dogs in the UK.
It's the owners and the dog breed rather than the fact our policemen aren't armed and willing to put 5 shots into a dog because they think it might bite them. I don't want to live in that country.
I certainly know I would want to be compensated if I was an officer and received a dog bite. (And would want shots in case the thing is rabid.)
Most of the time it isn't the owners. Its the dog itself.
Necroshea wrote:Javel Townsend said his two sons, ages 10 and 11, are crying and hollering in their sleep, calling out their beloved puppy’s name.
Seems like an attempt to have you side with the writer by using children
“I guess police got fed up with him barking and shot him,” Townsend said Thursday. “I want to know why they had to shoot him.”
Key word here, guess
Christy Matthews of Johnsburg said she witnessed the dog’s shooting.
She grew up on Woodridge Street (which intersects with Lotus near Townsend’s home) and was driving down the street when she said she saw a Round Lake Beach police officer aiming a weapon at a barking dog.
Ok, a witness to the event, this gives us an idea of what happened
Altgeld was barking a lot, but was not foaming at the mouth or acting aggressively, Matthews said.
A stray dog barking at you sounds pretty agressive to me
“The dog did not do anything. It wasn’t even a big dog — it came up maybe to the officer’s knee,” Matthews said.
Big enough to cause you harm if they wanted to
She described herself as an animal lover. She also owns a shepherd mix, which is a vocal breed, she said.
Red flag here. Here opinions could very well be shaping her interpretation of events
Townsend was issued tickets for the dog not having shots, for owning a dangerous dog and for the dog being at large. He is due in court Nov. 1 and is in discussions with an attorney.
Witness has just lost credibility
My question is instead of shooting and killing the animal why not shot it with a dart and ensure that the animal doesn't die. Just put into captivity holy moly.
Well, not every police HQ has a tranq rifle handy. I would imagine the officer in question felt it better to put down a stray barking dog, then go to all the trouble of catching it. Then again, I really don't know, as I wasn't there to see it. However, I've got a feeling the "eye witness" is clouding the truth here.
What in the world is going on with my coding...trying to fix it...
If you lived in IL, you would know that in the sururbs the police here get horribely bored because there are no major problems, they usually just pull people over and they are usually trigger happy. A police officer literally told me this. "I would shoot a kid if I saw that he had an airsoft gun. I don't care its a Lethal weapon." Then he said. "If we didn't know any better we would of gotten a sniper and no questions asked, fired upon you kids." Two parents turned around and told the officer to leave the property. *facepalm*
The police just like to shoot stuff. And the ones in the city. some of them haven't even fired a shot because they don't want to kill anyone. But the ones in the urbs. Are trigger happy. I heard that from a Detective from Chicago.
Yeah, I have heard similar stories about the police in the suburbs. They get so bored since there is nothing to do in there. A friend of mine once told me this story:
He was driving around when suddenly police officers pulled him over. They had drawn their guns and yelled for him to get out of the car. My friend was amazed; he had done nothing wrong. They told him to get on his knees with his arms visible. My friend asked what was this all about. The officers told him that he had driven past a Stop-sign without stopping. My friend had seen no such sign. They escorted him to a very thick and high bush, and showed him a rusty old sign right in the middle of it. My friend got a ticket of $15. I guess they really needed their donut money
Mr Hyena wrote:
I certainly know I would want to be compensated if I was an officer and received a dog bite. (And would want shots in case the thing is rabid.)
Most of the time it isn't the owners. Its the dog itself.
I would much rather get a bite, and get some cash of the owners, than slot their dog.
The guy is either a ridiculous coward or he was being needlessly malicious, and I bet it is the latter.
Im willing to wager the guy was known to the police because lets be honest, most of the time when bobbies do raids, they know the scumbags who they are going to see. Most crime is by known scumbags, not unknown "citizens" who don't cause any trouble.
Ill put money on it. The bloke whose dog it is is a known douchebag and the local coppers know it, so one thought "feth it ill shoot his dog"
As I said, ordinarily you would just take the risk of it biting you. Its not going to do you any serious damage and you will be amply compensated if you need stitches.
He shot it because he could, and that is a gakky and unprofessional thing to do.
I don't think people fully comprehend how weak body tissue is. A small dog can do serious damage to an adult's leg, depending on where it bites, how it bites and what tissues are torn.
The level of compensation for something like this would have to be a seriously big damages claim to both the owner and the police. Frankly, the governments should issue special dangerous animal gear to cops anyway.
Just because someone is a cop, doesn't mean they are required to be attacked and wounded.
Mr Hyena wrote:I don't think people fully comprehend how weak body tissue is. A small dog can do serious damage to an adult's leg, depending on where it bites, how it bites and what tissues are torn.
The level of compensation for something like this would have to be a seriously big damages claim to both the owner and the police. Frankly, the governments should issue special dangerous animal gear to cops anyway.
Just because someone is a cop, doesn't mean they are required to be attacked and wounded.
It also doesn't mean they have to go from "do nothing" to "nuke the site from orbit."
Mr Hyena wrote:I don't think people fully comprehend how weak body tissue is. A small dog can do serious damage to an adult's leg, depending on where it bites, how it bites and what tissues are torn.
So can a housecat. So can a road sign. So can a slippery patch of ice. So can anything in the right situation, that doesn't make it likely or common.
Mr Hyena wrote:I don't think people fully comprehend how weak body tissue is. A small dog can do serious damage to an adult's leg, depending on where it bites, how it bites and what tissues are torn.
So can a housecat. So can a road sign. So can a slippery patch of ice. So can anything in the right situation, that doesn't make it likely or common.
In cases where a 40 pound dog is lunging at you, I am pretty sure puncture wounds are likely and common, so go ahead and drop that nonsense right now.
Mr Hyena wrote:I don't think people fully comprehend how weak body tissue is. A small dog can do serious damage to an adult's leg, depending on where it bites, how it bites and what tissues are torn.
So can a housecat. So can a road sign. So can a slippery patch of ice. So can anything in the right situation, that doesn't make it likely or common.
In cases where a 40 pound dog is lunging at you, I am pretty sure puncture wounds are likely and common, so go ahead and drop that nonsense right now.
Sure is, dogs are scrappy. A small puncture in the skin is also something that will heal in like two days. Deal with it. Wrap a jacket on your arm or something, it's not a chainsaw.
Mr Hyena wrote:I don't think people fully comprehend how weak body tissue is. A small dog can do serious damage to an adult's leg, depending on where it bites, how it bites and what tissues are torn.
So can a housecat. So can a road sign. So can a slippery patch of ice. So can anything in the right situation, that doesn't make it likely or common.
In cases where a 40 pound dog is lunging at you, I am pretty sure puncture wounds are likely and common, so go ahead and drop that nonsense right now.
When tangling with a human scratches are high as well, but police (ok outside of Chicago and NO) can't blast away willy nilly either.
be considered a threat?
epperspray or C:Ganging up on someone?
Did they train you in how to fight a dog in the Military? We got a couple classes on it, but no real practical application.
