Print

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

[Fenrir]

Who watches the watchmen?

Internal Affairs.

Who watches the watchmen’s watchers?

[Shinotsa]

Big Brother

[Felius]

Internaler Affairs?

Seriously though: The cop fucked up hard: He shouldn't have approached with his gun drawn, if he felt like he needed to go in armed he should have asked for backup unless he had cause to believe that unless he had cause to believe he needed to act NOW, which by all appearances he didn't have. He should be punished for not following proper procedures, possibly losing his job in the affair.

On the other hand, shooting a strange dog running towards him in a manner that can be interpreted as hostile (do note that as far I as I'm aware cops are not required at being experts in reading dog body language) in a context that he thought might involve violence? That I can't really recriminate him for. They should bust his ass for the whole rest, not for the snap decision of shooting a dog, tragic as it may be.

On a sidenote: The command to control the dog was probably meant something like giving a command for the dog to go back home/or come over, not actually physically restraining the dog, and so actually possible to do at the same time he was raising his hands. Not that the cop have not breached protocol hard by going with a draw weapon or and/or getting backup

[scriver]

-snip-

someone with a mutated cthulhu kitty avatar loves animals?

Time to change my notes...

Their innocent souls tastes delicious.

[G-Flex]

On the other hand, shooting a strange dog running towards him in a manner that can be interpreted as hostile (do note that as far I as I'm aware cops are not required at being experts in reading dog body language) in a context that he thought might involve violence? That I can't really recriminate him for. They should bust his ass for the whole rest, not for the snap decision of shooting a dog, tragic as it may be.

Problem being that he should have had other means to deal with the dog if the dog did seem violent when it approached him. Cops carry pepper spray, clubs, etc.

And cops shouldn't be expected to be "experts in dog body language", but cops responding to scenes should at least have some knowledge of how to deal with a dog or other pet that's likely to confront an intruder, since that is going to be a very common occurrence.

[The Fool]

Problem being that he should have had other means to deal with the dog if the dog did seem violent when it approached him. Cops carry pepper spray, clubs, etc.

And cops shouldn't be expected to be "experts in dog body language", but cops responding to scenes should at least have some knowledge of how to deal with a dog or other pet that's likely to confront an intruder, since that is going to be a very common occurrence.

I agree that a baton would have been more appropriate, but if you're already holding a gun, you're holding it in two hands. To draw a baton you'd have to stop pointing your gun at a suspect, transfer your gun to your bad hand or holster, and draw a baton. It would take too long to react. The entire problem stems from the fact that he drew his gun needlessly.

[scriver]

Ah, pain you're against, consuming their souls in a mentally rending way is cool.

goddamn, scriver, you gotta teach me to do that.

Well, I once had this book, the Kittehnomicon, commissioned where you can read all about it. Might be slightly hard to get hold of, though. You should try the old, forgotten places first.

[DJ]

On a sidenote: The command to control the dog was probably meant something like giving a command for the dog to go back home/or come over, not actually physically restraining the dog, and so actually possible to do at the same time he was raising his hands.

Perfectly possible with a well trained dog, which most pets aren't. Your run of the mill family dog relies on body language more than anything, and holding your hands up is a weird signal it wouldn't know how to interpret.

[Sowelu]

I'd like to see the video, so we can know just how aggressive the dog was really being.  "Yap yap yap it's a person in my yard, ten feet away", or "I will back you against your vehicle and snap at the air while growling and lunging feints at you from two feet away".

I'm not going to wait for the latter dog to bite me.

[Sowelu]

Pff, you can just step on those.

[Flying Dice]

I'd agree that there isn't much else to say until we get video evidence, beyond agreeing that the cop shouldn't have had his gun out (or should have waited for backup if he thought he needed it, unless there was clear evidence that if he did, someone would die, which there obviously wasn't, given that it was the wrong house).

[Sowelu]

which there obviously wasn't, given that it was the wrong house

Honestly...yeah, domestic disturbance call, there probably wasn't (or it would have been recorded as something else).  But we also don't know what the 911 call said.  If someone says they hear crashing noises, breaking furniture and loud screaming, you have to assume the worst.  At least, I sure as hell hope the cops would.

I guess we disagree on how much 'clear evidence' is needed here, but depending on what the caller said, I'm willing to give them an awful lot of leeway.  Specifically, I'm willing to give the cops exactly as much leeway for "He's beating her and she's screaming at the top of her lungs" as I am for "There's someone in my house and I don't know who it is" in a bad neighborhood, and I'd hope they respond to the latter with gun drawn.

(and more than one squad car, but whatever)

[Frumple]

I... really wouldn't, in either case. The come in with gun drawn thing. Not unless there was very strong evidence outside that it'd be needed. Someone -- anyone -- coming in armed to an unknown situation is a way too damn good way for someone innocent to end up in the news and in the morgue.

Assess the situation, draw weapon as appropriate. Don't go in weapon drawn without sufficient reason. 911 call itself is not sufficient, seriously. Only on the ground assessment. There's no assurance the call is legit to begin with or, as in this case, the information accurate.

[G-Flex]

Honestly...yeah, domestic disturbance call, there probably wasn't (or it would have been recorded as something else).  But we also don't know what the 911 call said.  If someone says they hear crashing noises, breaking furniture and loud screaming, you have to assume the worst.  At least, I sure as hell hope the cops would.

Why the hell would you hope a cop "assumes the worst"? Do you even realize what that entails?

A cop assuming the worst means that cop engages in riskier behavior because he believes it's necessary. Assuming the worst means tear gassing a crowd because one of them might have a gun. Assuming the worst means busting down a door with a weapon drawn because the person who called in the report might be in trouble. Assuming the worst is why innocent people and children have been shot and killed by mistake in botched raids, people injured with 3rd-degree burns with flashbangs, etc., because the police involved are executing measures reserved for situations that are the worst. Police engaging in more drastic measures than they should just because the situation might possibly be worse than expected is how some very bad things happen. The police should be capable of dealing with the situation going sour, yes, but there is a limit, and it shouldn't mean doing things that endanger other people's lives or make lethal mistakes far more likely.

I guess we disagree on how much 'clear evidence' is needed here, but depending on what the caller said, I'm willing to give them an awful lot of leeway.  Specifically, I'm willing to give the cops exactly as much leeway for "He's beating her and she's screaming at the top of her lungs" as I am for "There's someone in my house and I don't know who it is" in a bad neighborhood, and I'd hope they respond to the latter with gun drawn.

Even if there's good reason to believe someone might be violently beating another person, if there's absolutely no reason to believe the perpetrator is actually armed with a firearm, there's little reason to bust in the house with it drawn, at least not to the point where you can't react to any quasi-plausible danger except by shooting at it. If having a gun drawn actually prevents you from using pepper spray or a nightstick or any other means of disabling a person (or in this case, some dude's dog), then you better make damn sure the gun is necessary first.

[GlyphGryph]

On a sidenote: The command to control the dog was probably meant something like giving a command for the dog to go back home/or come over, not actually physically restraining the dog, and so actually possible to do at the same time he was raising his hands.

Perfectly possible with a well trained dog, which most pets aren't. Your run of the mill family dog relies on body language more than anything, and holding your hands up is a weird signal it wouldn't know how to interpret.

Even with a well-trained dog, most commands have non-verbal components. He would have to not only be well trained, but well trained to respond solely to verbal commands. (Though a well trained dog would probably have a verbal command to /stop/)

Also, supporting what G-Flex says there. It is not a police officers job to make themselves feel slightly better by making it more likely for innocent people to get killed, that's for sure.

(I was going to write make themselves a bit safer, but starting with a gun drawn is pretty severe escalation, and probably puts him in even MORE danger)