I'll take your fuck you then, that dog was in a dead run to bite. Dogs typically stop five feet or so in front of you and bark if they are doing it for show, if they're going to bite you they don't slow down until they have a mouth full, like this dog was.

It was needless, plain and simple.

Don't be such a giant weeping vagina.

That puppy was harmless. The cop had nothing to fear but wet puppy kisses. I don't get people who are so subservient to authority, so willing to justify brutality and violence, so long as it's carried out by someone in uniform.



>> ^Enzoblue:
I'll take your fuck you then, that dog was in a dead run to bite. Dogs typically stop five feet or so in front of you and bark if they are doing it for show, if they're going to bite you they don't slow down until they have a mouth full, like this dog was.

I'm as much of a dog lover as the next guy, but I happen to see it from Enzoblue's point of view.

Granted, we'll never know what the outcome would have been had the officer not shoot that dog. It might have been a wet doggy kiss, it might have been a bite.

It is clear that the officer took excessive steps for the sake of his safety. My guess is that this guy had one too many bad experiences with dogs in his patrol days and didn't want to take any chances.

But I would like to point out that branding this as a 'clear power abuse' is premature conclusion in my opinion. Officer did have a reason (may not have been the best decision, but did have a reason) for his action.

Also to point out, that assaulting a police officer is a serious crime. If your dog is unleashed and bites someone, it's still your fault, and you may do some jail time for that.

So the scenario goes:

1. Bestest of best scenario: Dog runs over to lick the officer, then finds 2 cheese doodles stuck behind the car seat. Officer notices his keen nose and recommends him to be a bomb sniffing dog, gets printed in local newspaper: happy ending.

2. Worst of worst scenario: Dog runs to bite officer in the neck: 40 stitches, larinx damaged, owner gets 5 years in jail.

So why are we turning a blind eye to the worst scenario, and only looking at it from the best of best scenario as if it is 100% certain when it isn't?

The fact still remains that we could never know what would have happened if the officer didn't shoot. And yet I see people jumping on this case as if there's no doubt, but there is. What would've happened next? Nobody will ever know.

But one thing is for certain: the officer panicked, and acted way too soon, in someone else's lawn. That's no excuse.

However, the comments made by this 'oh-so-delicate-damsel-in-distress-who-had-tragically-lost-her-pet-to-this-evil lawmen' is what got to me the most.

"He could've easily gotten in his car"??? "I think he was showing off"??? Give me a fucking break...

That cop is either a pussy, which means he has a little dick in his pants, or a macho asshole, which means he has a little dick in his pants.

I was taught in CCW class that in order to shoot someone, you'd better make damn sure that all three of these conditions have been met:
1. the assailant has the intent to kill you
2. the assailant has the means to kill you
3. you've got to believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that your life is about to be taken from you.

I'm sorry but as bad as a dog bites/attacks can be, I don't see him getting killed immediately, especially when his buddy would have jumped to assist.

Sadly, nothing will happen to the cop, except (at most) a slap on the wrist. Too bad that doesn't help his little dick problem.

>> ^gorillaman:
Don't be such a giant weeping vagina.


Conversely: Don't be such a scardy wittle vagina.

His life was certainly not in danger.

Scenario #2:
Cop: That brand new several thousand dollar plasma TV is giving me cancer.
*Cop throws rock through TV*
Cop: Wow... that really sucks for you, but I'm not at fault, my life was in danger.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
I was taught in CCW class that in order to shoot someone, you'd better make damn sure that all three of these conditions have been met:
1. the assailant has the intent to kill you
2. the assailant has the means to kill you
3. you've got to believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that your life is about to be taken from you.

Those conditions are 1, flawed; 2, presumably written with human beings, not dogs, in mind and 3, not from a meaningful authority on moral action.

Once again, people blindly sticking up for a police officer who inflicts horrendous punishment, this time fatally, on an innocent life.

What's wrong with you people? You saw what that dog looks like. Harmless fluffy loveball vs. southern cop with a gun and a trigger finger.

ps: he was on private property!!

So, dumb cop enters private property and murders a dog.

What a dick. Get in the car. Jump on the fucking hood. Give the dog a boot in the nose if you have to. But shoot the dog!? And people are defending this bullshit!?! A cop comes onto my driveway and shoots my dog... damn right I'd be pissed.

I don't give a crap what the dog's temperament appeared to be, or if the thing was 90 pounds of pitbull and foaming at the mouth, you don't draw your weapon and shoot a dog when you can hop onto the hood, or man-up and pin that 50lb 'Bruiser' to the ground until he knows who the Alpha is.

The disregard for life is appalling and sick.

>> ^Enzoblue:
I'll take your fuck you then, that dog was in a dead run to bite. Dogs typically stop five feet or so in front of you and bark if they are doing it for show, if they're going to bite you they don't slow down until they have a mouth full, like this dog was.


Or he could just be going to jump on the guy and lick him. All of my dogs have done this. Without audio it's hard to tell what mood the dog was in but regardless the woman had a point: he could have just gotten back in his car.

Legacy,

So, if the murder of this dog could be justified by a worst case scenario, what about the murder of this cop? He was on private property, brandishing a weapon and displaying signs of psychological instability. Would it have been prudent for the property owner to protect herself from a worst case scenario by removing the officer's head with a shotgun?

I'd personally say no.

Who is going to protect us from the people we pay to protect us?

That cop is a piece of shit coward.

That cop should never be allowed near a gun, ever again.

A 4-year old dog is not a puppy. That's a healthy and strong adult dog that charged full-bore at this cop.

I love dogs too. But I live near a beach where people let their dogs run loose despite there being a leash law in effect. I've had dogs charge at me like this before while I'm walking on the beach. Most are harmless and turn around as soon as they reach you. Two have bitten me. The owner's "I'm so sorry, he's never done that before" is little consolation for a trip to emergency. Doesn't make up for the rabies shots either when the owner can't produce proof that the dog has been vaccinated.

So honestly, I don't blame him for shooting. He had no way of knowing what the dog was going to do and he had only a split second to make a decision. I probably would have shot those dogs that charged up and bit me if I had been armed at the time.

There's nothing plain and simple about that video. That dog was clearly charging him. But we don't know what its demeanor was. There's a contingent of people on this site who cry "police state" as if the sky were falling. It would be humorous if it weren't so pathetic. The Paultards and McCain supports manage to be entertaining, why can't you guys?

As the owner of a dog named Bruiser, this video creeps me out.

I have to say though, that dog wasn't trotting up for a pat on the head, he was running flat out. As there is no sound, how can any of you say what the dog was doing vocally? Growling? Barking? It's not there. A growling dog running up like that would get me defensive.

My dog (RIP) used to run straight up to people like that. worst case scenario: you get a little lump from your heads accidentally colliding, but he made up for it in licks to the face immediately afterward.

the fact remains that, from this video AND the two testimonies, we don't know NEARLY enough to pass judgment either way.

If the dog had torn the cop's throat out before he could get off a shot, no one here would shed a tear, and that's equally pathetic.

Same thing for all these videos where a cop subdues a suspect...takes less than a second for a suspect to draw a hidden knife and lethally cut or stab.

Too many armchair cops around here who think they know all humans (and animals) are capable of. You don't. I don't, but be assured, it's not like the movies or TV where a single unblocked haymaker (or sidekick) to the jaw drops a 250lb. biker ramped up on drugs and/or adrenalin (and the bad guys are polite enough to attack one at a time).

Fortunately, few people celebrate an innocent life being taken. This dog's death was a tragedy, yes, but a preventable one on the part of the owner.

the cop is trespassing on private property unless theres a search warrant in his hands. i'd have put 2 in his chest, one in his head if i was the owner. let the jury decide. for all i know he was a murderer dressed as a cop, he did just shoot an unassuming dog didn't he?

if someone walks onto your property and starts shooting things, you need to shoot that person regardless of their taste in clothing.

to make this real simple. legally a yard is identical to a house. this is no different than if the cop (or a murderer) walked into someones living room and shot the family dog as it ran to greet him. the answer seems a lot more obvious then doesn't it?

besides, what dog doesn't run to see someone who walks in?

Private property. Don't they need a warrant to trespass? I'm under the impression that police officers are allowed to enter a private property if beyond reasonable doubt they believe that a crime is being committed or someone is in need of help, but in this case, he was fucking lost. He's no longer a cop at this point and therefore shouldn't go around shooting at people. Their dogs are considered full officers, but our dogs are considered expendable? Fuck that cop, and everyone who is defending him.

I'm so glad I live in a country where cops don't carry guns. Heck, they don't even have tasers.
Also only hunting weapons are allowed. With some very strict rules.

People killed by guns every year here: 0

Somehow we manage.

^defensive gun uses per year: 2.5 million. how many rapes/burglaries/murders do you have over there? If 5 people break into your house, police or tazers aren't going to help you. how are you going to repel an invasion or fight oppression from your government if such an event arises? slingshots?

"Police later tried to visit the woman to apologize, unfortunately her phone rang while the officers were present and the startled officers shot the woman and burned the residence to the ground before calling for help from a neighboring district."

Nice baseless assumption, qm. Begging the question is the technical word for this particular fallacy.

Your life is governed by fear. There is a better way.

>> ^quantumushroom:
If the dog had torn the cop's throat out before he could get off a shot, no one here would shed a tear, and that's equally pathetic.

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

The fact is that the cop was on private property. He entered private property without a warrant, and was approached by the property owner's dog.

This is Oklahoma. I live in this state. I know what it's like out in the rural parts. People have dogs. In fact, I don't know anyone who lives on a piece of property that size who doesn't have at least one dog.

As a result, cops in this state have to know how to deal with dogs without killing them. This cop failed, and he's probably going to pay the price.

>> ^imstellar28:
^defensive gun uses per year: 2.5 million. how many rapes/burglaries/murders do you have over there? If 5 people break into your house, police or tazers aren't going to help you. how are you going to repel an invasion or fight oppression from your government if such an event arises? slingshots?


Sorry, but how do guns prevent rape? Burglaries? Murder? The USA has none of this?
Murders here are below 1 per 100.000 inhabitants, compared to over 5 in the states. As to rapes.. couldn't gun ownership increase the chances of rape? And do probably nothing to prevent them? A rapist with a gun is far more dangerous than one without one.

Another thing that might make you happy, there's nothing in our law which addresses self defence. As far as our law is concerned, violence is never justified.

Imagine that.

Man, private surveillance systems... you never know what they'll catch.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
That cop is either a pussy, which means he has a little dick in his pants, or a macho asshole, which means he has a little dick in his pants.
I was taught in CCW class that in order to shoot someone, you'd better make damn sure that all three of these conditions have been met:
1. the assailant has the intent to kill you
2. the assailant has the means to kill you
3. you've got to believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that your life is about to be taken from you.
I'm sorry but as bad as a dog bites/attacks can be, I don't see him getting killed immediately, especially when his buddy would have jumped to assist.
Sadly, nothing will happen to the cop, except (at most) a slap on the wrist. Too bad that doesn't help his little dick problem.


Funny I was taught the same thing. The cop even speed rocked... he could have kicked the godamn dog.

>> ^ElJardinero:
>> ^imstellar28:
^defensive gun uses per year: 2.5 million. how many rapes/burglaries/murders do you have over there? If 5 people break into your house, police or tazers aren't going to help you. how are you going to repel an invasion or fight oppression from your government if such an event arises? slingshots?

Sorry, but how do guns prevent rape? Burglaries? Murder? The USA has none of this?
Murders here are below 1 per 100.000 inhabitants, compared to over 5 in the states. As to rapes.. couldn't gun ownership increase the chances of rape? And do probably nothing to prevent them? A rapist with a gun is far more dangerous than one without one.
Another thing that might make you happy, there's nothing in our law which addresses self defence. As far as our law is concerned, violence is never justified.
Imagine that.


There are always situations that will arise that require extreme prejudice. Just because you haven't been raped or haven't had a weapon save your life does not mean that it does not have merit.

The reason we fight for the right to carry guns, is because the Authority carries guns.

guns guns guns I hate that shit, I can fight with my the weapons I was born with.

I invite you to take a look around your house and see how many weapons you have at your disposal. To a master every thing is a weapon.

A gun in a self defense situation does is allows the most feeble of people to defend themselves.

What you fail to see is that in the US it is easy to get a gun illegally, do you think that by taking the weapons out of the hands of the Citizens that it will help ease crime rate? Criminals do not care for laws, why would they follow the law when it comes to guns?

We have guns in the US and they cannot take that right away, as the second amendment. The right of the people shall not be infringed, I am opposed to any law that keeps this right from any citizen who is of sound mind.

You can disagree with that right, its your 1st amendment right, but you cannot actively work to subvert the 2nd amendment because that is denying other people their right, and to do that makes you a criminal.

I am for regulations, the way the are, and no more.

Did you know than more half of the registered guns are on legacy paper databases?

Wow! My first negative vote comment and it even got flagged as spam!

I read comments and watched it again. I pride myself on an open mind, but I honestly I have to stick to my interpretation. The dog was so aggressive the cop even told his passenger to stay in the car, and again the dog showed no signs of even slowing down. You have to be pretty naive to think he would have got kisses.

What I will bend a little on is his use of the gun. Anyone else going there wouldn't have one and I've also known dogs that go ape when they see a gun.

>> ^Enzoblue:
Wow! My first negative vote comment and it even got flagged as spam!
I read comments and watched it again. I pride myself on an open mind, but I honestly I have to stick to my interpretation. The dog was so aggressive the cop even told his passenger to stay in the car, and again the dog showed no signs of even slowing down. You have to be pretty naive to think he would have got kisses.
What I will bend a little on is his use of the gun. Anyone else going there wouldn't have one and I've also known dogs that go ape when they see a gun.


Man bigger than dog, use baton, or boot heel.

I think its a waste of ammo, and a needless loss of life.

Another reason why I leave my gate locked.

I wouldn't answer the door for a lost police officer, that's why they have radios.

Yeah, it makes no sense that he couldn't just get on the radio and get directions, but what's so bad about helping a fellow human with some directions?

As far as I know, no, he didn't need a warrant, because he wasn't there in the capacity of the law.

But I will also say that he had every right to react to that DOG (read: NOT A PUPPY). That doesn't mean he had the right to shoot it, but it was charging at him full speed. Notice that the footage was slowed down by about half? That dog had no intentions of slowing down to give him "puppy kisses."

Should he have shot the dog? No. Should he have put his boot to it's face? By all means, yes.

I also doubt that he could have "easily" gotten in the car. And as for jumping on the hood of the car - when's the last time you saw a dog that couldn't jump??

@DFT:
This dog most certainly did NOT trot up. It ran at full speed. Any large breed dog running full speed at you is NOT innocent looking. I don't care how fluffy it is, it still has pointy teeth.

Yeah, it makes no sense that he couldn't just get on the radio and get directions, but what's so bad about helping a fellow human with some directions?

No, he didn't need a warrant, because he wasn't there in the capacity of the law. maringunrock

This case:
Provided that the woman's property meets the requirements for private property and proper notification that all trespassers are in danger of their lives:
Whats wrong with helping a fellow human with directions? When that human came on to private property, in uniform as an officer of the law, fully violating the law. Now as far as the dog, he violated private property and killed property of the owner, guilty. Was he justified in killing the dog? No because he should not have been on private property.

There has to be an emergency for private property to be violated, and even then you still in the eyes of the law violated private property.

What this will come down to in court... is private property. That's about the most she can get him for, criminally, however in civil court she has preponderance of evidence. If she taped the conversations that she states the police attempted to keep her quiet then she can get them for bribery and corruption.

If the cop needed help, his or her life better be in danger or I'm not helping them. That is the same that I would expect from them, and they can thank their bonehead authority abusing counterparts for that.

The dog looks like a full grown Airedale, also known as the "King of Terriers." This is not an unfriendly breed as a rule, but still not a dog to mess with (they're used for police work quite frequently.) As much as I love dogs, I don't fault the officer for defending himself.

As far as "kicking" the dog, ya right, that might work on an ankle-biter, but not on a dog of that size and temperament if it's intent on biting you.

A preemptive "fuck you" to anyone that says it's a trotting cute little puppy going for adorable little puppy kisses.

"Airedales have a normal 'scissor bite', where the top teeth close over the bottom. Airedales' teeth are the largest among terriers, and can inflict a strong bite. The airdale is not aggressive, but its bite can cause severe injury."

"Airedales have been known to reach great heights in competitive obedience, dog agility, and Schutzhund"

Shutzhund: Training a dog to fuck you up among other things.

"The Airedale is also a reliable and protective family pet. Airedales are exceedingly loyal and strong dogs; there is one story of an Airedale taking down a bear to protect its master"

So no, it's not an innocent looking dog, especially if it's barking as it's charging at you. Have I emphasized that enough? It. Wasn't. Just. Walking. Up. It was running, full speed.

No, he didn't need to shoot the dog, but YES, he had the right to at least react.

Well, let's think of this in another way. A dog with sharp teeth is somewhat like a criminal with a sharp knife. If someone with a knife came running at me, I think I'd shoot them without hesitation.

"Oh, look it's a meth head with a knife, he might be friendly!" Ya, no.

All you kids who never want any confrontation, you'd all buckle and do the same thing in these kind of situations, and if not and you lose, well then EIA for you.

I'm sorry, I'm a dog lover, but I have a number of problems with this:

1. The dog's approach was DEFINITELY problematic. Especially to someone unknown.
2. They keep referring to this as a puppy. Uh... I don't think this qualifies as a puppy. I think of puppies as the size of a chihuahua or something. This was a nearly full-grown dog. Or at least a reasonably sized dog.
3. While it may be true that the dog wasn't trained properly to not jump on people, in a situation where a cop feels threatened by an animal, well, I don't necessarily blame him for overreacting.

I dunno. I do feel bad for the dog, but I don't see this as the utterly reprehensible thing they are trying to make it out to be. It is at best a misunderstanding. The fact that the owner keeps referring to the dog as a puppy leads me to believe that there is an emotionally charged situation which will be very hard to filter through to the actual truth.

Think of it this way: there is no sound in that video to give you an idea of the further mood of the dog. Dogs bark in a lot of different ways. It could have been growing and really making threatening noises. Dog charges someone under those circumstances, well, it would be fairly scary.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
A preemptive "fuck you" to anyone that says it's a trotting cute little puppy going for adorable little puppy kisses.
"Airedales have a normal 'scissor bite', where the top teeth close over the bottom. Airedales' teeth are the largest among terriers, and can inflict a strong bite. The airdale is not aggressive, but its bite can cause severe injury."
"Airedales have been known to reach great heights in competitive obedience, dog agility, and Schutzhund"
Shutzhund: Training a dog to fuck you up among other things.
"The Airedale is also a reliable and protective family pet. Airedales are exceedingly loyal and strong dogs; there is one story of an Airedale taking down a bear to protect its master"
So no, it's not an innocent looking dog, especially if it's barking as it's charging at you. Have I emphasized that enough? It. Wasn't. Just. Walking. Up. It was running, full speed.
No, he didn't need to shoot the dog, but YES, he had the right to at least react.


We know that's not how its going to go down in court. What will happen is they will use the fact that violated private property laws. He felt he had to react, and now he has to deal with the consequences, that is something that the officer cannot escape.

http://virginiacriminallawyers.vatrafficlaw.com/pages/trespass.html - this is VA law, almost exactly the same as Texes minus the castle doctrine.

Marine as to your first comment i felt compelled to look into private property laws, so that we could see what the case is really about now. If there are no signs that is good for the cop, if there are signs, its worse for the cop. But the uniforms will still have to deal with the dog issue.

>> ^ponceleon:
2. They keep referring to this as a puppy. Uh... I don't think this qualifies as a puppy. I think of puppies as the size of a chihuahua or something. This was a nearly full-grown dog. Or at least a reasonably sized dog.

It's 4 years old, no one can realistically call it a puppy. The owner even admits it in the video.

I hate to burst the "private property" argument bubble, but trespassing is only a crime in most states if you have signs posted clearly delineating the borders of your property. See:
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/trespassing which clearly states that the trespassing law for Oklahoma requires signs posted every 200 feet and at the entrances and corners.

As for the warrant, as others have mentioned, a cop only needs a warrant to conduct a search. It's not required for him to come up and ring your doorbell to ask for directions.

So to sum up, the cop is not trespassing, nor does he need a warrant. Considering that according to Oklahoma gun laws almost anyone can get a carry and conceal permit so long as they aren't felons, this could have happened to anybody who happened to be carrying when the dog charged.

^the homeowner runs a private security camera 24/7. you don't think he has the borders of his property delineated? the cop is lucky if he gets a trespassing charge, he deserves an animal cruelty charge, and destruction of property charge as well. why mess around with the legal system? I still think the owner should have shot him.

If you think a person can assume that a running dog is life threatening, how can you not assume a person who starts shooting animals on your property as he walks up to your front door is not life threatening?

@gundam
Marine as to your first comment i felt compelled to look into private property laws, so that we could see what the case is really about now. If there are no signs that is good for the cop, if there are signs, its worse for the cop. But the uniforms will still have to deal with the dog issue.

I know the laws, and they are quiet complicated when it comes to officers (even private security suits) and potential violation of property, it was part of last line of work.

Each county is different, and so are the cities, what may fly in one township may not fly in another, even thought the consensus is signs are needed a fence will do just fine in the state I currently reside. If a person jumps that fence it is a violation of county laws and owner of that land is entitled to protect his or her livestock.

Nice baseless assumption, qm. Begging the question is the technical word for this particular fallacy.

dft, I stand by my words. As always. They are based on observance of the hysterical tone of the bulk of these responses as well as past observations of sifters' knee-jerk hateful reactions to lawful authority, reactions programmed by government school (and kollij) indoctrination. The moral-relativist "Establishment" has done its evil work.

The "private property" excuse is a lame one and not applicable. It appears to be the front yard area, visible from the road. Any criminal activity in plain sight in the front yard requires no warrant, nor does an officer being threatened with harm.

Had the cop shot a sleeping dog or sitting dog, I'd also like to see him strung up by his balls.

But that's not what happened here.

>> ^imstellar28:
^the homeowner runs a private security camera 24/7. you don't think he has the borders of his property delineated? the cop is lucky if he gets a trespassing charge, he deserves an animal cruelty charge, and destruction of property charge as well. why mess around with the legal systems? I still think the owner should have shot him.
If you think a person can assume that a running dog is life threatening, how can you not assume a person who starts shooting animals on your property as he walks up to your front door is not life threatening?


People can have home cams without fences or no trespassing signs. I had a cam in my old apartment complex just so I could see who was at the front door before I opened buzzed it open. The grounds to the complex were completely open and there weren't any signs posted about trespassing. Point is, we don't know what she had posted but I certainly don't see any fencing or anything.

Someone shooting your animals is not the same as someone shooting at you or your family. (Yes, I know people consider dogs as one of the family. Still doesn't make the dog a human, though.) Although there are exceptions such as Texas, where you can legally use lethal force against someone destroying your property, in most states such an action will get you arrested on attempted murder charges. The cop isn't aiming his gun at the owner or the house, he's aiming at the charging dog and keeps the gun trained on the dog the whole time, even after firing. Only a true paranoid would mistake such actions as posing an immediate lethal threat to themselves.

By the way, Oklahoma has a "Make My Day" law which allows homeowners to use lethal force in response to a perceived threat within their home. It doesn't apply outside the home however, which is why some people are trying to amend it.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Nice baseless assumption, qm. Begging the question is the technical word for this particular fallacy.
dft, I stand by my words. As always. They are based on observance of the hysterical tone of the bulk of these responses as well as past observations of sifters' knee-jerk hateful reactions to lawful authority, reactions programmed by government school (and kollij) indoctrination. The moral-relativist "Establishment" has done its evil work.
The "private property" excuse is a lame one and not applicable. It appears to be the front yard area, visible from the road. Any criminal activity in plain sight in the front yard requires no warrant, nor does an officer being threatened with harm.
Had the cop shot a sleeping dog or sitting dog, I'd also like to see him strung up by his balls.
But that's not what happened here.


It does apply. Because these laws prohibit any one who is unwelcome from being on the property. They have to have written and expressed consent from the owner of the property. The officer did not have a need to be on the property, and being lost does not constitute as a need, because they have radios in their cars. It appears to be the front yard area, so that means its Ok for a cop to go on the property? If there were crime on the property then her surveillance would have caught the criminals comming on to the property, which they did in this case it was the police.

Just because the law is lame does not mean that it is not applicable in this case. It is applicable and that would be how I would advocate for the owner.

Finally if you read most of my comments you will find that I state that this case hinges on what she had posted on her borders, and on the property.

^SDGundamX:
^imstellar28omeone shooting your animals is not the same as someone shooting at you or your family. (Yes, I know people consider dogs as one of the family. Still doesn't make the dog a human, though.) Although there are exceptions such as Texas, where you can legally use lethal force against someone destroying your property, in most states such an action will get you arrested on attempted murder charges. The cop isn't aiming his gun at the owner or the house, he's aiming at the charging dog and keeps the gun trained on the dog the whole time, even after firing. Only a true paranoid would mistake such actions as posing an immediate lethal threat to themselves

If someone is destroying your property you have the legal right to use force to stop them. The only way to do this would be to use a gun, as the officer has a gun himself. The homeowner could have legally pointed a weapon at his chest and said "drop your weapon" if the officer raised his arm towards the homeowner, the homeowner could have shot him in the chest.

You think people are paranoid because only the paranoid survive. All those who weren't paranoid and don't (over)react, get killed. If you assumed that was a cop and it wasn't you would be dead and we wouldn't use it as a datapoint. Only when it is a cop, and someone kills him is anyone labeled "paranoid" because he happened to be wrong. Given the situation, a reasonable person could evaluate the cop as a murderer in a stolen police uniform. Its not fair to use hindsight in the analysis because you know for a fact it was a cop and not a murderer. You have to place yourself in the homeowners shoes at the time of the incident. Are you honestly telling me that if someone walks up to your house and shoots your dog you aren't going to at least question whether that person is dangerous? If not, I would say you are walking a fine line between naiveity and the potential for death.

I would rather be paranoid (read: cautious) than dead.

No, he's not dangerous for shooting a dog that's charging him. It's called "self-preservation."

He would've been justified to shoot the dog if he wasn't on private property.

Does anyone else see that the dog was not running straight at the cop but rather beside it? Many friendly/frisky dogs want to run around their target rather than jump on and bite. And that dog wouldn't have hurt that officer if it wanted to. Simple repellants that the police officer could have used:

* Shout at the dog; scares mny dogs off.
* Put a foot out; scares most dogs.
* Open the door. Deflects all dogs.
* Kick the dog; hurts and scares off most dogs.
* Dodge the dog. He already was doing this; allows more time to assess the threat of the dog.

But shooting the dog? What a judgement error.

As revolting as this is, and I think the guy should lose his badge for this, it's what one has to come to expect in a police state and society where *everyone* is armed to the fucking teeth. Cops think they are above the law, and since a greater proportion than regular society are psychopaths, this kind of shit is inevitable without psychological profiles for prospective law enforcement.

My Dog does that to absolutely ever person that walks through our doors, full sprint to dog kisses, NOT attacking. The cop really had no idea what was going on and was way out of line. I'm just thankful my guests don't carry guns around and aren't of the same mentality of the cop, otherwise my pup would be dead.

Unless the dog magicked out of thin air he should have known it was there and not left the safety of his door until he could discern it's demeanor. Failing that he could have used his pepper spray on the thing. Not the nicest thing to do to the dog but a lot better than killing it.

Some supposition on my part: I think the lady knows full and well the dog is aggressive, for one I didn't hear her proclaim the dog was a little angel that wouldn't hurt a fly, owners of aggressive dogs always say that, especially the ones that let their dogs run free. For her not to say that likely means she knows full and well the dog wasn't running up to him to give him kisses. And seeing as she has a security camera I'm guessing she's the paranoid type who let's her aggressive dog run free to keep people away from her property. Which is fine if the dog can't leave the property, and warning signs are posted for you know mailmen, package delivery people, kids etc.

So while I blame the officer for not being cautious and using excessive force, I don't think he's some monster who gets his jollies by shooting people's dogs.

1 dog gets all this attention while people starving to death in the third world, only dreaming of eating what that dog ate every day, die every 5 seconds.

perspective is everything.

Charged my ass. Never read such a bullshit from you guys.

That dog was not even close to do a full charge to attack. I guess you people have never seen a dog charge to attack. It looks frightening and is extremely fast. This dog just ran normally. As fast as our dogs when they want to greet people at the door.

Will someone please buy that guy a Garmin for Christmas?

Don't officers undergo some form of defense training? He could have easily pistol whipped (yeah, y'know that heavy and fairly bulky blunt weapon he already had in his hand?) or as MG mentioned, booted the dog. My neighbors have the same breed, it's a medium (leaning more towards the smaller end of the medium spectrum) sized dog. I've been bitten by the exact type when I was a child, they do have a very powerful bites for their size, but even then was able to defend myself enough to make a hasty escape on my bicycle (thank god the street I was on was steeply sloped ).

That and the fact that he then tried to renege and cover up what he did, afterward, show that the amount of prejudice used was certainly excessive and unnecessary, even by his own "standard".

I have never seen so much discussion on a Videosift thread. Over a dog.

Yeah, the cop is an asshole, and had no reason to shoot the dog in my mind. He's 5 times bigger and heavier than the dog, and had no reason to fear for his life.

BUT, whats more interesting is that everyones outraged over a DOG!

Hundreds or thousands die every day in the Congo, in Sudan, and in other African hellholes. Not so much as a peep from Western pop culture.

This is fucked up. Dunno why, but all the discussion over a dead canine sent me off - get over it. Let's get mad about HUMAN loss of life first, and then dedicate server space to talking about a dog.

Tasers were mentioned above by someone. How come he didn't taser the dog? And pepper spray is an option. I think it is really weird that a gun is pulled when there were at least two other weapon choices, not to mention the good ole kick to the head.

I have a lot of relatives in Oklahoma -- to most of them, a dog is a dog. You don't get sentimental about them, especially outdoor dogs. My dad has often talked about shooting animals on his property -- squirrels, coyotes, whatever. It is in part a farm mentality, I think, that leads folks out there to wall themselves off from their feelings.

Bottom line -- taser. Pepper spray. Foot. Deadly force -- inappropriate.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:

I would love to see you test that theory out--that you can use lethal force to stop someone from destroying your property. I'll be sure to send you letters while you're on the inside (unless you happen to live in Texas, in which case you can shoot people--even unarmed people--who are destroying your neighbors' property and get off scott-free).

Only the paranoid survive.

Only someone truly paranoid would believe that. A police officer shooting random animals on your property is a threat. A police officer shooting your charging dog--regardless of the dog's intent (which the officer can't possibly know)--isn't a threat to anyone and you're just escalating the situation by going out there with a gun. So you point the gun at the cop and say "drop your weapon"? He swings towards you and you fire. Guess what, you missed and now you're dead--over a dog. Or you hit him. Except he's wearing body armor and you're not. Again you're dead--over a dog. Or you hit him and kill him--and are brought up on murder charges (cop murder, no less). Even if you beat the charges you're going to do jail-time while the trial is in progress and have a significant disruption to your life, never mind the legal costs and the psychological trauma of knowing you killed someone over a dog.

You really want to die or go to jail for your dog? That's not going to bring him back. You're safe inside your house. You can call 911 and refuse to answer the door if the cop comes and rings the doorbell. If he starts breaking in THEN shoot him, fine. But going all "wild west" out the front door is just asking for you to end up either going jail or the morgue.

I would love to see you test that theory out--that you can use lethal force to stop someone from destroying your property.

You can in Oklahoma. We're much like Texas in that respect.

People think of Texas when they think about liberal gun laws and lenient enforcement, but Oklahoma has just as many guns.


As I said earlier, that area of Oklahoma has tons of people with dogs--yes, even aggressive dogs. A police officer who can't handle an aggressive dog without killing it shouldn't be on the beat in that area.

Once I saw a video of a cop shooting a dog on the internet. Apparently it was a really big deal.

Hey everyone! Remember that video awhile back of the US serviceman throwing the puppy in Iraq? Seems he got booted out for it.

pretty sure this is the most controversial video on the sift, or at least the one with the most comments to have nearly as many downvotes as upvotes. let's see if i can join...

fuck dogs. i love dogs.

Upvote for the memory of "Bruiser" and upvote for that officer never being able to work in law enforcement again (One can wish...).

Dude..i know some breeds can be violent... but that is not an aggressive dog by ANY means. That is a very friendly breed and imo being shot for being trusting of any human being is the saddest thing this world could do.

The comments in this thread make me think The Black Death wasn't such a bad thing after all.

what i am most concerned about is the allegations of coverup, and the fact that the story ends with "the police refused to comment"

err... you shot my dog, any comment?
"don't tell anyone"
err... i got it on camera
"don't show anyone"
err... i pay your fucking wages.

Several things, but firstlet me say that I am a HUGE dog lover:

1) As was mentioned, becasue the officer was not there in a law capacity, a warrant was not needed.

2) Yes the offier had a radio. but if they are looking for a location, how is dispatch supposed to help them with directions? Many rural areas don't have address signs near me.
Officer: I need directions
Dispatch: Where are you
Officer: by that big Oak tree....
Short version: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH AN OFFICER STOPPING FOR DIRECTIONS!!! At most it's a violation of his man-card, becasue men aren't supposed to ask for directions.

3) He is a Police Officer, not a vet.... Perhaps he has no idea what breed that is and wether it is an agressive breed or not. The dog was running at him and he had no idea.

4) Dog attacks CAN be deadly! Even if they are not deadly, they can cause severe injury.

5) Look at the timeline.. at 20 seconds he is at the door, at 23 seconds he is at the front at 26 seconds he seems to notice the dog and starts to back away, at 27 seconds (maybe 28), he shoots..... So:
3 seconds to walk to front of car
3 seconds to notice dog running at him
1-2 seconds to back away and get in his car as people have suggested.... You try getting into your car in 1-2 seconds from the front while something is running at you....
From car door to front of car, to shooting was about 7-8 SECONDS!! This officer did not stand there with gun drawn and just try to shoot the dog.
The dog was a preceived threat, he draw his firearm and neatralized the threat. Tragic, yes, but not criminal.

6)Many people here and the lady in the video are trying to make it look like the guy had nothing else better to do and said "hey, let me go shoot someone's dog today". I seriously doubt that is the case.

7) Not to put blame on the victim, but what are the leash laws there? Are dogs supposed to be leased if the property is not fenced off?

I think a lot of people here LOOK for reasons to blame cops (and some look for reasons to vindicate them). Cops are people. Yes they are held to a higher standard, but saying that Cops are bad, while not a "racist" remark, is still an ignorant one. There are bad cops for sure, but it is not every cop.

9) I would also disagree with the puppy comment. The dog is at least 4 years old (28 human years). Definately not a puppy.

I support the police officer. The media as usual tried to manipulate the public by labeling the dog as 'puppy' and showing the owner talking about the how important the dog was. It was clear the dog was running fast towards the officer. He perceived a danger to his life/risk of serious injury and used his firearm to protect himself (guidelines are similar for use of police firearms around the world). Plain and simply.

The idea of 'he could have gotten back to his car' is rubbish. How many times the owner or anybody else had to deal with a dog running full speed towards them? He could have easily pulled some bacon out of his back pocket and scratched the dog behind the ear... NO!!! It was a matter of about him or the dog.

I would love to see any of those so called 'animal lovers' to just sit with a police officer for a week and observe what they have to deal with, then show them the same video. Or worst yet: complete the police training to find out more about the guidelines to use their arms and appointments...

Re: 'trespassing cop'. You monkeys, how much do you about COMMON LAW. Anybody can walk up to your front door and knock with a legitimate inquiry. Until you tell them to get out there is nothing wrong with it.

Posting in an epic thread

wisest comment:
A police officer who can't handle an aggressive dog without killing it shouldn't be on the beat in that area.

Or any area. If a SINGLE dog running at you causes you to wet your pants and start shooting then you're not mentally or emotionally fit to deal with the rigors of being a cop.

Punisher^
"He is a Police Officer, not a vet.... Perhaps he has no idea what breed that is and wether it is an agressive breed or not. The dog was running at him and he had no idea."

Regardless of any animal training the officer had, he was completely out of line. I would argue he did nothing illegal as an officer, but what he did was completely wrong. The dog was running but if you watch the video, you'll see the dog ran to the side of the officer, not AT him as he shot the dog. And why did he use a gun anyway? Doesn't an officer have a tazer and mace equipped when less-than-lethal force is more suitable? Heck, he can even use his foot to push the dog away.

I wish the video wasn't played in slomotion, then we could get a more accurate representation of how the incident happened. Sound would have been nice. Was the dog barking or growling menacingly? The officer appears to have had plenty of time to get to his vehicle. you can see he made no effort whatsoever to retreat to his vehicle and immediately drew his gun instead. His entire motion is smooth, calm, and calculated, not that of a person who "feared for his life".

I'd even bet that he had direct line of sight of the dog when he exited his vehicle, and a lot of dogs out in the country aren't on leashes. With that knowledge, he should have been prepared. Although perhaps he was prepared. I imagine he thought,"If that dog gets close to me, I'm going to shoot it".

Spontaneous as the situation may have developed, the shooting looks pre-meditated to me.

Jesus Christ, this is really flaring up tempers. A trigger-happy monster/startled law enforcement officer murdered/defended himself against a lovable, harmless puppy/bloodthirsty rabid animal.

The way I see it, this guy overreacted WAAAAY too much, but he did have the right to respond to the dog. The owner comes off as overreacting too; it's always easier to see solutions in hindsight, especially if you have video footage that is slowed down. We have to think about the situation as if we have three seconds to react.

Real life is never as simple as we'd like it to be.

if this had happened in the UK, the officer wouldn't have had a gun, and nothing would have gotten shot.

Maybe the officer would have needed some stitches.

Hey, you know what? nobody forced you to be a police officer, roll with the punches. Jesus Christ. This is a perfect example of how giving weapons to police officers generally doesn't turn out how you thought it would turn out.

"neutralizing the threat"???

actually, I would say "putting a bullet through somebody's friend" which sounds a bit worse doesn't it.

One thing I notice is if he had time to tell his buddy to stay in the car, he had time to get back in the car.

Hah! I'm a cop I can do what ever I want! So fuck you and your rights!

That's how I see cops, don't know why I tend to lump them all in the same bucket, until each of them proves to me that they belong in the good cop bucket.

School resources officers are the ones that fuck up impressions on children.

>> ^SSIops:
Punisher^
"He is a Police Officer, not a vet.... Perhaps he has no idea what breed that is and wether it is an agressive breed or not. The dog was running at him and he had no idea."
Regardless of any animal training the officer had, he was completely out of line. I would argue he did nothing illegal as an officer, but what he did was completely wrong. The dog was running but if you watch the video, you'll see the dog ran to the side of the officer, not AT him as he shot the dog. And why did he use a gun anyway? Doesn't an officer have a tazer and mace equipped when less-than-lethal force is more suitable? Heck, he can even use his foot to push the dog away.
I wish the video wasn't played in slomotion, then we could get a more accurate representation of how the incident happened. Sound would have been nice. Was the dog barking or growling menacingly? The officer appears to have had plenty of time to get to his vehicle. you can see he made no effort whatsoever to retreat to his vehicle and immediately drew his gun instead. His entire motion is smooth, calm, and calculated, not that of a person who "feared for his life".
I'd even bet that he had direct line of sight of the dog when he exited his vehicle, and a lot of dogs out in the country aren't on leashes. With that knowledge, he should have been prepared. Although perhaps he was prepared. I imagine he thought,"If that dog gets close to me, I'm going to shoot it".
Spontaneous as the situation may have developed, the shooting looks pre-meditated to me.


1) Dog running to the side: To be honest, I can't tell if the dog is actually running to the side or if the motions of the officer backing away and shooting the dog caused it to look that way. For the sake of argument, let's say it is running to the side. Its path would have been VERY close to the officer. Looking at my timeline above, the officer had about 5 SECONDS to calculate the path of the dog to determine if it was going at him or too the side of him. Somehow I doubt he is a physics expert and could calulate that in the time alloted.

2) Tazer/Mace: We do not know what he was equipped with. Not all officers have tasers and mace, although mace is becoming more common. However, assuming he has mace, it has been shown in studies that it is not always effective on animals (or humans for that matter). As far his foot, again for the sake of argument, assume that the dog WAS attacking him. Your foot isn't going to do much except get bit.

3) plenty of time to get in car: Again look at the timeline. The whole thing from getting out of car to shooting dog took about 7-8 SECONDS and it really does look like he is urprised by the dog when he reaches the front of the car which gives him about 5 SECONDS to get back in. Not plenty of time by any means. He did start to back away towards the car but there wasn't enought time... As for telling his buddy to stay in the car, he tells him to do so before he starts walking towards the front of the car/house. Generally ride-alongs will stay in the car, so he was probably just reminding him.

4) His entire motion is smooth, calm, and calculated, not that of a person who "feared for his life": I should hope that he was calm. a person with a firearm who is panicking is much more dangerous then one who is calm.

5) line of sight on the dog: Unfortunately, the dog is off camera in the beginning. Maybe the dog was sitting next to the owner on the porch and the officer thought he was leashed? Maybe the dog was in the house and came running through a doggie door?

6) Spontaneous as the situation may have developed, the shooting looks pre-meditated to me: I think this is a ridiculous statement. What possible reason would the officer have to do this? Contrary to popular opinion, all police officers aren't out there gunning for action. They have a thankless job that only gets attention when something goes wrong.

For the people saying what is the worst that could happen? Go Google Dog Bites and look at some of the injuries images. If you have a big dog running at you and it hits you and takes you down, it can do some serious damage.

From the sound of some people here, maybe it would be better if there was no law enforement what so ever and if you get robbed, assaulted, raped, etc... tough s**t for you? As someone mentioned, noone forced them to take this job, so I guess that means that we should not be thinkful that someone stepped up and did take it. The line from Demi Moore in A Few Good Men sums it up pretty much when she explains why she likes the marines so much. (I can't remember the exact quote)

^SDGundamX:
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:

I'll be sure to send you letters while you're on the inside (unless you happen to live in Texas, in which case you can shoot people--even unarmed people--who are destroying your neighbors' property and get off scott-free).

I don't plan on going to jail because I make it a point to know in advance the legal ramifications of my actions.

A police officer shooting your charging dog--regardless of the dog's intent (which the officer can't possibly know)--isn't a threat to anyone and you're just escalating the situation by going out there with a gun.

Correct, but you are applying hindsight that that is impossible when in the actual situation. You are assuming it was a cop but you have no way of knowing for sure its not a murderer who just killed a cop and took his clothes before going on a killing spree in some neighborhood. Its not paranoia its a rational evaluation of the situation. I know how cops are "supposed" to act. They are not supposed to walk up to houses and shoot dogs. I know how murderers are "supposed" to act. They walk up and start shooting living things.

Guess what, you missed and now you're dead--over a dog. Or you hit him. Except he's wearing body armor and you're not.

What makes you think the cop is a better shot than I am? What makes you think I don't have an assault rifle or shotgun?

You really want to die or go to jail for your dog? That's not going to bring him back.

I wouldn't personally risk my life for a dog, but if I did, so what? Is it not possible to love a dog enough to risk your life for it? Dogs live to be almost 15 years old, which is more than enough time to develop a strong bond with another living creature. What if the dog in question saved your life (figuratively, or literally)? Do you have nothing (people, animals, principles, possessions) you are willing to risk your life for? In this case, I am talking about risking ones life for freedom (from tyranny) or for love (the love of your dog). Two equally noble ideals worth losing your life over.

You're safe inside your house.

Yeah, but the dog, my property, and any children or other people outside might not be if there is someone opening fire. Also, if it really is a murderer and he is coming to your house, he isn't going to stop at the front door.

You can call 911

And wait 5-20 minutes?

punisher,

As far as your comments go, if you need a physics analysis to determine whether this is right or wrong, you have a really warped view of morality (and thus legality). You have to analyze this in the same perspective as the officer. He doesn't have slow-mo, access to google for breeds or bite/claw statistics; he has 15 seconds to make a decision and react. That is how the morality, lawfulness, and consequences of his actions are judged and executed.

In these brief seconds, we have learned a great deal about this particular man. We have learned that he has little conscience for life, the property of others, or respect for the monopoly on force which he has been given. In these 15 seconds, we have learned more about this man than his family, friends, and coworkers could have possibly learned in his whole lifetime.

Legally, we have learned that he is a criminal who should face exile or worse. Socially, we have learned this man should be despised, and we would all do well to steer a wide path around him.

imstellar,

the physics thing was to show how little time he has to react to the situation. Even in slow-mo, we cannot tell if the dog was coming towards him or to his side, so "putting it in his perspective" as you say, he sees a dog running towards him.
Also, if you watch the tape again, you can see FOR A FACT that this whole thing took 7-8 seconds, not even the 15 you suggest. Addtionally, if you look at the timeline, it appears that he only has about 3-4 seconds of that to react. That is no time at all.

Addtionally:
Your comment about "maybe he was a murderer who stole an officers clothes" thing, wouldn't last 2 minutes in court. In fact I believe that that has already been tried before.

Some people hate the police no matter what. You appear to be one of those people. Perhaps, one day you will need them and change your mind, who knows...

^does a point flying over someone's head make a sound if the person doesn't realize a point just flew over their head?

>> ^punisher:
imstellar,
Your comment about "maybe he was a murderer who stole an officers clothes" thing, wouldn't last 2 minutes in court. In fact I believe that that has already been tried before


can you point me to the case of person who killed cop after cop shot puppy vs the state? you are so hung up on precision you fail to understand any of the basic concepts. it doesn't have to be "a murderer who stole an officers clothes" it could be "a cop who went insane" etc. etc. etc. fill in whatever story you want.

if you are the state, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop was not a danger to anyone else. if a cop walks onto my property and discharges his firearm without restraint you better believe I have the right to detain him with force. if he attempts to respond with lethal force (i say drop the weapon and he doesn't) i have every legal right to defend myself with lethal force. let a jury of people watch that video and see if ALL of them vote guilty on a murder charge, because if they don't you are going free.

I wouldn't want to watch the video.. But if someone trespassed on my property and shot my dog (whether it was slightly aggressive or not), then i would see justice in an eye for an eye scenario...

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^punisher:
imstellar,
Your comment about "maybe he was a murderer who stole an officers clothes" thing, wouldn't last 2 minutes in court. In fact I believe that that has already been tried before

can you point me to the case of person who killed cop after cop shot puppy vs the state? you are so hung up on precision you fail to understand any of the basic concepts. it doesn't have to be "a murderer who stole an officers clothes" it could be "a cop who went insane" etc. etc. etc. fill in whatever story you want.
if you are the state, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop was not a danger to anyone else. if a cop walks onto my property and discharges his firearm without restraint you better believe I have the right to detain him with force. if he attempts to respond with lethal force (i say drop the weapon and he doesn't) i have every legal right to defend myself with lethal force. let a jury of people watch that video and see if ALL of them vote guilty on a murder charge, because if they don't you are going free.


1) I will try to find the case in question. It wasn't a "cop shoots dog, then owner shoots cop case" it was a "someone shoots cop and says they thought it was an imposter/fake cop/someone whole stole a uniform case"

2) Your statement "if you are the state, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop was not a danger to anyone else" is incorrect. In our system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which in this case would be you, if you are going after the state for the shooting. If the state was going after you for shooting the cop in your scenerio, then the burden of proof would be on the state to prove that you shot a cop, BUT they wouldn't have to prove that the cop "was not a danger to anyone else". The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that scenerio A happened, A being you shooting the cop. You could try to show doubt and convince the jury that the cop "went insane" as you put it, but since the cop was pretty calm and collected during the video, I doubt that would happen.


Johnald_Chaffinch> The cop was not trespassing.

^wrong. the burden of proof is on the state to prove you murdered the cop. all it takes is 1/12 people to think you were acting in self defense. Shooting someone who points a a gun at you (after you warn them to drop their weapon) is a clear case of self defense.

even if you were wrong (and you are) you wouldn't admit it.

again, you are so hung up on specifics you completely miss the point. we should install a net behind you to catch everything you've missed. nobody has to "prove" the officer is insane (he's dead remember). all you have to establish is a plausible reason why you drew your weapon, of which many are available (cop's insane, cop is a murderer in stolen clothes, cop just shot your dog on private property, etc. etc. etc. You don't know anything about self defense, guns, or law so stop pretending you're an expert because you got your B.S. from google university.

Here is a least one case where I am right and the shooter is now on death row.... If you read the actual article you will see that the SWAT officer was actually in the wrong house, at midnight, busting in and the shooter was still convicted. Most self defense laws do not allow the self defense argument when going against police.

"According to Radley Balko, Cory Maye, a man with no criminal record, defended himself against a SWAT Team member who, at the wrong residence, broke down his door without knocking:
As the raid on Smith commenced, some officers - including Jones -- went around to what they thought was a side door to Smith's residence, looking for a larger stash of drugs. The door was actually a door to Maye's home. Maye was home alone with his young daughter, and asleep, when one member of the SWAT team broke down the outside door. Jones, who wasn't armed, charged in, and made his way to Maye's bedroom. Because police believed Maye's side of the duplex was still part of Smith's residence, they never announced themselves (Note added on 12/0/05: Police said at trial that they did announce themselves before entering Maye's apartment -- Maye and his attorney say otherwise. I'm inclined to believe Maye, for reasons outlined in this post. However, even if they did, announcing seconds before bursting in just before midnight, isn't much better than not announcing at all. An innocent person on the other end of the raid, particularly if still asleep, has every reason to fear for his life.). Maye, fearing for his life and the safety of his daughter, fired at Jones, hitting him in the abdomen, just below his bulletproof vest. Jones died a short time later.
Here's the Mississippi murder statute under which Maye was convicted (also via Radley Balko):
(a) Murder which is perpetrated by killing a peace officer or fireman while such officer or fireman is acting in his official capacity or by reason of an act performed in his official capacity, and with knowledge that the victim was a peace officer or fireman..."

So here we have one case

^interesting case but i don't agree with the judges decision. remember that people's basic human rights are violated all the time--this case seems to be a clear example. however, i find it very hard to believe he not only lost his appeals, but he was sentenced to death. sounds like there are details missing. additionally, i don't think it establishes precedence in the case we are discussing. i am talking about pointing a gun at an officer and telling him to drop his weapon. if he attempts to raise his weapon at me, only then would i discharge my firearm.

^Yeah, but in your case, assume you are wrong and the cop isn't insane, but generally fearful for his life with the dog. In that case, the cop would have every right to shoot you as well, since you don't actually have the right to aim your gun at a cop. You do not have any authority to threaten hi or tell him to drop his weapon and even if you have no intention of shooting him, you may just get shot yourself.

9 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

My emphasis added.
>> ^videosi
ftbannedme:

I was taught in CCW class that in order to shoot someone...

Some people are really scared of dogs.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.