Posted on 03/09/2011 7:45:20 AM PST by Immerito
First, let’s get this point of fact straight. In no comment that I’ve made could one make the “assumption” that I am “cheering” on the LEO. Second, there has been NO evidence brought forward that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the LEO fired at the dog with the student in direct line of fire. Third, as stated, I’ve made no assumption regarding whether the officer did, in fact, make a mistake in firing upon the animal. I have, absent of any facts to the contrary, decided upon giving the officer the benefit of the doubt (and there is a huge doubt as to whether any person was actually placed in any danger from the LEO’s actions). Fourth, if we take your attempt at logic regarding this case to it’s conclusion, then one must conclude that anytime that an LEO aims his firearm he or she is placing bystanders in harms way. Thus, given this potential, the only responsible action is for society to disarm all LEO’s, based upon your logic. I’m not prepared to accept this conclusion.
The same reason people crowd around a brawl that breaks out or stand and watch a raging inferno. People get tunnel vision and become fixated by these types of events. The thought that they might be hurt never crosses their mind. I have seen it time and time again. The only time people really scatter is when gunfire breaks out.
“First, let’s get this point of fact straight. In no comment that I’ve made could one make the “assumption” that I am “cheering” on the LEO.”
You twisted what I actually wrote. Kindly reread it.
Second, there has been NO evidence brought forward that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the LEO fired at the dog with the student in direct line of fire.
For a dog to pin a person, the person is, of necessity, directly beneath or behind the dog. Since the dog was shot in the back of its head, it follows that if the dog was pinning a student, as claimed, the student’s life was in literal jeopardy.
And the rest of your post makes leaps of logic to the point of argumentum absurdum.
If this dog was behaving aggressively, why did so few of the students who were at the scene depart to enter the building?
I shoot all the time when “innocent bystanders” are in range. Surprisingly, I’ve never manged to hurt anyone. Or rather, unsurprisingly, as I have a clue about how to handle a weapon. I suspect this officer did too.
I’m as quick to bash cops for inappropriate behavior as just about anyone at FR. Most especially for shooting dogs on “dynamic entries” gone wrong.
I don’t see inappropriate behavior here, except for the cop bashing.
But do you open fire if there are people in the direct line of fire, as would be the case in either a “dog chasing student” situation or a “dog has pinned the student” situation?
Dear Diary, I FINALLY got to shoot something today....
I agree. I was surprised how many kids were terrified of large dogs. I used to occasionally bring my golden retrievers to class. I had kids who were afraid (or appeared to be) of them. Golden retrievers...
I know you know this, but pinning does not require contact. It means “to hold fast in a spot or position” and can easily mean someone or something is between a person and an exit or way of escape. It does not mean the person being pinned down is in the line of fire. Sheesh.
I don't think I twisted anything, frankly. For a dog to pin a person, the person is, of necessity, directly beneath or behind the dog. Since the dog was shot in the back of its head, it follows that if the dog was pinning a student, as claimed, the student’s life was in literal jeopardy.
Again you make a statement with no evidence to back up your claim. As you, yourself, commented earlier, there is a possibility that the person who used the word, "Pinned" may have misused the word. Also, I can envision a scenario in which a person could be "pinned" by a large dog, and the officer (or other person) could shoot the dog in the back of the head without endangering the person being "pinned". Since neither of us were there, and we have no video evidence, there is no way to make the claim that the LEO placed anyone in imminent danger of being shot while shooting the dog.
With respect to your claim that the rest of my earlier post making leaps of logic, well, pot = black + kettle = black.
As for why students at the scene were not making a beeline for "safety"? How much time do you suppose the entire episode took? Minutes? Seconds? Less than a second? You made suggestions that I'm being unreasonable in my comments, while all the while throwing logic out the window yourself.
You seem to have entered into this thread with the intent of blaming the officer regardless of what reality might actually be. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But, that's all you're holding - an opinion.
Apparently this possibility never entered into the thinking of one who has a preconceived opinion of the officer’s actions.
By this logic, then, if a police officer is being "pinned down" by someone who is firing a weapon at them (or, insert soldier, etc, instead of police officer), that must mean that the officer was physically "pinned" by the person firing the weapon? Being "pinned" doesn't NOT equate with a physical restraint in all cases. A person could just as easily be "pinned" to a spot by their fear of moving in the face of a threat. Logic is not being equally applied in this case.
Why does anybody attempt a difficult task? Because it's a challenge!
That is a rhetorical use of the word We. I will rephrase it for your convenience: “why should any person cheer on the cop for shooting the dog in the *back* of the head, a target that, of necessity, puts the student in mortal danger?”
While the person who used the word pinned may have misused the word, it is that person’s job to choose a different word that more precisely describes what happened. Since he/she chose the word “pinned”, “pinned” is the word I will go with.
If one is not literally pinned, then words and phrases such as “cornered” or “held at bay” would be apropros. But the person who insisted that the student was “pinned” did not elect to use another phrase, so barring evidence to the contrary, I will assume he/she is telling the truth.
It took the officer some time to get to the scene. Therefore, we can conclude that the dog was there for several minutes before the officer arrived on the scene. Several minutes of a German shepherd NOT attacking anyone. Several minutes of NO bite or attack reports. (Odd, for an “aggressive” dog, isn’t it?)
This scenario should have ended with a dog on a catchpole and a fined owner, not a dead dog.
It is so commonly used that you look like a fool to try to say otherwise. Google “soldiers pinned down by sniper”. And if you look in your thesaurus you will see that “pinned down” and cornered are synonyms. Amazing.
Look, you are so determined to figure out a way that you are not wrong that you are grasping at straws. You would be so much better off to stop now. Hardly anyone else is still reading this, no one will notice. Wait until more information comes out. Perhaps you are right and this was sweet little puppy and the officer was a blood thirsty killer simply out to kill kill kill! But you are really torturing the English language and that’s very very cruel.
The above changes nothing. I still did not "cheer" on the cop. I do not believe anyone else on this thread indicated that they "cheered" on the cop. I also see zero evidence from you that supports your contention that the LEO placed anyone, other than the animal, in mortal danger.
Regardless of which word the "person" used, you have no evidence that the dog "pinned" anyone in a physical sense. Without such evidence, you also lack evidence the officer placed anyone in mortal danger, other than the animal shot.
I read nothing that indicated that the officer was not already on the campus when this incident began. Again, facts not in evidence. Additional facts not in evidence that you are "assuming" is that the dog was not aggressive. When you have actual evidence, not mere speculation on your part, get back to me. Otherwise, I'm on to another topic elsewhere.
Synonymous words are not automatically interchangeable. They are simply words with related, though not equivalent meanings.
The comments do not use “pinned down”, but “pinned”. Since that was the word chosen (perhaps poorly, perhaps well) by the commenter, that is the word I will discuss.
I don’t believe I denied common usage. However, common usage does not equate to proper usage.
That is truly a shame. Golden retrievers are such good-tempered, beautiful dogs, as a rule.
I am sorry that you have been bitten. I don’t wish dog bites on anyone.
I share your bias towards the larger breeds.
But, with any dog, it is the body language that gives away intent (except for those dogs which are trained to attack without warning—and it doesn’t appear that the German Shepherd in this case had (or at least, didn’t use) such training.
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.