I've had hundreds of hours at dog parks, and all that ever goes on, just about, is dogs chasing each other and rough playing with each other. Any idiot can tell the difference between rough play and a fight. Even if it were a fight, which it was not in this case, the thing to do is cooperate with the owner in separating the dogs, not draw your weapon and open fire on the dog your dog is fighting with ... that is unless you're a god ... I mean a cop. In that case, you can get away with just about anything.
Had I done this, the minimum charges I'd receive would be public endangerment, property destruction, discharging a firearm, animal abuse, and probably a couple more thrown in for good measure. Why wasn't this cop charged with anything?
had a dog owner once tell me and a cop his dog was "just playing with me" [bleep] holes i had in my calf kinda told the cop and i different......some dog owners are idiots and unless i actually see how things went down im not quick to pass judgment on the cop from an owners story....
I wonder what the officer's report has to say, as opposed to the report of the dog's owner.
Uh...would it really matter? Does not an intelligent person who DOESN'T think he has carte blanche to do as it likes, come to a dog park with certain expectations of possible trouble with interaction between dogs? Wouldn't a reasonable person expect that a German Shephard and a Husky might engage in rough play or even a fight? And wouldn't a reasonable person therefore, avoid the park altogether if he was so concerned about it or perhaps, resolve to "assume the risk" when he takes his dog into said park?
When you enter a dog park with your dog you are by implication accepting the possibility of a dog fight. It's rare, but it does occasionally happen. The thing to do is to work with the other dog's owner, and/or other dog owners there, to separate the dogs and remove them. Shooting the other dog your dog's in a fight with is not within the ordinary list of reasonable options. Maybe we need a ban on cops in dog parks.
but what if the other dog owner is an idiot or in some cases ive seen thinks its funny watching them fight and lets them go?
First of all, I've been to several dog parks and have never seen anything like that happen. But short of your dog being in risk of imminent death, and nothing else tried has been effective, I cannot see a rationale for drawing a handgun and shooting another dog in a dog park. They are typically very friendly environments filled with people ready to assist in such situations.
TRH you have no idea what happened there. The cops dog was on leash and the husky was not. The cop asked the owner or guardian or dog sitter to do something about the dog and he did not.
I would not let a dog bite or rough play with one of my bird dogs that I have $1000's of dollars invested in because some dog sitter can not keep there dog under control.
I do agree when you enter a dog park you are asking for trouble but if the cop has his dog on a leash he was at least trying to maintain control of his animal.
I don't know if the dog deserved to get shot or not and neither do you.
if the fights already going its to late and until the fight happens you have no clue how the owner is going to react......at this point i could flip a coin and side with the cop or owner.....need a hell of alot more info before passing judgment....know to many good cops, know i would kill another dog to protect mine, know to many dog owners that think their dog is ALWAYS in the right and shouldnt have a pet rock let alone something breathing to start jumping up and down and scream at the cop....
Should be a sign outside the gate that says "Police Officers Are Required To Leave Their Firearms Outside This Enclosure."
Sure . . . . where the gang bangers and kids have ready access to it. A lot of departments require their officers to carry off duty. One dog under control. One dog out of control. Very little known other than a newspaper clip, and we all trust the press to be accurate and unbiased right? RIGHT!
I don't know if the dog deserved to get shot or not and neither do you.
A dog fighting with another dog in a DOG PARK almost by definition does not deserve to be shot.
Dogs even in a dog park has to be under control. If this was not the case then we could take three or four good fighting pitbulls and turn them loose and listen to the screams. Just think of all the little kids and grown ups crying and carrying on. Don't shoot my 100 pound fighting pit for eating your poodle he has a right to....we are in a dog park.
If the dog sitter or whatever there title was would have kept the husky undercontrol this would not have happened.
I'm not going to take sides here, but a while back I had a couple of Wolf/Husky hybreds, that I would have never consider taking to a Dog park. I had enough problems keeping them from killing other dogs when I took them to the vet. Commercial kennels were out of the quetion after one experience and the only way I could go hunting was to return them to rhe breeder I got them from and put them in with the wolves. (all the amimals were caged) After a few minutes of growling everything setteled and they were happy. My female was the problem, she couldn't stand yapping little mutts, and would do anything to get to them. Around serious animals she was fine. Any owner should know how his animal reacts to other animals and take care to avoid incidents.
It's pitiful the way some of you take up for cops! Tell you the truth I'm surprised he didn't reload and unload on the dieing dog again!
Phil
I think its pitiful the way same of you take up for a dog sitter with a out of control dogs. To tell the truth I bet the owner of the husky thought it was funny that his dog was attacking a poor dog on leash....right up to point that the poor old husky took a round.
As always, it will boil down to Cops story against Community Residents Story!
What they've already said says pretty much to me.
Of course as long as the authority's can keep it hushed up you won't get very much more of it.
But it seems pretty much clear that the dog that was shot was well thought of and was a regular of the park.
Quote
In the Quail Run community of townhomes, a number of residents have dogs that they walk to the community dog park. Neighbors say the park is generally an easygoing place where well-mannered dogs play with one another.
Bear-Bear was a regular there.
Tarnna Hernandez saw Bear-Bear all the time. She lives two doors down from the Rettaliatas and Bear-Bear plays with her children and Marshmallow, her year-and-a-half-old Dalmatian/Australian shepherd mix.
"I've never personally seen him be aggressive toward any dog or human or anything, for that matter," Hernandez said. "My two very young children love Bear-Bear and would attack him every time they saw him with hugs and love."
She can't believe Bear-Bear would ever do anything to deserve being shot. Advertisement
"I have not seen that dog hurt anyone. Or snarl. He's never even barked," she said. "His only way was to get out a gun out and shoot him? Uh-uh. It's completely unbelievable."
Dorothy Pearce, the homeowner's association manager, was appalled that someone would fire a gun in the community dog park � at dinnertime.
"This is tragic," she said. "A community of homeowners with children playing around should not have gun-crazy, off-duty policemen shooting in their area, especially a dog in a controllable situation."
Rettaliata said that after the officer shot Bear-Bear, the dog didn't yelp or cry, just lay down in the grass, bleeding heavily. "He just went and laid down," she said. "I just can't get over it and I don't think it's being taken seriously because it was an animal involved."
Carolyn Kilborn, chairwoman of the organization Maryland Votes for Animals, based in nearby Annapolis, thought the authorities should be investigating the case thoroughly.
"The killing of the dog in Severn is a sad situation that should be investigated carefully to determine if the incident was caused by a dangerous dog or a dangerous person," she said.
What do you guy's that are so anxious to jump on the poor cop bandwagon know other than if there's no investigation the cop must be righteous!
And the thing about it was so incredibly stupid. Not that we have idiotic things like "Dog Parks" around here, but if we did and some dude drew down on a dog in one of them, he might find himself getting shot. Because I can guarantee you that someone else would be packing. And then what would we have?
We would have either a cop or a citizen dead. If it was the citizen, then we would have long newspaper stories about how the two men were arguing over the dog and how the citizen suddenly drew his gun, forcing the cop to shoot him.
If the cop were dead, we would have a citizen charged with first degree murder.
greyghost in the link you provided there will now be a investigation. Does this now make him guility or innocent?
No one, including me, has any idea what happened there. It must make you guys feel better though to believe that the cop was in the wrong. Why is that?
DINK I wasn't there either but suggest a reread of the story might be in order. It said I believe that he ask the other dog owner to do something but b4 he could respond he drew his gun and shot the other dog. I would take from that we may have a trigger happy cop just maybe. How ever I do reserve judging until all the facts are known. YMMV Cheers NC
TRH/Chris is still carrying that hurt and grudge from the several law enforcement agencies that rejected him, thus preventing him from playing "cop", though I suspect the "god" part he still tries to play with adolescents under his "tutelage".
You have to wonder what an unmarried, un-attached, middle aged male teacher with supposedly the degrees to do a multitude of other things is trying to hide by constantly casting stones at a profession that snubbed him... And the one that would coincidentally investigate criminal activity...
There are so many other ways to break it up. Cops carry sticks, tasers, pepper spray etc. To fire a hand gun in a park full of people is out of line any way I look at it. Seems some restraint could have been used. Nobody else felt their lives were in danger with that dog in the park.
I agree that the owner of the Husky should have kept his dog under control, but to warrant shooting another dog, there should be blood and injuries. If the officers dog is not marked up, then it had not escalated to the point of discharging a fire arm in a park full of people.
We dont know enough of the story at this time to say for sure, but it seems to me that this guy doesnt make appropriate decisions to do his job.
Dink, I'll answer your question with a question. What makes you and some others so sure that the dog or it's owner was in the wrong.
From any of the story's I've read. It's pretty clear to me that you don't have a story from the officer, other than it was reported that some officer said dog attacked and he shot!
That line is pretty typical of any cop shooting.
Hell the story doesn't say anything about the officer. Not even if he was a resident of the community or whether he even had a right to be there in the first place mush less coming in shooting up the place.
It is obvious that the killed dog was a resident of the place and a regular at the park, and well liked.
County Executive Leopold said in a statement released on Wednesday. "It is concerning whenever a firearm is discharged at a public facility, let alone a facility that close to homes and children playing. All aspects of this incident merit a thorough and complete investigation." Is the investigator going to be the same one who, "... initially refused to investigate the incident because there was no sign of criminal activity." ?
If so: who is going to investigate the investigators? Now as I see it, the one who is wrong here is the one who declined to investigate initially. Had a proper investigation been done immediately, there would not have been citizen outrage, prompting what some will call a tainted investigation and we wouldn't be here specu'laten.
In reading another thread about it, the area was a non leash area & the officer had his dog leashed. I would really like to know how the normal crew would react if the roles were reversed & the non-LEO was the shooter of the LEO's dog.. Nawwww. I already know!
Funny, in a sad kinda way. Hope the revised decision to actually investigate is real now, & not just a ruse to get the pesky public off of their backs.
The problem is with an attitude cops all too often possess which is a result of knowing that they can do just about anything, so long as they can articulate any sort of rationale for their behavior, and get away with it Scott free, where anyone else would immediately be cuffed, stuffed, and charged with crimes. This removes from cops the concerns that ordinary people have about getting in trouble for outrageous behavior. Human nature dictates that when you remove that normal barrier, the natural tendency is for those people to become tyrannical to one degree or another.
To be fair. It really is only SOME that are like that. The actual number is unknown, but it's likely few, though very likely more than most will admit.
And the thing about it was so incredibly stupid. Not that we have idiotic things like "Dog Parks" around here, but if we did and some dude drew down on a dog in one of them, he might find himself getting shot. Because I can guarantee you that someone else would be packing. And then what would we have?
Yep. Same thought occurred to me. Someone draws a gun in a family type setting and starts inappropriately slinging lead, he's a dead man in many locales in America.
Quote
We would have either a cop or a citizen dead. If it was the citizen, then we would have long newspaper stories about how the two men were arguing over the dog and how the citizen suddenly drew his gun, forcing the cop to shoot him.
If the cop were dead, we would have a citizen charged with first degree murder.
The problem is with an attitude cops have which is a result of knowing that they can do just about anything, so long as they can articulate any sort of rationale for their behavior, and get away with it Scott free, where anyone else would immediately be cuffed, stuffed, and charged with crimes. This removes from cops the concerns that ordinary people have about getting in trouble for outrageous behavior. Human nature dictates that when you remove that normal barrier, people naturally become tyrannical.
So, all cops have that attitude? Amazing then, that you wanted to be one, or perhaps telling...
Tell us then, if you can assume all cops have that attitude based upon the actions/attitudes of a few, can the same assumption then not be made about teachers and young boys/girls because a few diddle?
Careful with that broad brush; you're likely to get some on you....
I have no idea what happened there, I wasn't there and I'm not going to judge the cop or the dog owner.
I will say that even as a dog owner and dog lover, that perhaps dog owners would do a better job of controlling their dogs if there was a greater chance off their off leash out of control dogs would be taking a dirt nap when they attacked other dogs or other people.
I have no idea what happened there, I wasn't there and I'm not going to judge the cop or the dog owner.
I will say that even as a dog owner and dog lover, that perhaps dog owners would do a better job of controlling their dogs if there was a greater chance off their off leash out of control dogs would be taking a dirt nap when they attacked other dogs or other people.
Something to consider.
You may not be familiar with the concept of dog parks, but they're enclosures where dog owners take their dogs so they can romp around loose with other dogs. The regulars usually do an excellent job of policing the place on their own in terms of making it clear to folks with poorly behaved dogs that they are not welcome back unless it's with a profession trainer who's come to address their dog's issues. The dog that was shot had an excellent reputation among the regulars. It would appear that the cop was a first time visitor.
To be fair. It really is only SOME that are like that. The actual number is unknown, but it's likely few, though very likely more than most will admit.
Yes, to be fair, of course not all cops are like that. I shouldn't use universal language.
What would he do if some kid started beating up his kid?
Yep, dogs and kids. Same thing. Funny schit on here today.
Travis
care bout my dogs more than most ppl.....have watched my loves everybody german shorthair get damn protective of my wife when a stranger comes around....my dog will lay his life on the line for my wife and girls....most ppl wont.....
dogs, kids......may not be exactly the same....but ill take my dogs over most adults....
dogs, kids......may not be exactly the same....but ill take my dogs over most adults....
This.
Apparently it's okay for dogs to "play rough" at a dog park (whatever the [bleep] those are). I guess nobody will have a problem if I take my old man there and let him "play rough".
You'll all jump on the dude with the CCW that shoots him after he works his way through a few "playing", right?
Dogs aren't people, and they sure as schit aren't kids. Equating the two is ridiculous. Yes I have dogs and can appreciate others' dogs as well. Dogs are friends, companions, all kinds of things, but it's childish to get your emotions all tied up in an animal.
care bout my dogs more than most ppl.....have watched my loves everybody german shorthair get damn protective of my wife when a stranger comes around....my dog will lay his life on the line for my wife and girls....most ppl wont.....
dogs, kids......may not be exactly the same....but ill take my dogs over most adults....
The article is written with a slant towards the dog owner. Nothing like unbiased reporting right? I doubt the "victim's" owner is in a position to rationally speak about the incident as evidenced by the quotes in the article. And as we've seen here already people get pretty retarded pretty quick over pets.
And giving two schits about a guy with a CCW popping somebody's pooch, after not being there when it went down, is laughable.
Agreed, but if everybody is setting up to lynch the cop they need to be prepared to do the same when Joe Citizen does the same.
George
Well, the thing is that Joe Citizen doing exactly the same as this cop would have been cuffed, stuffed, and charged with something quite serious. Why the double standard?
And giving two schits about a guy with a CCW popping somebody's pooch, after not being there when it went down, is laughable.
Agreed, but if everybody is setting up to lynch the cop they need to be prepared to do the same when Joe Citizen does the same.
George
Well, the thing is that Joe Citizen doing exactly the same as this cop would have been cuffed, stuffed, and charged with something quite serious. Why the double standard?
Not true. In fact, the last time I had a similar issue (no dog park involved as we don't have them) I praised the shooter and issued the deceased dog's owner a summons.
I have no idea what happened there, I wasn't there and I'm not going to judge the cop or the dog owner.
I will say that even as a dog owner and dog lover, that perhaps dog owners would do a better job of controlling their dogs if there was a greater chance off their off leash out of control dogs would be taking a dirt nap when they attacked other dogs or other people.
Something to consider.
You may not be familiar with the concept of dog parks, but they're enclosures where dog owners take their dogs so they can romp around loose with other dogs. The regulars usually do an excellent job of policing the place on their own in terms of making it clear to folks with poorly behaved dogs that they are not welcome back unless it's with a profession trainer who's come to address their dog's issues. The dog that was shot had an excellent reputation among the regulars. It would appear that the cop was a first time visitor.
As a sign that Anchorage is going to the birds, or liberals, I'm familiar with dog parks.
I don't care what the regulars do, or how their dogs typically behave. A dog that attacks another dog, or a person should be put down, whether in a dog park, or not. Pretty damn simple concept. Kinda similar to the nice boy that rapes somebodies daughter. Doesn't matter what a nice boy he is, wrong is wrong.
But alot of people have completely skewed views on the relationship between man(human beings) and animals.
And giving two schits about a guy with a CCW popping somebody's pooch, after not being there when it went down, is laughable.
Agreed, but if everybody is setting up to lynch the cop they need to be prepared to do the same when Joe Citizen does the same.
George
Well, the thing is that Joe Citizen doing exactly the same as this cop would have been cuffed, stuffed, and charged with something quite serious. Why the double standard?
Not true. In fact, the last time I had a similar issue (no dog park involved as we don't have them) I praised the shooter and issued the deceased dog's owner a summons.
George
For playing rough in a dog park?? I call serious BS.
So where does it say in the law that your dog has to be mangled and at the point of death before you can take action? If kids and dogs are the same, would you let someone badly mangle your kid before you took some action to stop it? Or would you step in at the first sign of danger and do something about it? Not saying you'd off the person, but obviously, you'd intervene. . . . . . . . . . unless of course you don't have kids or a wife, and you don't have clue one what you're talking about.
Some of the arguments here are serious stretches of reality in this event.
I have no idea what happened there, I wasn't there and I'm not going to judge the cop or the dog owner.
I will say that even as a dog owner and dog lover, that perhaps dog owners would do a better job of controlling their dogs if there was a greater chance off their off leash out of control dogs would be taking a dirt nap when they attacked other dogs or other people.
Something to consider.
You may not be familiar with the concept of dog parks, but they're enclosures where dog owners take their dogs so they can romp around loose with other dogs. The regulars usually do an excellent job of policing the place on their own in terms of making it clear to folks with poorly behaved dogs that they are not welcome back unless it's with a profession trainer who's come to address their dog's issues. The dog that was shot had an excellent reputation among the regulars. It would appear that the cop was a first time visitor.
As a sign that Anchorage is going to the birds, or liberals, I'm familiar with dog parks.
I don't care what the regulars do, or how their dogs typically behave. A dog that attacks another dog, or a person should be put down, whether in a dog park, or not. Pretty damn simple concept. Kinda similar to the nice boy that rapes somebodies daughter. Doesn't matter what a nice boy he is, wrong is wrong.
But alot of people have completely skewed views on the relationship between man(human beings) and animals.
Dog parks are different. You walk in with your dog with the assumed understanding that a dog fight is a possibility, and that you are to make use of all possible non-lethal procedures, with the cooperation of others at the park, to break it up. Deadly force is a last, not a first, resort under those circumstances, e.g., your dog is being killed by a larger dog who actually attacked. This case didn't even come close, as it was a case only of typical roughhousing, which is mainly what dogs do at dog parks. If you claim it was more than roughhousing, it would be your burden to show us the images of bloody holes in the skin of the German Shepherd. Roughhousing leaves no bloody holes. Fights do. Easy bright line distinction.
PS The cop keeping his dog on the leash was a problem. That's not appropriate inside the enclosure as it tends to attract attention from other dogs, and leashed dogs in that situation feel disadvantaged and vulnerable, and are more apt to respond to inquisitiveness with aggression. If you're dog is going to be on a leash, you and your dog belong outside the enclosure.
And giving two schits about a guy with a CCW popping somebody's pooch, after not being there when it went down, is laughable.
Agreed, but if everybody is setting up to lynch the cop they need to be prepared to do the same when Joe Citizen does the same.
George
Well, the thing is that Joe Citizen doing exactly the same as this cop would have been cuffed, stuffed, and charged with something quite serious. Why the double standard?
Not true. In fact, the last time I had a similar issue (no dog park involved as we don't have them) I praised the shooter and issued the deceased dog's owner a summons.
Dink, I'll answer your question with a question. What makes you and some others so sure that the dog or it's owner was in the wrong.
From any of the story's I've read. It's pretty clear to me that you don't have a story from the officer, other than it was reported that some officer said dog attacked and he shot!
That line is pretty typical of any cop shooting.
Hell the story doesn't say anything about the officer. Not even if he was a resident of the community or whether he even had a right to be there in the first place mush less coming in shooting up the place.
It is obvious that the killed dog was a resident of the place and a regular at the park, and well liked.
Phil
greyghost to answer your question is my point. No one knows who was right or wrong here. The dog owner could have been in wrong or he might not have been in wrong.
highcountry I read the part about the owner of the dog not being able to do anything before the dog got shot but I think the owner of the dog thought it was alright for his dog to act to like that.
I also read the part where the cop tried to get the dogs apart and the husky tried to bite him. Some people think there dogs can do no wrong.
Had I been the cop I probably would have done the same. I no doubt would NOT go to a dog park however when I had dogs. Come to think of it, the Malonois My daughter had would have handled the light work himself!
I have no idea what happened there, I wasn't there and I'm not going to judge the cop or the dog owner.
I will say that even as a dog owner and dog lover, that perhaps dog owners would do a better job of controlling their dogs if there was a greater chance off their off leash out of control dogs would be taking a dirt nap when they attacked other dogs or other people.
Something to consider.
You may not be familiar with the concept of dog parks, but they're enclosures where dog owners take their dogs so they can romp around loose with other dogs. The regulars usually do an excellent job of policing the place on their own in terms of making it clear to folks with poorly behaved dogs that they are not welcome back unless it's with a profession trainer who's come to address their dog's issues. The dog that was shot had an excellent reputation among the regulars. It would appear that the cop was a first time visitor.
As a sign that Anchorage is going to the birds, or liberals, I'm familiar with dog parks.
I don't care what the regulars do, or how their dogs typically behave. A dog that attacks another dog, or a person should be put down, whether in a dog park, or not. Pretty damn simple concept. Kinda similar to the nice boy that rapes somebodies daughter. Doesn't matter what a nice boy he is, wrong is wrong.
But alot of people have completely skewed views on the relationship between man(human beings) and animals.
Dog parks are different. You walk in with your dog with the presumed understanding that a dog fight is a possibility, and that you are to make use of all possible non-lethal procedures, with the cooperation of others at the park, to break it up. Deadly force is a last, not a first resort under those circumstances, e.g., your dog is being killed by a larger dog who actually attacked. This case didn't even come close, as it was a case only of typical roughhousing, which is mainly what dogs do at dog parks. If you claim it was more than roughhousing, it would be your burden to show us the images of bloody holes in the skin of the German Shepherd. Roughhousing leaves no bloody holes. Fights do. Easy bright line distinction.
PS The cop keeping his dog on the leash was a problem. That's not appropriate inside the enclosure. If you're dog is going to be on a leash, you and your dog belong outside the enclosure.
Sounds like a blast. Wish kids parks were like that....
I have no idea what happened there, I wasn't there and I'm not going to judge the cop or the dog owner.
I will say that even as a dog owner and dog lover, that perhaps dog owners would do a better job of controlling their dogs if there was a greater chance off their off leash out of control dogs would be taking a dirt nap when they attacked other dogs or other people.
Something to consider.
You may not be familiar with the concept of dog parks, but they're enclosures where dog owners take their dogs so they can romp around loose with other dogs. The regulars usually do an excellent job of policing the place on their own in terms of making it clear to folks with poorly behaved dogs that they are not welcome back unless it's with a profession trainer who's come to address their dog's issues. The dog that was shot had an excellent reputation among the regulars. It would appear that the cop was a first time visitor.
Hawkeye please tell me about policing a public dog park. When you tell someone there dog is not welcomed to come back do they just say ok because the hawkeye said so......laffin. I think if tell people not to bring there dog back to a public dog park you get told the F word alot.
He's a newcomer to this topic here at the fire. I've been covering this issue (and many others) here for many years before anyone ever heard of JasonB.
Not true. In fact, the last time I had a similar issue (no dog park involved as we don't have them) I praised the shooter and issued the deceased dog's owner a summons.
George
For playing rough in a dog park?? I call serious BS.
He's a newcomer to this topic here at the fire. I've been covering this issue (and many others) here for many years before anyone ever heard of JasonB.
So, why did JasonB mysteriously stop posting, after Rick corrected you as to him being banned?
Perhaps a multiple log-in/same IP address issue?
Or, is he just living vicariously through you now?
So is this just an argument with Hawkeye, or are their people here who feel that the officer was right to discharge his firearm in a public park full of people? Why is it OK to use deadly force to protect your dog, but your a whining crying pansie if your dog gets shot by a police officer?
Its hard to claim it was an attack if there was no blood or injuries even mentioned in the article.
Getting back to the orginal topic... can anyone say that this wasnt a real poor choice on how to handle the situation?
I understand that we dont know the entire story... but lets use the facts that we have from the articles posted. If more evidence comes around later... then we can look at that.
I could give two happy damns about the incident; that's irrelevant, and EXACTLY why both criminal and civil courts exist.
What is interesting and revealing is TRH/Chris' hatred for LEOs, as he's taken over for his lover-boy JasonB on the "all cops are bad/all he posts all the time" beat.
You'd figure that we'd almost have to rewrite the old saw about "a woman scorned", just for TRH to get over being turned down, repeatedly, by law enforcement agencies....
But, it's likely a bit more than that, and more of a cover to what he's doing with and within his own profession....
Aw, isn't that cute... he's got me on ignore again.
Go figure why, as hitting close to marks has a reaction fairly well guaranteed.
Which mark is it that hurts, Chris? Is it the "they turned me down and hurt my feelings, so I hate them" line you run, or is it that you're covering for what you don't want folks to find out/know about you? Or, both, perhaps?
Am I on ignore? Cause your argument that this shooter did wrong has yet to be reasonably established.
Travis
Nope. You and I have always managed to be civil with one another, whether or not we agree on a given topic. I don't believe I've ever had you on ignore.
dogs, kids......may not be exactly the same....but ill take my dogs over most adults....
This.
Apparently it's okay for dogs to "play rough" at a dog park (whatever the [bleep] those are). I guess nobody will have a problem if I take my old man there and let him "play rough".
You'll all jump on the dude with the CCW that shoots him after he works his way through a few "playing", right?
George
you do realize im one of the ones that said i would like to see how the whole thing actually played out before i was gonna pass judgment and depending on what actually went down i was all for the cop shooting the dog......been around enough idiot dog owners who could not or chose not to control their dog and i would be just fine if the cop truly decided the other dog needed shot......as i said at this moment i could flip a coin to choose sides on the original incident....
and for the record if my dog took off after someone or tried to kill someone elses dog without just cause i would shoot my dog just as fast.....
but owners that dont control their dogs are a sore spot of mine......every [bleep] problem dog ive run across is cause of some dumb ass owner that thought it was either fine not to control their dog or thought it was funny when their dog got into fights with other dogs....and quite frankly i would rather shoot the person than the dog...... so yeah for the most part ill put dogs, especially my own over most adults....
So is this just an argument with Hawkeye, or are their people here who feel that the officer was right to discharge his firearm in a public park full of people? Why is it OK to use deadly force to protect your dog, but your a whining crying pansie if your dog gets shot by a police officer?
Its hard to claim it was an attack if there was no blood or injuries even mentioned in the article.
Getting back to the orginal topic... can anyone say that this wasnt a real poor choice on how to handle the situation?
I understand that we dont know the entire story... but lets use the facts that we have from the articles posted. If more evidence comes around later... then we can look at that.
Shooting a dog is not using deadly force. Would it have better had he used an asp to beat away the other dog? Or as some have referred it, "electrocuted" with a taser? Maybe used some defensive tactics and choked it out? Yes that's sarcasm.
I'm not willing to say it was a poor way to handle it, or that it wasn't an attack even without blood without more facts, which are seriously lacking at this point. But this is an entertaining thread if nothing else.
I'll say this, the whole dog park thing is alien to me. Are these rules you speak of, TRH, usually posted at the entrances or is it an understood code? If it's not posted that leashed dogs should stay out of the enclosure, and that roughhousing is to be tolerated than that puts a little different spin. But roughhousing can turn ugly pretty quick. What's the recourse then? Is there a certain number of bite holes or blood spatters required before it's classified as an attack?
I've learned to never take a person's word that thier dog is not aggressive...or that their kid is a good kid. You will always get the same answer.
Also, the paper wants to generate sales and the story of how a police officer put down an aggressive dog just doesn't have the same controversy.
If a mistake was made it was the fact that the officer took his dog to the park where it would be exposed to dogs with unknown temperments.
I wasn't there so don't know what exactly happened but I have seen people who thought it was ok for their dog to "rough play" so long as it wasn't their dog yelping or injured.
Some are uptight that the officer fired his sidearm at the dog park but are unable to assume that it was done with a concern for safety as no one else was hit. If you fire a weapon in a residential area there are almost always people and kids somewhere "nearby." The same argument could be made to prevent ccw in these areas if that reasoning is followed.
So is this just an argument with Hawkeye, or are their people here who feel that the officer was right to discharge his firearm in a public park full of people? Why is it OK to use deadly force to protect your dog, but your a whining crying pansie if your dog gets shot by a police officer?
Its hard to claim it was an attack if there was no blood or injuries even mentioned in the article.
Getting back to the orginal topic... can anyone say that this wasnt a real poor choice on how to handle the situation?
I understand that we dont know the entire story... but lets use the facts that we have from the articles posted. If more evidence comes around later... then we can look at that.
I don't know if he was right or wrong because I wasn't there.
But I can tell you this: The cop was carrying legally and found it necessary to discharge his weapon. When folks that are supposed proponents of the 2nd Amendment start getting in the habit of casting stones based on a fellas' job title, we are in trouble folks.
Same thing could have happened to a private citizen with a CCW.
I learned long ago not to "Monday morning quarterback" a fight. Especially based on a paper clip out of Baltimore for cripes sake.
So is this just an argument with Hawkeye, or are their people here who feel that the officer was right to discharge his firearm in a public park full of people? Why is it OK to use deadly force to protect your dog, but your a whining crying pansie if your dog gets shot by a police officer?
Its hard to claim it was an attack if there was no blood or injuries even mentioned in the article.
Getting back to the orginal topic... can anyone say that this wasnt a real poor choice on how to handle the situation?
I understand that we dont know the entire story... but lets use the facts that we have from the articles posted. If more evidence comes around later... then we can look at that.
Oakster alot of people give alot of money for dogs, myself included. I would not let anyones dog attack mine if mine was on a leash. Now everyone knows that I think a dog is nothing more than dog. The value on a dogs life is not anywhere near what a human life is and I still will not let some turds dog harm mine. I give between $700 and $1000 for a pup and then 100's of hours of training. Somone that does not have control of there dog and there dog tries to hurt/injure mine is in real trouble. Likewise if my dog was attacking theres and they killed it I would not be happy about it but it will be my fault for letting it happen.
You say its hard to claim attack without injury. I would not risk one my dogs being hurt after I have spent so much time and money on them. What if the dog just put my dogs eye out?
I think as long as the officer had a good shot at the dog with no human in the way he handled it properly. He asked the other dogs owner to do something and he did not.
Why does everyone think the officer was on duty? If he was there with his dog I bet he was off duty.
Same thing could have happened to a private citizen with a CCW.
A citizen would likely go to jail and lose his 2nd amendment rights. Unless, possibly, they were an attorney and had the legal weight of a law firm behind them. Discharging a firearm in such a situation and setting appears to me as irresponsible and would not be justified per the law governing such in my state, which only allows a shoot to protect human life from deadly force.
Was the police officer on duty or off duty when this happened? The article didn't say, as I recall. Job titles can really bite your butt. Never hear about an accountant going berzerk and killing people with his calculator. More like boring them to death.
Same thing could have happened to a private citizen with a CCW.
A citizen would likely go to jail and lose his 2nd amendment rights. Unless, possibly, they were an attorney and had the legal weight of a law firm behind them. Discharging a firearm in such a situation and setting appears to me as irresponsible and would not be justified per the law governing such in my state, which only allows a shoot to protect human life from deadly force.
one dog attacking my dog would be justifiable discharge of a firearm in my town......actually it would be encouraged and the cops are gonna tell the guy with the dead dog there is a leash law that needs to be followed inside city limits....
last time i had to deal with this type of chit, a guy was taking his an his neighbors dogs for a walk around town off leash.....his buddies dog jumped my buddies fence and proceeded to kill my buddies dog while the guy watched and laughed....
my buddy called me, i called the police chief, told him we were going hunting, he said get after it he was gonna call an officer to help us and we took off loaded guns in hand......
the officer caught up to it before us and put the dog down but had we caught it we coulda shot it inside city limits without hassle even though there is an ordinance against discharging a firearm within city limits.....there are exception when it comes to critters that are considered dangerous, and that line was crossed....
So is this just an argument with Hawkeye, or are their people here who feel that the officer was right to discharge his firearm in a public park full of people? Why is it OK to use deadly force to protect your dog, but your a whining crying pansie if your dog gets shot by a police officer?
Its hard to claim it was an attack if there was no blood or injuries even mentioned in the article.
Getting back to the orginal topic... can anyone say that this wasnt a real poor choice on how to handle the situation?
I understand that we dont know the entire story... but lets use the facts that we have from the articles posted. If more evidence comes around later... then we can look at that.
From what I've read so far I think the cop done wrong. That opinion could change with new information.
Same thing could have happened to a private citizen with a CCW.
A citizen would likely go to jail and lose his 2nd amendment rights. Unless, possibly, they were an attorney and had the legal weight of a law firm behind them. Discharging a firearm in such a situation and setting appears to me as irresponsible and would not be justified per the law governing such in my state, which only allows a shoot to protect human life from deadly force.
So is this just an argument with Hawkeye, or are their people here who feel that the officer was right to discharge his firearm in a public park full of people? Why is it OK to use deadly force to protect your dog, but your a whining crying pansie if your dog gets shot by a police officer?
Its hard to claim it was an attack if there was no blood or injuries even mentioned in the article.
Getting back to the orginal topic... can anyone say that this wasnt a real poor choice on how to handle the situation?
I understand that we dont know the entire story... but lets use the facts that we have from the articles posted. If more evidence comes around later... then we can look at that.
From what I've read so far I think the cop done wrong. That opinion could change with new information.
Huge clue that you would judge a person based on that POS article. If the word "cop" weren't involved I bet you'd think differently.
Private citizens wanting to hang a badge, for having a badge, is no different than a badge thinking a private citizen shouldn't have the right to do what needs to be done in a given situation.
Same thing could have happened to a private citizen with a CCW.
A citizen would likely go to jail and lose his 2nd amendment rights. Unless, possibly, they were an attorney and had the legal weight of a law firm behind them. Discharging a firearm in such a situation and setting appears to me as irresponsible and would not be justified per the law governing such in my state, which only allows a shoot to protect human life from deadly force.
I tend to agree with you Ricky. Discharging a firearm in my city will at the very least result in a misdemeanor. And if one shot a dog as described in the story you would be in deep do do.
And giving two schits about a guy with a CCW popping somebody's pooch, after not being there when it went down, is laughable.
Agreed, but if everybody is setting up to lynch the cop they need to be prepared to do the same when Joe Citizen does the same.
George
Joe citizen did the same on a public sidewalk in my ao. You'll be shocked to hear that he didn't spend one second in cuffs let alone jail and got to keep his handgun.
Yeah. I got that part. But you've seen the "deep doo-doo" take place by a non-LEO shooter involving a dog?
Travis
Nope, but if you can't shoot to defend yourself or shoot a deer I would think the law isn't going to think to highly of shooting dogs. One can defend one's self if they have a CCW from another human but shooting a dog especially as described in the story in my city I don't think so. I know I'm not puting it to the test.
So is this just an argument with Hawkeye, or are their people here who feel that the officer was right to discharge his firearm in a public park full of people? Why is it OK to use deadly force to protect your dog, but your a whining crying pansie if your dog gets shot by a police officer?
Its hard to claim it was an attack if there was no blood or injuries even mentioned in the article.
Getting back to the orginal topic... can anyone say that this wasnt a real poor choice on how to handle the situation?
I understand that we dont know the entire story... but lets use the facts that we have from the articles posted. If more evidence comes around later... then we can look at that.
Shooting a dog is not using deadly force. Would it have better had he used an asp to beat away the other dog? Or as some have referred it, "electrocuted" with a taser? Maybe used some defensive tactics and choked it out? Yes that's sarcasm.
I'm not willing to say it was a poor way to handle it, or that it wasn't an attack even without blood without more facts, which are seriously lacking at this point. But this is an entertaining thread if nothing else.
I'll say this, the whole dog park thing is alien to me. Are these rules you speak of, TRH, usually posted at the entrances or is it an understood code? If it's not posted that leashed dogs should stay out of the enclosure, and that roughhousing is to be tolerated than that puts a little different spin. But roughhousing can turn ugly pretty quick. What's the recourse then? Is there a certain number of bite holes or blood spatters required before it's classified as an attack?
Yeah. I got that part. But you've seen the "deep doo-doo" take place by a non-LEO shooter involving a dog?
Travis
I have here in Florida, and in that case I think the arrestee got a very bad deal. He shot his neighbors two Chows that had his son trapped in his shed. He was charged with two counts of cruelty to animals and discharging a firearm in the city limits. Served jail time for it. I did the psych. eval. for the courts in this case in consideration of his early release.
Yeah. I got that part. But you've seen the "deep doo-doo" take place by a non-LEO shooter involving a dog?
Travis
I have here in Florida, and in that case I think the arrestee got a very bad deal. He shot his neighbors two Chows that had his son trapped in his shed. He was charged with two counts of cruelty to animals and discharging a firearm in the city limits. Served jail time for it. I did the psych. eval. for the courts in this case in consideration of his early release.
Yeah. I got that part. But you've seen the "deep doo-doo" take place by a non-LEO shooter involving a dog?
Travis
Nope, but if you can't shoot to defend yourself or shoot a deer I would think the law isn't going to think to highly of shooting dogs. One can defend one's self if they have a CCW from another human but shooting a dog especially as described in the story in my city I don't think so. I know I'm not puting it to the test.
Not in my judgment. His son was scared [bleep] with the two Chows trying to get at him while he was holding the shed door closed. Dad came out and shot the two of them. It was on his property. That's not what happened in the current case in issue, however. You see, cop or not, my judgment goes the same way for each case. If a non-cop had acted the way this cop did in the dog park, I'd feel the same way, i.e., I'd want his scalp. Law enforcement bias being what it is, I'd likely be happy with the outcome if it weren't a cop, because the law would have thrown the book at him. As it is, I'm not happy with the initial effort by the law to whitewash because the perp was a cop.
From a Vetrenary / Hygiene standpoint, these "Parks" sound like a nightmare,....before the pizzing contests between dogs even start.
Just my US $ .05
GTC
Yup. I took my old dog to a "dog park". Once. Between the other dogs trying to hump him and the cranky women who thought my dog was too aggressive (he didn't care for being humped by another male dog, go figure!) I came to the conclusion there was nothing there my dog or me needed.
That being said, I've had to "handle" other people's dogs on a few occasions in off-leash areas. I find a stout walking stick will knock the aggression out of a bad dog in a hurry, and I've never yet needed to draw my sidearm to defend me, or my dog.
But if the only tool you've got is a hammer, I guess everything starts looking like a nail...
Not in my judgment. His son was scared [bleep] with the two Chows trying to get at him while he was holding the shed door closed. Dad came out and shot the two of them. It was on his property. That's not what happened in the current case in issue, however. You see, cop or not, my judgment goes the same way for each case. If a non-cop had acted the way this cop did in the dog park, I'd feel the same way, i.e., I'd want his scalp. Laws being what they are, I'd likely be happy with the outcome if it weren't a cop, because the law would have thrown the book at him. As it is, I'm not happy with the initial effort by the law to white wash because the perp was a cop.
If you say any CCW was wrong in the given scenario than I agree to disagree.
But quite frankly, I haven't seen anything that leads me to think the shooter was wrong. And, I think you are going after this guy based on his job description and nothing else. At least that's the way it came across.
The right to carry is the right to carry is the right to carry. It's the 2nd Amendment. God forbid you had to put a dog down in a different scenario and this thread be brought up. You'd have some tough crow to swallow methinks...
From a Vetrenary / Hygiene standpoint, these "Parks" sound like a nightmare,....before the pizzing contests between dogs even start.
Just my US $ .05
GTC
Yup. I took my old dog to a "dog park". Once. Between the other dogs trying to hump him and the cranky women who thought my dog was too aggressive (he didn't care for being humped by another male dog, go figure!) I came to the conclusion there was nothing there my dog or me needed.
That being said, I've had to "handle" other people's dogs on a few occasions in off-leash areas. I find a stout walking stick will knock the aggression out of a bad dog in a hurry, and I've never yet needed to draw my sidearm to defend me, or my dog.
But if the only tool you've got is a hammer, I guess everything starts looking like a nail...
I've dealt with a difficult dog or two as well. Doesn't mean I can judge a guy pulling the trigger on one. UNLESS I SAW WHAT HAPPENED.
Not in my judgment. His son was scared [bleep] with the two Chows trying to get at him while he was holding the shed door closed. Dad came out and shot the two of them. It was on his property. That's not what happened in the current case in issue, however. You see, cop or not, my judgment goes the same way for each case. If a non-cop had acted the way this cop did in the dog park, I'd feel the same way, i.e., I'd want his scalp. Laws being what they are, I'd likely be happy with the outcome if it weren't a cop, because the law would have thrown the book at him. As it is, I'm not happy with the initial effort by the law to white wash because the perp was a cop.
If you say any CCW was wrong in the given scenario than I agree to disagree.
But quite frankly, I haven't seen anything that leads me to think the shooter was wrong. And, I think you are going after this guy based on his job description and nothing else. At least that's the way it came across.
The right to carry is the right to carry is the right to carry. It's the 2nd Amendment. God forbid you had to put a dog down in a different scenario and this thread be brought up. You'd have some tough crow to swallow methinks...
Travis
As always, it depends on the facts. Some shootings are justified, and some are not. The fact that I condemn a cop for a bad shooting is balanced by the many times I've defended cops for good shootings. It all goes back to the facts of the case. I've even defended cops when other cops here took the opposite side. I do believe, however, that there is a double standard in the way the laws are applied regarding cops, and I do believe that this tends to make cops much more willing to use extreme measures when much lesser measures would have more than sufficed. This, I believe, is a dangerous situation.
Not in my judgment. His son was scared [bleep] with the two Chows trying to get at him while he was holding the shed door closed. Dad came out and shot the two of them. It was on his property. That's not what happened in the current case in issue, however. You see, cop or not, my judgment goes the same way for each case. If a non-cop had acted the way this cop did in the dog park, I'd feel the same way, i.e., I'd want his scalp. Laws being what they are, I'd likely be happy with the outcome if it weren't a cop, because the law would have thrown the book at him. As it is, I'm not happy with the initial effort by the law to white wash because the perp was a cop.
If you say any CCW was wrong in the given scenario than I agree to disagree.
But quite frankly, I haven't seen anything that leads me to think the shooter was wrong. And, I think you are going after this guy based on his job description and nothing else. At least that's the way it came across.
The right to carry is the right to carry is the right to carry. It's the 2nd Amendment. God forbid you had to put a dog down in a different scenario and this thread be brought up. You'd have some tough crow to swallow methinks...
Travis
As always, it depends on the facts. Some shootings are justified, and some are not. The fact that I condemn a cop for a bad shooting is balanced by the many times I've defended cops for good shootings. It all goes back to the facts of the case. I've even defended cops when other cops here took the opposite side. I do believe, however, that there is a double standard in the way the laws are applied regarding cops, and I do believe that this tends to make cops much more willing to use extreme measures when much lesser measures would have more than sufficed. This, I believe, is a dangerous situation.
And I respectfully call bullschit.
Nobody knows what was happening to this guy's dog when he decided to shoot.
If he was, he was wrong. If he was right, he was right. It will be sorted out later and nobody here has a clue what occurred. And that includes me...
From a Vetrenary / Hygiene standpoint, these "Parks" sound like a nightmare,....before the pizzing contests between dogs even start.
Just my US $ .05
GTC
Yup. I took my old dog to a "dog park". Once. Between the other dogs trying to hump him and the cranky women who thought my dog was too aggressive (he didn't care for being humped by another male dog, go figure!) I came to the conclusion there was nothing there my dog or me needed.
That being said, I've had to "handle" other people's dogs on a few occasions in off-leash areas. I find a stout walking stick will knock the aggression out of a bad dog in a hurry, and I've never yet needed to draw my sidearm to defend me, or my dog.
But if the only tool you've got is a hammer, I guess everything starts looking like a nail...
My dogs LIVE on my property,......well cared for and leave to go for semi annual Vet visits.
That's IT,.......and were it different,...I'd get into Teacup Chihuahuas, ....or some other damn thing,.....Ferrets, or Hamsters.
"Dog Parks",......temporary parking for walking chit factories.
Nobody knows what was happening to this guy's dog when he decided to shoot.
If he was, he was wrong. If he was right, he was right. It will be sorted out later and nobody here has a clue what occurred. And that includes me...
Travis
If the facts are anything like what was reported, he was way wrong. Lots of folks gave testimony to the type of dog that was shot. I have experience with the newcomer to the dog park who thinks that every roughhousing between dogs is a dog fight. If they don't learn fast, they are asked not to come back by the regulars, or in some way it is made clear to them that it would be better if they chose someplace else to bring their dog. Fortunately, however, none of them happened to be cops, or someone's dog may well have been shot.
Nobody knows what was happening to this guy's dog when he decided to shoot.
If he was, he was wrong. If he was right, he was right. It will be sorted out later and nobody here has a clue what occurred. And that includes me...
Travis
[b]If the facts are anything like what was reported, he was way wrong.[/b] Lots of folks gave testimony to the type of dog that was shot. I have experience with the newcomer to the dog park who thinks that every roughhousing between dogs is a dog fight. If they don't learn fast, they are asked not to come back by the regulars, or in some way it is made clear to them that it would be better if they chose someplace else to bring their dog. Fortunately, however, none of them happened to be cops, or someone's dog may well have been shot.
Your entire post reads as though you are some type of dog elitist.
I respectfully remind you that you did not witness the fight.
Not sure what more can be said. You are simply reinforcing my initial thought that you are pissed more that this guy was a cop, than a citizen defending his dog.
Same thing could have happened to a private citizen with a CCW.
A citizen would likely go to jail and lose his 2nd amendment rights. Unless, possibly, they were an attorney and had the legal weight of a law firm behind them. Discharging a firearm in such a situation and setting appears to me as irresponsible and would not be justified per the law governing such in my state, which only allows a shoot to protect human life from deadly force.
I disagree with your entire statement.
Travis
Really? Maybe I shouldn't take ccw classes from LEO trainers. PM me some contact info and have them get in touch with you. I'm sure you can be much help.
If the facts are anything like what was reported...
Aye, there's the rub... WAS what was reported even factual?
This started as an anti-LE rant and continues with each piss-n-moan post by you THR.
The only reason his being a cop was relevant (and therefore mentioned in the title) was the double standard that exists. Were there no double standard, I would be no more likely to mention his profession than if he were a plumber or a brick layer.
Hawkeye if the guy had been a plumber there would have been no story. If there was story you would have never posted a link to it because it does not fit your ant-police attitude.
Who in your town told you that you cannot shoot to defend yourself?
Why would you have a need to shoot a deer in town?
Who told you a CCW is solely for the purpose of defending yourself from another human being?
Travis
I've never shot a dog in town, or for that matter anywhere. I had two I thought I might shoot come along with some trailor trash who moved into the house across the street from us. A St Bernard and a huge wolf cross. They had two St Bernards and both looked about the same except one was particularly mean. You could tell the mean one quickly because it would be snarling and actually foaming at the mouth when it got crossed which could include me and it being in my yard at the same time. The wolf was a coward and would run towards home and wait to see if the St Bernard took anything down. I'm sure they each went 200# plus or minus a few and believe they worked together before and well.
So I talked to a few people including LEO and an attorney or two. They all told me not to let my family or self get hurt, but shooting someone's dog could often mean trouble and likely cost a lot of money or more.
The ccw trainers I went to were very clear that even display, of a firearm very often came with unwelcome consequences. Use of one as a tool to kill would always bring close scrutiny and often a high price tag, monetarily or otherwise.
I never shot one of the moron's dogs though one was less then 2 feet off the muzzle of my 10mm. If the woman in the house hadn't heard me yelling for someone to come out and called the thing in, I could tell you first hand results. There was only a few ounces left on the trigger. The womans old man saw that Glock come out one time too when he stormed into my garage talking trash a few nights later. He was smarter than his dog and stopped in his tracks and got religion at the sight of it. It never rose above my side or pointed anywhere but down but it never got put away until he left either. Things got a little better after that but never so good as when they left in the night.
Not that I care if you disagree or not. I just don't want impressionable people believing they can go shoot somebody's dog with no consequences like some cop might be able to. It won't often work out that way.
If a dog attacks you,CCP or not, you can shoot it,period! You might have some foolish prosecutor levy charges but you'd never get all 12 to convict if the facts proved a dog attack was occurring.
Dog comes at me with teeth bared and unleashed, he get's a Kimber 45 compact unleashed on it!! It's really not even a significant debate and I'm surprised it went this many pages till I saw who the OP was coupled with his usual,confused antics.
Laughing, hard, at Travis putting TRH in his self-painted corner.
That he's got the real reason for the post (Chris' hatred of cops; because they turned him down when he tried to get hired on as one), and TRH/Chris can't address that point is telling.
I wonder what a psych eval of TRH/Chris would reveal? Well, beyond what those agencies already found out during the screening process......
Laughing, hard, at Travis putting TRH in his self-painted corner.
That he's got the real reason for the post (Chris' hatred of cops; because they turned him down when he tried to get hired on as one), and TRH/Chris can't address that point is telling.
I wonder what a psych eval of TRH/Chris would reveal? Well, beyond what those agencies already found out during the screening process......
AND, how does one get an evaluation of a court that wouldn't laugh TRH out of court?
The issue was not a dog attacking a person but another dog and the attack was questionable. Had the St Bernard in my yard came any closer I would most certainly have shot it. But it didn't and I didn't need to be concerned defending myself from charges or suits and the expense those could bring.
You also have the legal right to protect your personal property against attack with sufficient force available to repel the attack. As for a dog, once wouldn't be required to use a part of his body(fist/leg)to repel such a attack.
I believe you were the one who at one point began addressing a dog seemingly coming after a humen. I responded to that but my thoughts above cover the segue,as well.
And I had posted that I was told to do what was necessary to protect myself and family as I would have, not that I need permission to do so or was asking about that situation. I also have two chocolate labs and was asking regarding them and that is where I began to get conditioned information that included the potential for charges and suits. My initial post on this thread was to simply say a ccw holder or any non-leo could receive different treatment in shootin someone's dog than a LEO would. I fully believe that and find the contrary silly.
With due respect to isaac and the other lawyers here, Iowa is not a particularly self-defense friendly state, despite the recent reform of the CCW law. Although the legal issues involved in shooting a dog are presumably less than shooting a human, I can envision an array of sticky problems that would require the services of an attorney. For example, it is my understanding that Iowa courts have held that a homeowner's liability insurance carrier is not required to defend the policy holder in the event of a self-defense shooting. Don't know where shooting a dog would fit in.
Having the potential of thousands of dollars of legal fees, even absent some sort of penalty, is nothing to take lightly.
Now we're getting to it. This has nothing to do with CCPs and the validity of shooting dogs...it's all about having to pay a lawyer.
Well folks...I get to make a living too, ya' know!!
By the way...what would one do if he/she saw a fox in the henhouse, a cougar,wolf or coyote in the cattle pasture? Thought so!!
Bottom line...folks are saying what they would or would not do, far removed from the actual dynamic. It's why things get sorted out. Speculation and gossip make bad facts!!
Who in your town told you that you cannot shoot to defend yourself?
Why would you have a need to shoot a deer in town?
Who told you a CCW is solely for the purpose of defending yourself from another human being?
Travis
I've never shot a dog in town, or for that matter anywhere. I had two I thought I might shoot come along with some trailor trash who moved into the house across the street from us. A St Bernard and a huge wolf cross. They had two St Bernards and both looked about the same except one was particularly mean. You could tell the mean one quickly because it would be snarling and actually foaming at the mouth when it got crossed which could include me and it being in my yard at the same time. The wolf was a coward and would run towards home and wait to see if the St Bernard took anything down. I'm sure they each went 200# plus or minus a few and believe they worked together before and well.
So I talked to a few people including LEO and an attorney or two. They all told me not to let my family or self get hurt, but shooting someone's dog could often mean trouble and likely cost a lot of money or more.
The ccw trainers I went to were very clear that even display, of a firearm very often came with unwelcome consequences. Use of one as a tool to kill would always bring close scrutiny and often a high price tag, monetarily or otherwise.
I never shot one of the moron's dogs though one was less then 2 feet off the muzzle of my 10mm. If the woman in the house hadn't heard me yelling for someone to come out and called the thing in, I could tell you first hand results. There was only a few ounces left on the trigger. The womans old man saw that Glock come out one time too when he stormed into my garage talking trash a few nights later. He was smarter than his dog and stopped in his tracks and got religion at the sight of it. It never rose above my side or pointed anywhere but down but it never got put away until he left either. Things got a little better after that but never so good as when they left in the night.
Not that I care if you disagree or not. I just don't want impressionable people believing they can go shoot somebody's dog with no consequences like some cop might be able to. It won't often work out that way.
Yeah, cause that's what I've been saying dude.
I need to get some of these cop friends that never suffer consequences. I don't like my neighbors dog and I have an ex that is a real pain in the azz. Maybe a "boy in blue" can fix these problems for me with no regard to the law? [bleep]' hilarious!
With due respect to isaac and the other lawyers here, Iowa is not a particularly self-defense friendly state, despite the recent reform of the CCW law. Although the legal issues involved in shooting a dog are presumably less than shooting a human, I can envision an array of sticky problems that would require the services of an attorney. For example, it is my understanding that Iowa courts have held that a homeowner's liability insurance carrier is not required to defend the policy holder in the event of a self-defense shooting. Don't know where shooting a dog would fit in.
Having the potential of thousands of dollars of legal fees, even absent some sort of penalty, is nothing to take lightly.
Paul
If you carry a gun, be ready to pay lawyers. Shoot a dog, cat, person whatever. Even a displaying of it could land you in a civil court.
They're ALL "sticky" situations. If folks don't like it, don't carry.
I need to get some of these cop friends that never suffer consequences. I don't like my neighbors dog and I have an ex that is a real pain in the azz. Maybe a "boy in blue" can fix these problems for me with no regard to the law? [bleep]' hilarious!
This thread just keeps getting better.
Travis
Don't pretend the double standard is not common knowledge. We all know you're too smart for that.
I'm reminded of the time my brother was severely mauled by the German Shepherd down the street. He was fourteen at the time, and the same dog took a chunk out of me when I was eight a couple years earlier. My dad's a doctor, and my bite wounds were capable of treatment without a hospital visit, but my brother was in the hospital for a week. When the cop arrived after the attack and saw my brother's wounds, and the agony he was in, my dad said he wanted to go over there and shoot that dog. Cop told him he'd be in huge legal do do if he did, but offered to go there and do it himself. He said all he had to do was say it was in self-defense and no one would question it. We all know the double standard.
PS My dad turned him down on his offer to shoot the dog. He handled it through the courts and the dog was put down on order.
It sounds like "Bear-Bear" needed killin to me. Only a idiot would bring a dog that is physically capable of inflicting serious injury to a human or another animal to any populated area, off leash. There is no excuse.
I need to get some of these cop friends that never suffer consequences. I don't like my neighbors dog and I have an ex that is a real pain in the azz. Maybe a "boy in blue" can fix these problems for me with no regard to the law? [bleep]' hilarious!
This thread just keeps getting better.
Travis
Don't pretend the double standard is not common knowledge. We all know you're too smart for that.
I'm reminded of the time my brother was severely mauled by the German Shepherd down the street. He was fourteen at the time, and the same dog took a chunk out of me when I was eight a couple years earlier. My dad's a doctor, and my bite wounds were capable of treatment without a hospital visit, but my brother was in the hospital for a week. When the cop arrived after the attack and saw my brother's wounds, and the agony he was in, my dad said he wanted to go over there and shoot that dog. Cop told him he'd be in huge legal do do if he did, but offered to go there and do it himself. He said all he had to do was say it was in self-defense and no one would question it. We all know the double standard.
PS My dad turned him down on his offer to shoot the dog. He handled it through the courts and the dog was put down on order.
That's a great story but it's relevance escapes me.
This "double standard" may exist. In some departments more than others.
But for people to think this guy shot a dog, in a park. And the responding officer walked up and thought "Oh, it's just Johnston... Nothing to see here folks!" Is just utterly ridiculous.
But for people to think this guy shot a dog, in a park. And the responding officer walked up and thought "Oh, it's just Johnston... Nothing to see here folks!" Is just utterly ridiculous.
Travis
I have to believe you know better. You know that if he hadn't been a cop, an arrest would have been made on the spot, followed by nearly automatic charges being pressed. His being a cop meant that didn't happen. Instead, a whitewash process went immediately into action in the hope it would blow over. Only when the community became enraged at the whitewash effort did a "Potemkin Village" investigation proceed.
Of course, the officer wasn't smart either. What did he expect to happen in a place where those kind of people hang out? I mean really, who goes to "Dog parks"? Really?
Sorry, cop, regular citizen, or whomever is a complete DUMBASS if he goes to a dog park and where it is known that there will be dogs running loose and shoots another dog when it appears to get into a tussle with his dog.
Sorry, but only a DUMBASS discharges his firearm in a park with kids and buildings and all kinds of other things around to save A DAMN DOG.
I guess I just don't understand this country anymore. The cop was a DUMBASS. People who treat their dogs like people are DUMBASSES. And the worst combination imaginable is a DUMBASS COP who loves his dog enough to shoot another dog in a public area with kids around and gets away with it because of his badge.
Nobody knows what was happening to this guy's dog when he decided to shoot.
If he was, he was wrong. If he was right, he was right. It will be sorted out later and nobody here has a clue what occurred. And that includes me...
Travis [/quote]
That is as good of a way to leave this topic as I can think of. I base my thoughts on the article given. If facts come around that are different, and they very well could, my opinion might vary. None of us really know what happened and the press is seldom decent enough to post an unbiased article.
But for people to think this guy shot a dog, in a park. And the responding officer walked up and thought "Oh, it's just Johnston... Nothing to see here folks!" Is just utterly ridiculous.
Travis
I have to believe you know better. You know that if he hadn't been a cop, an arrest would have been made on the spot, followed by nearly automatic charges being pressed. His being a cop meant that didn't happen. Instead, a whitewash process went immediately into action in the hope it would blow over. Only when the community became enraged at the whitewash effort did a "Potemkin Village" investigation proceed.
If that's how things are handled in your part of the world, I would either do some serious campaigning or move.
But for people to think this guy shot a dog, in a park. And the responding officer walked up and thought "Oh, it's just Johnston... Nothing to see here folks!" Is just utterly ridiculous.
Travis
I have to believe you know better. You know that if he hadn't been a cop, an arrest would have been made on the spot, followed by nearly automatic charges being pressed. His being a cop meant that didn't happen. Instead, a whitewash process went immediately into action in the hope it would blow over. Only when the community became enraged at the whitewash effort did a "Potemkin Village" investigation proceed.
If that's how things are handled in your part of the world, I would either do some serious campaigning or move.
Nobody knows what was happening to this guy's dog when he decided to shoot.
If he was, he was wrong. If he was right, he was right. It will be sorted out later and nobody here has a clue what occurred. And that includes me...
Travis
That is as good of a way to leave this topic as I can think of. I base my thoughts on the article given. If facts come around that are different, and they very well could, my opinion might vary. None of us really know what happened and the press is seldom decent enough to post an unbiased article. [/quote]
Yep. Off to better things fellas. Have a good morning.
But for people to think this guy shot a dog, in a park. And the responding officer walked up and thought "Oh, it's just Johnston... Nothing to see here folks!" Is just utterly ridiculous.
Travis
I have to believe you know better. You know that if he hadn't been a cop, an arrest would have been made on the spot, followed by nearly automatic charges being pressed. His being a cop meant that didn't happen. Instead, a whitewash process went immediately into action in the hope it would blow over. Only when the community became enraged at the whitewash effort did a "Potemkin Village" investigation proceed.
If that's how things are handled in your part of the world, I would either do some serious campaigning or move.
Well, I must be one of the "bad cops" then, because I have shot and killed dogs both on duty and off. It was usually in a small town, but it was usually a big dog. I never kept track of how many, but after 30 years in law enforcement, it would likely be over a hundred. I have shot them for a variety of reasons, most of which were for either public or personal safety.
My department paid for one, though I don't know why. It was in the mid seventies, and I was walking up a path to a house to make an arrest for a case of spousal assault, and the owner of the attack-trained Doberman Pinscer "sicked his dog" on me. I had enough time to yell at him to call his dog off, he didn't. I shot the dog twice in the chest from about 10 feet and 3 feet. He was running full out at me snarling. I was justified. The shooting was in town, but was done safely and with a mind to a good backstop. I shot another one on a drug warrant for the same reason. The department didn't replace him.
I lived in a small community that was mostly ethnics who would get a dog, never restrain it, allow it to breed at will with the rest of the dogs in town, and then not feed or care for them. They ran in packs, and during the spring and fall, when the thoughts of every dog turned to sex, would hang around outside the public school where all the kiddies were. We used to post notices around the town that any dog found wandering at large and not under control after a certain time and date would be deemed to be running at large, and subject to summary execution. We had too many little kids badly injured by dog packs to do nothing, and a safe shooting by a trained officer was better than Beavis blasting away in anger towards his neighbour's house.
I am a dog lover. I have owned Shepherds, Labs, Chihuahuas, Retrievers, Spaniels, and now a Jack Russell Terrorist. I know dogs! I don't trust dogs -- ANY dogs, not even my own dogs under certain situations, and my dogs are TRAINED and generally well behaved. Dogs lack the ability to reason, that most humans have -- other than liberals, of course.
Y'all have a constitution that says you have been endued with certain inalienable rights by your creator. One of them is the right to keep and bear arms. Wish we had something on paper like that. I DO have the Bible. God gave mankind the "dominion" over all the beasts of the earth. He said also that a righteous man regards the life of his beast. I'm not saying that we should be mean to them. I spend HOURS training mine -- others apparently don't. But if one of mine went rogue, and started getting aggressive towards other humans or animals, I'd be the one to off him, and never even think twice about it. Your dog is your . . . . wait a second, I'm about to use a big word now that some have a hard time with . . . . .
----- R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y -----
In other words, you are responsible for the dumb beast. If you won't be responsible, and make me take your responsibility, you bear the accountability --- two big words in a row --- for what you make me do.
So, I am a b-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-d guy, because:
1.) I spent 30 years as a police officer. 2.) I have killed lots of dogs - both in uniform and out. 3.) I vote conservative. 4.) I allow no one -- NO ONE to hurt the people that I have sworn to serve and protect -- starting with my family, and spreading out from there.
If you get a chance, you should check one out on a Saturday afternoon. If you're a dog lover, they can be a blast for both you and them. Typically, it will look just like the vid I provided a page or so back. Real fights are rare, and when they do occasionally happen (miracle of miracles) they are handled without guns being drawn ... that is unless (for whatever reason) one of the owners feels he's insulated from ordinary legal consequences.
That's a great story but it's relevance escapes me.
He thinks that, if a citizen gets the raw end of the deal in Florida, the cop should get the same treatment in Maryland. He would prefer two wrongs for the sake of consistency than two rights or one right and one wrong.
That's a great story but it's relevance escapes me.
He thinks that, if a citizen gets the raw end of the deal in Florida, the cop should get the same treatment in Maryland. He would prefer two wrongs for the sake of consistency than two rights or one right and one wrong.
To the contrary, had the guy in Florida been a cop and served jail time for shooting those two Chows under those circumstances I'd be just as pissed off as I was his being a non-cop. Makes no difference. My problem is with the double standard.
I wonder what the officer's report has to say, as opposed to the report of the dog's owner.
Uh...would it really matter? Does not an intelligent person who DOESN'T think he has carte blanche to do as it likes, come to a dog park with certain expectations of possible trouble with interaction between dogs? Wouldn't a reasonable person expect that a German Shephard and a Husky might engage in rough play or even a fight? And wouldn't a reasonable person therefore, avoid the park altogether if he was so concerned about it or perhaps, resolve to "assume the risk" when he takes his dog into said park?
Wouldn't a reasonable person expect others to be in control of their possessions, dogs included? Wouldn't a reasonable person defend his own (regardless if he was a cop)?
Depending on your sliding scale of risk assumption, a reasonable person shouldn't even step outside his house.
Maybe some reasonable people shouldn't post because they may show their idiocy? But if they were reasonable, they wouldn't sound like an idiot to start with....
Your offensive tone is obvious Joe. All I wanted to know was the officers side, or an uninvolved bystanders view, and not the dog owner.
Hawkeye let me tell you about the double standard.
A guy I knew was a cop 29 years. He was was driving drunk and involved in a crash where the other driver was killed. The driver of that vehicle was also drunk. The cop done five years and had to do the full five years.
My neighbor hit and killed three women on there way to church on a saturday afernoon. He was drunk. Done 2.5 years for killing all three women.
College kid hit killed a preacher on his way to church. College kid was drunk. He done 120 day shock time in the county jail with 5 year probation.
All the above people had never been in any trouble prior to be involved in the drunk driving crash. All were/are guility of the very same charge.
I wonder what the officer's report has to say, as opposed to the report of the dog's owner.
Uh...would it really matter? Does not an intelligent person who DOESN'T think he has carte blanche to do as it likes, come to a dog park with certain expectations of possible trouble with interaction between dogs? Wouldn't a reasonable person expect that a German Shephard and a Husky might engage in rough play or even a fight? And wouldn't a reasonable person therefore, avoid the park altogether if he was so concerned about it or perhaps, resolve to "assume the risk" when he takes his dog into said park?
Wouldn't a reasonable person expect others to be in control of their possessions, dogs included? Wouldn't a reasonable person defend his own (regardless if he was a cop)?
Depending on your sliding scale of risk assumption, a reasonable person shouldn't even step outside his house.
Maybe some reasonable people shouldn't post because they may show their idiocy? But if they were reasonable, they wouldn't sound like an idiot to start with....
Your offensive tone is obvious Joe. All I wanted to know was the officers side, or an uninvolved bystanders view, and not the dog owner.
sheesh
The cop was an obvious DUMBASS. Now, that condition may have preceded him becoming a cop, but he was a DUMBASS.
But for people to think this guy shot a dog, in a park. And the responding officer walked up and thought "Oh, it's just Johnston... Nothing to see here folks!" Is just utterly ridiculous.
Travis
I have to believe you know better. You know that if he hadn't been a cop, an arrest would have been made on the spot, followed by nearly automatic charges being pressed. His being a cop meant that didn't happen. Instead, a whitewash process went immediately into action in the hope it would blow over. Only when the community became enraged at the whitewash effort did a "Potemkin Village" investigation proceed.
If that's how things are handled in your part of the world, I would either do some serious campaigning or move.
Travis
I've suggested that several times as well. Funny, several on this thread have experience with Joe Citizen shooting a "rough housing" dog with no issues but that means nothing.
It's also amusing to me that none discuss the part of the "double standard" where the arrested LEO has no access to the same plea deals as Joe Citizen.
Now I remember why I started staying away from these threads. Those with an agenda aren't worthy of my time or energy.
I've suggested that several times as well. Funny, several on this thread have experience with Joe Citizen shooting a "rough housing" dog with no issues but that means nothing.
It's also amusing to me that none discuss the part of the "double standard" where the arrested LEO has no access to the same plea deals as Joe Citizen.
Now I remember why I started staying away from these threads. Those with an agenda aren't worthy of my time or energy.
George
The reason dog owners go to dog parks is to give their dogs a chance to roughhouse with other dogs. Otherwise, why go? That's how dogs have fun with each other. If you're quotes around "roughhousing" are meant to suggest that this wasn't a case of roughhousing, then please post the images of the bite punctures on the German Shepherd. Not that that would constitute an excuse for discharging a firearm, let alone shooting the dog, but it would at least be an extenuating circumstance mitigating legal consequences. Real fights break out at dog parks from time to time. Most normal people manage to handle them without guns being drawn, let alone discharged into a dog.
Correlations there, and the sign ain't hard to read.
Well, where's Chris about the non-LEO incident? It would appear that one was investigated and no charges filed. Does not the officer deserve the same benefit of an investigation?
Oh, wait.... there's that damned double standard again, right?
Real fights break out at dog parks from time to time. Most normal people manage to handle them without guns being drawn, let alone discharged into a dog.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess (see how I preface that and don't generalize) that you've never witnessed what a "real" dog-fight looks like when two alphas are involved.
I have had to break up a few and got, literally, torn to schit doing so. Experience....
If you get a chance, you should check one out on a Saturday afternoon. If you're a dog lover, they can be a blast for both you and them. Typically, it will look just like the vid I provided a page or so back. Real fights are rare, and when they do occasionally happen (miracle of miracles) they are handled without guns being drawn ... that is unless (for whatever reason) one of the owners feels he's insulated from ordinary legal consequences.
Dog parks are a lot of fun...I've been to them hundreds of times and have never seen a Dog fight. Dogs behave well when off leash.
Dogs behave well when off leash once pack order is established. Generally that is accomplished without a lot of fanfare because most people who have the type of dogs that will cause problems don't ever put them into that position.
Correlations there, and the sign ain't hard to read.
Well, where's Chris about the non-LEO incident? It would appear that one was investigated and no charges filed. Does not the officer deserve the same benefit of an investigation?
Oh, wait.... there's that damned double standard again, right?
Same with Joe.
He hear's cop involved and instantly his clitoris gets a chubby.
Likewise, he'll accuse the rest of being apologists - thus achieving nippy hard on.
Real fights break out at dog parks from time to time. Most normal people manage to handle them without guns being drawn, let alone discharged into a dog.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess (see how I preface that and don't generalize) that you've never witnessed what a "real" dog-fight looks like when two alphas are involved.
I have had to break up a few and got, literally, torn to schit doing so. Experience....
George
You'd be wrong. My dog has been attacked by hard core alphas on several occasions at dog parks. Unfortunately, Pitbulls tend to attract attacks by hard core alphas because they don't have it in them to 1) be the least intimidated by them, or 2) give the "proper" attack-preventing submissive signals in response. I believe he was attacked seven time, twice by the same dog, in all the years I brought him to dog parks. Only once did I receive an injury in the effort to break them up. My dog was easy to handle. I simply told him to stop and he did. When there was a problem breaking them up (only twice), it was always a problem in getting the other dog to release his hold on mine. In those cases, my dog would stop fighting on command and patiently wait for me to remove the other dog from his face or neck. One time, in my efforts to remove a Boxer from his face, the Boxer bit my hand and punctured my skin. He also bit the hand of his own handler who, after first punching his dog in the face for refusal to release on command, he attempted, as I had, to pry his dog's mouth off. Between the two of us, we finally managed to unlatch the Boxer's grip. He gave me the number of his vet so I could call and confirm that his dog was up on his rabies shots, and that was that. I was armed at the time with a Kahr P9 in an IWB but, for some strange reason, drawing it and killing the Boxer never even occurred to me. Perhaps because I realized going in that I was assuming the risk of a dog fight.
Real fights break out at dog parks from time to time. Most normal people manage to handle them without guns being drawn, let alone discharged into a dog.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess (see how I preface that and don't generalize) that you've never witnessed what a "real" dog-fight looks like when two alphas are involved.
I have had to break up a few and got, literally, torn to schit doing so. Experience....
George
You'd be wrong. My dog has been attacked by hard core alphas on several occasions at dog parks. Unfortunately, Pitbulls tend to attract attacks by hard core alphas because they don't have it in them to 1) be the least intimidated by them, or 2) give the "proper" attack-preventing submissive signals in response. I believe he was attacked seven time, twice by the same dog, in all the years I brought him to dog parks. Only once did I receive an injury in the effort to break them up. My dog was easy to handle. I simply told him to stop and he did. When there was a problem breaking them up (only twice), it was always a problem in getting the other dog to release his hold on my dog. In those cases, my dog would stop fighting on command and patiently wait for me to remove the other dog from his face or neck. One time, in my efforts to remove a Boxer from his face, the Boxer bit my hand and punctured my skin. He also bit the hand of his own handler who, after first punching his dog in the face for refusal to release on command, he attempted, as I had, to pry his dog's mouth off. He gave me the number of his vet so I could call and confirm that his dog was up on his rabies shots, and that was that. I was armed at the time with a Kahr P9 in an IWB but, for some strange reason, drawing it and killing the Boxer never even occurred to me.
RWE I knew better than to read you post while I was eating lunch....damn near choked to death.....
George I have a serious question for you. What happens if you get a k9 that will fight with other dogs? Do these wash out before they make it to the street or do you just deal with it?
I've never been to one and don't think they even exist around here. Rochester, the "city" (I'm not sure what you folks that live around actual cities would call it) next to where I live has a "town square" where I've seen people walk their dogs. That would be about it.
A dog park is something I hope I never have the misfortune to experience.
I've never been to one and don't think they even exist around here. Rochester, the "city" (I'm not sure what you folks that live around actual cities would call it) next to where I live has a "town square" where I've seen people walk their dogs. That would be about it.
A dog park is something I hope I never have the misfortune to experience.
George
Oh yeah. They're just terrible places. Goodness me, they ought to be outlawed.
Why is that, Chris? Your point's been countered and check called. I'd say "check mate", but the latter when in conjunction with canines might just be a bit much for ya....
Real fights break out at dog parks from time to time. Most normal people manage to handle them without guns being drawn, let alone discharged into a dog.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess (see how I preface that and don't generalize) that you've never witnessed what a "real" dog-fight looks like when two alphas are involved.
I have had to break up a few and got, literally, torn to schit doing so. Experience....
George
You'd be wrong. My dog has been attacked by hard core alphas on several occasions at dog parks. Unfortunately, Pitbulls tend to attract attacks by hard core alphas because they don't have it in them to 1) be the least intimidated by them, or 2) give the "proper" attack-preventing submissive signals in response. I believe he was attacked seven time, twice by the same dog, in all the years I brought him to dog parks. Only once did I receive an injury in the effort to break them up. My dog was easy to handle. I simply told him to stop and he did. When there was a problem breaking them up (only twice), it was always a problem in getting the other dog to release his hold on mine. In those cases, my dog would stop fighting on command and patiently wait for me to remove the other dog from his face or neck. One time, in my efforts to remove a Boxer from his face, the Boxer bit my hand and punctured my skin. He also bit the hand of his own handler who, after first punching his dog in the face for refusal to release on command, he attempted, as I had, to pry his dog's mouth off. Between the two of us, we finally managed to unlatch the Boxer's grip. He gave me the number of his vet so I could call and confirm that his dog was up on his rabies shots, and that was that. I was armed at the time with a Kahr P9 in an IWB but, for some strange reason, drawing it and killing the Boxer never even occurred to me. Perhaps because I realized going in that I was assuming the risk of a dog fight.
In other words George, no. He has not been involved with two true alphas in a fight.
George I have a serious question for you. What happens if you get a k9 that will fight with other dogs? Do these wash out before they make it to the street or do you just deal with it?
In a perfect world we pick it up in testing and the dog never makes it into training. We generally have enough good dogs to pick from that we don't have to work with a dog fighter. Our contact in Germany has done an outstanding job of not sening us dog-aggressive candidates.
My old man, however, is one of the exceptions. His drives were off the chart and he was sent over for me. Some handlers can deal with it, some can't. A handler that isn't 100% on top of his obedience can't do it. Ditto for a handler that lets his dog walk on him at all.
In some ways it handicapped me as I couldn't work a tandem track with another dog, etc. In other ways it made my life easier. If I'm on a track and a dog fires up in a yard and he just keeps tracking, I know he's DEEP into odor.
My new dog has no such issues and is going to be much less stressful.
Never said they should be outlawed or that they were terrible, I just have no desire to go to them. I don't care about/enjoy going to the beach either but could care less if anybody else does.
If you like dog parks, enjoy them. I have too little spare time to waste. I don't have to go farther than the woods behind my house for my dogs to get exercise.
In other words George, no. He has not been involved with two true alphas in a fight.
TRH,
What's up with the citizen in Washington?
Travis
If you own a dog with the physical power to cause real harm, YOU MUST BE THE ALPHA, regardless of the dog's natural inclinations. He must submit to your commands instantly, regardless of circumstance, or you're doing something wrong.
As for Washington, could you elaborate? Not sure what you're referring to.
It's normally a long lunch. Beer don't hurt... much... except when it comes through the nostrils.
If you think we're funny, though, don't EVER get near ltppowell when he's had even a couple. That [bleep] had me laughing so hard I had to sit down on the ground.... and the rest of the crew on the TN pig hunt last year wasn't far behind me in guffaws. Pat, is a FUNNY bastid.
In other words George, no. He has not been involved with two true alphas in a fight.
TRH,
What's up with the citizen in Washington?
Travis
If you own a dog with the physical power to cause real harm, YOU MUST BE THE ALPHA, regardless of the dog's natural inclinations. He must submit to your commands instantly, regardless of circumstance, or you're doing something wrong.
As for Washington, could you elaborate. Not sure what you're referring to.
MUCH being said there; if you've the stomach to follow the sign.
You had to be there Hawk, kinda a private joke from the TN get together.
BTW, so do I and have been most of my adult life.
Yep, yep, and yep.
Of course, that'd require Chris actually meet with someone from the 'fire; which he has avoided doing thus far, even though offers and proximity would make such an easy problem to remedy.
TRH/Chris is still carrying that hurt and grudge from the several law enforcement agencies that rejected him, thus preventing him from playing "cop", though I suspect the "god" part he still tries to play with adolescents under his "tutelage".
You have to wonder what an unmarried, un-attached, middle aged male teacher with supposedly the degrees to do a multitude of other things is trying to hide by constantly casting stones at a profession that snubbed him... And the one that would coincidentally investigate criminal activity...
Cops occassionally screw up, and or are just bad or wrong. However, it makes it difficult to not view any story about such posted by TRH with some skepticism. A lot of it, in fact.
TRH/Chris is still carrying that hurt and grudge from the several law enforcement agencies that rejected him, thus preventing him from playing "cop", though I suspect the "god" part he still tries to play with adolescents under his "tutelage".
You have to wonder what an unmarried, un-attached, middle aged male teacher with supposedly the degrees to do a multitude of other things is trying to hide by constantly casting stones at a profession that snubbed him... And the one that would coincidentally investigate criminal activity...
Cops occassionally screw up, and or are just bad or wrong. However, it makes it difficult to not view any story about such posted by TRH with some skepticism. A lot of it, in fact.
If you're a credulous enough sort to believe one-tenth of anything that Nimrod has to say (apt name, by the way), then I guess that perspective is 100% understandable, and you ought not be held to blame for it.
TRH/Chris is still carrying that hurt and grudge from the several law enforcement agencies that rejected him, thus preventing him from playing "cop", though I suspect the "god" part he still tries to play with adolescents under his "tutelage".
You have to wonder what an unmarried, un-attached, middle aged male teacher with supposedly the degrees to do a multitude of other things is trying to hide by constantly casting stones at a profession that snubbed him... And the one that would coincidentally investigate criminal activity...
Cops occassionally screw up, and or are just bad or wrong. However, it makes it difficult to not view any story about such posted by TRH with some skepticism. A lot of it, in fact.
If you're a credulous enough sort to believe one-tenth of anything that Nimrod has to say (apt name, by the way), then I guess that perspective is 100% understandable and you ought not be held to blame for it.
All I know is you clearly have a hard on for cops in general. Just sayin'.
Your choice of thread topics and war stories belies this. You only care about the double standard if the police officer ends up getting better treatment than the non-police. You are a psychologist, so you obviously realize this.
No, you have no problem with cops serving in their appropriate role in society as you define it.
The fact is that the people of NH most likely don't care how you want the police to function. The folks in my AO most likely don't care how the police in Keene, NH function. Local policing is a local issue as long as it's done in an ethical/legal manner.
Your choice of thread topics and war stories belies this. You only care about the double standard if the police officer ends up getting better treatment than the non-police. You are a psychologist, so you obviously realize this.
He's also damned near perfect living proof that the only reason most people go into psychology is because they are too [bleep] up with their own problems to fix them, so they have to concentrate on someone else's.
Your choice of thread topics and war stories belies this. You only care about the double standard if the police officer ends up getting better treatment than the non-police. You are a psychologist, so you obviously realize this.
The role of the police officer in society is, by nature, a great potential threat to liberty. I know that partly because I understand human psychology within the context of arbitrary power in combination with muted responsibility for personal conduct.
Your choice of thread topics and war stories belies this. You only care about the double standard if the police officer ends up getting better treatment than the non-police. You are a psychologist, so you obviously realize this.
The role of the police officer in society is, by nature, a great potential threat to liberty. I know that partly because I understand human psychology within the context of arbitrary power in combination with muted responsibility for personal conduct.
In other words, he hasn't a clue, and stepped on his dik, again.
I know that partly because I understand human psychology within the context of arbitrary power in combination with muted responsibility for personal conduct.
Arbitrary power in combination with muted responsbility? That's downright funny right there.
MONROE, Wash. - Violence at a Monroe dog park this week has kicked emotions into high gear for two dog owners who both tell different versions of what happened.
One owner, Cassie Dee, is livid that someone shot her beloved bulldog, Bella, in the neck while it wrestled with another dog.
"I just feel - I just feel angry," she says.
She says Bella was shot in the neck at a place where she was supposed to be having fun - a Monroe dog park.
"It was used with deadly force - it was meant to kill my dog," she says.
The incident all started Tuesday afternoon when Bella and her pup, Lee-Lu, started wrestling with Deever, a golden retriever, at Wiggly Field.
Cassie Dee says Deever's owner, David Rasmussen, overreacted.
"Frantically, he said, 'Leave the park, and I am going to shoot your dog,'" she says.
Dee says Rasmussen tried to separate the dogs, yelling, hitting Bella with his gun, and then shooting her.
But Dee says Rasmussen's retriever was never in danger.
"They were scrapping - that was it. With two adults there to take care of it," she says.
But there are two sides to every story.
Rasmussen says the bulldog grabbed on to Deever's throat and wouldn't let go. He says he pistol-whipped Bella trying to get her off of Deever and says the gun accidentally went off.
"That's what it took to to get him off my dog," Rasmussen says.
He denies telling Dee to leave the park and that he would shoot her dog.
"No, no. What I said to her was, 'Get him off. Get him off my dog,'" he says.
Deever was also injured during the fracas.
Now police are investigating and say the shooting was an accident. Rasmussen has a concealed weapons permit.
"It appears that (Rasmussen) was attempting to break up a fight and believed the bulldog would kill his dog," says Debbie Willis of the Monroe police.
Officers will wrap up their investigation and forward the case on to the Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office.
As for Bella, she'll be released from the veterinarian and go home by Thursday night.
It must be very hard for him to keep on "his game" when the pain of being told that he couldn't be a cop (perhaps because he deep down wants to be the type of cop he's always imagining any/all others to be?) is pervasive throughout all of his LEO readings/posts.
He'll run out on that limb in an instant, and blather on and on about "police brutality/double standards", and when facts show him to be a complete [bleep] fool, he can't/won't admit the mistake. Doing so would shame him further through validation of law enforcement, and redeem a cop; that duo is just untenable to Chris at this point.
And, to think he has direct influence on children throughout the year.... Hopefully, they can see/smell BS as well as most here.
It's city ordinance. This is the capital remember.
If a deer attacks someone. The city police, in conjunction with FWP, have killed over 700 deer so the deer problem is not as bad as it was. I've only seen about a half dozen deer in my neck of the woods since the thinning.
Only in Helena and I'm told in East Helena. Fortunately, I've never had to put it to the test.
It must be very hard for him to keep on "his game" when the pain of being told that he couldn't be a cop (perhaps because he deep down wants to be the type of cop he's always imagining any/all others to be?) is pervasive throughout all of his LEO readings/posts.
He'll run out on that limb in an instant, and blather on and on about "police brutality/double standards", and when facts show him to be a complete [bleep] fool, he can't/won't admit the mistake. Doing so would shame him further through validation of law enforcement, and redeem a cop; that duo is just untenable to Chris at this point.
And, to think he has direct influence on children throughout the year.... Hopefully, they can see/smell BS as well as most here.
You've obviously had this rodeo before.
I honestly try and stay out of these type of threads. I guess I was just bored last night. Eye opening though.
It's city ordinance. This is the capital remember.
If a deer attacks someone. The city police, in conjunction with FWP, have killed over 700 deer so the deer problem is not as bad as it was. I've only seen about a half dozen deer in my neck of the woods since the thinning.
Only in Helena and I'm told in East Helena. Fortunately, I've never had to put it to the test.
It must be very hard for him to keep on "his game" when the pain of being told that he couldn't be a cop (perhaps because he deep down wants to be the type of cop he's always imagining any/all others to be?) is pervasive throughout all of his LEO readings/posts.
It must be very hard for him to keep on "his game" when the pain of being told that he couldn't be a cop (perhaps because he deep down wants to be the type of cop he's always imagining any/all others to be?) is pervasive throughout all of his LEO readings/posts.
He'll run out on that limb in an instant, and blather on and on about "police brutality/double standards", and when facts show him to be a complete [bleep] fool, he can't/won't admit the mistake. Doing so would shame him further through validation of law enforcement, and redeem a cop; that duo is just untenable to Chris at this point.
And, to think he has direct influence on children throughout the year.... Hopefully, they can see/smell BS as well as most here.
You've obviously had this rodeo before.
I honestly try and stay out of these type of threads. I guess I was just bored last night. Eye opening though.
Travis
He gets on a high horse when other folks get cornered and hoisted by their own petard, regaling them back into the argument... But, when it's him, and he's caught, cornered and made, he'll dodge (poorly), try to change the subject to something completely off-original-topic, or lastly, he'll just put you on ignore if you keep nailing him repeatedly.
It must be very hard for him to keep on "his game" when the pain of being told that he couldn't be a cop (perhaps because he deep down wants to be the type of cop he's always imagining any/all others to be?) is pervasive throughout all of his LEO readings/posts.
Freudian, in a big way....
Ya think?
And, folks wonder why Chris put me on "ignore"....
Not every situation where a gun goes off and a bullet hits a dog is the same. Both shooters were clearly in the wrong, but the cop was more so in that his shooting was admittedly intentional. One is a matter of recklessness while the other is a matter of malice. The law deals with the two differently.
Not every situation where a gun goes off and a bullet hits a dog is the same. Both shooters were clearly in the wrong, but the cop was more so in that his shooting was admittedly intentional. One is a matter of recklessness while the other is a matter of malice. The law deals with the two differently.
And, you have no proof of either, nor anything else. You are, again, guessing and with a heavy bias.
Some days, you really do make this schit WAY too easy.
Not every situation where a gun goes off and a bullet hits a dog is the same. Both shooters were clearly in the wrong, but the cop was more so in that his shooting was admittedly intentional. One is a matter of recklessness while the other is a matter of malice. The law deals with the two differently.
I thank you for informing me that all shootings are not the same.
But you have stated you have a problem with "double standards". Had the shooter in Washington been a cop and not been arrested you quite obviously would have cried foul there as well.
I thank you for informing me that all shootings are not the same.
But you have stated you have a problem with "double standards". Had the shooter in Washington been a cop and not been arrested you quite obviously would have cried foul there as well.
Travis
As stated, some days this schit is just TOO easy....
All police should be held to a higher standard than the civilian because police have special privileges that the civilian does not.
Wait, I thought I remembered you being one of the ones that claimed that any special classes of people within the nation was an abomination, or something like that.
So, which is it? Do we have special classes, or don't we?
All police should be held to a higher standard than the civilian because police have special privileges that the civilian does not.
Wait, I thought I remembered you being one of the ones that claimed that any special classes of people within the nation was an abomination, or something like that.
So, which is it? Do we have special classes, or don't we?
I think you have me mixed up with someone else.
But to answer your question police by the nature of their job are special people. Whether than puts them in a class by themselves or not I don't know.
Police enforce the law. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for the civilian it certainly is no excuse for the police.
When I worked for the Department of Revenue we were held to a higher standard on our taxes because we were revenuers even those of us who did not in anyway enforce revenue laws.
As a professional tax preparer, I'm held to a higher standard then a civilian would be after all I'm suppose to know the law.
That's the way it should be. Whether or not that puts us in classes or not I don't know.
All police should be held to a higher standard than the civilian because police have special privileges that the civilian does not.
Wait, I thought I remembered you being one of the ones that claimed that any special classes of people within the nation was an abomination, or something like that.
So, which is it? Do we have special classes, or don't we?
I think you have me mixed up with someone else.
But to answer your question police by the nature of their job are special people. Whether than puts them in a class by themselves or not I don't know.
Police enforce the law. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for the civilian it certainly is no excuse for the police.
When I worked for the Department of Revenue we were held to a higher standard on our taxes because we were revenuers even those of us who did not in anyway enforce revenue laws.
As a professional tax preparer, I'm held to a higher standard then a civilian would be after all I'm suppose to know the law.
That's the way it should be. Whether or not that puts us in classes or not I don't know.
Yeah, right. You guys are not getting (or pretending not to get) the very fundamental difference between a dog park (an enclosure where everyone is presumed to understand that dogs are running loose and roughhousing) and walking your dog on a leash in an area where loose dogs are a violation of the law. When you take your dog into a dog park enclosure you are presumed to understand there's a risk of a fight, and to be willing to cooperate with others in breaking up such fights without resorting to deadly force. Not the case with walking your dog elsewhere. No one is presumed to have agreed to any such possibility when on a walk with their dog. Night and day. Not even close. Man, are you guys reaching.
You guys are not getting (or pretending not to get) the very fundamental difference between a dog park (an enclosure where everyone is presumed to understand that dogs are running loose and roughhousing) and walking your dog on a leash in an area where loose dogs are a violation of the law. When you take your dog into a dog park enclosure you are presumed to understand there's a risk of a fight, and to be willing to cooperate with others in breaking up such fights without resorting to deadly force. Not the case with walking your dog elsewhere. No one is presumed to have agreed to any such possibility when on a walk with their dog. Night and day. Not even close. Man, are you guys reaching.
I dunno, these dog parks sound like a menace to society. It sounds like Michael Vick could have saved some grief by simply opening a chain of commercial dog parks.
You guys are not getting (or pretending not to get) the very fundamental difference between a dog park (an enclosure where everyone is presumed to understand that dogs are running loose and roughhousing) and walking your dog on a leash in an area where loose dogs are a violation of the law. When you take your dog into a dog park enclosure you are presumed to understand there's a risk of a fight, and to be willing to cooperate with others in breaking up such fights without resorting to deadly force. Not the case with walking your dog elsewhere. No one is presumed to have agreed to any such possibility when on a walk with their dog. Night and day. Not even close. Man, are you guys reaching.
I dunno, these dog parks sound like a menace to society. It sounds like Michael Vick could have saved some grief by simply opening a chain of commercial dog parks.
Now, that there is a multi-million dollar idea....
All police should be held to a higher standard than the civilian because police have special privileges that the civilian does not.
thought you lived in Montana.....you really need to get the [bleep] away from Helena....the bureaucratic stupidity is catchy i swear.....either that or they drop their brains off with ingwe's dogs
in Wolf Point, Montana i coulda shot the dog and the cops wouldnt give me a ticket, discharging a firearm within city limits or not.....i really know why i stay out on the flats as much as possible....
Returned home last evening to find a stray pit bull-X trying to dig a cat out from under the machine shed and another cat dead on the lawn. 257'bob and 120gr Nosler played rough with him! The SOB - I never even buried it - took him out in the pasture and threw him on a log pile - the crows and flies can finish it.
Returned home last evening to find a stray pit bull-X trying to dig a cat out from under the machine shed and another cat dead on the lawn. 257'bob and 120gr Nosler played rough with him! The SOB - I never even buried it - took him out in the pasture and threw him on a log pile - the crows and flies can finish it.
Returned home last evening to find a stray pit bull-X trying to dig a cat out from under the machine shed and another cat dead on the lawn. 257'bob and 120gr Nosler played rough with him! The SOB - I never even buried it - took him out in the pasture and threw him on a log pile - the crows and flies can finish it.
Johnny $
Would you be my role model?
Hawkeye, Actually, I'd rather have shot the dumb schit who dropped him off. I never want to kill someone's pet. It was obvious that this beast had been collared most of his life. I wouldn't be surprised if he had been chained to a clothes line post in some dick's back yard and they just decided to get rid of him by taking out in the country and kicking him out of the vehicle. I hate, really really hate people who do that.
All police should be held to a higher standard than the civilian because police have special privileges that the civilian does not.
thought you lived in Montana.....you really need to get the [bleep] away from Helena....the bureaucratic stupidity is catchy i swear.....either that or they drop their brains off with ingwe's dogs
in Wolf Point, Montana i coulda shot the dog and the cops wouldnt give me a ticket, discharging a firearm within city limits or not.....i really know why i stay out on the flats as much as possible....
Helena is different alright, that's why it's the capital.
All police should be held to a higher standard than the civilian because police have special privileges that the civilian does not.
I would love to know what these special privileges are. I have, apparently, been missing out all these years.
BTW folks, look to the above statement if you want to know why cops feel the need to look after each other. You can't have it both ways: It's the same standard across the board or we're a "special class" and are going to watch each out for each other.
All police should be held to a higher standard than the civilian because police have special privileges that the civilian does not.
I would love to know what these special privileges are. I have, apparently, been missing out all these years.
BTW folks, look to the above statement if you want to know why cops feel the need to look after each other. You can't have it both ways: It's the same standard across the board or we're a "special class" and are going to watch each out for each other.
George
i know most the local cops cant go out and have a drink at the bars on their off hours in civi's without getting constantly harassed.....course it is a small town and uniform or not ppl know yah.....done a trip or two with the police chief to the next town over to sit and bowl and drink a beer cause he cant go out and relax at home....
When lawyers sense cops having a bad day or they just seem down in the dumps, we sometimes let them hang out with us for a little while!! It really does seem to help.
My kids and neighborhood folks love it when the Harley riding coppers I represent roll up in our driveway pulling their best Ponch and Jon. My kids like the guys and the neighbors think I'm getting shackled and taken away.
I guess I've been most fortunate. Cops have been a positive influence in mine and my kid's life. They get benefit of the doubt as a rule,with me!
When lawyers sense cops having a bad day or they just seem down in the dumps, we sometimes let them hang out with us for a little while!! It really does seem to help.
When lawyers sense cops having a bad day or they just seem down in the dumps, we sometimes let them hang out with us for a little while!! It really does seem to help.
My kids and neighborhood folks love it when the Harley riding coppers I represent roll up in our driveway pulling their best Ponch and Jon. My kids like the guys and the neighbors think I'm getting shackled and taken away.
I guess I've been most fortunate. Cops have been a positive influence in mine and my kid's life. They get benefit of the doubt as a rule,with me!
I actually like lawyers. I usually get along better with defense attorney's than prosecutors. Weird.
All police should be held to a higher standard than the civilian because police have special privileges that the civilian does not.
I would love to know what these special privileges are. I have, apparently, been missing out all these years.
BTW folks, look to the above statement if you want to know why cops feel the need to look after each other. You can't have it both ways: It's the same standard across the board or we're a "special class" and are going to watch each out for each other.
George
I know not all jurisdictions are the same but around here all police officers can walk into any building armed and a civilian with a CCW cannot. That's a big privilege.
Apparently, in some jurisdictions an officer can shoot a dog and until somebody complains walk away with a problem. I'll admit that chances of anyone around here police or CCW civilian shooting a dog without repercussions is slim to none at all.
In some jurisdictions officers commit felonies for years before they are cought. I smell a rat with that one.
Officers have more discretion in deadly force than any CCW civilian does.
Heck, you guys know the drill I don't have to keep on.
Not every situation where a gun goes off and a bullet hits a dog is the same. Both shooters were clearly in the wrong, but the cop was more so in that his shooting was admittedly intentional. One is a matter of recklessness while the other is a matter of malice. The law deals with the two differently.
Holy shiite that's hialrious. If the off duty said it went off accidentally you would be screaming bloody hell any damn way.
...Officers have more discretion in deadly force than any CCW civilian does...
You couldn't be more wrong.
The Seattle police officer who reportedly shot a known member of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang at a weeklong rally in South Dakota was previously disciplined, once for taunting fans at a football game and another time for allegedly threatening to shoot a restaurant manager who had asked him to leave.
Police officials have not released the name of the officer involved in the shooting, or four other officers with him at the time, but sources have confirmed he is a 43-year-old detective who works for the Seattle police Pawn Shop Squad and is a police guild board member. The officer also is known throughout the department as an avid motorcycle rider.
South Dakota investigators have obtained videotape of the shooting that Seattle union leaders believe will exonerate the officer of any wrongdoing in the altercation that left a Hells Angels member wounded.
"I think it's going to be pretty evident that the officer was fearful of his safety and life and that's why he had to fire," said Sgt. Rich O'Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officers' Guild.
O'Neill said Seattle officers are now concerned for all of their safety because of the Hells Angels' reputation of violent retaliation if one of their members is attacked. "There is a real threat," he said.
Authorities have said the officer and four others at the scene all identified themselves as members of the Iron Pigs, a motorcycle club made up mostly of police officers and firefighters.
Of the other four officers at the scene, one has been identified as a sergeant who at one time ran the security detail for former Seattle Mayor Norm Rice.
The two men were with a group of officers who had traveled to Sturgis, S.D., to join the annual motorcycle rally there.
The shooting happened around 1 a.m. Saturday at the Loud American Roadhouse, a popular bar that held as many as 500 patrons at the time. Sturgis police reported that there was an altercation between some Hells Angels gang members in the bar and members of the Iron Pigs, all of them Seattle police officers on vacation.
Authorities have not said what led to the confrontation, though sources said it might have been sparked because the officers were displaying colors or other identifying markings associated with their club.
At some point, the confrontation became physical, and one of the officers allegedly fired two shots, striking and wounding one of the Hells Angels.
O'Neill said he spoke with some of the officers who attended the Sturgis motorcycle rally and that based on early indications, he believes the officer was defending himself from a "completely unprovoked" attack that might have involved choking.
"It's unfortunate that it had to end like this," O'Neill said. "All the same, the indications are that somebody was totally jumped and beaten. If that's what the investigation says, they have a right to defend themselves."
Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske has relieved all five officers of duty, pending the outcome of the investigation by South Dakota authorities, according to a statement released on Saturday.
The chief also sent a team of detectives to Sturgis to learn more about the incident, including homicide Lt. Jim Dermody, homicide detectives and a sergeant with the Office of Professional Accountability. The team arrived Saturday, but there was no information available on Sunday as to what they might have learned.
"Our job isn't to interfere with the investigation, but to gather information for our internal purposes," said Seattle police spokesman Sean Whitcomb.
The group of Seattle officers has attended past Sturgis motorcycle gatherings without problems, O'Neill said.
Federal law allows off-duty officers to carry their guns, and the Seattle Police Department's manual gives each officer the option to carry one while off duty.
"One of the reasons for that federal law is that police officers, unlike anyone else, are almost on duty all the time," he said. "You never know when you might run into someone who you arrested."
All are looking forward to "getting back to this side of the mountains," he said.
The officer implicated in the shooting has not been arrested or charged with any crime, but has been disciplined in the past. The detective was suspended for two days for conduct unbecoming an officer during a Seahawks football game on Jan. 8, 2005.
He arrested a fan he said had assaulted him, but other witnesses said the officer's comments at the conclusion of a game the Seahawks lost to the Rams had provoked the crowd. He allegedly taunted the Seahawks fans by pretending to cry like a baby and yelling out, "Go Rams."
The man he arrested had objected, yelled at him and, during a melee, the detective was struck with a megaphone the man was holding.
The officer contended the man had assaulted him and so arrested him, but other witnesses said the blow was accidental.
According to the city's investigation documents on the matter, a witness told investigators, " 'Had the officer not said a word, it would never have happened." She adds police "are supposed to keep the peace, not rile up the crowd.' "
The department disciplined the detective but continued to permit him to work off-duty security at the football stadium if he worked in a different part of the field.
On Aug. 12, 2005, he was again accused of getting into an altercation, that time at a Tacoma restaurant while off duty.
He at one point allegedly threatened to shoot the restaurant manager, who had asked him to leave.
According to internal documents, Tacoma city authorities declined to prosecute the officer, finding there was no evidence that he intended to carry out his threat, but he received a written reprimand for the incident.
But at least one witness said most regular patrons of the restaurant knew he was a cop, and that he was known to always carry a gun.
The police guild is offering moral support to the officer and his family, O'Neill said, and the union's attorney is aware of the shooting.
"The decision to fire is up to each individual officer. Only you know when you feel the time is right and your life is in danger," he said, adding, "It's a traumatic incident any time someone has to fire a handgun."
Federal law allows off-duty officers to carry their guns, and the Seattle Police Department's manual gives each officer the option to carry one while off duty.
"One of the reasons for that federal law is that police officers, unlike anyone else, are almost on duty all the time," he said. "You never know when you might run into someone who you arrested."
Just another "civillian"....when "the shift ends"....
Federal law allows off-duty officers to carry their guns, and the Seattle Police Department's manual gives each officer the option to carry one while off duty.
"One of the reasons for that federal law is that police officers, unlike anyone else, are almost on duty all the time," he said. "You never know when you might run into someone who you arrested."
Just another "civillian"....when "the shift ends"....
Right....if he were "just another civillian" he would have been prosecuted for not only carrying a firearm in a licensed establishment but for host of other charges.
Instead he walked.
But he wasn't a Biker...he was a cop first and foremost...huh?
"It's unfortunate that it had to end like this," O'Neill said. "All the same, the indications are that somebody was totally jumped and beaten. If that's what the investigation says, they have a right to defend themselves."
If this is how it actually went down, then joe citizen would be justified as well. I concede he may have been charged with a ccw violation for carrying in the bar.
Not even in Canada! You mess up and do something that is unbecoming a police officer, and even though you were "just another citizen" you are subject to charges under the Police Services Act, with penalties that run from censure to 20 days pay, to reversing in rank, to dismissal -- all when you were "off duty, and just another citizen."
Because we are subject to call in, if we get loaded up with alcohol, and can't come in to work, the charge is being unfit for duty due to the consumption of alcohol. See above for Ipenalty.
I've been retired now for just about 9 years, and I still meet people on the street and in stores that I have arrested in the past -- they still know me, and ask if I am still a police officer. I tell them no, and ask them if that makes any difference? I was pretty active in criminal investigations, and drug enforcement, so I don't meet too many folks who remember me helping them with a flat tire.
Just another citizen when the shift ends? HARDLY -- not even when the career ends. If I could carry concealed, I would. I can't -- my weapon is tactical communications.
That's wrong. Anyone who has retired in good stead from law enforcement should be allowed to carry anyway they choose. No country is exempt from dumb laws.
"The killing of the dog in Severn is a sad situation that should be investigated carefully to determine if the incident was caused by a dangerous dog or a dangerous person," she said.
Based on what's in the article, there's not much doubt who's the dangerous one.
More manage & control from the brotherhood of LEO's.
Guy should be taken off duty & given a full & independent psych review & then summarily discharged form whatever agency he is a member of.
"The killing of the dog in Severn is a sad situation that should be investigated carefully to determine if the incident was caused by a dangerous dog or a dangerous person," she said.
Based on what's in the article, there's not much doubt who's the dangerous one.
More manage & control from the brotherhood of LEO's.
Guy should be taken off duty & given a full & independent psych review & then summarily discharged form whatever agency he is a member of.
Same thing could have happened to a private citizen with a CCW.
A citizen would likely go to jail and lose his 2nd amendment rights. Unless, possibly, they were an attorney and had the legal weight of a law firm behind them. Discharging a firearm in such a situation and setting appears to me as irresponsible and would not be justified per the law governing such in my state, which only allows a shoot to protect human life from deadly force.
Right....if he were "just another civillian" he would have been prosecuted for not only carrying a firearm in a licensed establishment but for host of other charges.
Instead he walked.
But he wasn't a Biker...he was a cop first and foremost...huh?
You're proving yourself to be a bigger idiot than I ever gave you credit for, which is a feat I thought was pretty much impossible.
...Officers have more discretion in deadly force than any CCW civilian does...
You couldn't be more wrong.
I've seen officers or I should have said read of officers forgiven for deadly force that no civilian would ever have been forgiven for. It goes with the job. If I had the same rights as a police officer quite frankly I would have no need for a police force I would just pack and take care of my own problems but alas in the real world ruled by bureaucrats that's not the case.
Federal law allows off-duty officers to carry their guns, and the Seattle Police Department's manual gives each officer the option to carry one while off duty.
"One of the reasons for that federal law is that police officers, unlike anyone else, are almost on duty all the time," he said. "You never know when you might run into someone who you arrested."
Just another "civillian"....when "the shift ends"....
That's what I'm talking about. I can only carry in Montana and states that Montana has a reciprocal agreement with. I also cannot carry in any public building, no bars, and not to many commercial building. A police officer on or off duty can carry in all of them.
Extend me the same privileges of a police officer and I'll have no need for a police force.
Not even in Canada! You mess up and do something that is unbecoming a police officer, and even though you were "just another citizen" you are subject to charges under the Police Services Act, with penalties that run from censure to 20 days pay, to reversing in rank, to dismissal -- all when you were "off duty, and just another citizen."
Because we are subject to call in, if we get loaded up with alcohol, and can't come in to work, the charge is being unfit for duty due to the consumption of alcohol. See above for Ipenalty.
I've been retired now for just about 9 years, and I still meet people on the street and in stores that I have arrested in the past -- they still know me, and ask if I am still a police officer. I tell them no, and ask them if that makes any difference? I was pretty active in criminal investigations, and drug enforcement, so I don't meet too many folks who remember me helping them with a flat tire.
Just another citizen when the shift ends? HARDLY -- not even when the career ends. If I could carry concealed, I would. I can't -- my weapon is tactical communications.
Ah, but your country treats you as just another citizen when the job's done. Here in the states that isn't the case which makes a police officer a privileged citizen whether they like to admit it or not.
BTW: Based on what you have said above you probably should be allowed to carry as a retired officer.
Here in the states that isn't the case which makes a police officer a privileged citizen whether they like to admit it or not.
Yeah, privileged: - No access to the same plea deals that Joe Citizen has available to him. - You lose your job if convicted of a DWI or Reckless Op. - Have a shooting under investigation for much longer than Joe Citizen because the AG's Office would love nothing better than to make his/her career off the back of a cop. Yeah, great privileges.
Yes we can carry nation wide but I support the same for Joe Citizen. It's too bad we as a firearm/shooting community can't get our schit together enough to ram it through. Too much "us vs. them" I guess /
Federal law allows off-duty officers to carry their guns, and the Seattle Police Department's manual gives each officer the option to carry one while off duty.
"One of the reasons for that federal law is that police officers, unlike anyone else, are almost on duty all the time," he said. "You never know when you might run into someone who you arrested."
Just another "civillian"....when "the shift ends"....
That's what I'm talking about. I can only carry in Montana and states that Montana has a reciprocal agreement with. I also cannot carry in any public building, no bars, and not to many commercial building. A police officer on or off duty can carry in all of them.
Extend me the same privileges of a police officer and I'll have no need for a police force.
Derby so if you can carry a gun anywhere you want you will have no use for police...hmmm Who are going to call when the neighbors dies? Who you are going to call to pull your a$$ out of car wreck? I mean you are going to just shoot three times in the air and hope someones comes to help?
I do all kinds of chit everyday and little has to do with the gun I carry. By all means though please advise me on how a gun will solve all these other problems?
Here in the states that isn't the case which makes a police officer a privileged citizen whether they like to admit it or not.
Yeah, privileged: - No access to the same plea deals that Joe Citizen has available to him. - You lose your job if convicted of a DWI or Reckless Op. - Have a shooting under investigation for much longer than Joe Citizen because the AG's Office would love nothing better than to make his/her career off the back of a cop. Yeah, great privileges.
Yes we can carry nation wide but I support the same for Joe Citizen. It's too bad we as a firearm/shooting community can't get our schit together enough to ram it through. Too much "us vs. them" I guess /
George
Not only all the above but we also lose our POST certification forever over a DWI. ...hmmm that damn double standard.
Here in the states that isn't the case which makes a police officer a privileged citizen whether they like to admit it or not.
Yeah, privileged: - No access to the same plea deals that Joe Citizen has available to him. - You lose your job if convicted of a DWI or Reckless Op. - Have a shooting under investigation for much longer than Joe Citizen because the AG's Office would love nothing better than to make his/her career off the back of a cop. Yeah, great privileges.
Yes we can carry nation wide but I support the same for Joe Citizen. It's too bad we as a firearm/shooting community can't get our schit together enough to ram it through. Too much "us vs. them" I guess /
George
Frankly, I don't care for plea deals. If I'm guilty I'll plea guilty, if I'm not guilty I'll plea not guilty. No plea bargaining for me. Plea bargaining should not be allowed for anyone cop or citizen.
Every body should lose their job because of DUI or reckless op. Heck, I've always been in favor of the death penalty for DUI if it involved death of another person. Maybe things have changed but my Dad was a cop and an alcoholic and I watched him skate many times because he was a member of the blue brotherhood when he should have been arrested for DUI.
Heck, the AG wants to hang everybody cop or civilian especially if it'll put another notch on his/her belt and move him/her up the political ladder. Again, maybe things have changed, but in the day I watched to many cops skate becuase they were members of the blue brotherhood. I'm sure it had a lot to do with police unions back in the day because all unions were run by the mafia especially in the Northeast where I grew up.
We are definitely on the same page as far as universal carry for Joe Citizen and cops. Be a heck of a lot less crime.
Federal law allows off-duty officers to carry their guns, and the Seattle Police Department's manual gives each officer the option to carry one while off duty.
"One of the reasons for that federal law is that police officers, unlike anyone else, are almost on duty all the time," he said. "You never know when you might run into someone who you arrested."
Just another "civillian"....when "the shift ends"....
That's what I'm talking about. I can only carry in Montana and states that Montana has a reciprocal agreement with. I also cannot carry in any public building, no bars, and not to many commercial building. A police officer on or off duty can carry in all of them.
Extend me the same privileges of a police officer and I'll have no need for a police force.
Derby so if you can carry a gun anywhere you want you will have no use for police...hmmm Who are going to call when the neighbors dies? Who you are going to call to pull your a$$ out of car wreck? I mean you are going to just shoot three times in the air and hope someones comes to help?
I do all kinds of chit everyday and little has to do with the gun I carry. By all means though please advise me on how a gun will solve all these other problems?
Dink
Neighbor dies I'll call trash pick up, no problem.
I'll either get my sorry azz out of the car wreck or die no problem there either. The scanvgers have to eat to.
I'm anarcho-capitalist so I believe that search and rescue and fire protection will be provided by free enterprise if their is a need or want for it. Otherwise who needs it.
Maybe things have changed but my Dad was a cop and an alcoholic and I watched him skate many times because he was a member of the blue brotherhood when he should have been arrested for DUI.
May have had something to do with your dad being a cop, but may also have had something to do with the fact DUI's/DWI's were simply not prosecuted as aggressively as they are now. I personally know a few teenagers who were pulled over for various reasons 20 to 25 years and were flat out blitzed, but were given a "get home safe" lecture and sent on their way. Ain't happening in today's world, citizen, cop, illegal, or otherwise.
Here in the states that isn't the case which makes a police officer a privileged citizen whether they like to admit it or not.
Yeah, privileged: - No access to the same plea deals that Joe Citizen has available to him. - You lose your job if convicted of a DWI or Reckless Op. - Have a shooting under investigation for much longer than Joe Citizen because the AG's Office would love nothing better than to make his/her career off the back of a cop. Yeah, great privileges.
Yes we can carry nation wide but I support the same for Joe Citizen. It's too bad we as a firearm/shooting community can't get our schit together enough to ram it through. Too much "us vs. them" I guess /
George
Not only all the above but we also lose our POST certification forever over a DWI. ...hmmm that damn double standard.
Dink
No double standard police should lose their certification they are the enforcers of DUI laws. They should be held to a higher standard. Ever read George Patton? You never would have made it under his leadership. Patton made all his officers live up to higher standards than enlisted personal. Heck, Patton had been dead a long time when I joined 3rd Army and 3rd Army still lived up to higher standards than other Armies because we were Patton's men.
Stop whining accept the fact you are a role model, man up to the higher standard if you can.
Maybe things have changed but my Dad was a cop and an alcoholic and I watched him skate many times because he was a member of the blue brotherhood when he should have been arrested for DUI.
May have had something to do with your dad being a cop, but may also have had something to do with the fact DUI's/DWI's were simply not prosecuted as aggressively as they are now. I personally know a few teenagers who were pulled over for various reasons 20 to 25 years and were flat out blitzed, but were given a "get home safe" lecture and sent on their way. Ain't happening in today's world, citizen, cop, illegal, or otherwise.
Actually, the state we were cops in had at that time CRASH units. I've forgotten what the acronym stands for now but basically it was DUI road blocks. At each CRUSH unit an assistance AG was on hand to make sure all arrest were done properly except when cops were stopped at CRASH road block they got a free pass.
DD the point if Dink's post is Cops DO LOSE their cert for DUI, it is a job breaker unlike for a say plumber or factory worker.
And they should. Here in Montana we have 3 strikes and your out on DUI. Your 3rd conviction to the slammer you go. Personally, if it was up to me the 1st conviction would be a mandatory 25 years with no possibility of parole. Your 2nd conviction would life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
I lived with an alcholic so I'll admit to being a hard azz and I do drink but never drink and drive.
Derby I forgot what did you do for a living can you tell me again?
I have not drank in 12 years so the drinking and driving thing I don't worry about.
My number one thing is a DWI enforcement. I have caught literally hundreds of drunk drivers over the years. I just get that warm fuzzy feeling everytime I stopped someone that looks like they have down syndrom and say "I only had two beeeersss".
I really don't mind living to the higher standard. What I don't get is why its expected. Being a cop is what I do its not really who I am. If I could afford not to work and just shoot and hunt thats what I would do. Now I like my job and am proud of what I do but its still just a job.
In my years of being a DWI cop I have arrested teachers, attorneys, doctors, construction workers, business men/women and militay men and countless other "professionals". Alot of these people made a mistake and were having a good time and just drank to much. They are not career criminals or even bad people they made a mistake (some are drunks also). The only other profession to have consequences of getting a DWI is a teacher. Why is that? Why can a cop not make a mistake and pay the fines and it not affect his career? If your going to control my off duty time shouldn't have to pay for it? I know bankers that have lost there house because they quit paying for it but they still work at the bank.
. . . . . . . shade of the Lindsay Lohan thread returning. Egad! We've gone from a dog dying to cops getting bashed . . . . O, wait! That was the point all along! My bad.
DD the point if Dink's post is Cops DO LOSE their cert for DUI, it is a job breaker unlike for a say plumber or factory worker.
And they should. Here in Montana we have 3 strikes and your out on DUI. Your 3rd conviction to the slammer you go. Personally, if it was up to me the 1st conviction would be a mandatory 25 years with no possibility of parole. Your 2nd conviction would life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
I lived with an alcholic so I'll admit to being a hard azz and I do drink but never drink and drive.
Derby if you think people go to jail on the third DWI you are very wrong. Missouri also has that rule. I gave a guy his ninth the other night and he has yet to serve any jail time. Of course he has enough money not to go to jail.
When your dad was a cop DWI's were not taken seriously. I would bet it was late 1980's before DWI was a big deal.
Same thing could have happened to a private citizen with a CCW.
A citizen would likely go to jail and lose his 2nd amendment rights. Unless, possibly, they were an attorney and had the legal weight of a law firm behind them. Discharging a firearm in such a situation and setting appears to me as irresponsible and would not be justified per the law governing such in my state, which only allows a shoot to protect human life from deadly force.
I disagree with your entire statement.
Travis
Why do you disagree with what RickyD said?
There's multiple examples in this thread that justify my disagreeing with that statement. VA's link out of Washington is one.
DD the point if Dink's post is Cops DO LOSE their cert for DUI, it is a job breaker unlike for a say plumber or factory worker.
And they should. Here in Montana we have 3 strikes and your out on DUI. Your 3rd conviction to the slammer you go. Personally, if it was up to me the 1st conviction would be a mandatory 25 years with no possibility of parole. Your 2nd conviction would life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
I lived with an alcholic so I'll admit to being a hard azz and I do drink but never drink and drive.
Dude, is this a standup act you've been working on for some time or what?
No plea bargaining for me. Plea bargaining should not be allowed for anyone cop or citizen.
Maybe they shouldn't but they are unless you're a cop.
Quote
Every body should lose their job because of DUI or reckless op.
Maybe they should but most don't. Even those that rely on their licenses can wait out the suspensions. Few OTR truckers will ever do so again, but it happens.
Quote
Maybe things have changed but my Dad was a cop and an alcoholic and I watched him skate many times because he was a member of the blue brotherhood when he should have been arrested for DUI.
They've changed a lot. If you let another cop go for DWI it had better be one you trust not to ever open his mouth. The mere accusation will most likely cost your career. That said, in all these years I've never had to make that decision so it can't be the plague that you make it out to be.
The fact is, I don't care about being held to a higher standard as I do it on my own and ensure my guys do as well. In Court, however, there is only one standard. If you want separate Statutes for cops you better believe the Thin Blue Line will solidify.
DD the point if Dink's post is Cops DO LOSE their cert for DUI, it is a job breaker unlike for a say plumber or factory worker.
And they should. Here in Montana we have 3 strikes and your out on DUI. Your 3rd conviction to the slammer you go. Personally, if it was up to me the 1st conviction would be a mandatory 25 years with no possibility of parole. Your 2nd conviction would life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
I lived with an alcholic so I'll admit to being a hard azz and I do drink but never drink and drive.
Dude, is this a standup act you've been working on for some time or what?
DD the point if Dink's post is Cops DO LOSE their cert for DUI, it is a job breaker unlike for a say plumber or factory worker.
And they should. Here in Montana we have 3 strikes and your out on DUI. Your 3rd conviction to the slammer you go. Personally, if it was up to me the 1st conviction would be a mandatory 25 years with no possibility of parole. Your 2nd conviction would life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
I lived with an alcholic so I'll admit to being a hard azz and I do drink but never drink and drive.
Dude, is this a standup act you've been working on for some time or what?
You can see it in the quote above, I just don't care for making fun of the dead, 2 or 4 legged.
Now honest hunting kills on the other hand can be downright interesting. I just never carried a camera hunting, traveled as light as possible at all times.
You can see it in the quote above, I just don't care for making fun of the dead, 2 or 4 legged.
Now honest hunting kills on the other hand can be downright interesting. I just never carried a camera hunting, traveled as light as possible at all times.
I never have either. Only kill shots I have (and few they are) were taken by someone else, and are typically of poor quality being from cell phones and in low light.
Frankly, I don't care for plea deals. If I'm guilty I'll plea guilty, if I'm not guilty I'll plea not guilty. No plea bargaining for me. Plea bargaining should not be allowed for anyone cop or citizen.
You're really not up to speed on our Criminal Justice system, are you?
Without plea bargains the courts would grind to a crunching halt due to an ever-increasing back-log of cases.
90%+ of cases are disposed of through plea bargaining.
Another thread that has gotten so far off tract, its not much worth reading.
Do I believe what happened was justified; NO!
But at the same time, the officer has been placed on "Administrative Leave" and there are enough out side people involved, I do think there will now be an honest investigation. The way I understand it. Other than the parties involved there were 3 kids nearby that witnessed the act.
So I think it will be hard to cover up anything if not true.
Another thread that has gotten so far off tract, its not much worth reading.
Do I believe what happened was justified; NO!
But at the same time, the officer has been placed on "Administrative Leave" and there are enough out side people involved, I do think there will now be an honest investigation. The way I understand it. Other than the parties involved there were 3 kids nearby that witnessed the act.
So I think it will be hard to cover up anything if not true.
The pic from above was accompanied with this story.
A Chicago police officer shot and killed a pit bull dog today that had attacked five people in the city's Grand Crossing neighborhood.
The unnamed officer spotted the unleashed and uncollared dog chasing after three young girls in the 7400 block of South Blackstone Avenue at about 1:40 p.m., police said. When the officer saw the dog bite one of the girls, he fired a shot in the direction of the dog, startling the animal and forcing it to let go of the child, police spokeswoman Gabrielle Lesniak said. As the dog went after another girl, the officer shot and killed the animal, Lesniak said.
Brian Hunt, whose 11-year-old daughter, Felica, was bitten on the left thigh and arm, credited the officer's action with saving the children. Felica and her two friends were returning from the store when the dog gave chase, Hunt said. The third friend was able to climb on to a car and wasn't injured, Hunt said.
"He (the officer) probably saved my daughter's life and her friend's life, as well," Hunt said in a telephone interview.
Hunt's daughter and friend were the dog's second set of victims. Just before they were bitten, a mother and her two children were bitten a short distance away. All five victims were taken to Jackson Park Hospital and Medical Center, where they were treated and released, police said.
The pic from above was accompanied with this story.
A Chicago police officer shot and killed a pit bull dog today that had attacked five people in the city's Grand Crossing neighborhood.
The unnamed officer spotted the unleashed and uncollared dog chasing after three young girls in the 7400 block of South Blackstone Avenue at about 1:40 p.m., police said. When the officer saw the dog bite one of the girls, he fired a shot in the direction of the dog, startling the animal and forcing it to let go of the child, police spokeswoman Gabrielle Lesniak said. As the dog went after another girl, the officer shot and killed the animal, Lesniak said.
Brian Hunt, whose 11-year-old daughter, Felica, was bitten on the left thigh and arm, credited the officer's action with saving the children. Felica and her two friends were returning from the store when the dog gave chase, Hunt said. The third friend was able to climb on to a car and wasn't injured, Hunt said.
"He (the officer) probably saved my daughter's life and her friend's life, as well," Hunt said in a telephone interview.
Hunt's daughter and friend were the dog's second set of victims. Just before they were bitten, a mother and her two children were bitten a short distance away. All five victims were taken to Jackson Park Hospital and Medical Center, where they were treated and released, police said.
That's what they do with the losers. Just dump them. The fighting history of the breed has resulted in one of the finest breeds that ever existed, but it also means it's the number one most abused animal on earth, owned mostly by the worst kinds of folks. The kind that would subject them to this kind of existence.
That's what they do with the losers. Just dump them. The fighting history of the breed has resulted in one of the finest breeds that ever existed, but it also means it's the number one most abused animal on earth, owned mostly by the worst kinds of folks. The kind that would subject them to this kind of existence.
Derby I forgot what did you do for a living can you tell me again?
I have not drank in 12 years so the drinking and driving thing I don't worry about.
My number one thing is a DWI enforcement. I have caught literally hundreds of drunk drivers over the years. I just get that warm fuzzy feeling everytime I stopped someone that looks like they have down syndrom and say "I only had two beeeersss".
I really don't mind living to the higher standard. What I don't get is why its expected. Being a cop is what I do its not really who I am. If I could afford not to work and just shoot and hunt thats what I would do. Now I like my job and am proud of what I do but its still just a job.
In my years of being a DWI cop I have arrested teachers, attorneys, doctors, construction workers, business men/women and militay men and countless other "professionals". Alot of these people made a mistake and were having a good time and just drank to much. They are not career criminals or even bad people they made a mistake (some are drunks also). The only other profession to have consequences of getting a DWI is a teacher. Why is that? Why can a cop not make a mistake and pay the fines and it not affect his career? If your going to control my off duty time shouldn't have to pay for it? I know bankers that have lost there house because they quit paying for it but they still work at the bank.
Dink
I'm retired and a part-time tax preparer.
Cops are held to a higher standard because like it or not they are a role model. They are community leaders.
If you look upon being a cop as just a job than there is nothing I can do to help you understand why you are held to a higher standard.
DD the point if Dink's post is Cops DO LOSE their cert for DUI, it is a job breaker unlike for a say plumber or factory worker.
And they should. Here in Montana we have 3 strikes and your out on DUI. Your 3rd conviction to the slammer you go. Personally, if it was up to me the 1st conviction would be a mandatory 25 years with no possibility of parole. Your 2nd conviction would life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
I lived with an alcholic so I'll admit to being a hard azz and I do drink but never drink and drive.
Derby if you think people go to jail on the third DWI you are very wrong. Missouri also has that rule. I gave a guy his ninth the other night and he has yet to serve any jail time. Of course he has enough money not to go to jail.
When your dad was a cop DWI's were not taken seriously. I would bet it was late 1980's before DWI was a big deal.
Dink
Montana has gotten real serious about DUI's in the last few years as Montana has a real drinking problem. And yes, I agree not everybody makes it to jail on third offense there are always people who know someone who knows someone, etc. they keep somehow gaming the system. But more and more people are finding their lucky charm has run it's course.
DD the point if Dink's post is Cops DO LOSE their cert for DUI, it is a job breaker unlike for a say plumber or factory worker.
And they should. Here in Montana we have 3 strikes and your out on DUI. Your 3rd conviction to the slammer you go. Personally, if it was up to me the 1st conviction would be a mandatory 25 years with no possibility of parole. Your 2nd conviction would life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
I lived with an alcholic so I'll admit to being a hard azz and I do drink but never drink and drive.
Dude, is this a standup act you've been working on for some time or what?
I'm dying...
Travis
No stand up act Travis. I've lived with an alcoholic for 30 years it's devastating to the family. I'm a real hard case on alcoholism. I have friends who are alcoholics who when not drinking are pretty nice guys but get them drunk and they turn into monsters scaring the crap out of wife and child and yes women can be just as bad.
Nope, I have no tolerance for alcoholics and heavy drinking. If I'm going to party and I know before hand both types of drinkers will be there I always bow out. Don't need to be at that kind of party.
That's what they do with the losers. Just dump them. The fighting history of the breed has resulted in one of the finest breeds that ever existed, but it also means it's the number one most abused animal on earth, owned mostly by the worst kinds of folks. The kind that would subject them to this kind of existence.
Pitbull apologist?
outphuckinstanding......
Read between the lines; he's certain that they just need some "very special loving", the kind that his "perfect pit" receives....
Frankly, I don't care for plea deals. If I'm guilty I'll plea guilty, if I'm not guilty I'll plea not guilty. No plea bargaining for me. Plea bargaining should not be allowed for anyone cop or citizen.
You're really not up to speed on our Criminal Justice system, are you?
Without plea bargains the courts would grind to a crunching halt due to an ever-increasing back-log of cases.
90%+ of cases are disposed of through plea bargaining.
I'm well aware of the plea bargain system. Many an innocent person is spending time in jail because of the plea bargain. People plea bargain because they don't have the wherewithal to fight the case so they take the plea. Personally, the only real reason for the plea bargain is because the prosecuting attorney has a weak cases and tries, usually with much success, to badger a person into a plea they really shouldn't take. If more people understood the purpose of plea bargaining is to get a conviction guilty or not they might not take a plea. Also, from everything I read, trying to get an appeal when one has accepted a plea bargain is almost impossible.
Nope, no plea bargains for me. If they have the evidence, hang me, if not, screw them.
Frankly, I don't care for plea deals. If I'm guilty I'll plea guilty, if I'm not guilty I'll plea not guilty. No plea bargaining for me. Plea bargaining should not be allowed for anyone cop or citizen.
You're really not up to speed on our Criminal Justice system, are you?
Without plea bargains the courts would grind to a crunching halt due to an ever-increasing back-log of cases.
90%+ of cases are disposed of through plea bargaining.
I'm well of the plea bargain system. Many an innocent person is spending time in jail because of the plea bargain. People plea bargain because they don't have the wherewithal to fight the case so they take the plea. Personally, the only real reason for the plea bargain is because the prosecuting attorney has a weak cases and tries, usually with much success, to badger a person into a plea they real shouldn't take. If more people understood the purpose of plea bargaining is to get a conviction guilty or not they might not take a plea. Also, from everything I read, trying to get an appeal when one has accepted a plea bargain is almost impossible.
Nope, no plea bargains for me. If they have the evidence, hang me, if not, screw them.
Personally, the only real reason for the plea bargain is because the prosecuting attorney has a weak cases and tries, usually with much success, to badger a person into a plea they really shouldn't take.
DD, that't not even close to the facts. Last Wed. one of my guys handled our arraignments because the Chief was busy (read: didn't want to deal with Court). He had 50-something people show up that day. I think he pled 40-something of them. Each and every case was solid and would have been a slam dunk. How do I know this? I read them all.
The point of pleas is to keep the Court from getting bogged down and, in our case, to help Joe Citizen from getting the full hammer dropped on him. I don't care about fine money. If I can suspend a fine for 12 months for good behavior that works for me. Without a plea those 40-something cases would have been paying out.
Quote
Also, from everything I read, trying to get an appeal when one has accepted a plea bargain is almost impossible.
The Judge reads everybody their "rights" in Court before a plea. At the District Court level a guilty plea means no appeal. Everybody knows it before they do so, though.
DD's bizarro slant on matters in which he has no experience and is virtually clueless makes for some head scratching reading,that's for sure.
Which also sheds much light on why he and Chris/TRH agree on so much; guessing from cluelessness and lacking any experience, whilst drinking Barakian Kool-Aid served up by Lew Rockwell will do that to you.
And, that it gets trumped HANDILY and every time by bt/dt experience remains a given, even if they can't grasp the reality of it.
He must be frantically scrambling through Google sites to try and find one example which may make him feel he was even in the ballpark.Of course,if he finds anything, it will be easily distinguishable!
He must be frantically scrambling through Google sites to try and find one example which may make him feel he was even in the ballpark.Of course,if he finds anything, it will be easily distinguishable!
Naw.... he's probably hitting the speed dial buttons to Chris/TRH and EE/Barak for the loony back-up.
He must be frantically scrambling through Google sites to try and find one example which may make him feel he was even in the ballpark.Of course,if he finds anything, it will be easily distinguishable!
Naw.... he's probably hitting the speed dial buttons to Chris/TRH and EE/Barak for the loony back-up.
Jist that I'm getting on this now is that the officer one Keith Elgin Shepard has layered up tight. But looks like he was a civilian GS-07 from a military base that might not have been authorized to carry off base, and the weapon used was not an issued weapon, but rather a personal Glock 17 9mm loaded with Hydrashocks. His lawyer was saying he was a decorated service member who had served 2 tours in Iraq.
Jist that I'm getting on this now is that the officer one Keith Elgin Shepard has layered up tight. But looks like he was a civilian GS-07 from a military base that might not have been authorized to carry off base, and the weapon used was not an issued weapon, but rather a personal Glock 17 9mm loaded with Hydrashocks. His lawyer was saying he was a decorated service member who had served 2 tours in Iraq.
Probably thought the dog was a terrorist!
Phil
Interesting. So, what was he? A civilian security guard on a military base?
i should be understood that a plea deal is a deal between the prosecution and defense and not written in stone...
for example had a child molester plead out a year or so ago.....he was 70 something and had an illness that means it was unlikely he would live a couple years in prison.....prosecution and defense agreed to 20 years in prison......got before the judge and the judge told him that he was the kind of sexual predator that scared him the most as he had gotten away with it and fooled alot of ppl by preying on defective youth that no one took seriously.....judge gave the [bleep] 100 years cause he wanted to make sure he never got out.....
i should be understood that a plea deal is a deal between the prosecution and defense and not written in stone...
for example had a child molester plead out a year or so ago.....he was 70 something and had an illness that means it was unlikely he would live a couple years in prison.....prosecution and defense agreed to 20 years in prison......got before the judge and the judge told him that he was the kind of sexual predator that scared him the most as he had gotten away with it and fooled alot of ppl by preying on defective youth that no one took seriously.....judge gave the [bleep] 100 years cause he wanted to make sure he never got out.....
Yeah, but in a plea bargain, if the judge does not accept the plea, the accused always has the option to withdraw his plea and enter a plea of not guilty. That is a plea bargain.
Don't want to speculate, but that's what it's looking like. Latest I've heard is that the police are now saying the full investigation should be complete within 72 hours and that the evidence will be turned over to the States Attorney General...
Jist that I'm getting on this now is that the officer one Keith Elgin Shepard has layered up tight. But looks like he was a civilian GS-07 from a military base that might not have been authorized to carry off base, and the weapon used was not an issued weapon, but rather a personal Glock 17 9mm loaded with Hydrashocks. His lawyer was saying he was a decorated service member who had served 2 tours in Iraq.
If that turns out to be the case it sure won't fit Hawk's agenda. Damn double standard.
If that turns out to be the case it sure won't fit Hawk's agenda. Damn double standard.
I'll wait to see how it plays out.
George
It fits perfectly. Only after they figured out he wasn't quite a member of the fraternity did they start treating him like a member of the vast unwashed.
When a man's feet are 'firmly' planted on a floating bog, it makes it easier to change his stand. Believing anything the media has to say is a floating bog.
No plea bargaining for me. Plea bargaining should not be allowed for anyone cop or citizen.
Maybe they shouldn't but they are unless you're a cop.
Quote
Every body should lose their job because of DUI or reckless op.
Maybe they should but most don't. Even those that rely on their licenses can wait out the suspensions. Few OTR truckers will ever do so again, but it happens.
George
Pretty dam sure as I hold a Class A CDL that you get a DUI, even in your personal car,you're done, no occupational license. So in essence, you just lost your livelihood for good
Was the killer of the dog a drunk driver of a car in the dog park, or did I miss something? O, yah! It's about bashing cops, not killing puppies, I forgot. Sorry!
That's why I prefaced my statement with few . I've seen some CDL A guys wait for a few years and go back to driving. I would imagine insurance concerns keep it from happening more.
If that turns out to be the case it sure won't fit Hawk's agenda. Damn double standard.
I'll wait to see how it plays out.
George
It fits perfectly. Only after they figured out he wasn't quite a member of the fraternity did they start treating him like a member of the vast unwashed.
You guys can crap on me all you want but I know how the system works.
Defense attorney wants a plea bargain because he wants his calendar free in case a lucrative client comes or go chase ambulances or go play golf or whatever, the last thing a criminal attorney wants to do is defend Joe Six-pack who hasn't two nickels to rub together.
Prosecuting attorney wants a plea bargain to put more conviction notches on the political belt because every prosecuting attorney has grand visions of the gold ring, US Senator.
The Judge, ah the Judge, there are some really good judges but way to many judges graduated at the bottom of their class all they want to do is clear the decks to they go golfing, boating or whatever. For many judges the best job they'll ever have in the legal profession is the judgeship.
See I know how the game works we have an adversarial justice system and all the pros are actors playing a part. The best actor wins. With any kind of luck the poor sucker who's the football between actors will get justice but more often than not he won't.
Poor guy has spiraled straight into dementia. He's content in his babbling confusion though so I think it best that I just let him wallow there.
The sibling rivalry between he and Hawkeye as to who can out-stupid the other is fun to watch and they're usually neck and neck on any given day. DD is edging him by a nose today but Hawkeye clearly won the day yesterday. There's always tomorrow!
Your scenario might hold water at the Superior Court level (not so in most cases, IME, but I'll concede to might) but what about the District Court level.
Joe Six Pack is charged with a misdemeanor of your choice (in NH a Class B won't get you a court appointed) and may or may not be able to afford a lawyer. Does he roll the dice to pay for one knowing that he's probably going to be convicted if the State has a good case or does he take a plea to save himself the fees and probably some fine money. I don't offer a lawyer a better plea deal than I do to Joe Six Pack and, in fact, if the lawyer is an azzhole I won't bother to deal at all.
Quote
Prosecuting attorney wants a plea bargain to put more conviction notches on the political belt because every prosecuting attorney has grand visions of the gold ring, US Senator.
Now I know you're joking. I don't think any of the prosecutors in the CA's Office hold aspirations higher than making it to the AG's Office or, most likely, becoming a partner in a private practice.
Lets take it back down to the District Court level again, though. If I'm not prosecuting my own cases its going to be my Chief or one other member of my Dept. Do you seriously think any of us give a rat's azz about conviction %s? We just want to get through the case load and get the hell out of Dodge.
Poor guy has spiraled straight into dementia. He's content in his babbling confusion though so I think it best that I just let him wallow there.
The sibling rivalry between he and Hawkeye as to who can out-stupid the other is fun to watch and they're usually neck and neck on any given day. DD is edging him by a nose today but Hawkeye clearly won the day yesterday. There's always tomorrow!
And, dag burnit, I intent to come out on top tomorrow.
Your scenario might hold water at the Superior Court level (not so in most cases, IME, but I'll concede to might) but what about the District Court level.
Joe Six Pack is charged with a misdemeanor of your choice (in NH a Class B won't get you a court appointed) and may or may not be able to afford a lawyer. Does he roll the dice to pay for one knowing that he's probably going to be convicted if the State has a good case or does he take a plea to save himself the fees and probably some fine money. I don't offer a lawyer a better plea deal than I do to Joe Six Pack and, in fact, if the lawyer is an azzhole I won't bother to deal at all.
Quote
Prosecuting attorney wants a plea bargain to put more conviction notches on the political belt because every prosecuting attorney has grand visions of the gold ring, US Senator.
Now I know you're joking. I don't think any of the prosecutors in the CA's Office hold aspirations higher than making it to the AG's Office or, most likely, becoming a partner in a private practice.
Lets take it back down to the District Court level again, though. If I'm not prosecuting my own cases its going to be my Chief or one other member of my Dept. Do you seriously think any of us give a rat's azz about conviction %s? We just want to get through the case load and get the hell out of Dodge.
George
George, having personally seen the world from the perspective of a DA's office (I did a law internship there), I can attest that convictions are what they're all about. They could give a rat's ass whether someone's guilty or innocent.
I won't argue what you experienced in that DA's office, but I will tell you it doesn't hold water here unless you want to talk about the "big" stuff. Obviously nobody wants to be the CA/ACA that lost a rape/whatever case.
When you get into the "other" felonies they're looking for ways not to bother going to trial. We now have "Family Court" to handle DV, etc. We have "Drug Court" so we can get the low level drug schit out of the way. "Mental Health Court", blah blah blah.
It's not about conviction rates, it's about saving time and money.
That still doesn't address the fact that most "Joe Six Packs" will only have to deal with the Court on a lower level. Most only for violations/low level misdemeanors. Pleas make the world go 'round there.
I won't argue what you experienced in that DA's office, but I will tell you it doesn't hold water here unless you want to talk about the "big" stuff. Obviously nobody wants to be the CA/ACA that lost a rape/whatever case.
When you get into the "other" felonies they're looking for ways not to bother going to trial. We now have "Family Court" to handle DV, etc. We have "Drug Court" so we can get the low level drug schit out of the way. "Mental Health Court", blah blah blah.
It's not about conviction rates, it's about saving time and money.
That still doesn't address the fact that most "Joe Six Packs" will only have to deal with the Court on a lower level. Most only for violations/low level misdemeanors. Pleas make the world go 'round there.
George
For the young ADAs it is all about conviction rates. That's how they earn recognition.
In some offices I imagine you're right. Not so in our CA's office. It helps that our CA is a younger guy who still believes that justice doesn't always equate to a guilty finding. The last one, not so much. Unfortunately she made her way to the AG's office and is now a problem State-wide instead of being contained to our County.
Without the story it is a just a gratuitous picture of a dead animal. With the story it makes sense. I have shot & killed more than one in my day, but always with reason.
You guys can crap on me all you want but I know how the system works.
Defense attorney wants a plea bargain because he wants his calendar free in case a lucrative client comes or go chase ambulances or go play golf or whatever, the last thing a criminal attorney wants to do is defend Joe Six-pack who hasn't two nickels to rub together.
It�s quite clear you haven�t spoken to many defense attorneys. The vast majority of the ones I got to know were interested in providing their client with a zealous defense, and with getting the client the best possible outcome. In most lower profile cases, this is a plea bargain.
Originally Posted by derby_dude
Prosecuting attorney wants a plea bargain to put more conviction notches on the political belt because every prosecuting attorney has grand visions of the gold ring, US Senator.
Wrong again, but you are consistent. Prosecuting attorneys have no more interest in convicting an innocent person than you have seeing one convicted.
I won't argue what you experienced in that DA's office, but I will tell you it doesn't hold water here unless you want to talk about the "big" stuff. Obviously nobody wants to be the CA/ACA that lost a rape/whatever case.
When you get into the "other" felonies they're looking for ways not to bother going to trial. We now have "Family Court" to handle DV, etc. We have "Drug Court" so we can get the low level drug schit out of the way. "Mental Health Court", blah blah blah.
It's not about conviction rates, it's about saving time and money.
That still doesn't address the fact that most "Joe Six Packs" will only have to deal with the Court on a lower level. Most only for violations/low level misdemeanors. Pleas make the world go 'round there.
George
For the young ADAs it is all about conviction rates. That's how they earn recognition.
Really? And you know this how? BTW, I couldn't begin to tell you what my conviction rate is.
You guys can crap on me all you want but I know how the system works.
Defense attorney wants a plea bargain because he wants his calendar free in case a lucrative client comes or go chase ambulances or go play golf or whatever, the last thing a criminal attorney wants to do is defend Joe Six-pack who hasn't two nickels to rub together.
Prosecuting attorney wants a plea bargain to put more conviction notches on the political belt because every prosecuting attorney has grand visions of the gold ring, US Senator.
The Judge, ah the Judge, there are some really good judges but way to many judges graduated at the bottom of their class all they want to do is clear the decks to they go golfing, boating or whatever. For many judges the best job they'll ever have in the legal profession is the judgeship.
See I know how the game works we have an adversarial justice system and all the pros are actors playing a part. The best actor wins. With any kind of luck the poor sucker who's the football between actors will get justice but more often than not he won't.
And to think, I've had 2 healthy drams of Lagavulin tonight.
I won't argue what you experienced in that DA's office, but I will tell you it doesn't hold water here unless you want to talk about the "big" stuff. Obviously nobody wants to be the CA/ACA that lost a rape/whatever case.
When you get into the "other" felonies they're looking for ways not to bother going to trial. We now have "Family Court" to handle DV, etc. We have "Drug Court" so we can get the low level drug schit out of the way. "Mental Health Court", blah blah blah.
It's not about conviction rates, it's about saving time and money.
That still doesn't address the fact that most "Joe Six Packs" will only have to deal with the Court on a lower level. Most only for violations/low level misdemeanors. Pleas make the world go 'round there.
George
For the young ADAs it is all about conviction rates. That's how they earn recognition.
Oh? Do tell, Mr. Never-Gonna-Use-The-J.D.-Daddy-Bought-Ya..... Exactly HOW many cases have you litigated? How about how many have you negotiated a plea? Hell, I'll make it easy: how many have you filed?
Wait....
Damn, that's right; you're guessing again, without any basis in fact or experience.
In my experience with DA offices, some guys do only care about convictions and not guilt or innocence of the accused. However, most of the time it isn't that they don't care if the accused is guilty or innocent, the just believe that pretty much EVERY accused is guilty.
If they make a decision to move forward on a case, they have already evaluated it to a degree and therefore, they believe that the person is guilty. Once they make that decision, a lot of them kind of put the blinders on and it is full speed ahead.
And cynically, a lot of defense attorneys believe it too. The law is a cynic's business. If you weren't one before, you'll end up being one later. You see the worst side of everyone...your clients, other lawyers, and cops and prosecutors. Everyone you see is having problems, or you wouldn't be seeing them. You learn secrets you never wanted to learn when you get telephone calls in the middle of the night from friends, family, and people you go to church with. You watch people turn into absolutely insane idiots while going through a divorce. You see people turn themselves inside out over relatively minor legal matters and drive themselves insane.
Like I said, all of that kind of lends itself to a pervasive atmosphere of "everybody is guilty of something" that sometimes does have a negative effect on the administration of justice.
A lot of departments require their officers to carry off duty. One dog under control. One dog out of control. Very little known other than a newspaper clip, and we all trust the press to be accurate and unbiased right? RIGHT!
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/TLEEF/Miscellaneous/Robi.jpg)
Being that I have him on ignore, what would be my motivation to follow said link?
My bad.
![[Linked Image]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KxT3bZCpsqw/SxyZu61oVBI/AAAAAAAAK8U/960jvzv34k0/s320/amicicani_218725701_dead_pit_bull_28.jpg)
O, yah! It's about bashing cops, not killing puppies, I forgot. Sorry!