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.
Yeah, no. You couldn't be more wrong or more of an obvious bigot. I have never participated in criminal activity, nor do I have a criminal record., but I've been harassed by police dozens of times, starting with my first arrest at age 12. I've had police guns pointed in my face for simply walking down the street, while I was serving our country in the US Army. Stories like that happen every day, all over the country, but they never make the news because there is no dead body to make people take notice.
Enough with the labeling and emotional outgassing here. You aren't in a qualified position to describe my character, so you should refrain from using terms like "obvious bigot". Don't be such a simpleton.
I've addressed the reality that innocent people are hassled by cops daily. It's not being disputed. What is being disputed, and rightfully so, is that people so readily champion the cases of alleged police brutality when the suspect *isn't* the innocent guy just walking down the street truly minding his own business, but is someone who contributed toward the incident that they have with the police. I made a very clear distinction between the two.
If you aren't able to understand the difference then I can't help you. Your ignorance in that case is not justification to call me a bigot.
To be clear; I believe that American police are a trigger happy gang whose members are rarely held accountable for their actions, but dogs are dangerous non-humans, incapable of reason. Get upset when a cop shoots a person.
To be clear; I believe that American police are a trigger happy gang whose members are rarely held accountable for their actions, but dogs are dangerous non-humans, incapable of reason. Get upset when a cop shoots a person.
Which happens often enough as well. There have been a lot of people shot by police under more than questionable circumstances and the police are cleared more often than not. If the public is even made privy to the outcome of the investigation. In the most cases the shooting is just forgotten about as the blue wall closes down and the investigation drags out. Out of sight out of mind.
For me the dog killing issues are more about how the police are killing people's animals in their own yards, pretty much on sight as SOP. They see a dog, they shoot it. End of line. These are not cases where the police are doing a tactical raid on a drug house or something where the people they are after have large, vicious mongrel bull breed mixes out for security reasons. The intent being that these dogs will attack on sight and have been conditioned to be killers.
The popularity of these large bull breeds has contributed to the current shoot first attitude of LE I have to say, as they operate on the assumption that any and all large dogs are killers. In fairness many people who are not criminal types do keep such animals with security purpose in mind and large aggressive breeds like (Pits and Rotts especially) are their choice. This is often more for show as they don't actually train or spend time with these dogs. They wind up tossed in the back yard and develop no real socialization, other than instinctive protectiveness.
I saw a lot of this as a service professional working in plumbing, heating and LP/natgas. People did some downright silly things with dogs. Like chaining them to the LP tank and expecting to get a gas delivery. Or even just having them loose in the yard I had to access for whatever purpose. I always looked and rattled any closed gates loudly before even thinking about entering. If there was a dog in there I went to my next job and called the residents to secure their animal and reschedule for me to come back.
The ring lies my issue with LE entering private property for minor issues and killing dogs. It doesn't take much to stop and think that there's probably a dog behind any closed gate and it takes short seconds to figure out for sure. Just loudly announce your presence (from outside the yard) by rattling the gate, looking over the fence, talking, whatever. If there's a dog there that will trigger and instant response. Rather than using their brains however they plow in, secure in their absolute authority to enter any premises for any reason at will , and when a surprised animal comes running to investigate they immediately draw their weapon and shoot to kill. A couple of short ticks could avoid this. It's not rocket science or quantum physics ascertaining if there's a dog present.
But rather than doing a simple trick that tells them exactly what they're dealing with they just enter and shoot anything that pops up. Secure in their predetermined justification for their actions. I have no issue with anyone, police or not, defending themselves against a dog attack. I do however take issue with said "defense" being necessary because of blatant ignorance and arrogant, unthought out application of "authority". The situation at issue here (authority d in most of the other such cases we have discussed here) was unecessary, and could have been easily avoided. It's not an officer (or anyone else) defending themselves from a dog attack I have issue with. It's the fact that they , through shear ignorance, made that defense necessary via their own actions. It equates to antagonizing an animal that acts on instinct, willfully and apurpose, and then being angry at being bitten when the animal does what it does.
A dog has no deductive reasoning power or ability to decide what level of force is appropriate when dealing with an intruder in its space. However humans who need to enter a space where there is likely to be a dog can use their brains to plan that entry with proper caution. And even the police should engage those brains before charging in. End of line.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,861 posts, read 3,300,267 times
Reputation: 9146
If you own this breed of dog you need to be 100x more responsible than any other dog owner. Fregin idiots had these dogs running around their back yard. No one home! The cop responding had a 100% responsibility to check every inch of the perimeter of that structure. That is his job to do so! It hurts me to see these dogs hurt. Do I think he should have shot the dogs? I wouldn't have however it doesn't make him wrong for doing so. BTW I own two pit bulls. They mean the world to me. I put those dogs away when I am not home. They are never left outside while I am not with them.
If you own this breed of dog you need to be 100x more responsible than any other dog owner. Fregin idiots had these dogs running around their back yard. No one home! The cop responding had a 100% responsibility to check every inch of the perimeter of that structure. That is his job to do so! It hurts me to see these dogs hurt. Do I think he should have shot the dogs? I wouldn't have however it doesn't make him wrong for doing so. BTW I own two pit bulls. They mean the world to me. I put those dogs away when I am not home. They are never left outside while I am not with them.
wait, having dogs locked inside a gated lawn on your property is irresponsible?
I don't think so.
The cop climbing a locked fence trying to play hero was the problem.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,861 posts, read 3,300,267 times
Reputation: 9146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feltdesigner
wait, having dogs locked inside a gated lawn on your property is irresponsible?
I don't think so.
The cop climbing a locked fence trying to play hero was the problem.
Yeah when you are not home and you have zero control of your dogs yes I would say you are completely irresponsible! The cop has to check that property. That's his job! That's not being a hero! That's called covering his ass because if he doesn't check the back yard and someone was committing a burglary he would be up a river without a paddle!
In the case of an actual break in where the suspects are or may still be in the house and there are no civilians at risk, would it not be a more prudent action for the police to simply cover the exits of the house, call in back up and wait to enter until they have overwhelming force, or wait for the criminals to exit?
They will have to come out sooner or later and I would imagine the most dangerous part of arresting someone inside a building would be the entrance into the building itself, since the perpetrators could be in many places inside the house but the people making entry will either have to be in a concentrated choke point or take an entrance like a window where the act of entering is more difficult and time consuming and leaves one more vulnerable and less able to effectively wield a firearm.
This is the reason they tend to use flash bangs/tear gas shortly before breaching no? To try to level that playing field of the suspects being in an unknown position while the cops are in a known position?
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 07-13-2017 at 12:52 PM..
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,861 posts, read 3,300,267 times
Reputation: 9146
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Procedural Question:
In the case of an actual break in where the suspects are or may still be in the house and there are no civilians at risk, would it not be a more prudent action for the police to simply cover the exits of the house, call in back up, and wait for the criminals to exit?
They will have to come out sooner or later and I would imagine the most dangerous part of arresting someone inside a building would be the entrance into the building itself, since the perpetrators could be in many places inside the house but the people making entry will either have to be in a concentrated choke point or take an entrance like a window where the act of entering is more difficult and time consuming and leaves one more vulnerable and less able to effectively wield a firearm.
This is the reason they tend to use flash bangs/tear gas shortly before breaching no? To try to level that playing field of the suspects being in an unknown position while the cops are in a known position?
The cop would have no idea if someone was inside the residence unless he checked the entire perimeter.
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.
Or even just having them loose in the yard I had to access for whatever purpose. I always looked and rattled any closed gates loudly before even thinking about entering. If there was a dog in there I went to my next job and called the residents to secure their animal and reschedule for me to come back.
The love of/defense of these aggressive, unpredictable, and potentially dangerous animals is the most irrational of all human behaviors.
