Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Some of you may find this shocking, but domestic dogs are not trained killers. A single one up against a grown man wearing body armor could do little to no harm even if it was attacking.

We've gotten to the point where cops use their lethal weapons like less-than-lethal weapons and their less-than-lethal weapons as compliance tools, which is supremely fucked up beyond all reason.
I'm beyond certain that the cop in question won't suffer any ill legal consequences for his grossly incompetent actions, but if I were him I'd watch my back. If you kill a member of a person's family in front of them, human or otherwise, you shouldn't expect that the law will be enough to protect you anymore.

[Sowelu]

I'll allow that, yeah, he shouldn't have had his gun out most likely (we weren't there, we don't know the details of the original call, etc etc etc).  But that aside, I'll still defend that he made a valid call.  Investigate it, make a big stink about it in the media, question it, sure...but as one of the people he's supposed to serve & protect, I personally am okay with that judgment call.

And that's my opinion.

[Lord Dullard]

MSH: Yep. Due to the increasing frequency of threads and news stories like these over the past decade, I'm really starting to think it would be a good idea to take guns away from cops, period, and restrict them to batons unless they're entering a situation in which it is implicitly obvious that they SHOULD have a gun.

[Criptfeind]

Cop almost certainly should not have had his gun out. But that is the only issue I see here. The shooting of the dog, well sad, seems pretty much justified. Animal lives are simply not worth the possibility of a human getting badly injured or worse.

or because they are the .01% of dogs that actually do intend to bite

That's a interesting statistic. Where did you get it?

Some of you may find this shocking, but domestic dogs are not trained killers.

Other then when they actually are of course.

[forsaken1111]

Personally, if I was the cop responding to a situation in which I felt I needed to draw my gun and a dog started running at me, I wouldn't hesitate to kill it if I felt threatened.

So do we have the right to question if he was correct in deciding he needed to draw his gun? Or is he immune from "civilian" judgment on that matter?

Your right to ask the question depends on what country you're in I suppose, and the question itself is irrelevant because it is his opinion and that opinion was likely based off whatever he was told over the radio. Do we know what the original call was about? If someone called the police saying an intruder was in their home but gave the wrong address, would he be 'correct' in drawing his gun thinking he was going into a home with a potentially armed intruder?

I suspect that if all of the dogs in the neighborhood had run up to him - as dogs will pretty much always do, whether they're barking over their territory or just because they want to sniff and investigate, or because they are the .01% of dogs that actually do intend to bite - and he had systematically shot twenty dogs in a row 'in self-defense', some of you would still be jumping to defend him.

There is a marked difference in the attitude of an animal running up to sniff you and one challenging you for entering its territory. Obviously he felt that this one was a danger. I'm not 'defending' him. I don't know him and don't care about him. All I said was that I would have likely done the same thing had I felt threatened by the dog. I would much rather wound an animal than put a person in danger. ANY person, not just myself. If that same dog had been running towards Suzie, the neighbor's little girl, in a threatening manner I probably would have shot it then as well.

And given the way our media spins things, I'd probably be hailed as a 'hero' for 'saving' the little girl from the 'aggressive' animal.

[Sowelu]

MSH: Yep. Due to the increasing frequency of threads and news stories like these over the past decade, I'm really starting to think it would be a good idea to take guns away from cops, period, and restrict them to batons unless they're entering a situation in which it is implicitly obvious that they SHOULD have a gun.

Oh, now that's a dangerous stance to take, intellectually.  Due to the increasing frequency of NEWS STORIES.  The increasing frequency of events that get COVERED.  The increasing frequency, also, of anecdotes.  Is the actual rate of these events going up?  Who the hell knows.  It is beyond insane to take a political stance based on media coverage of these stories, which may ebb and flow with the ratings.

If a news station decides that it's good business to run one of these stories every month, and it happens a hundred times a month nationwide, you'll see one story a month.  If they want to run one of these stories every month, and it only happens once a month...you'll still see one story a month.

Of course the reverse can also happen, you can see coverage go down when the events go up...but please, don't just rely on news and anecdotes to form your opinions.


...On the other hand, the UK did that, and it hasn't turned into a bloodbath, so maybe it works out just fine.  But they don't have a second-amendment culture like we do, and they don't border Mexico and its horrific drug lords...  I could see that working in Seattle, but I couldn't see it working in like...Arizona.

[Lord Dullard]

Cop almost certainly should not have had his gun out. But that is the only issue I see here. The shooting of the dog, well sad, seems pretty much justified. Animal lives are simply not worth the possibility of a human getting badly injured or worse.

or because they are the .01% of dogs that actually do intend to bite

That's a interesting statistic. Where did you get it?

Oh, you know, I did several years of research of walking up to dogs to see whether they'd bite me or not.

That, or I was exaggerating something in order to state the obvious: that the vast majority of dogs who run up to you are not going to bite you. Which should be fairly obvious to anyone who's ever taken up jogging.

Oh, now that's a dangerous stance to take, intellectually.  Due to the increasing frequency of NEWS STORIES.  The increasing frequency of events that get COVERED.  The increasing frequency, also, of anecdotes.  Is the actual rate of these events going up?  Who the hell knows.

Well, according to this 2007 article (this is me citing a source, meaning yes, this is a statistic and not me exaggerating a point), incidences of police brutality went up 25% from 9/11 to the date that article was written in 2007. I'm not going to do a lot of digging, mainly because I was in the middle of something, but I don't think it'd be too absurd to consider that the trend has probably continued until now. The media may sensationalize things, but there's no particular reason they wouldn't have been sensationalizing them at the same rate if they'd ALWAYS been happening this often.

[The Fool]

MSH: Yep. Due to the increasing frequency of threads and news stories like these over the past decade, I'm really starting to think it would be a good idea to take guns away from cops, period, and restrict them to batons unless they're entering a situation in which it is implicitly obvious that they SHOULD have a gun.

You'd be surprised how many firearms the criminal community has.

I think that maybe he shouldn't have drawn his firearm without looking at the situation that he saw. People need to use their heads. You look at the situation, and if the suspect proves himself a threat you draw a weapon. If you just run around with a gun out people are more likely to either panic or respond violently. Police who run around with guns drawn without reason ought to be ashamed.

[Sowelu]

That, or I was exaggerating something in order to state the obvious: that the vast majority of dogs who run up to you are not going to bite you. Which should be fairly obvious to anyone who's ever taken up jogging.

Because you frequently jog up to the house of a wife-beater to say hello.

[nenjin]

Your right to ask the question depends on what country you're in I suppose, and the question itself is irrelevant because it is his opinion and that opinion was likely based off whatever he was told over the radio. Do we know what the original call was about?

Yes. It's right there in the article. And my question, as an American, is completely relevant.

If someone called the police saying an intruder was in their home but gave the wrong address, would he be 'correct' in drawing his gun thinking he was going into a home with a potentially armed intruder?

Yes. Except we have enough information to know that wasn't the case. Intruders are not reported as "domestic disturbance."

I'd be interested to know how long this cop has been on the force. Because this sounds like a sketched out rookie who pulled up with his adrenaline pumping and didn't check himself.

If it turns out the call that came in was horrendous and justified one very panicked and trigger happy cop, I'll eat my words.

[G-Flex]

That, or I was exaggerating something in order to state the obvious: that the vast majority of dogs who run up to you are not going to bite you. Which should be fairly obvious to anyone who's ever taken up jogging.

Because you frequently jog up to the house of a wife-beater to say hello.

If cops respond to every domestic violence call in a way that assumes the absolute worst of everyone and everything involved, no wonder things like this happen. Maybe police should actually be trained to, you know, not needlessly escalate violence.

[Lord Dullard]

That, or I was exaggerating something in order to state the obvious: that the vast majority of dogs who run up to you are not going to bite you. Which should be fairly obvious to anyone who's ever taken up jogging.

Because you frequently jog up to the house of a wife-beater to say hello.

Oh, yeah. My neighbor's dog beats his wife all the time.

[Shinotsa]

Eh, if we're going to talk about whether or not cops should have guns we can't cut it in black and white. Britain obviously has SWAT teams or something similar, as well as task forces that do dangerous jobs. We could have much the same here, with cops that keep the peace and task forces that contend with drug lords and such. Around here, guns or not, the cops STILL don't patrol the bad areas of town. There will be a few of them hanging out around a 7/11 or in a decent looking neighborhood, talking or pretending to do work, while a guy selling hard drugs from his car a block down doesn't get arrested. And yes, I HAVE seen this. Nothing's worse than going to play basketball with a few friends and realizing that you've wound up in a place even the cops won't go.

Regardless, police officers have non-letal weapons. They should use them.

Jesus, can't get a post in without getting ninjaed. Also my dog is an alcohol and destroying his family.

[Sowelu]

Does this sound like an unreasonable 911 call to you:

"I can see the guy at (address) beating his wife through the window, she's really screaming, it sounds like he's killing her!"

Figurative?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Cop doesn't know.  "Domestic disturbance, possibly dangerous" sound about right?  Not all domestic disturbance calls are the same.  Need backup?  Well, yeah, but someone's gotta be first on the scene.  Again, the guy's headed out to his truck.  Is he getting a weapon?  You ask him to put his hands up before HE can escalate.  Still seems reasonable.

[G-Flex]

When you draw a gun on an unarmed person, you are the one escalating the violence inherent to the situation. Period.