Well, in this case, they were pit bulls. I can understand the decision.
Too bad the same thing doesn’t apply to judges that makes stupid rulings
And the cops can shoot you without much repercussion.
hurt my dog, and I’m going to jail...whether I’ve done ANYTHING else or not.
http://www.wxii12.com/article/officer-who-shot-killed-dachshund-identified/2034744
Any adult male scared enough of a 12lb mini-doxie standing 6 inches high no matter how much barking or growling needs to be demoted to handing out tokens at chuckee cheese. My mini barks loud, and is very reactive to humans she doesn’t recognize, but if an adult cannot figure out what to do with a super small dog and just shoots it instead is a piece of garbage. I state this as the owner of a mini doxie and as an ex-cop.
I doubt this will be much of a problem in the Chappaqua woods, regardless of whether the owner or the dog does the barking.
Any predatory un-tagged dogs out here in the sticks gets a free burial. You got wild trash off a leash? Prepare for its disposal.
Dogs are generally protective of their masters. That’s one of the reasons why we love them. They will go up against incredible odds to defend us knowing they do so at extreme risk.
As I read these rulings, it occurs to me to ask, what do we do for them? In this instance, shockingly little to nothing! Okay, I admit I’m wrong. We execute them!
In the case of the dog downstairs, an animal control person could have been called to the home to get the dog under control. The dog has a right to live.
In animal speak (if you will), a dog with it’s side to you barking or growling is letting you know it is very upset, but is not intending to attack. If you’ll back off a bit, the animal will calm down.
Here, instead of backing off a bit, the officers simply shot the dog.
Look, I’m not here to place officers in dangerous situations. If a dog comes after you, you need to react. Perhaps there is a way to take a net with you, and while other officers prepare to execute cover fire if need be, one officer could take the dogs into custody.
If animal control people are smart enough to figure out how to subdue dogs without killing them, it seems police officers could to.
Training with a tranquilizer dart gun might be the answer.
Whatever the answer, gunning down dogs that are just being dogs, is over the top > IMO.
If a big dog does attack, it needs to be put down.
Officers could ask the owners to get the dogs under control too, as part of the execution of the search warrant.
I’ve seen too many raids on the wrong locations to simply give officer the right to shoot any dog on sight.
People have a right to demand safety for their dogs, and dogs have a right not to be killed on a whim.
The ruling:
Better knock and serve papers polightly, kick in my door and lead is flying out a hell of a lot faster than you are running in. I ain’t waiting to see if Santa comes in. Actions speak louder than words.
Wouldn’t thugs yell POLICE if they kicked in your door? Real cops knock and give you a warrent. Thugs kick in doors,
Nope, I live very rural, cops here are good guys, quite a few are my friends. I trust them. Kick in my door and you will not shoot my dog unless I missed.
I have several close relations for whom I do not care nearly as much as I do my dogs. They are as much a part of my family as any human.
Any person that attempts to shoot one of my dogs is dead long before he clears leather. Cops included.
"To Serve And Protect" does not, cannot include killing loved, cherished family members. Want proof?
Ask a cop, or a judge, what happens if I shoot a police dog? See what I mean? Double standards suck ass, and need not apply.
I'd kill them deader than Glenn Beck's "The Blaze."
To me, there is a very big problem in government deciding what it can be held liable for or not. ‘Oh, we’ve decided that was reasonable force.’ On the other hand, officers are liable if they break the porcelain teapot while searching the china cabinet.
So to boil down the decision - anything which a court can imagine being a threat to officers is reasonable force. So here’s my question to the court: IF such action is indeed ‘reasonable’, then are they indeed stating that if a civilian took the SAME actions they too would be shielded from repercussion?
Because if the answer is no, there is a problem. A huge problem that needs to be rectified.
Biscuits not Bullets
Joe,... stop BARKING. The Neighbors will call the cops and have you SHOT.
First, if it was a warrant for a non-violent drug offense, why go in blazing away?
Second, did they find the drugs they were looking for? Were there weapons, was there resistance, were the folks even home?
I dunno, I've just got an issue with the black clad boyz with their toyz swatting on every occasion now dayz. It's different if you're dealing with a known gang member or criminal that has a history of weapons/assaults/violence.
Again, I am amazed while I know that I shouldn’t be. I continue to make the error of thinking that this group is primarily populated with rational adults.
This whole thread has turned into abject, foul chaos. Happens every time a serious incident involving dogs occurs. Especially over the top if it is a “pit bull”.
Do you people understand what the real point and meaning of the issue here is? Hint. It’s NOT about dogs. Duh, duh, duh.
The issue here is should the government and its representative, law enforcement, be the ones who decide what constitutes sufficient perceived threat as justification for killing an animal or a person? Dog, humans, same thing in principle.
If you believe that carte blanche for killing dogs is not on the same slipper slope with humans you are being very short sighted.
Whether the cops were justified in this..particular..instance is NOT the real point or concern. It’s what the courts say they can use for justification whenever they shoot. Which appears to be pretty much anything as far as the courts are concerned.
You can’t make general policy based on an exception to the general. That’s what progressives do.
So, protecting a dog is legal, which means if a cop is going to shoot a dog for barking then a cops can be shot in return, which means a cop can be shot for a dog barking. Got it.
