Thoughts on the the San Marcos Police Officer (Austin, Howe: school, bus)

[johnrex62]

DesertSun41, I have no problem with anything Mike78613 posted and do not take anything he said as evidence of hating dogs or having any affiliation with cops as you indicate.

I took offense at your tone and abusive demeanor toward Mike78613, and that doesn't happen with me all that often. You appear to me to be very much out of line and owe Mike78613 an apology.

I have not seen the police video, nor have I watched any newscast with descriptions of the events. I have only read the first story link. Based on the reporting and my personal experience with reporters, I have to question the context of that "you can get another" quote.

In my mind, if I were the officer and trying to impress on the driver the stupidity of his actions I might have told him something along the lines of 'Dogs are replacable, People are not.' That sentiment is not far off of the sensationlized quote we are outraged about here, but with a completely different context.

How many of us would be outraged if an officer were to place the welfare of an animal over that of an injured person? Would we be so quick to accept him driving an injured animal to a vet while leaving the injured person on the road to die? There is a priority that must be recognized and the cop was more likely in my opinion to be telling the driver that the safety of people on the highway was more important that getting the dog to a vet 25 seconds earlier. (legal Highway speed is 65mph at night, assuming an additional 35mph for the 15 miles to the vet, gives about 25 seconds gain in estimated arrival time. Well worth the risk of another human life) Had he not been speeding that would still have been a 19 minute 35 second faster arrival than he accomplished.

I love animals and people both. I think people have a higher priority in the safety equation.

[Mike78613]

Originally Posted by desertsun41

Oink oinks are not allowed on this thread. You have ice water in your veins and deserve much more then I can say on here without getting banned.

Why dont you just leave this thread if you hate dogs so much and love those fat bellied donut munchers so much.

Oh how cute, someone's mad about the truth of the law!

BTW... I don't hate dogs, as I mentioned on here earlier that I have one.

johnrex62 - I don't need an apology from the this person. No feelings intended to be hurt. I just think Desert~Sun got sun"burned" and the excessive heat is getting to him/her.

[springbean]

Originally Posted by johnrex62

DesertSun41,
I have not seen the police video, nor have I watched any newscast with descriptions of the events. I have only read the first story link. Based on the reporting and my personal experience with reporters, I have to question the context of that "you can get another" quote.

In my mind, if I were the officer and trying to impress on the driver the stupidity of his actions I might have told him something along the lines of 'Dogs are replacable, People are not.' That sentiment is not far off of the sensationlized quote we are outraged about here, but with a completely different context.

What you have to say really holds no water when you haven't even seen all the evidence. The officer said, very plainly on video "You can get another dog!"

[johnrex62]

Originally Posted by springbean

What you have to say really holds no water when you haven't even seen all the evidence. The officer said, very plainly on video "You can get another dog!"

I will have to hear the full context before I would accept such a statement at face value in this isolated form. I am not doubting the statement, just the context in which it is used. Without more data than I have, it just sounds too sensationalized and uncharacteristic of a standalone comment in a traffic stop situation. It seems that there had to be more to the conversation that just this comment.

[springbean]

Originally Posted by johnrex62

I will have to hear the full context before I would accept such a statement at face value in this isolated form. I am not doubting the statement, just the context in which it is used. Without more data than I have, it just sounds too sensationalized and uncharacteristic of a standalone comment in a traffic stop situation. It seems that there had to be more to the conversation that just this comment.

The entire incident was recorded on the police video recorder in the patrol car.

[twange]

Originally Posted by johnrex62

I will have to hear the full context before I would accept such a statement at face value in this isolated form. I am not doubting the statement, just the context in which it is used. Without more data than I have, it just sounds too sensationalized and uncharacteristic of a standalone comment in a traffic stop situation. It seems that there had to be more to the conversation that just this comment.

Did everyone here read this entire thread? The article? Watch the video? I think what's been clearly established here, is that the officer had EVERY reason to pull this driver over - if someone is driving that fast, it's unsafe for everyone else. He was doing his job.

The dispute is:

a.) The officer's callus behavior towards a citizen and his emergency situation. Whether or not you, me or anyone else considers a dog choking an emergency is not the point. This person did, and he was frantically trying to save her. People have very strong bonds with their pets. Look at officers and their canine partners. Look at seeing-eye dogs. You can try and minimize these relationships if you want by saying they are "replaceable", but most pet owners will disagree, seeing each animal as unique. If you don't get that, fine but there it is, and most animal admirers will see it that way. It doesn't matter if someone was trying to save a toad, if it's important to them, they'll do drastic things. Their fear and concern should be treated with respect.

b.) The length of time the officer kept them there. It seems unreasonable that the officer needed to detain them that long. If I was a cop(and I'm not), I would have given them an escort to the vet emergency clinic, made sure they got there safely and then wrote them the ticket. Once the car was stopped, there was no "choice between human and animal lives". That's not what this argument is about: it was simply a matter of managing the situation properly.

It's called being compassionate and feeling empathy. These people clearly weren't criminals, but very panicked, distraught folks who needed some help and strong leadership. And they didn't get it. Instead they got a power struggle with someone who seemed more interested in punishing then helping them.

Sorry, but that is not good public service.

[johnrex62]

Originally Posted by springbean

What you have to say really holds no water when you haven't even seen all the evidence. The officer said, very plainly on video "You can get another dog!"

Originally Posted by johnrex62

I will have to hear the full context before I would accept such a statement at face value in this isolated form. I am not doubting the statement, just the context in which it is used. Without more data than I have, it just sounds too sensationalized and uncharacteristic of a standalone comment in a traffic stop situation. It seems that there had to be more to the conversation that just this comment.

Originally Posted by springbean

The entire incident was recorded on the police video recorder in the patrol car.

Does anyone have the whole video? I have been looking and every video I have found is chopped and cut severly. Every version includes and excludes different pieces. None show the full context. The version I saw on tv a few minutes ago on Red Eye Tv showed the cop telling the driver was endangering other drivers on the road and "his job was to protect and serve them against driver's like you." This sounds more like what I expected to hear in the same context with the dog statement. Unfortunately, even this video was edited and shown out of order compared to other videos I have seen so it does not show what the full context of the conversation was.

ABC's interview adds that there is another officer onsite that is not shown in the videos I have seen that was with the woman and the dog and that officer was telling her that the dog was already dead at the time of the stop.

The man states that the vet clinic was 8 miles from his home. That extra 35mph on the highway would have saved less than 1 minute if they had not been stopped. They claim the highway was deserted, but the video showed them weaving between two tractor trailer rigs. Given the huge blind spots on these rigs and the strong wind shears around them, this driving was extremely dangerous to both them and the two truckers involved.

The demeanor of the man as he jumped out of the car waving his arms and moving around the car erratically would have made me suspect him of being high. I can certainly understand the cop repeatedly telling him to calm down. I give the cop credit for not shooting him when he jumped out of the car so suddenly at the start of the stop. At night and after such dangerous driving I would have really been on edge if I were the cop. His training surely saved that man's life the way he was acting. I dont think I could agree that they were "Clearly not criminals" from his initial behavior. I wish I could view the full tape to see how he acted as the stop proceeded. My impressions from the tape are very skewed by the editing. They make him look like he is high on something and very irrational.

As to the time it took, it was probably not nearly that long to write the ticket, it took that long for him to calm down enough to be allowed to drive away. The cop would have been criminally negligent to allow him to drive off in such an excited state when he had just shown such poor judgement with his driving immediately before the stop.

I agree that the cop was less than diplomatic and did not do as good as job at de-escalating the situation as he might have. Given the wife's statement that the cops felt the dog was already dead, it would make no sense for the cop to give them an escort to the vet clinic, and no sense to rush their release back onto the highway in their erratic state of mind.

If you find a whole video of the incident, please post the link to it. Perhaps I would find something to change my mind. So far everything I have seen reinforce my thoughts that the cops did nothing wrong aside from not giving him a hug and a kiss to make him feel better. The cop was pretty callous if the editing did not omit anything earth shattering, but the guy's own actions caused his situation not the cop's.

[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.

[another_hot-day]

Originally Posted by twange

It's called being compassionate and feeling empathy. These people clearly weren't criminals, but very panicked, distraught folks who needed some help and strong leadership. And they didn't get it. Instead they got a power struggle with someone who seemed more interested in punishing then helping them.

Sorry, but that is not good public service.

exactly! Well put Twange.

[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.