Posted on 07/28/2011 2:24:31 PM PDT by Immerito
DURHAM (WTVD) -- Did a member of a Durham police SWAT team go too far when he shot and killed a dog during a raid in April? Some say it was unnecessary force.
ABC11 cameras captured the incident at a home on Dunstan Avenue April 12.
Officers were looking for Pete Moses and Vania Sisk. According to search warrants, Moses is a suspect in the disappearance of a woman and a 5-year-old boy. Sisk is the boy's mother.
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
The SWAT team goes up the suspect's porch and shoots a labrador on the top of said porch.
Let’s hear it for these brave public servants!
They ought to be confined to wallowing in crap for life like the pigs that they are.
Flame on, bootlickers!
I can tell you one thing! This SWAT team learned their tactics from the BATF. From Ruby Ridge to Waco and beyond, the FIRST thing the BATF does when raiding a home is KILL ALL THE PETS!
Questioned and answered.
SWAT have a particularly difficult time with dogs because of the odd way SWAT is dressed.
People who know dogs, know that dogs often react defensively to strangely (Halloween etc) dressed people.
And considering this item is from May 23, it appears there was no action against a SWAT member, or your search for “Police shoot dog” (to stoke up the Cop Haters) would of had a result indicating as much.
But this is another good example of the Drive-by Media hit. As if it would be OK for a dog to attack SWAT, because there are people (who easily could have moved themselves further away) left and right.
Disgusting pigs. The Pima County SWAT Team murdered a Marine inside his home, essentially no-knock raid, with apparently few to no repercussions. Welcome to the one world government police state.
I just realized this is the THIRD “Police shoot dog” thread posted by you in a week, and in each one the police were not found at fault.
In the first thread, the owner of the dog actually said he understood why his dog was shoot.
In the second thread, the policeman was investigated and cleared with physical evidence.
And now this Drive-by Media hit, were SWAT is not found at fault.
That makes three strikes.
There were people nearby when this lab is shot. Do you believe that the risk of richoched shots hitting innocent bystanders is worth dispatching a labrador?
Do you not realize that you are tacitly admitting that you find the actions of this SWAT team so indefensible that you attempt to discredit a fellow Freeper rather than defend them?
There were people nearby when this lab is shot. Do you believe that the risk of ricocheted shots hitting innocent bystanders is worth dispatching a labrador?
Do you not realize that you are tacitly admitting that you find the actions of this SWAT team so indefensible that you attempt to discredit a fellow Freeper rather than defend them?
When did this dog attack the SWAT team?
Show evidence of bite wounds from the officers.
It is the responsibility of the officers to understand dog psychology and not indiscriminately shoot family pets.
Shoot without thinking is supposed to be a caricature of gunowners, not a modus operandi for wanna-be soldiers.
When did this dog attack the SWAT team?
Show evidence of bite wounds from the officers.
It is the responsibility of the officers to understand dog psychology and not indiscriminately shoot family pets.
Shoot without thinking is supposed to be a leftist caricature of gunowners, not a modus operandi for wanna-be soldiers.
This is America, not Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.
I told you, this is another Drive-by Media hit, just like the other two you posted where there was no fault found on the police.
Now you are getting so desperate you are posting an item from months ago.
Why don’t you at the very least post an item where a policeman is actually faulted and we can all agree that was a bad cop?
That would be a fellow Freeper worthy of being called a fellow Freeper. The way you been posting Drive-by Media Hits against the police who have not even been found at fault is Creeper, not Freeper.
Your tagline brags about “Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days”.
Take 180 and stop bearing false witness.
You’re being way too easy on them.
Every officer I work with or know has at least one dog. I have black lab myself and would be tore up if he got shot.
But an officer cannot afford to be bitten by a dog because it might offend someone’s sensibilities.
So where is the common ground? People don’t want there dogs shot, and officers don’t want injuries that could do nerve damage and end careers prematurely. An officer retired for disability is an early retirement and the taxpayers have to pay for that.
OC doesn’t work all that hot, a Taser works well but you only have one shot and you have to hit a small fast moving target at less than twenty one feet and the chance of proper probe spread is greatly diminished and thus less effective.
The answer might be the Taser shotgun rounds but an officer can’t really hump that around on every call for service where they might encounter a dog.
Instead excoriating officers for making do with what they have, how about some ideas that protect both officer and dog?
I would suggest something the officer can turn on that uses the dogs heightened hearing senses against them, an ultrasonic device that causes them stay away from the officer.
This is the one with the black lab on the porch who was wagging his tail nervously and sitting still, isn’t it? My disgust knows no bounds.
BTW, nice keywords that someone decided to put in.
Who cleared the cops of ANY wrong doing?
Oh...the cops...
Look...cops shooting dogs has become so common it's becoming a colloquialism
Oh, it's just some offended sensibilities? No Problem...everybody move on. Toughen up and move along!
Thank you for confirming that you cannot defend these SWAT officers who shot a labrador.
I’m sure the story would shape me to be some violent thug, because I will return fire on anyone who shoots my dog. If it’s after I’m in custody I will finish the confrontation immediately and on my terms upon bail or release.
“Look...cops shooting dogs has become so common it’s becoming a colloquialism “
And that should be of concern to every good cop on the force. They are being tarnished by the actions of their bad “brothers”.
The three threads from you that I posted in this past week, not a sigle one actually was about a policeman found at fault for shooting a dog.
Do me a favor and let me know - of the many others you posted is there one where that is the case?
I appreciate it, Fellow Freeper.
SWAT thugs are pretty much the same low-life criminals they are ostensibly protecting us from.
You a pig? Or just have a fetish?
“I would suggest something the officer can turn on that uses the dogs heightened hearing senses against them, an ultrasonic device that causes them stay away from the officer.”
The dog in this case does not appear to so much as approached the officer in question. Indeed, the dog goes *to* the porch, *away* from the officers on the street, per the video.
The SWAT officers approached the dog in question.
Such a device could easily be used to corner a dog before shooting it. That does not make the device itself bad, however, it fails to take into account that bad cops will not restrain themselves from misusing such a device.
People, including cops, are not found at fault when they commit crimes all the time. Non cop citizens lack the benefit of an internal investigation to clear them when they are caught committing crimes.
That doesn’t make them innocent in the eyes of man or God.
God has seen all that has transpired, and every time a police force has unjustly defended bad cops instead of removing them from their midst, He has not forgotten and will not forget.
There has to be a T-shirt out there about a dog surviving a police encounter, or maybe not.
The police are rapidly running out of friends.
For a reason.
Police feel the need to shoot someone to let off the incredible tensions of a SWAT type raid.
They are permitted because they are always "cleared."
Every citizen who is able should keep a dog on the premises in case of a police "mistaken address" raid for self protection- the dog takes the bullet instead of a family member.
Not a single one then? (freakin pathetic)
Someone needed to shine a light on you.
After a week I consider that done.
Are you a SWAT member who shoots dogs? Does it really release those tensions?
Contrary to what one here might believe, I don't hate law enforcement. Why would I? Theirs/yours is a necessary job and not one I would want or am fit for.
But...I love my dogs and other people's dogs and appreciate the deep bond many have with their dogs. And, I won't shed a tear if I hear of a cop shooting someone's dog and then getting blown away for it.
Why? Dogs are sometimes just animals to their owners, but for many they are family. I've seen many a strong man and a strong woman break down and cry like a baby when their beloved dog crosses that rainbow bridge. I've done that myself.
If you value PR and the respect and assistance of the community you serve, you'll find one of those better ways to deal with dogs than than to just kill them, b/c you are killing a lot more than just a dog. Your post tells me you understand the damage that does.
In the movies, it's the bad guys that kill dogs.
Immerito, I hear alot of people saying “it appeared...it appeared.”
Well, after watching the same video (allegedly as everyone else) all that appeared to me was a black form semi visible through the bars on the porch. I could not see the posture of the dog nor it’s it most obvious and dangerous weapon, its mouth. So no one but number one and two in the stack can say for certain what the dog’s demeanor was.
SWAT team members are trained to deal with obstacles and threats as they come to them and not leave them to where the could be a problem in the middle of the stack. So the lab is not an issue for number one, two, or three, but bites four who is now firing in the middle of the stack. That’s a recipe for disaster, especially since the recommended way to dispatch a canine is not down through the skull but up underneath the throat and then into the brain cavity, this raises even more the chances for stray rounds. A SWAT team movement must flow and a struggle with a dog at the top of some stairs interrupts that flowing and leaves the team vulnerable.
There will be an use of force-weapons discharge report written that will have in great detail the officers actions and perceptions and as well as the other team members perceptions of the dogs demeanor. It will also have whether the team leader concurs with the use of force and concurrence several levels up.
If you are prepared to say the officers will lie about this, then understand there will be an inevitable lawsuit and at least depositions given. An officer that perjures themselves in those proceedings can not only be criminally indicted but at the very least they can have any and all future testimony impeached, making them, for all intents and purposes, unemployable.
That is alot to give up over a dog.
I have met officers who wanted to kick thugs in backside, but never met one who got their kicks out of killing dogs or even showed a desire to shoot one.
I hated to see this but I understand why it was done.
It would be great if you could call animal control for every time you had a call where an animal might be involved. The reality is too many time the situation is fluid and fast-changing and there is simply no time.
Some years ago my Sgt. and I were dispatched to a domestic and upon getting out of our vehicles, and starting our approach to this unfenced house, a pit came charging around the corner from the back of the house, full speed, bone in teeth, figuratively. My Sgt. was ahead of me, and had only time to draw and fire twice while trying run backwards. First round went between the pits legs, second went into his chest as he was lunging on my Sgts. right thigh. That round was fatal but not instantly incapacitating because he ran off back where he came from and died under the back porch. The owner was not happy but understood that it was his responsibility to keep the dog secured. A ticket was written, a complaint was made, in the end both went away.
The point is, we had no time to call animal control, and in the SWAT scenario, they simply could not put an animal control officer in the line of fire. An animal control officer would not want to be there either. Unacceptable risk.
We officers cry too when our K9s are killed in the line of duty and have funerals for them. You have to be particularly attentive to K9 officers when they lose their partners. They get really depressed and some have committed suicide over the loss of their partners.
I would desperately like to see another method but it’s just not there at this time.
Well then, maybe SWAT should quit dressing up like Storm Troopers.
Just for grins, can you find a single solitary article on the internet where the police WERE found at fault for shooting a dog?
The reason the cops are not found guilty is because the ones investigating them are other cops. One only has to read most of these stories to see that the cop is not justified in shooting these dogs most of the time.
Like I said before, I couldn't do your job. But, I'm usually grateful that you and others can and are out there 24/7.
But...some of these stories simply undo all the goodwill you've earned and that can take forever to repair. I hope some new technology or additional training can give you better options in some of those circumstances.
I don't want to be afraid to call you if I truly need help.
If I may, and with respect, I am curious on your opinion about how SWAT should dress, considering what they are tasked with doing?
How ‘bout like police officers rather than Schutzstaffel? Blue shirt and pants, flat hat, black lace up shoes and a .38 revolver with a four inch barrel.
Patrol officers wear blue shirts and pants, hats are fine during ceremony, bad for street work, all their shoes lace up and the 38 was found to be substandard for police work.
All that is totally unsuited for SWAT operations.
If dogs had machine guns cops would stop shooting at them.
“considering what they are tasked with doing?”
I could break down doors to stoners houses wearing shorts and flip flops.
You could probably do it naked but you would regret walking in any broken glass. Or dislocated you ankle or knee when you hit a reinforced door because you tried the old hollywood kick instead of the ram or halligan.
You won’t like my answer but I am more than happy to offer it.
No helmets. They can wear hats like every other officer.
No ski masks.
No goggles or night vision.
No all-black uniforms. No camouflaged fatigues.
They should look like beat cops or Sheriffs just with vests and long arms. That’s it. And they should drop the night-time no-knock raids that causes homeowners to draw down on them or fire on them when they break into the wrong house at night.
By dressing and equipping them like a military unit, they think like a military unit - shoot first and ask questions later.
I am FULLY FULLY aware that their risk level goes up without helmets and having to perform their no-knock raids in daylight. But that is the price of law enforcement in a free nation. You don’t get to have the complete security that you get in a police state.
The dress and tactics of SWAT forces are starting us down of losing support for police among Conservatives. Believe me, the police need that support and do not want to do anything to alienate that tax-paying base. The SWAT based police forces are beginning to push the “us vs them” thinking a little too far. When they lose the support of the taxpaying masses, they are going to wish they acted more like law enforcement officers earlier, and less like a military occupying force ferreting out terrorists house to house. Because they is how they are starting to behave now - and that is going to reinforce in them the idea that any homeowner anywhere can be the enemy.
SWAT is going way too far. Police have to back off from the military style dress and tactics. I know you don’t want to hear that, but it is how I feel.
I feel and have always felt the police are good guys and are there for my protection. I wish they would quit dressing and acting in a manner that is beginning to make me question if they are there to protect me or to protect themselves and the hell with me.
You won’t like my answer but I am more than happy to offer it.
No helmets. They can wear hats like every other officer.
No ski masks.
No goggles or night vision.
No all-black uniforms. No camouflaged fatigues.
They should look like beat cops or Sheriffs just with vests and long arms. That’s it. And they should drop the night-time no-knock raids that causes homeowners to draw down on them or fire on them when they break into the wrong house at night.
By dressing and equipping them like a military unit, they think like a military unit - shoot first and ask questions later.
I am FULLY FULLY aware that their risk level goes up without helmets and having to perform their no-knock raids in daylight. But that is the price of law enforcement in a free nation. You don’t get to have the complete security that you get in a police state.
The dress and tactics of SWAT forces are starting us down of losing support for police among Conservatives. Believe me, the police need that support and do not want to do anything to alienate that tax-paying base. The SWAT based police forces are beginning to push the “us vs them” thinking a little too far. When they lose the support of the taxpaying masses, they are going to wish they acted more like law enforcement officers earlier, and less like a military occupying force ferreting out terrorists house to house. Because they is how they are starting to behave now - and that is going to reinforce in them the idea that any homeowner anywhere can be the enemy.
SWAT is going way too far. Police have to back off from the military style dress and tactics. I know you don’t want to hear that, but it is how I feel.
I feel and have always felt the police are good guys and are there for my protection. I wish they would quit dressing and acting in a manner that is beginning to make me question if they are there to protect me or to protect themselves and the hell with me.
Sorry, helmets are here to stay, and you may see them on patrol officers before you see hats on SWAT. I carry one in my vehicle for riot situations and if there is an active shooter because after Columbine, we don’t set up perimeters, we go in and deal with the threat.
Ski masks are worn sometimes because that particular officer is also an undercover one.
I fail to see how protecting an officer’s head infringes on anyone’s freedom. No one has the right to ask officers to take shots or other injuries to the head because their headgear is scary looking. The trend in police work now is for officers to wear external vests so they don’t have all the crap on a duty belt that causes hip and back problems, that we learned from the military on load distribution.
The fatigues, whatever the color are utilitarian in purpose. You have to carry alot of equipment. Those fatigues facilitate that.
Very few agencies do no-knocks at night unless they are going after the baddest of the bad. A no knock is when you are highly certain there will be armed resistance, hence the surprise. Most judges will not sign off on them unless there are unique circumstances.
Everything a SWAT officer is carrying was deemed necessary through years of study and trial, of actual events which precipitated the need for those things. You can’t go back to the truck if you forgot something and you must have redundency. Two is one, one is none.
Should SWAT be used to get people who didn’t pay their education loan? I will be the first to say that’s hell no.
But SWAT officers MUST use some military tactics. In fact SWAT developed many of the tactics our infantry use today in fighting in built up areas.
Back in the day, when they didn’t have those tactics officers died. A lot. We are not going back to the days of Andy Griffith standing in front of the door playing pocket pool and getting his damn fool head shot off. Those days are over.
FWIW, I believe the war on drugs is a waste of time and money. It cannot be won, not like it’s being carried out. Legalize drugs and you will see alot less SWAT teams, alot less citizens and officers killed.
“I carry one in my vehicle for riot situations and if there is an active shooter because after Columbine, we don’t set up perimeters, we go in and deal with the threat.”
If that ever happens you guys would be the first.
You are right. The militarization of community police will continue unabated and they will continue to lose the support of the middle class. I currently support the police and I always have. As they continue to militarize, I don’t know how long it will take before I quit thinking of the police as “us” and instead begin thinking of them as “them”.
The militarization of the police will be good for members of the police in the short term maximizing their personal safety and helping them achieve their goals. In the long term they will become perceived as another enemy of the middle class taxpayers who pay their salaries and can with-hold it as well.
I am very skeptical that all of the SWAT personnel’s equipment keeps him safer than the old days when police did not have helmets and vests.
It is a little known fact that rugby players suffer less head injuries than football players. This is because football players are far less likely to guard their helmeted head than rugby players are to guard their naked head.
I can assure you that police who are shielded with helmets and vests are far more likely to behave in an aggressive and foolhardy manner than ones who are naked to small arms fire or a sharp knife.
I am sure you disagree.
Nothing good in the long term can happen from the militarization of the police. This will create severe political problems for police down the road as they lose support among middle class tax payers.
Maybe instead of questioning how SWAT should dress, we should question "what they are tasked with doing."
They are "tasked" with carrying out military-like operations. A practice that draws far too many rhoid-raged, trigger-happy, warrior wanna-bees into an act of questionable constitutionality that turns cops into "soldiers" and citizens into "the enemy."
I seriously question ANYONE'S motivation that is drawn to a job such as this. I want cops who signed up to protect and serve, not to wear bad-ass gear and shoot things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.