Posted on 10/20/2012 10:49:07 PM PDT by Altariel
There was nothing James Woods could do.
He screamed; he pleaded. ”Please don’t harm my dogs,” he begged police, who moments earlier had barged into his east-side home looking for marijuana.
Woods was forced into a corner last week when the first shot rang out – a 12-gauge shotgun. Woods’ young pit bull, Tank, who neighbors and witnesses say was confined to a locked fence outside and unable to harm anyone, lay dead in a puddle of blood, shot in the face.
Fearing police would hurt his two other dogs, who were inside the house, Woods cried out: “Please! They won’t hurt you! Stop chasing them! They’re just scared. ”
Witnesses told a consistent story: Police chased the dogs, Hump and Janey, around the house, shooting Woods’ longtime companions as they fled.
“They came in like they were shooting deer,” Woods said.
Janey, a small, older pit bull, dragged a trail of blood around the house until she finally collapsed.
“They shot her four times as she was trying to get away,” Woods said, his pale blue eyes welling up. “She didn’t have a chance. It just isn’t right.”
Neighbors said the three dogs, which included a German shepherd mix, were tame and friendly.
“They were good dogs,” a neighbor said.
Police didn’t respond to calls or emails for comment.
Woods, a financially struggling jack-of-all-trades, spent the next two days in jail, grieving his companions.
His friend, Scott Kraz, photographed the carcasses in hopes of proving that police shot the dogs from behind.
“From the position of the two dogs inside the building, they were running away from the door, away from the police,” Kraz said.
After collecting the evidence, Kraz buried the three dogs in the front yard of the home, where Woods now lives alone, with a heavy heart.
On Tuesday afternoon, Woods finished up a long day of trimming trees and sparked a cigarette.
“They killed my dogs,” he said, shaking his head. “The Detroit Police Department murdered my dogs.”
Just any example why we need to disband law enforcement as we know it today. Nothing but a bunch of trigger happy serial killers.
I imagine things like that myself sometimes. Unfortunately that would be on our own property and might bring us some legal grief. Much can be done with landscaping and architectural design though to make dynamic entries very difficult. Decisions to even undertake those kinds of raids often hinge on things like that.
IMO, it is an excellent example why government-employee worship should never have been allowed to take root in America.
When police were expected to act in accordance with the Constitution and Robert Peel’s nine principles, they did so, by and large.
Over the years, our society has transformed; in some ways for the better, in this way, for the worse.
“Instead they use paramilitary force to terrorize citizens, not go after known, hardened drug houses and gang headquarters (yes often the same places) which was the original reasons for swat. but they don’t.”
One of the cruelest ironies in the “War on Terror” is that we now have government-supplied terrorists.
The words “pot” and “bust” appear only once in the article’s title, and are never repeated again in the article.
There is *no* substantive evidence that any pot or other drugs were found at the residence.
The only crime known to have occurred at the residence is the unlawful slaughter of the man’s dogs.
Put yourself in his shoes. Do you want someone to say of you “well, the police said they were engaged in a pot bust/child porn bust/porn ring bust, therefore, that Persevero guy *must* have been guilty and put all minors and pets at his residence in harm’s way”?
If you have a shred of evidence that pot was at the residence, provide it.
You are condemning the man for breaking the law without a shred of evidence against him.
By the way, do you realize that under our current drug laws, a good number of the founding fathers would be in prison?
You are comparing apples to pianos.
Since there is no evidence that this man broke the law and he has not been found guilty in a court of law, he is legally innocent until proven guilty (a novel concept, I know).
Unless you can provide one shred of evidence that this man is in violation of the law, ask yourself “Why am I foisting the blame on the victim who lost his dogs than on the government employees who slaughtered them?
It’s like blaming the victim of a mugging for being mugged or blaming the victim of rape for being rape and insisting that the victim must have done *something* for the criminal(s) to commit aforesaid crime against them.
The problem lies with the individual (or group) that believes it is acceptable to mug, rape or, in this case, shoot dogs for the sake of killing dogs.
“It’s like blaming the victim of a mugging for being mugged or blaming the victim of rape for being rape and insisting that the victim must have done *something* for the criminal(s) to commit aforesaid crime against them.”
No. The victims in this case are the dogs. I don’t blame them one whit.
“You are condemning the man for breaking the law without a shred of evidence against him.”
All of my comments have been based on the idea that he was busted because there was probable cause. The article is lousy, which is not anyone’s fault here on FR.
Of course if he was just an average Joe home with his dogs, the cops are totally culpable. No one supports home invasion dog killing here.
“If you have a shred of evidence that pot was at the residence, provide it.”
I am getting a little tired of repeating the fact that the only way we have reason to think there was a real pot growing crime going on is because of the “bust” in the title. I have said repeatedly, as we all I think acknowledge, that the article is terribly written.
My position remains that a responsible dog owner should not endanger his dog unnecessarily. One might argue that a guide dog for the blind or a sheep dog guarding sheep from wolves at night are endangered, but, the idea is that it is worth the risk. Pot growing operations, in my opinion, are not. I don’t think he should have endangered his animals by having them hang around an illegal drug operation. Maybe you think that is responsible dog ownership. I don’t.
“Put yourself in his shoes. Do you want someone to say of you “well, the police said they were engaged in a pot bust/child porn bust/porn ring bust, therefore, that Persevero guy *must* have been guilty and put all minors and pets at his residence in harm’s way”?”
If I am indeed growing pot, I must bear some of the responsibility of a minor or a pet of mine who gets hurt or killed in a drug raid or a drug war. I know perfectly well it is an environment which invites violence. I should not have vulnerable children or animals in that mix.
If I were doing porn, I don’t think they get to do the no knock searches, so the point is moot, but if I had kids around that I think I should lose custody anyway. I would not worry about pets in that case. Porn would not harm pets, and there’s not a “porn war” going on among dealers and users all fighting for their porn or their piece of the action.
“you are okay with cops chasing down fleeing dogs, trying to get away from them, and pumping multiple shots into them until they are dead?”
No, and I never said that. If the cops shot down fleeing dogs that were no threat to them, they should face animal abuse charges, just like you or I would.
There are three basic possible scenarios, here:
1. The guy is an innocent fellow minding his own business, the cops bust in and shoot his fleeing dogs. 100% cop’s fault.
2. The guy is a pot grower who keeps his dogs around to keep him safer from raids and rival dealers. The cops overzealously shoot his dogs when they shouldn’t. The owner and the cops bear responsibility, here.
3. The guy is a pot grower and the cops didn’t behave at all as alleged. The owner is now 100% responsible. He used his dogs to save his own criminal skin and I have no respect for that.
“You’ve been well programmed. When you read about a SWAT raid that mention guns, do you start talking about the machine shop in the garage where they were manufacturing machine guns? “
No. And just because someone doesn’t agree with you does not mean they have been programmed. That’s a poor way to go through your life, thinking that all who disagree with you are not capable of independent and rational thought.
There was a time when there was no “drug war” in America either. All it took was a few government employees to realize how lucrative “fighting” a “drug war” for the government would be.
But you understand the point: you, a presumably-law-abiding citizen can be made as much a victim of government employees defying the Constitution as this man was.
The man is also a victim, unless you have substantive evidence he is guilty a crime.
How are you coming on that?
“The man is also a victim, unless you have substantive evidence he is guilty a crime.
How are you coming on that?”
Yes, I lined that out. I gave three possible scenarios. In the first, he’s an innocent guy when hyper police break in and shoot his dogs in cold blood. In that case, he’s a victim.
Scenario 2 and 3, no, he’s not a victim. Only the dogs are.
You don’t like that I’m working on the assumption that the man really is a pot grower. Yet you are working on the assumption that the cops really shot his dogs for no good reason. That is not for certain either, you know.
“But you understand the point: you, a presumably-law-abiding citizen can be made as much a victim of government employees defying the Constitution as this man was.”
We all know that. But not all those accused of growing pot are innocent. I venture to guess that the vast majority are guilty. He’ll have his day in court.
The tone of the article is: here’s a nice guy, doing nothing wrong, and some dirty cops burst in and kill his dogs. I really doubt that is all to the story, frankly. But that’s what juries and courts are for.
But you gotta watch your ankles.
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.