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.

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?

Bold indicates ironic statements.

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?

Do the cops have special "rabid dog" training?

dogma wrote:

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.

The bobcat is especially vicious.

AustonT wrote:

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?

dogma wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Nerivant wrote:

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:

AustonT wrote:

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.

AustonT wrote:Big cat stuff, ferrets and some maps

Not to be rude, but how is any of that relevant to this discussion?

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

That was 100%, Grade-A on topic. Bravo!

So the owners called their dogs in when they heard gunshots, but they didnt bother to call the sdogs in after hearing:

YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP

It would do my head in enough to complain to the police.

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.

NELS1031 wrote:

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?

That really, genuinely surprises me.

purplefood wrote:

Aduro wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:This has happened before.

The conclusion is that the police are fully entitled to shoot dogs that might possibly bite them.

So police can shoot any dog, any where, any time? Because any dog might Possibly bite them.

I think context is fairly important here...

There need to be police in attendance and the dog needs to frighten them in some way.

Was the dog tail stiff or wagging? That's an indicator.

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

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.

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.

Monster Rain wrote:

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.

Monster Rain wrote:

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.

Help me out. When is shooting a barking dog justified?

IIRC drawing your firearm and using it is only done to protect yourself or others.

Shooting a threatening dog if the dog indeed poses a threat-potentially. Shooting a barking dog...yea suspension time.