Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Officer Shoots Dog at Boy's Birthday Party

Oh heck, he could have cracked a slab of tinny's and got pissed as a mute and waited until everyone had gone to bed...then gone home.

Instead the silly fool decided that he should stupidly respond to a call about unrestrained dogs on the loose.

How silly is he.

I can relate since I was attacked by a pit bull (and had to kill it), but this just sickens me. That lab was no threat to the pos officer. He kicked at it to instigate it and it did not attack. That POS needs to lose his job..

No reason to shoot the dog in that case. Yes was barking and growling, but it didn't attack. He didn't do anything to help the situation either by kicking at the dog. Could have used PA and/or siren to get owner outside, could have used pepper spray, could have kept walking to the house as he was without being attacked.

Stupid owner for letting dogs run around, but stupid actions by cop

Cop should be fired. Goes to a house for dogs running around. Shoots dog, yells at, cusses at, then threatens owner. Great job

Look at this as a training tool. No...not in dog shootin', but as a reminder of the mindset that's under the bed.

You can't explain what you don't understand and what isn't correct. Cops cannot be held criminally liable for actions or inactions in the line of duty due to sovereign immunity so long as they operate even remotely within or close to departmental procedure. That includes not responding to calls in a timely fashion, or at all, if manpower isn't sufficient or if officer safety is at risk (among other things); i.e., the Warren case. That includes failing to protect even when a court order exists to provide protection (Castle Rock). The only course of actions in those cases was for an attempt at civil liability. The courts struck that in those cases.

Those, officer, are facts. And that, officer, is the explanation necessary. Cops have no duty to respond and no duty to protect. They are protected themselves under sovereign immunity and from civil liability.

Again, come onto my property with no warrant and shoot my dog and you will get shot. I don't think it will be long before that happens more frequently, which of course is what law enforcement is expecting with all the paramilitary build up, no-knock warrants, armored vehicles, and "tactical bullchit". We "civilians" (and, here's a hint: law enforcement are civilians as well; only uniformed military are non-civilians) are not subjects, and LEOs need to realize that we are also not the enemy.

I am with Shrapnel on this one, went to a house once to do a quote,person didn't answer the door but the big German Shepard showed up, nocked again and again nothing turned walked 3 steps and the shepard had me by the back of the leg nice puppy ya right , owner finally came to the door and got the beast to let go. If they had not showed would I hav lived???????????????????????????????????

officer could have used a tazer or baton, or called the house

BUT the primary problem is a dog owner that disregards the law ,don't give a [bleep],
WHAT happens when the dog tears up a neighbour hood child. If the owner heard the dogs barking he should have come out, Why was there a call out about an aggressive or loose dog
i'll bet you there is a Happy neighbour some where,

norm

Good grief, and you lot whinge about the leftists being a pack of bambi-ists.

Taking civil liability out of the picture and absent a specific statute where do you find that?

Moot as a practicality, the citizens would be at the gate with pitchforks and torches if the cops just sat in the station (or doughnut shop ) and said eff it.

That's no joke. Crazy thing is, the hippies here are saner than the Campfire red blooded 'Mercuns most of the time.

Hmmm...trading a misdemeanor for a capital offense. I had a talk with a teenager about that yesterday.

In the job description. Kinda like a doctor's 'sposed to do no harm, but still sticks his finger up your ass.

Look, I offered. If you don't want me to explain it, all you have to do is say so.

Clear and present danger to my life and that of my family. The alternative is to hope that the violence ceases on its own and that the aggressor doesn't shoot me or mine next.

You might be willing to take that bet; I'm not, especially when the aggressor has already shown a propensity for violence, is armed, and clearly not acting in a rational manner while showing me that he is a threat to me and mine. The badge isn't a excuse to commit crimes, nor is it a justification for violence against others. Clearly this is not a thought among some in the LEO community (the POS in the video who will quite likely not lose his job).

You need to understand that more and more you're gonna see folks like me shooting folks like you.

And by the way, I'm not the enemy....OK?

You can't explain what you don't understand. Your position is erroneous in both fact and law.

Please offer citations from SCOTUS cases that establish your position counter to Warren and Castle Rock. You won't be able to, as they don't exist.

Yeah...that's pretty much the kid's attitude also.

The job description isn't binding; legal precedent is.

So after the cops kill you or you're fried or you're in prison for forever and ever, I'm sure your family will rest easy knowing that you avenged Fido.

So.....that's a no?

Talk to Bluedreaux...you're way to smart for me. I'll just frustrate you.