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.
Listener2307, do you call watching from a very far distance "interfering" with the police?
When the man was being needlessly and ruthlessly assaulted by the police, his dog was just trying to protect him..as any good dog would. There is no excuse for the totally unnecessary shooting of this beautiful dog. The owner begged the cops to let him put the dog back in the car. No ifs, ands, or buts about it, the cops WANTED to kill something or someone (that's what they do when you **** them off) that day...the poor dog payed the price...too bad.
Siding with the police in the absence of other information is like deciding someone is guilty until proved innocent, don't you think?
Once you've been conditioned to side with the police you form a prejudice because it is harder to change your mind once you decide to accept a certain perspective than remain questioning. You can see this in effect when you hear about such stories and take the side of the police. How often do you research past what was heard to see if in fact other circumstances show a different view?
The problem is that more and more, use of force is the go to solution. If you see a person and the police in a scuffle, what thought first enters your mind:
1. I wonder what that person did wrong?
2. I wonder why the police are scuffling with that person?
Those two questions might seem the same, they are very different because one in actually a question open to new information while the other is an accusation that presupposes the person actually did something wrong. With the first, the idea that the police are wrong never comes to mind.
That is dangerous but more and more it is becoming the accepted thought process.
I just now noticed the link to the video and watched it.
Now I have enough information to make my judgement.
The idiot got his dog killed. The police were justified in shooting the dog.
That was a horrible video. A perfect example of why idiots shouldn't have potentially deadly pets. If he hadn't been parading the dog around looking for trouble then the dog would still be alive. If he wouldn't have improperly secured the dog in the car, the dog would have been alive. If Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum hadn't been recording and encouraging this situation and instead helped secure this animal, then the dog would have been alive. The dog was acting appropriately, for a dog. The owner was acting appropriately, for a fool. The animal could have killed the cops so they protected themselves. I don't expect officers to risk life or injury because someone is an irresponsible pet owner.
What a complete Idiot the dog owner was. He might as well have pulled the trigger himself. The only thing I see the cops did wrong was not shooting the dog the first time it made a lunge at one of them.
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.