Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have any of y'all actually watched the clear, unedited version? The video that was untouched by the media? The media does a great job of doctoring up videos and news for that matter to make it look worse than it actually is.
Are you kidding? The media is where people get their facts these days in small, discriminative, digestive chunks designed to enthrall the viewer and maintain viewership during commercials.
Though if were to base my response from what was presented by the media, I would be outraged too. Unfortunately, police dogs are trained more aggressively than household pets (in general) since police dogs must perform dangerous 'duties' unlike household pets.
I guess the question would be is it cruel to train dogs to become part of law enforcement since they must be trained more aggressively and respond equally as such in potentially dire situations? I do not know all the procedures involved in training such animals, so it's difficult to assess, especially from the blip of video that as presented by the video, if such methods were out of the ordinary.
If not, then people must question the ethical aspects of training such animals to reach a level of effectiveness a dog requires to become a law enforcement police dog and, thus, ethically utilize them. I imagine the positives outweigh the negatives, but people have a tendency to focus on negatives more than positives.
And when it comes to people's careers these days, people today have a tendency to outcast others and base a full career on the makings of one incident (ignoring the merits of their career even if that career is made up of 999 positives to one in a thousand negatives).
I do not condone animal cruelty or condone it, but there is a lot to think about here regarding the questions I posed if this is a real issue affecting certain people. However, I guess it would behoove me and others to invest a little time into the professional record of this officer (unless they have already done so) to determine if this particular officer is unable to perform the duties of an officer.
Apparently, those in the know and in command thought otherwise which, in turn, calls into question the confidence critics have in their own leaders to make proper decisions. Certainly, those against the decision to allow this officer to continue being an officer (based on this incident alone) can always take out some of their own time to invest in arguing against such decisions. Else just steam and grow more frustrated with a system they wish not to partake in.
Would you feel the same way if the jerk was seen kicking a small child?
If I EVER see someone harming an animal they will rue the day they were born, consequences to myself be damned.
I have been witness to a small child being chewed on by an animal, and it is not a pretty sight. If it weren't for a number of us in the crowd coming to the aid of that child and, in turn, violating such a Zero Tolerance policy by potentially hurting the animal, the mauled child may not have been saved. Anyone that knows knows my personal history understands that I have stood up face to face against animal cruelty adversity. But when it comes to deciding between saving the life of a human being and the potential of hurting an animal, zero tolerance has no bearing. Unlike your zero tolerance assertions, I myself will always choose the human life (even though the perceived sanctity of 'some' human lives may not be worth saving, imo).
Did I take that out of context?
My issue, however off-topic as it might appear, is when the public receives a bit of information and pronounces it as complete fact without full knowledge of the events that took place (or addressing only a bits of an argument in hopes of destroying credibility for the whole). Sure, I was seriously appalled by the short video snippet I saw... but I'm not entirely certain and clear of the event that took place in what I saw (by that, what I saw may not be as clear or as complete as what others saw).
The issue is not feeling good about the destruction of one particular officer's career should that have been the resulting case. Had it been, in fact, the case, those against the current decision would probably feel a whole lot better about their representative police force and themselves while going about their merry way. However, the issue is whether or not the perceived practices viewed on the video were accepted training methods and, if they are, should they continue? Are there alternatives to making such an animal effective at what they are assigned to do? Does the public understand what it takes to train animals to have an effective role in law enforcement (this, a question and not a reprimand)?
Regardless of a person's side of an argument, those interested case (or are directly affected by it) are under obligation to both seek out more clear and complete facts beyond that of a momentary slice of video presented by the media. More importantly, such concerned citizens have a duty to get involved and seek understanding on how their police force functions if they find something objectionable to their standards. Then, they must ask themselves, if no alternatives exist and such standards become so intolerable that a certain practice of law enforcement ceases to exist, "Is it tolerable to live without the compromised standard if the absence of such a standard makes living in society more unsafe?"
What was seen and interpreted on the video appeared abhorrent... to me, that is. Did I see all the facts? Probably not. Was it clear? Not really. Was I still appalled? Yup. Do I know about how police dogs are trained? No. Should the officer lose his career based on public opinion? Depends. But if what we saw was clearly an officer torturing a dog out of pure enjoyment (or training purposes) in the line of duty when such methods are not widely used elsewhere or in his department, then I question the decision, too, and wonder why the punishment was not more harsh.
On the other hand, if what was seen was indeed torture and abuse and was within police guidelines, then a bigger problem exists beyond the actions of one officer. If that's the case, then those of you interested in the case (or are directly affected by it) must decide on what you are 'effectively' prepared to do to make a change for the better so what was allegedly seen in your eyes will never be seen again. That means, getting involved and going down to the police station and start asking questions of your law enforcement officials. How will you tangibly get involved and make a difference?
Defending someone's or your own life is a whole 'nother matter, but that's not what occurred, and you know it.
If a child were coming at you with a sharp knife or pointing a loaded gun at you you'd defend yourself and save your own (or another's life). And that's nice hyperbole to make general arguments, but THIS case is about a highly trained dog, not attacking or harming anyone, being abused by his owner.
I would have to think that the state police fired him for some reason. Obviously they felt it was too much, and so did the guy with the cell camera - no matter what WE actually did or did not see. Yes, we can't judge, but a jury of his peers - his superiors and other officers - did, and found him guilty.
I still say that based on this type of "crime", which is in effect, an assault, he should not be a police officer. It's like allowing a thief to be an after-hours jewelry store guard. Or a child-abuser the chance to run a day-care. Just ain't right.
Defending someone's or your own life is a whole 'nother matter, but that's not what occurred, and you know it.
No assertions intended. But you emphatically indicated zero tolerance when 'harming' an animal (followed by a eerie warning). I interpret zero tolerance as an absolute in all cases regardless of circumstance. Clearly, your definition of zero tolerance when harming an animal varies by degree depending on the circumstance. Abuse, I now assume, is where you are actually applying this zero tolerance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lottamoxie
If a child were coming at you with a sharp knife or pointing a loaded gun at you you'd defend yourself and save your own (or another's life).
It actually wouldn't matter who the aggressor was. If my my life or the life another was threatened by some aggressor, I would do what I could to defend the lives targeted by the aggressor. Of course. Would you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lottamoxie
And that's nice hyperbole to make general arguments, but THIS case is about a highly trained dog, not attacking or harming anyone, being abused by his owner. And that is unacceptable.
What part of "Would you feel the same way if the jerk was seen kicking a small child?" was not a hyperbole when presenting your offensive to underPSI?
_________
What I presented here was not a defense of the officer. If you had read my post thoroughly, lottamoxie, you would clearly understand that I was equally appalled (pointing out here the fact that I am really not a fan of the state troopers in NC). How can anyone not be (though I do understand and accept that some individuals exist who may not find it offensive)?
However, my concern lies on the lack of activism I have witnessed from people looking to hang one or two individuals for alleged crimes when the mere existence of such a crime signals a potential epidemic requiring further attention. The punishment of the few may make citizens feel better about their world, but publicly notified punishment often quells further investigation allowing such alleged criminal activity to permeate in other forms.
Here, in this case, we see an individual given the authority to protect and serve life and community, and he is caught on video abusing not only a dog, but a trained appointed law enforcement officer. The issue isn't really the crime we witness on video... it is the pure existence that such behavior can and does exist within the North Carolina Highway Patrol (not exclusively, I am sure).
This, apart from the idea that people can use just bits of selective information delivered by the media and conclude such bits as absolute and complete fact (i.e. the boys who were presumed guilty by so many in the Duke Lacrosse case... definitely a justified comparison and not a hyperbole when it comes to the relationship of the media and public opinion).
There are indeed many more good upstanding police officers, state troopers, et. al. than there are bad. However, bad ones do exist. The question I propose again is, "What are you prepared to do to make certain such abuse will not continue in your own town, city, state, country or world (pick one or more)?"
If what you witnessed was indeed fact and it is behavior you find unacceptable, then you have a duty.... no, and obligation to investigate further the facts of this case; how such matters will continue to be handled; and how such matters will effectively be prevented again!
Passive mediocrity is not an option with an issue as passionate as this one. Get involved first hand.
Are you kidding? The media is where people get their facts these days in small, discriminative, digestive chunks designed to enthrall the viewer and maintain viewership during commercials.
A very wise individual. Bravo!
Regarding the dog-kicker....he deserves a series of hard, swift kicks to his nether regions....courtesy of Lawrence Tynes.
Exactly...common sense. It wouldn't be secretly filmed or criticized or result in a firing if it was all normal. The newsspaper, then, 'doctored' up what happen as they reported indeed the dog was on his hind legs, w/ his upper body pulled up by the leash. They also STATED the dogs hind legs left the ground as he repeatedly kicked the dog. I would love for just one reputable dog trainer to post that, yes, this is a normal and effective dog training method. I agree the dogs are there to work (not by choice )and must obey commands, but you will not convince me this is what needs to be done to get there. I think perhaps you must work w/w cops ;or something. Common sense to me says that kicking a dog period is just cruel. No justifications.
Dear Apex, congrats on being listed by Money magazine as a top place to live in the US.
Dear Apex, bad move hiring the dog kicking trooper.....whatever his reason is, it was not right....
I guess this is a good example of life's little balancing act......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The media is where people get their facts these days in small, discriminative, digestive chunks designed to enthrall the viewer and maintain viewership during commercials. 
