Cops shoot family’s barking puppy...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Rented Tritium**

Monster Rain wrote:
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.

**Frazzled**

Rented Tritium wrote:
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.

**Rented Tritium**

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.

**Frazzled**

No. I didn't accept your arguments.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**Rented Tritium**

ShumaGorath wrote:
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?

**ShumaGorath**

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.

Trolly troll troll.

**Jihadin**

Hey dude,

Shuma/Frazz...if I ever start a line like that...shoot me.

Stil wuv joo Rent

**Rented Tritium**

ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

Stil wuv joo Rent

What if there's a sidewalk behind you?

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
Hey dude,

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)

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**Jihadin**

Nice Rent. "bro fist" on that one lol now lets ge coffee

**Rented Tritium**

ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

**purplefood**

Well this has gone rather badly...

**ShumaGorath**

Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

**Monster Rain**

purplefood wrote:Well this has gone rather badly...

Well, it was really sad from one perspective and highly amusing from another.

I'm torn.

**Rented Tritium**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
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**

Monster Rain wrote:
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...

**ShumaGorath**

Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

**Monster Rain**

purplefood wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
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...

Oh purplefood.

You are so very wise.

**Rented Tritium**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

**ShumaGorath**

Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

**Necroshea**

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.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20111005/news/710059673/

**Jihadin**

Think Townsend trying to avoid additional charges lol

eit
woops....meant to say

"THE PLOT THICKENS"

**Rented Tritium**

I'll be over here collecting concession statements.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**Necroshea**

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.

**Rented Tritium**

ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

**Frazzled**

The neighbor saw the dog lunge at the elderly man, so he intervened, officials said.

Thats more in line with being an actual threat.

**ShumaGorath**

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.