Posted on 07/09/2013 10:37:24 PM PDT by Altariel
LOL, what do you think? No one even sought medical attention.
Where are the pics of the alleged injuries Jeff?
Wouldn’t they have been put up first to show they acted properly?
Where are they Jeff?
No one sought medical attention?
No pics of alleged injuries?
Agents of the Government involved yet once again?
Is Rosary Goodrum a real name?
LEO’s shooting dogs have all the signs of “Roid Rage.”
They are all working out to keep in shape.
Steroids are available online.
I see the trend.
Comments like that reveal a lot about the poster making them.
Given that this officer has apparently changed the Official Story multiple times, I doubt it.
“Originally he was just in fear of his life, then his wife got injured, then his dog got attacked, now he got attacked and so did his wife and his dog. I also find it funny that he has been using legal jargon to describe the situation. There is not a human aspect to this. Instead, he is using what he thinks will clear his name. He does not mention that he fled the scene after shooting the dog. He also doesn’t mention that Dalton was running toward Gunner to get him when the officer shot Gunner. I find it very irresponsible to discharge your gun with a child running toward the animal. Also not mentioned is the fact that their 5 year old was also watching.”
I’ve known a lot of LEOs. These days every one of them under 40 is using. Some use in moderation to get an “edge” but the rest are just plain abusers. The department turns a blind eye until it gets embarassing or starts costing them money. But even then they just put the officer on paid leave. I know a guy who has been on leave for a couple years while he deals with his ‘roid-induced head problems. He goes back to work every couple months for a week or two, and then something bad happens and he goes back on leave. The last I heard he was still getting paid.
Exactly
Undoubtedly that’s part of the problem.
Of course, the fact that they increasingly appear to be Obama’s idea of a civilian task force just as armed as the military is another factor.
“We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.” -Barack Obama July 2, 2008”
And even now, some Freepers will defend them.
Apparently you have reading comprehension difficulties. I said let’s wait for impartial evidence and you say I should have read something other than the article to which I was responding before I posted?
I didn’t say the boy can’t be believed or a cop can’t make the wrong choice. I said that I was shocked that evidence is not needed on this thread and given the degree to which ideology and emotion ‘rule’ on it, I was sad to see what looked like a DU thread here.
The doberman that pinned me to a fence and ripped off the necklace at my throat just as he was hauled off of me was also a baby that rolled around on the carpet playing with doggie toys as long as he knew the people present and they didn’t bring another dog.
What I’ve read often enough is that the ‘fun lovin’ dog attacks another dog over unspecified canine grudges and the owner tries to intercede and then the dog attacks the owner. In those instances it is necessary to pick up your dog and just throw it to the attacking dog (sacrafice it) if you want to escape being repeatedly attacked (particularly if you try to hold your dog up out of reach).
So in the unfortunate attack of one dog on another - which dog should be spared? The one that was helpless to escape because it was on a leash or the one that was unrestrained, attacked and threatens/bites the owner?
That’s just one possible scenario - I don’t know what happened so I am not willing to say that the cop is innocent or guilty. But don’t let the opinions of people who weren’t present (like Fidel Castillo or Casey Keltch) influence ya. Don’t slow down because NO TIME can be wasted on impartial evaluation because the dog is dead - we must decide in the course of 10 minutes.
Several posters here have asked for evidence corroborating the cop’s story.
None has been provided. The posters have been mocked for demanding it.
The available evidence involves a dead dog, and the eyewitness testimony of a 12 year old child who has no motivation to lie about the course of events.
Since the officer shot the dog, the burden of proof rests on him to establish the shooting was justified.
Based on the information provided and the comments, this officer has been less than truthful. Moreover, he appears to have a history of changing his story in this case.
The moment you choose to fire a weapon, you had best have a solid case for doing so.
Changing one’s excuse for firing one’s weapon in close proximity to children doesn’t suggest one had a solid case for doing so.
Any time a government employee fires his or her weapon, his story should *always* be met with fierce scrutiny.
Evidence demonstrating the cop’s guilt is a dead dog which, according to eyewitness testimony, was sniffing another dog. Hardly shocking or dangerous canine behavior.
Desiring government employees to be held under close scrutiny is a conservative viewpoint, not a liberal one.
In my opinion all LEO’s involved in a weapon discharge should have a drug test to see if Steroids is an issue.
That is a Law I would support.
In Texas high schools we test the Bands and the golf teams, why not the LEO’s?
WTF?
The liberal slant was the degree of raving based on one media article without waiting for sufficient evidence as if it is an open and shut case. Personally, I can wait a little for reasonable evidence and do not demand that the emotion and the MSM be the arbiters here.
A dead dog is reasonable evidence that a crime was committed against the family.
This is not a case of “he said/ he said”. The difference of opinion lies only in the attempts of the government employee to justify his actions:
“It’s ok. I’m a cop.”
“It attacked me.”
“It attacked my wife.”
“It attacked me, my wife, and my dog”.
Think logically.
What person, after shooting an animal justifiably would believe his or her occupation germane to relate to the owners of said animal?
I am amazed at your lack of reasoning at this point. Not much point in posting to you.
A dead dog is not reasonable evidence that a crime was committed against the family. If it was, no individual could ever try to kill or maim a dog that attacked them, ever. Rottwieller ripping your 5 year old apart? Well don’t hurt the dog! It is not evidence of wrong doing - it is evidence that the cop shot the dog. It is a tragedy that must be investigated and if the copy is guilty, then he must be held accountable.
MUST you interpret all information in the article in a manner that supports your biases?
“It’s OK, I’m a cop.” You interpret that to mean “I get to kill the dog because I am a cop” but it may mean “Don’t be afraid of the man with the gun, I am licensed and trained to have one and I am not here to hurt you.”
“It attacked me.”
“It attacked my wife.”
“It attacked me, my wife, and my dog”.
All statements can be true and are not mutually exclusive. The first 2 statements may reflect chronology and the 3rd may be a summary but I don’t know that until I know more.
I won’t ask you to think logically because it is clear you don’t want to - all incoming information will be interpreted to support your bias. I want objective information and you don’t. What more have we to say to one another?
“What person, after shooting an animal justifiably would believe his or her occupation germane to relate to the owners of said animal?” Obviously someone firing a weapon will be regarded with extreme caution until it is know whether they are even allowed to have a gun, are trained to use it, or used professional training to make a decision to use it. It wouldn’t remove my all my fear to know that someone is a cop but it helps narrow my concerns and helps me know what to expect behaviors and he was talking to a frightened kid so that was meant to reassure. He is supposed to identify himself as a cop, isn’t he? But hey, don’t let unknowns slow you down. Prosecute based on a media article. Just when did your faith in the media grow exponentially? Thanks, I’ll wait for actual evidence of wrong doing.
You believe a legitimate interpretation is “Don’t be afraid of the man with the gun who just discharged it with you at close range?”
Based on the testimony of the 12 year old eyewitness, the dog wasn’t attacking any of the human or canine parties involved.
The officer attacked the dog, according to all parties involved. Only the officer, not the dog, is documented to have acted aggressively.
The same officer has been changing his story since that time.
The so called “attacking” dog was shot in the neck. A charging dog shot in the neck? Not on the head or between the eyes?
And, of course, the matter has been “internally investigated” and ruled to be justified. The government employee will not be charged.
And that is the crux of the problem: government employees are allowed to investigate themselves, and you are perfectly content to wait for them to do so.
When you have actual documentation of the “injuries”, let me know.
But consider this: the same officer can make up an excuse about being “threatened” by you, and shoot you with impunity.
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.