.
.
Jeff - I dunno about you but I was stunned by the certitude that so many on this thread felt which rendered investigation of the incident unnecessary - just string the cop up and be done with it. I feel I don’t have enough information and yet many on this thread feel that more than enough information was OBVIOUSLY present.
Gee....I can’t imagine why the cop may not want to be tried in the court of public opinion when the public reacts like THIS. SO reasonable - so ready to wait for the evidence before making a decision. I am sure the police departments legal council approves of holding a trial online complete with photographs that ‘experts’ in the community can review for medical significance etc. Yup - that’s what attorney’s always advise, right. Never “Wait to have your day in court”, it’s always “Find the nearest mob that already has decided you are guilty and try to show them your side - preferably on the Internet.” Yup. That way it’s easy to find a jury pool that is not biased if it does go to trial - yes, get medical pics out there without an impartial medical opinion present especially if the newspapers have already decided you are guilty and will use their platform to ‘help’ the public understand information.
It’s not possible that the cop didn’t see the kids because the gate was closed most of the time during his walk (until they walked past it) and once he was tangling with the dog, not see that the gate was now open with kids there. IMPOSSIBLE. Can’t happen. Ever. Case closed.
Oh it doesn’t look like the cop et. al was hospitalized and OBVIOUSLY that must mean that there was no reason to shoot the dog. There is no way in these United States that the injuries were minimized because the cop shot the dog BEFORE it could bite big ugly chunks of flesh or actually kill the other dog. NO WAY. The mob is so ginned up that lack of being hospitalized can ONLY indicate the cop was wrong, not that he acted in time to spare them from grievous injury. And it’s easy to tell, isn’t it, with a dog biting and grabbing how much blood loss, how deep the wounds etc. what with the dodging and panic. Yup.
No mention of the fact that the officer doesn’t have a prior instance of shooting a dog and said “This is the first time in 17 years of being a police officer that I have shot my weapon, except at the firing range.” He’s just the serial dog killer type, right?
Information and objective data that is missing from the story - ignore it if you want to fit in on this thread. Rave like it’s DU here and you’ll BLEND.Don’t wait for information - it’d be too late then! /sarc off
Sorry...I just needed to vent because I am mortified at the DU type response on this thread. Never thought I’d say that about about FR thread.