Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Police decision to shoot dog questioned
ABC Local ^ | May 23, 2011 | Kelli O'Hara

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 ...


TOPICS: Pets/Animals
KEYWORDS: animalabuse; assholecophaters; bootlickerfromberlin; deadjackbootswalking; dog; doggieping; donutwatch; drivebymediahit; durham; jbt; killswat; lab; labrador; labradorretriever; nc; northcarolina; policestate; swat; swatabuse; swatassholes; thinblueline
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
To: Crim

“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”.


21 posted on 07/28/2011 3:26:23 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
Here is a search on FR for "Police shoot dog"

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.

22 posted on 07/28/2011 3:26:58 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper ("Don't Call My Bluff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
We can thank the War on Some Drugs for the militarization of police.

SWAT thugs are pretty much the same low-life criminals they are ostensibly protecting us from.

23 posted on 07/28/2011 3:28:33 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." - Bertrand de Jouvenel des Ursins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

You a pig? Or just have a fetish?


24 posted on 07/28/2011 3:28:54 PM PDT by loungitude ( The truth hurts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Molon Labbie

“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.


25 posted on 07/28/2011 3:29:26 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

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.


26 posted on 07/28/2011 3:32:50 PM PDT by Immerito (Reading Through the Bible in 90 Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

There has to be a T-shirt out there about a dog surviving a police encounter, or maybe not.


27 posted on 07/28/2011 3:37:12 PM PDT by SkyDancer (You know, they invented wheelbarrows to teach government employees how to walk on their hind legs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

The police are rapidly running out of friends.

For a reason.


28 posted on 07/28/2011 3:41:39 PM PDT by glasseye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Immerito
Shooting the dog is better than shooting the kid or the wife.

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.

29 posted on 07/28/2011 3:44:14 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

Not a single one then? (freakin pathetic)

Someone needed to shine a light on you.

After a week I consider that done.


30 posted on 07/28/2011 3:45:17 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper ("Don't Call My Bluff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

Are you a SWAT member who shoots dogs? Does it really release those tensions?


31 posted on 07/28/2011 3:45:59 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Molon Labbie
And somehow animal control finds a way.

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.

32 posted on 07/28/2011 3:59:13 PM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Immerito

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.


33 posted on 07/28/2011 4:00:00 PM PDT by Molon Labbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GBA

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.


34 posted on 07/28/2011 4:17:50 PM PDT by Molon Labbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

Well then, maybe SWAT should quit dressing up like Storm Troopers.


35 posted on 07/28/2011 4:23:51 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (SP12: They called Reagan "unelectable", too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

Just for grins, can you find a single solitary article on the internet where the police WERE found at fault for shooting a dog?


36 posted on 07/28/2011 4:26:19 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (SP12: They called Reagan "unelectable", too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

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.


37 posted on 07/28/2011 4:36:18 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Molon Labbie
Thank you for your reply. It's clear that you do understand.

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.

38 posted on 07/28/2011 4:40:37 PM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

If I may, and with respect, I am curious on your opinion about how SWAT should dress, considering what they are tasked with doing?


39 posted on 07/28/2011 5:01:37 PM PDT by Molon Labbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Molon Labbie

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.


40 posted on 07/28/2011 5:50:55 PM PDT by Rifleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson