Why so many poorly trained police officers when dealing with dogs?

[pixletwin]

You know if the situation had played out differently and the dogs owner was home and had shot the officer after hearing the officer shoot his dog in his back yard.
I wouldn't feel bad for the officer and if sitting on a jury would vote for the innocence of the dog owner.

Because **** happens right Pixel?

It's clear some people just don't like police officers and no matter what you tell them, nothing is going to change their mind.

You're basically placing a human life as being of less value than an animal life. You are not thinking clearly and any further argument you make is invalid.

 

[Spartan Rex]

It's clear some people just don't like police officers and no matter what you tell them, nothing is going to change their mind.

You're basically placing a human life as being of less value than an animal life. You are not thinking clearly and any further argument you make is invalid.

No, I'm a law and order kinda guy and usually back the police in what can be a very dangerous and difficult job but that said I value individual freedom and private property rights even higher. I discern very little concern from law enforcement in this case for individual rights or for private property.

Back at ya..

 

[pixletwin]

The division between your view and mine is basically this:

You think the officer violated the citizen's constitutional rights.

I am saying (as is the police department) that the officer was acting well within the bounds the law has set as acceptable behavior for an officer.

It's a complicated line to walk. But ultimately the judgement is going to fall in the officers favor. You have to see that.

 

[The Josh]

You're guess would be wrong.

*from someone who works in the legal field*

The department has already offered to replace the dog and give him a bit of compensation. The guy, at this point, is just being an *******.

I'm curious what evidence is there to prove I would be wrong? The dog was quite a bit of distance from the cop and from what we know did not charge the cop. It sounds like he shot the dog to clear the yard so he could look. I don't think a jury of my peers would look too favorably on that.

It's clear some people just don't like police officers and no matter what you tell them, nothing is going to change their mind.

You're basically placing a human life as being of less value than an animal life. You are not thinking clearly and any further argument you make is invalid.

I don't hate cops. I just expect them to be held responsible when they do things that they should be punished for.

 

[pixletwin]

I'm curious what evidence is there to prove I would be wrong? The dog was quite a bit of distance from the cop and from what we know did not charge the cop. It sounds like he shot the dog to clear the yard so he could look. I don't think a jury of my peers would look too favorably on that.

1) You don't know where the cop was when he shot the dog. You are making assumptions.
2) You are making assumptions that based on your previous assumption that a jury of your peers would find the officer guilty.

Assumptions do not make a strong case Josh nor do they make wise judgements. Be they cops on a search or guys on an internet forum.

I also wasn't referring to you when I said that some people hated cops. I thought it was rather obvious I was referring to the guy who said "I hate cops" a few posts before mine.

 

[Spartan Rex]

The division between your view and mine is basically this:

You think the officer violated the citizen's constitutional rights.

I am saying (as is the police department) that the officer was acting well within the bounds the law has set as acceptable behavior for an officer.

It's a complicated line to walk. But ultimately the judgement is going to fall in the officers favor. You have to see that.

The police trampled over one citizens rights to secure another citizens rights and or possible safety. How is that ever justifiable? An inconvenience is one thing but he was permanently deprived of his property and loyal companion.
How far should they've been allowed to go for the greater good of that girls safety?
It certainly didn't work out in this case.

 

[The Josh]

1) You don't know where the cop was when he shot the dog. You are making assumptions.
2) You are making assumptions that based on your previous assumption that a jury of your peers would find the officer guilty.

Assumptions do not make a strong case Josh nor do they make wise judgements. Be they cops on a search or guys on an internet forum.

I also wasn't referring to you when I said that some people hated cops. I thought it was rather obvious I was referring to the guy who said "I hate cops" a few posts before mine.

I'm going by what info is out there. From what I've seen he wasn't far into the back yard.

Of course I am based on most peoples reactions I've seen.

They don't but from what evidence is out there it doesn't look like too hard of a case.

I'm just making my feeling clear since I'm sure I'll be labeled a cop hater before this is over.

 

[Taibhse]

The policeman didn't need anymore probable cause than what he already had via the search, to enter the backyard. That's the point.

Per assumptions, when a child goes missing you don't make presumptions. You follow protocol - just like this officer was doing.

Except the officers were not following protocol.. if they had, the three year old boy, asleep in his own home, would have been discovered when the Police officers made a thorough search of his parents house, first.. before trespassing on private property and shooting dogs.

The officer did not have a warrant and he had no indication the toddler was in the backyard.. he simply decided to trespass, when no-one answered the front door of the property.. I mean he's a 'hero' right.. what could possibly go wrong?...

 

[pixletwin]

Nah. I know you're not a cop hater. I think anyone who does know you would laugh at anyone who tried to intimate you were.

 

[The Josh]

Nah. I know you're not a cop hater. I think anyone who does know you would laugh at anyone who tried to intimate you were.

I appreciate that. I guess I don't have a lot of faith in some of our other board members.

 

[Taibhse]

I'm curious what evidence is there to prove I would be wrong? The dog was quite a bit of distance from the cop and from what we know did not charge the cop. It sounds like he shot the dog to clear the yard so he could look. I don't think a jury of my peers would look too favorably on that.

Yup.. I think that's what happened too.. I am open to the slim possibility that the dog was asleep out of sight, when the police officer first entered the yard, although if the officer had tried the front door bell or knocked this is being generous... however thereafter, I strongly suspect your scenario is very close to the truth.

 

[WellCQCaboutthat]

hey pixel, youre also being selective on who you want to hear because i dont like cops................or dogs for that matter which i was sticking up for. thanks for disregarding me because of your love for the force. let me rephrase that, i hate NEW cops and all dogs.

 

[crows]

most of the cases of dog shootings, the dogs were not attacking. Yes they were being hyper and maybe barking, Dogs do that.........

They will run around and wag their tail and might bark but they don't really attack, They might even come to greet you or to smell you. But in some of these cases (if not most) the dogs are barely coming to see who the cop is and they are getting shot just for trying to get close.

I completely understand shooting an aggressive dog but NOT a dog wagging his tail and trying to see what the Intruder is doing. that's bs

 

[pixletwin]

hey pixel, youre also being selective on who you want to hear because i dont like cops................or dogs for that matter which i was sticking up for. thanks for disregarding me because of your love for the force. let me rephrase that, i hate NEW cops and all dogs.

Gee ok. Thanks for clarifying that... I guess.

 

[WellCQCaboutthat]

cops do anything they want these days and know where all the loopholes are. youtube has a plethora of examples. also, try to talk to a cop on the street, they treat everyone like theyre jerk offs. their job is to extract info from you to use against you and are trained to lie to you to make you say something you shouldnt. they use your fear against you and try to make you incriminate yourself when youve done nothing wrong. what makes you think he didnt know what to say to take some major heat off of himself?

 

[Adoptedscot]

Come on now, lets not make a blanket statements about police or any section of people. I appreciate there are 'bad apples' and people can make mistakes in their life and/or profession but to catagorise ALL police officers as something because of things seen on YT etc, is hardly constructive or helpful. There may be a 'plethora' of examples on YT but considering how many millions of officers there must be worldwide, I can imagine that the bad ones are a minority (I'm just guessing that and know no facts or stats at all, just assuming) which is why I guess I find a blanket statement like that a little harsh.
Then again I personally find 'hating' something a little harsh, life's too short to be so angry, imo.

I've come across some police idiots too in my time, doesn't mean I hate them all or should tar them all because of it.

Do I agree with what this officer did, no but I don't know all the circumstances and I'm certainly not someone to judge without all the facts.

I didn't know that if you shot a police dog it's classed as an officer though, that's an interesting bit.
x

 

[ExMem-LarjaThwei]

So if some kid is missing, a cop can randomly barge in my backyard and shoot my dog for acting defensively?

How can I avoid this? Train my dog to pee and **** inside in a litter box? I love my dog and don't want him to die, but apparently a police officer would have every right to kill him.

What if they broke in my house instead of my backyard and my dog was inside, acted defensively, and they shot him?

Seems like no matter what I do my dog isn't safe from cops.

Wait, maybe I could declaw and defang him? Well, the cops would have no way of knowing that before they shoot him to death.

I've got it! I'll just build a secret underground bunker and hide my dog there. His lifespan would probably be cut short due to being locked up in a concrete room for the entirety of his life, but at least he'd live longer than if he were above ground where a cop could get to him.

I just want to be a responsible citizen and at the same time keep my dog alive. Who knew it would be this difficult.

 

[pixletwin]

Depends. Do you wear diapers everywhere you go just in case you might poop your pants and be arrested for pooping in public place? Maybe you have considered wearing a jockstrap just in case some cop has the irresistible urge to kick you in the nads.

 

[Blackthornone]

The policeman didn't need anymore probable cause than what he already had via the search, to enter the backyard. That's the point.

Per assumptions, when a child goes missing you don't make presumptions. You follow protocol - just like this officer was doing.

Since there is always a very reasonable chance that there is a dog in a backyard, and dogs almost always try to defend their yard against strangers, according to you the police effectively already made the decision to kill people's dogs in order to conduct the search, even before going into the backyards.
So much for protect and serve.

 

[pixletwin]

Yes. That is exactly what I said. Good job on your reading.