To any law enforcement officers out there...

What is more important? The public safety or your personal safety? Would you forfeit the life of a kid so you didn't have to suffer through a bite on your leg?

Obviously this guy would happily forfeit the life of a pet.


People like this aren't heros and never will be to this family or any of the people around them.

I don't mean to be harsh, but...

People should learn how to train their dogs. If you can't control your dog or stop it from biting a police officer's boots or terrorizing the neighbors (which I guess is why the police was called in the first place), you shouldn't be in the business of owning dogs anyway.

Biting shoes is debatable. I mean if the dog has ahold of the guys shoe and is being super aggressive like they are trying to eat the foot and work their way up..it's one thing. But dogs sniffing shoes or licking shoes could also look like biting especially if the person they are doing it to is reacting in a shocked manner.

Now if the dog is jumping and trying to bite faces or has a guy on the ground trying to rip into him, shoot the dog.

But the "anything that could possibly be construed as offensive or threatening behavior" is too vague of a line to go hog wild and unload your gun into a dog.

Plus it depends on the owners, and if the dog is trusted around the kid and perhaps even protect the kid.....it's different than an owner yelling GET EM! and trying to get the dog biting the cops.

lol the kid should be happy that it was the dog not him or his parents getting shot.

police are retarded for shooting the dog

dog shouldn't be out and about and for all we know it might have been acting mental

It does seem in general the police are to happy to shoot stuff in USA even people.

Maybe the child will grow up to be an officer?

>> ^Porksandwich:

Biting shoes is debatable...Ok, you do have a point. On the other hand, is it reasonable to expect the officer to wait until he's bitten so he can shoot the dog?

Postal workers are another government agency that has to deal with other people's dogs on a daily basis, yet they don't kill them.

I don't get it when they say "the case is still under investigation" but then go on to say: "It's a good shoot. An officer was being attacked." If they're calling it a good shoot, then it sounds like they've reached a conclusion, so how can it still be under investigation? If it's still under investigation, you can't know whether it's a good shoot until the investigation is completed.

>> ^renatojj:

I don't mean to be harsh, but...
People should learn how to train their dogs. If you can't control your dog or stop it from biting a police officer's boots or terrorizing the neighbors (which I guess is why the police was called in the first place), you shouldn't be in the business of owning dogs anyway.


You're correct on two points- dog owners must be responsible for controlling their animals, and yes it does sound harsh.

YES! How is a preemptive attack without an explicit threat ever "reasonable"?

"Ah man, this black guy keeps walking closer and closer toward me. Better pepper spray him before he gets a chance to grab my purse."

"Ah man, better invade Iran in the next 90 days before they use all those nuclear weapons they can't develop for at least another 5 to 10 years."



>> ^renatojj:

is it reasonable to expect the officer to wait until he's bitten so he can shoot the dog?

@GenjiKilpatrick isn't an angry dog charging at you with sharp pointy teeth an explicit threat?

>> ^jimnms:

I don't get it when they say "the case is still under investigation" but then go on to say: "It's a good shoot. An officer was being attacked." If they're calling it a good shoot, then it sounds like they've reached a conclusion, so how can it still be under investigation? If it's still under investigation, you can't know whether it's a good shoot until the investigation is completed.


That isn't to hard to understand. Not all investigations have to partial...at all. In fact, no investigation is partial at all. All investigations have outcomes clearing as they form--even if those outcomes are incorrect. A "suspect" is an already forming conclusion which, by your logic, is an outrage perhaps?

They call it a "good shot" but then, let's pretend, a neighbor comes out and says the officers laughed about it later and noted how they weren't afraid, that changes things. It is mandatory procedure that every time a gun is pulled an investigation stays open for a certain period of time. Just like when child services come to your house, even when somebody reported you falsely--they still open the file and keep it open for their own protection...

>> ^visionep:

To any law enforcement officers out there...
What is more important? The public safety or your personal safety? Would you forfeit the life of a kid so you didn't have to suffer through a bite on your leg?
Obviously this guy would happily forfeit the life of a pet.
People like this aren't heros and never will be to this family or any of the people around them.


Not sure about this question? Officers have a duty to act, but not to sacrifice their lives or safety. (I don't think these guys are heroes either. I would have kicked the dog away...but that would have been reported too and I probably would have gotten in more trouble for that "brutality"...)

Either way, police are trained not to put their lives at severe risk, even to save their own. Jump into a burning house to save a child? Now there are two people to save. Jump into a river to save a drowning man? Not really a good idea. Run into a bullet storm to save a fellow officer when you probably will be shot? Yeah, frowned on...

Besides that, this situation has nothing to do with saving a life in my opinion...they were jerks. But to compare shooting a child, perhaps in his skull, to shooting a dog...which is property...that is very sensational...

No, all dogs have pointy teeth and are prone to run around. That doesn't make them a threat.

Discharging a weapon is s'pposed to be reserved for those FEW life threatening situations you may but probably won't encounter on a routine "some dog is barking too loudly" call.

>> ^renatojj:

@GenjiKilpatrick isn't an angry dog charging at you with sharp pointy teeth an explicit threat?

I don't get it...maybe beat cops shouldn't have guns...or just leave them in the trunk. They haven't shown that they can handle working with guns and they keep killing people. I say make them keep their guns in the car and begin a culture of only using guns in an emergency.

Yes I know not popular but cops show exaggerate everything.

Officer:
The dog mouth's was slathered in saliva, it was obvious it saw me as food as it charged at me. So I drew my gun and fired to protect my life, that dog was going to eat me! I shouted clearly No! No! No! but it did not stop.


Owner:
My dog named Mo drools like crazy, and he will come to anyone who calls his name with a big canine smile on his face. I don't know how the officer knew his name or why he shot him after calling him 3 times.


It'd be like shooting a horse dead because it ran at you when you went to it's typical feeding location. I acknowledge there are times when dogs are trained to be rabid and vicious, but treating them all like that and instilling this fear of animals into cops is setting the stage for it to happen more and more and it to be justified under any circumstance.

I mean hell they are shooting dogs that don't even come halfway up to their knees in some circumstances... I mean you have to be some kind of coward to think something non-poisonous and small like that is life threatening. It might hurt you, but you might bump your head getting into your car...but you don't see them shooting the cars.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
A "suspect" is an already forming conclusion which, by your logic, is an outrage perhaps?
They call it a "good shot" but then, let's pretend, a neighbor comes out and says the officers laughed about it later and noted how they weren't afraid, that changes things. It is mandatory procedure that every time a gun is pulled an investigation stays open for a certain period of time. Just like when child services come to your house, even when somebody reported you falsely--they still open the file and keep it open for their own protection...


A suspect has nothing to with a conclusion or "my logic." A suspect is just that, a suspect, there is no conclusion formed. If the situation was reversed, say a father shoots a police dog claiming it attacked his kid playing in his yard. There certainly would be an investigation as to whether the father was really was defending his family. The father would be the suspect of the investigation, but the police wouldn't comment to the press that it's still under investigation AND say it was a good shoot. In that situation, they would say they can't comment on an open investigation.

But in this situation the cop shot a family pet. There should be an impartial investigation as to whether it was justified. This BS line they give saying it was a good shoot, but it's still under investigation is basically them saying that there is no investigation, we've already concluded that no matter what, the cop did nothing wrong.

Sorry this is so long in response--I forgot I wanted to respond and it is an ocd compulsion of mine... Seriously... I have OCD... (Now I have free time to write Yay.)

To the suspect topic, OJ Simpson was a forgone conclusion...Ramsey's parents were too. Casey Anthony's mother... Etc. These suspects were all the intense, single-minded already-formed conclusions that investigators focused on---to their tunnel vision.

A suspect is far more than just a person with a few

So what we are talking about really is what the police said? Well, reversing the situation, as you suggest, lets say the kid shot a police dog in the backyard and claimed self defense. What would the police say? I don't know and neither do you. What would his parents say? It was self defense? You bet your ass. A clean shoot? Sure. But lets say the kid brags about it and the parents find out later--they may do the right thing and snitch the child out.

But you bet your ass they would come out to little Johnny's defense early...

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
A "suspect" is an already forming conclusion which, by your logic, is an outrage perhaps?
They call it a "good shot" but then, let's pretend, a neighbor comes out and says the officers laughed about it later and noted how they weren't afraid, that changes things. It is mandatory procedure that every time a gun is pulled an investigation stays open for a certain period of time. Just like when child services come to your house, even when somebody reported you falsely--they still open the file and keep it open for their own protection...

A suspect has nothing to with a conclusion or "my logic." A suspect is just that, a suspect, there is no conclusion formed. If the situation was reversed, say a father shoots a police dog claiming it attacked his kid playing in his yard. There certainly would be an investigation as to whether the father was really was defending his family. The father would be the suspect of the investigation, but the police wouldn't comment to the press that it's still under investigation AND say it was a good shoot. In that situation, they would say they can't comment on an open investigation.
But in this situation the cop shot a family pet. There should be an impartial investigation as to whether it was justified. This BS line they give saying it was a good shoot, but it's still under investigation is basically them saying that there is no investigation, we've already concluded that no matter what, the cop did nothing wrong.