Thoughts on the the San Marcos Police Officer

[aaauger]

Originally Posted by love roses

I don't need to hyper analyze a tape to know that "It's just a dog...you can get another one" was the wrong thing to say.

And to know that police are not licensed veterinarians.

[johnrex62]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

There was another officer on the scene, who tried to save the dog, as I understand it. (The officer not being veterinary personnel, one doesn't know whether the dog could have been saved if it had reached the vet hospital or not, and now we'll never know.) However, I doubt that a police officer would have tried to save a dead dog, thus, the statement that the dog was already dead at the time they were stopped is questionable.

What I did see of the video made it clear that the officer needed serious review of coursework in crisis management (and I would hesitate to comment if I hadn't seen any of it). The chief has said that his behavior was inappropriate; presumably the chief had access to and reviewed the entire tape AND had the input of the other officer on the scene.

Where did you hear that the other officer tried to save the dog? I have not heard that in any of the news stories I have found online. The interview with the wife is where the wife says the female officer told her the dog was already dead. That is the only reference I have found to the other officer. I would love to know what info you have access to on this story. I find the available info too highly edited and that makes me suspicious of the spin from the media.

The chief made his announcement almost immediately after this story hit the national media. Wouldn't a non-politically motivated chief make such a decesion after a review commission had received the case? I think his actions are as much a result of the news stories than anything else. I would not place much faith in his objectivity during a media storm. Most staff reprimands take much more time to evaluate when the media is not all over it.

Originally Posted by love roses

I don't need to hyper analyze a tape to know that "It's just a dog...you can get another one" was the wrong thing to say.

No question that it was insensitive and could have been handled better. My question is was that really how it went down? Every tape I have seen has been edited and chopped up. I am not trying to hyper analyze, I just want to see the undoctored evidence before reaching a conclusion. I, unlike you apparently, would prefer the facts to be clear before making a judgement.

I am more skeptical of this stories spin because I have personally be at the center of media spin a couple times in my life and I have seen first hand how innocent remarks can be twisted into much more through selective editing and dropping context. Since none of the video edits I have seen show a complete context, I wonder what they dropped out to make it better tv. Normally they drop the little things that make these types of comments perfectly reasonable when taken in context.

No need to hyperanalyze anything. Just review the facts instead of the spin, and we don't know the facts.

[johnrex62]

Originally Posted by aaauger

And to know that police are not licensed veterinarians.

I am not a licensed plumber, but I can recognize a broken pipe. I would presume that an officer, you or even I could also distinguish a dead dog from a live one up close. Usually the lack of breathing, heartbeat and body temperature gives it away pretty easily.

[aaauger]

Originally Posted by johnrex62

I am not a licensed plumber, but I can recognize a broken pipe. I would presume that an officer, you or even I could also distinguish a dead dog from a live one up close. Usually the lack of breathing, heartbeat and body temperature gives it away pretty easily.

Do you want the police making life-or-death medical decisions for you and your loved ones?

[twange]

Originally Posted by johnrex62

Where did you hear that the other officer tried to save the dog? I have not heard that in any of the news stories I have found online.

Sir,
Did you follow the link from the original post of this thread? Here it is:

San Marcos Couple Blame Traffic Stop for Dog Death

In the upper right corner of the webpage is video clip(just click on it and it will play). At the end of the clip, the news anchor mentions that another officer on the scene was compassionate and tried to clear the dog's airway.

[johnrex62]

Originally Posted by twange

Sir,
Did you follow the link from the original post of this thread? Here it is:

San Marcos Couple Blame Traffic Stop for Dog Death

In the upper right corner of the webpage is video clip(just click on it and it will play). At the end of the clip, the news anchor mentions that another officer on the scene was compassionate and tried to clear the dog's airway.

Is there any way to know that is accurate? The police chief is reported to state that it occurred, but the wife stated in her interview that the female officer in the front with her told her the dog was already dead. Which is correct? Maybe both? Perhaps the other officer checked the dog and found it dead and the chief took that checkup to be an attempt to revive the dog.

This video show a snippet of another officer, but I cannot tell if it is the female officer the wife talks of or yet another officer at the scene. This video is also very chopped up and I notice the time stamp is removed from various scenes for some reason in this edit. It is present in those same scenes on other news cast broadcasts, but some scenes are shown in different sequences and contain a bit more of the drivers bizzarre antics when first stopped. One tape even showed him running at the officer while the officer shouted at him to calm down and the officers are out and one hand on his gun. The officer was clearly uneasy with the drivers behaviour and movements. All these versions make me think there is much more to this story than is being reported or shown on tv.

[another_hot-day]

John, are you that cop?

[TexasHorseLady]

Following the link on the bottom right on the page linked to above, it appears that the officer was reprimanded, required to watch the tape all the way through with his supervisor, and counseled on how to improve his performance. So SOMEONE watched the tape all the way through and felt it was worth taking these measures.

[Trainwreck20]

Although I haven't read the story, clicked on the links, or even heard this story anywhere but here, I can understand what JR62 is trying to say....that the media will distort a story any way it can to make the story more 'interesting' or controversial.

As an example, do y'all remember the lady who hit the kid while passing a school bus with flashing lights a couple of years ago in Austin? The story was that she was speeding through a school zone and talking on her cell phone while passing a school bus with its lights flashing, and the papers had quotes from 'witnesses' to air this story. They didn't bother to quote the witnesses that did not see any cell phone nor follow up with the information that the lady had picked up her phone AFTER the accident to call 911 (supported by phone records). The lights on the school bus were flashing yellow (again, according to less interesting witnesses) until after the accident. Also, she was apparently not speeding (at least according to some witness, not the quoted ones, of course) and the accident did not occur in a school zone. The bus stopped every day and waited (yellow lights flashing) for a consderable time, so it was not like you could stop for 15 minutes and wait for the bus to move. I admit, I heard this from a person fairly closely involved in the affair, and they might be biased, too, but I think a lot of this was documented in police reports.

Anyway, someone obeying all the traffic laws but hitting a child running across the street in the dim light before dawn is not nearly as inflammatory as the printed story - who cares if it is accurate? The truth might be somewhere in between, but you have to be SENSATIONAL!

[love roses]

No question that it was insensitive and could have been handled better. My question is was that really how it went down? Every tape I have seen has been edited and chopped up. I am not trying to hyper analyze, I just want to see the undoctored evidence before reaching a conclusion. I, unlike you apparently, would prefer the facts to be clear before making a judgement

You may be unaware of this, but my dad did teach me to look at both sides of the story