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.

J.Black, you are a strange man.

Id rather kill humans than dogs.

It may be a little dog, but it's still a dog. Even small dogs can cause ridiculous amounts of injury to someone, if they bite the hand, arm, or your legs....


And I suppose SWAT went in the house wearing shorts, flip-flops, and a t-shirt? Get real!

gregor_xenos wrote:

It may be a little dog, but it's still a dog. Even small dogs can cause ridiculous amounts of injury to someone, if they bite the hand, arm, or your legs....


And I suppose SWAT went in the house wearing shorts, flip-flops, and a t-shirt? Get real!

Exactly. If you have to use a machine gun on a pekinese then 1. you need to be fired immediately; 2. the guy(s) who hired you need to be fired right after they fire you.

gregor_xenos wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:It may be a little dog, but it's still a dog. Even small dogs can cause ridiculous amounts of injury to someone, if they bite the hand, arm, or your legs....

And I suppose SWAT went in the house wearing shorts, flip-flops, and a t-shirt? Get real!

Yes, because ballistic gear is so good at stopping knives, blunt instruments, etc.

It's not the tearing of flesh that causes the injuries from bites. It's the sheer force exerted on a small area--and potential of nerve damage in sensitive areas like the hands.

Which, incidentally, can't be too heavily armored in tactical officers like SWAT due to being able to y'know...manipulate the triggers of their weapons.

Yes because small dogs exert horrible amounts of sheer force, OMG you might have to push them off with your foot.

Such a bs excuse is bs and my point stands.

That you have no point, whatsoever?

A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.

However, they don't wear said "best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves" because it won't do any good anyways. The only time you'll really see them wearing things like that is raiding a meth lab, and that's more because of the fire retardant material in the gloves rather than being able to stop a dogbite.

Kanluwen wrote:That you have no point, whatsoever?

No that people are defending cops for shooting a small dog should never ever 1.) have access to firearms; 2.) be allowed near the military or police professions or for that matter anything involving decisionmaking authority.

A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.

However, they don't wear said "best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves" because it won't do any good anyways. The only time you'll really see them wearing things like that is raiding a meth lab, and that's more because of the fire retardant material in the gloves rather than being able to stop a dogbite.

Yes a jack russell is a terror. He might break the skin.

Nuts.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That you have no point, whatsoever?

No that people are defending cops for shooting a small dog should never ever 1.) have access to firearms; 2.) be allowed near the military or police professions or for that matter anything involving decisionmaking authority.

I love dogs as much as anyone else, but get a friggin' clue. There's a reason why dogs have been used as guard animals for centuries. They can do incredible amounts of damage to a person who isn't wearing proper protective gear(protip: ballistic gear used to stop bullets? It doesn't stop lacerations or blunt force trauma--both of which are the most common injuries associated with dog attacks) using nothing but their teeth.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.

However, they don't wear said "best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves" because it won't do any good anyways. The only time you'll really see them wearing things like that is raiding a meth lab, and that's more because of the fire retardant material in the gloves rather than being able to stop a dogbite.

Yes a jack russell is a terror. He might break the skin.

Nuts.

How is this complicated?

You know all those sensitive nerve clusters in your hand? Something as small as a Jack Russell can bite clean into your hand and damage those beyond repair.
Standard ballistic gear will do absolutely nothing to stop a dog bite(it's why if you ever go to a police academy that's training K9 units, they use a very very very bulky and cumbersome suit when training the dogs to attack).
With their standard lines of protection ineffective--if the animal is seen to be aggressive--the officers are going to take measures to protect themselves if they feel threatened.
Is it always done correctly? No.

But you can bet your ass that Animal Control probably won't start doing ridealongs with SWAT teams "just in case there's a mean dog!" whenever they're serving a warrant.

This is a rather sad story...

Everyone is quick to point the evil Nazi finger at the cops... but would they have gone in there if they had no reason?

If the guy wasn’t involved in enough criminal activity to warrant a midnight raid, then the cops wouldn’t have had to...

Envy89 wrote:This is a rather sad story...

Everyone is quick to point the evil Nazi finger at the cops... but would they have gone in there if they had no reason?

If the guy wasn’t involved in enough criminal activity to warrant a midnight raid, then the cops wouldn’t have had to...

They had evidence for a *misdemeanor* pot possession charge. I dunno about you, but I'm not usually going to think "this is a full breach situation here" for a pot charge.

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That you have no point, whatsoever?

No that people are defending cops for shooting a small dog should never ever 1.) have access to firearms; 2.) be allowed near the military or police professions or for that matter anything involving decisionmaking authority.

I love dogs as much as anyone else, but get a friggin' clue. There's a reason why dogs have been used as guard animals for centuries. They can do incredible amounts of damage to a person who isn't wearing proper protective gear(protip: ballistic gear used to stop bullets? It doesn't stop lacerations or blunt force trauma--both of which are the most common injuries associated with dog attacks) using nothing but their teeth.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.

However, they don't wear said "best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves" because it won't do any good anyways. The only time you'll really see them wearing things like that is raiding a meth lab, and that's more because of the fire retardant material in the gloves rather than being able to stop a dogbite.

Yes a jack russell is a terror. He might break the skin.

Nuts.

How is this complicated?

You know all those sensitive nerve clusters in your hand? Something as small as a Jack Russell can bite clean into your hand and damage those beyond repair.
Standard ballistic gear will do absolutely nothing to stop a dog bite(it's why if you ever go to a police academy that's training K9 units, they use a very very very bulky and cumbersome suit when training the dogs to attack).
With their standard lines of protection ineffective--if the animal is seen to be aggressive--the officers are going to take measures to protect themselves if they feel threatened.
Is it always done correctly? No.

But you can bet your ass that Animal Control probably won't start doing ridealongs with SWAT teams "just in case there's a mean dog!" whenever they're serving a warrant.

This argument lacks sanity. Its like kids bneing arrested for brining an aspirin to school. Rottweiler coming at you yes. If you fire rounds and waste Buffy the doner poodle then you have absolutely no ability to rationally use judgement and are liable to waste a kid with pacifier next.

Again. Nuts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:

Envy89 wrote:This is a rather sad story...

Everyone is quick to point the evil Nazi finger at the cops... but would they have gone in there if they had no reason?

If the guy wasn’t involved in enough criminal activity to warrant a midnight raid, then the cops wouldn’t have had to...

They had evidence for a *misdemeanor* pot possession charge. I dunno about you, but I'm not usually going to think "this is a full breach situation here" for a pot charge.

Which is beicoming increasingly legal in the US.

Vaktathi wrote:

Envy89 wrote:This is a rather sad story...

Everyone is quick to point the evil Nazi finger at the cops... but would they have gone in there if they had no reason?

If the guy wasn’t involved in enough criminal activity to warrant a midnight raid, then the cops wouldn’t have had to...

They had evidence for a *misdemeanor* pot possession charge. I dunno about you, but I'm not usually going to think "this is a full breach situation here" for a pot charge.

No actually, it seems like they were serving a warrant and found evidence for a misdemeanor pot possession charge.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That you have no point, whatsoever?

No that people are defending cops for shooting a small dog should never ever 1.) have access to firearms; 2.) be allowed near the military or police professions or for that matter anything involving decisionmaking authority.

I love dogs as much as anyone else, but get a friggin' clue. There's a reason why dogs have been used as guard animals for centuries. They can do incredible amounts of damage to a person who isn't wearing proper protective gear(protip: ballistic gear used to stop bullets? It doesn't stop lacerations or blunt force trauma--both of which are the most common injuries associated with dog attacks) using nothing but their teeth.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.

However, they don't wear said "best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves" because it won't do any good anyways. The only time you'll really see them wearing things like that is raiding a meth lab, and that's more because of the fire retardant material in the gloves rather than being able to stop a dogbite.

Yes a jack russell is a terror. He might break the skin.

Nuts.

How is this complicated?

You know all those sensitive nerve clusters in your hand? Something as small as a Jack Russell can bite clean into your hand and damage those beyond repair.
Standard ballistic gear will do absolutely nothing to stop a dog bite(it's why if you ever go to a police academy that's training K9 units, they use a very very very bulky and cumbersome suit when training the dogs to attack).
With their standard lines of protection ineffective--if the animal is seen to be aggressive--the officers are going to take measures to protect themselves if they feel threatened.
Is it always done correctly? No.

But you can bet your ass that Animal Control probably won't start doing ridealongs with SWAT teams "just in case there's a mean dog!" whenever they're serving a warrant.

This argument lacks sanity. Its like kids being arrested for bringing an aspirin to school. Rottweiler coming at you yes. If you fire rounds and waste Buffy the doner poodle then you have absolutely no ability to rationally use judgment and are liable to waste a kid with pacifier next.

Again. Nuts.

None of those comparisons are anywhere near remotely similar to each other.
A kid won't be arrested for bringing an aspirin to school--unless they're selling them to other students as hard drugs. At most, the kid bringing aspirin to school would have it confiscated and discarded. Because the schools don't want people bringing medication with them that the school isn't able to account for or distribute themselves.

And again:
A dog is a dog. A dog, no matter the size, can do significant damage to a vulnerable area on anyone.
Tell me again that a poodle isn't dangerous if it bites your nads or an artery in your wrist.

A dog is a dog. A dog, no matter the size, can do significant damage to a vulnerable area on anyone.
Tell me again that a poodle isn't dangerous if it bites your nads or an artery in your wrist.

If a grown man in combat gear needs to utilize a firearm to defend himself against a poodle, with similarly equipped comrades near him, something is very, very wrong. The likelyhood of most household pets attacking is extremely low, and can be stopped without the utilization of lethal force unless it's a large trained attack animal. Sorry, but having been around both firearms and dogs most of my life, I find the idea that the use of lethal force in this case (and most) was somehow required, is simply a fantasy.

This whole argument is based on the theory that, yes, the dog *can* hurt you, so you should kill it. A very dangerous line of thinking. The officers had a greater chance being hurt on the drive there in all honesty.

And I find your wishywashy "household pets won't attack" a fallacy.

If we were talking about a housecat or an iguana or some kind of exotic animal? Sure.

But we're not. We're talking about dogs, which can potentially have a pretty hostile reaction to intruders who aren't properly introduced to them.

Kanluwen wrote:
And again:
A dog is a dog. A dog, no matter the size, can do significant damage to a vulnerable area on anyone.
Tell me again that a poodle isn't dangerous if it bites your nads or an artery in your wrist.

Does this mean you're seconding my 'throw all dogs into the sun argument?'

J.Black wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
And again:
A dog is a dog. A dog, no matter the size, can do significant damage to a vulnerable area on anyone.
Tell me again that a poodle isn't dangerous if it bites your nads or an artery in your wrist.

Does this mean you're seconding my 'throw all dogs into the sun argument?'

Hell no, I love dogs But they're animals you have to be careful with--particularly if it's not anyone you know's.

Its obvious that Kanluwen is "law enforcement" or a "friend" of such ilk.... Ashamed you live in the same state as me.... NC, not confusion....

Suppose you'll defend M. Vick next????

*IGNORE*

Huge difference between animal abuse and running a dogfighting ring and shooting a dog in the course of serving a warrant.

Kanluwen wrote:And I find your wishywashy "household pets won't attack" a fallacy.

If we were talking about a housecat or an iguana or some kind of exotic animal? Sure.

But we're not. We're talking about dogs, which can potentially have a pretty hostile reaction to intruders who aren't properly introduced to them.

cats will inflict more harm than small dogs.

I live with dogs, I know dogs rather well, dogs aren't going to just attack, and if they are, there are going to be definite warning signs beyond just barking. The only thing a group of grown, combat trained men in full gear has to fear from the overwhelming vast majority of dogs is noise.


Shooting the dog as you enter is not a proper use of force or responsible police work. There was no indication the dog was hostile, it barked at the loud noise and people, they saw that dog and shot it. That's not a life threatening situation, that's just normal dog behavior. Shooting it, leaving it yelping for a while, then hitting it three more times is not proper police work, that is not self defense, that is not responsible use of force.

Watching that video does not give me any confidence in that police force as a capable agency.

Yep.

To change the subject and link with the Deadliest Warrior Thread, which unit would be better vs. a killer pekinese - SWAT or GS9 (or whatever the German one is)?

From the video I see one dog is shot upon the SWAT first entering, at around 2 minutes a second dog apparently appears, one officer says leave it alone and then that's it. No other gun shots or anything, nor do you see it running and then the cops shoot it running. Maybe if one of the cops had a silenced pistol but as sensitive as those mics are you would have heard even a silenced pistol.

As to the ridiculousness of the "cops putting the kids in danger". The SWAT's job is to look out for themselves and one another first. It might seem asinine to shoot a pit bull with kids present but obviously none of the kids were in danger of stray rounds, the pit bull was probably threatening to attack giving the SWAT reason to put it down.

It's sad the kids had to see their family pet killed but then again if the police wouldn't have had to raid the home in the first place it never would have happened.

I still think there is more to this raid then just "OMG I"m being raided for being brown and smoking pot."

Fateweaver wrote:From the video I see one dog is shot upon the SWAT first entering, at around 2 minutes a second dog apparently appears, one officer says leave it alone and then that's it. No other gun shots or anything, nor do you see it running and then the cops shoot it running. Maybe if one of the cops had a silenced pistol but as sensitive as those mics are you would have heard even a silenced pistol.

As to the ridiculousness of the "cops putting the kids in danger". The SWAT's job is to look out for themselves and one another first. It might seem asinine to shoot a pit bull with kids present but obviously none of the kids were in danger of stray rounds, the pit bull was probably threatening to attack giving the SWAT reason to put it down.

It's sad the kids had to see their family pet killed but then again if the police wouldn't have had to raid the home in the first place it never would have happened.

I still think there is more to this raid then just "OMG I"m being raided for being brown and smoking pot."

bs. Police officers are not permitted under lot just to fire off rounds willy nilly. There has to be imminent threat to their person. Whipple the wonder shnouser does not present any threat that a foot couldn't stop. Else cops would be shutting suspects left and right. It has to be an appropriate response level. This aint it.

Kanluwen wrote:
There's a reason they have SWAT teams serve warrants rather than the "standard" officers. SWAT is trained for potentially high risk situations and clearing+securing a building.

Sports booking? Really? Seriously? Dude, I've placed bets on games before, does SWAT need to be called to arrest a 24 year-old white dude from the suburbs of Chicago? Are normal police really that useless?

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
There's a reason they have SWAT teams serve warrants rather than the "standard" officers. SWAT is trained for potentially high risk situations and clearing+securing a building.

Sports booking? Really? Seriously? Dude, I've placed bets on games before, does SWAT need to be called to arrest a 24 year-old white dude from the suburbs of Chicago? Are normal police really that useless?

Did the guy have a previous record with violent crimes?

If yes: Skip to why they'd use a SWAT team.

If not: Then they were tipped off about something that worried them enough to send a SWAT team to his house rather than just serve an arrest warrant at his place of employment.

Kanluwen wrote:
A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.

I've been bitten by a Jack Russel, without protective gear, and I didn't go to the hospital.

Kanluwen wrote:
Did the guy have a previous record with violent crimes?

If yes: Skip to why they'd use a SWAT team.

If not: Then they were tipped off about something that worried them enough to send a SWAT team to his house rather than just serve an arrest warrant at his place of employment.

Nice tautology. You should try again.

The guy had no prior record of violent crime. And even if he did, are normal police really that useless?

They sent a SWAT team because they were able to send a SWAT team. You need to do some research sonny.

I reiterate: The mom and the kid were more serious threats than the dogs, and they weren't even held at gun-point. Or cuffed, for that matter.

Kanluwen wrote:

gregor_xenos wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:It may be a little dog, but it's still a dog. Even small dogs can cause ridiculous amounts of injury to someone, if they bite the hand, arm, or your legs....

And I suppose SWAT went in the house wearing shorts, flip-flops, and a t-shirt? Get real!

Yes, because ballistic gear is so good at stopping knives, blunt instruments, etc.

Which, incidentally, can't be too heavily armored in tactical officers like SWAT due to being able to y'know...manipulate the triggers of their weapons.

Actually, it sort of is. A ceramite SAPI plate is a solid reinforced ceramic plate. Nothing short of a gunshot or a warhammer of some sort is going to deal significant damage to that. Do you really think that a SWAT team, so concerned with their safety, would really go into a situation without adequate stab protection? Knives are a lot more common than guns, and every so often you get cases where you can't put a knife wielding PCP psycho down with even a good volley. Sometimes, the badguy does get the jump on the officer. So sureley, is this guy is god damn gung-ho enough to storm in and blast away Rover, he's probably be going to wear all the kit he can wear.

As for had protection, well, there are plenty of options. I know from personal experience that the Wiley-X CAG-1 glove can retain a steak knife by the blade.

J.Black wrote:Cute or not, dogs have no rights. I'd happily see all dogs on the planet peeled, salted and thrown into the sun.

No, but property does. If they had stormed in, and started busting up lamps and TV's for no good reason, there'd be equal outrage, and equally justified consequences for the LEO.

KingCracker wrote:You guys make me laugh. Were they in the right to shoot the dog? Totally. They are trained that if something looks aggressive to put it down before it becomes a problem. Period. Did the dog need to be shot in that video? Probably not. But you have to realize that they are trained to react that way because not all drug offenders just lay down and have nice chats with the officers coming in to take their freedom and bust their drug trades. They are trained to be prepared for the ones that will go all out and not stop until they are killed themselves. And you CANNOT tell the difference between nice guy pot head, and psycho nutcase guns blazing guy until the gak hits the fan.

The truth is, you're correct.However, it doesn't fly anymore. As this case goes to show, everything can be exploited and scandalized by the media. Equal training needs to be put into not making oneself look like a toolbag in front of the camera.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.

I've been bitten by a Jack Russel, without protective gear, and I didn't go to the hospital.

Then the dog wasn't trying to harm you or was playing. There is such a thing as a "love bite" from dogs, y'know.

My youngest brother had his hand bitten by a Jack Russell, and had to be hospitalized along with major surgery due to the dog damaging the nerves of the hand.

Dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Did the guy have a previous record with violent crimes?

If yes: Skip to why they'd use a SWAT team.

If not: Then they were tipped off about something that worried them enough to send a SWAT team to his house rather than just serve an arrest warrant at his place of employment.

Nice tautology. You should try again.

The guy had no prior record of violent crime.

They sent a SWAT team because they were able to send a SWAT team. You need to do some research sonny.

Oh, so you KNOW they sent a SWAT team because they could?

I didn't realize you were a mind-reader now. Maybe you should start working for law enforcement to let them know when a completely unknowable situation crops up if they should send SWAT teams or patrol cops.

How the dogs should have been handled: Dog is barking, could present a threat. Deliver a swift kick to the stomach of said dog, watch it sulk away to your display of force.
You have just asserted your dominance. No more barking from that puppy.

Problem. Solved.


It's rules of engagement, escalation of force. Had the dog charged (which I didn't read that it did, but I might be mistaken.), I believe they are well within their rights to open fire.

As for the corgi: Did it run away, or stay put? If it ran, I could understand they might want to track it, make sure it doesn't have drugs hidden in the collar or something.
But if it just stayed put, wasn't barking or being an obstruction: WTF? The guy who did that is just a dick. Plain and simple.

Kan-Kan wrote:Then the dog wasn't trying to harm you or was playing. There is such a thing as a "love bite" from dogs, y'know.

My youngest brother had his hand bitten by a Jack Russell, and had to be hospitalized along with major surgery due to the dog damaging the nerves of the hand.

First off, being a dog does not equal being a beast of mass destruction. I feel bad for your brother, but a fully prepared police officer could have taken different action than what was assumed from the audio of OP's clip.

We are not talking about bulls, gorillas, or elephants; not even attack dogs. The dog that was shot MAY have been a pitbull, but for the sake of my argument I will assume it was not. Argue with that assumption if you want.

The power of a dog's bite, is associated with the breed in question. Chihuahas are not a threat to a trained police officer, a quick boot to the tiny dog's face will confirm that. Your argument DOES include all dogs, especially the tiny ones that do not have an initial conception as attack dogs. Talking about rottweilers, pitbulls (which this may have been, I don't know), and german sheperds, among a few other breeds; does not include every single breed of dog. If a trained officer takes shots at all dogs they see, they should be removed from duty. I am not entirely sure why that isn't clear.

"DEAR LORD MAN, PROTECT THAT TEDDY BEAR!"

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:How the dogs should have been handled: Dog is barking, could present a threat. Deliver a swift kick to the stomach of said dog, watch it sulk away to your display of force.
You have just asserted your dominance. No more barking from that puppy.

Problem. Solved.

This is the obvious way to deal with a corgi, but another option would be pepper spray. A riot shield and some bear mace will stop anything short of a wolf from doing ridiculous damage.

BEAR MACE WILL BLIND YOU. Tazers will probably kill a dog, and there are a dozen different ways to deal with canines without resorting to firearms. A pack of pitbulls protecting a drug compound, is different than a couple family dogs. Cops should not be scared by corgies... seriously.

In Kan's defense, the later article linked in this thread states toward the end that this department sends in the SWAT team to deal with narcotics cases because, in their view, individuals involved with narcotics are likely to also posses a firearm, and the will to use it. It's a view I do not disagree with.

Sending in SWAT was the right play. Shooting the dog wasn't.