Posted on 01/06/2006 1:16:58 PM PST by MRMEAN
I am only surprised he did not shoot the dog from the other side of a fence.
Cops shooting dogs appears to be S.O.P., kind of like having a car towed unnecessarily, it's just another way they impose "Punishment" without the bother of a trial.
Makes them feel all powerful I guess, good way to intimidate the "suspect" (if you're a suspect, you are assumed to be guilty) and killing their friend certainly disrupts their mental state making them easier to manipulate (quicker than taking them down town and sweating them).
Sad and disgusting to see the decline in police standards and casual dismissal of civil rights that has become so prevalent the last few years.
I cannot help thinking it is related to the suspension of civil rights and "anything goes" attitude engendered by the "Patriot Act".
If the dog owner makes too much of a stink she will be arrested on manipulated charges.
Flame away, I have observed the reality carefully, and this IS what I see.
You never met a detective?
Suit, tie, badge, concealed weapons.
Not all cops are in uniform at all times.
To the contrary, clearly it is you who does not care about the law. The law is not a policeman. The law is much larger than a single man. The law is written and codified for everyone to follow. I have the utmost respect for the law and our lawmen and women but I doubt that there is a law in Englewood allowing anybody to shoot animals that they may be afraid of. Yes, I have been attacked by dogs before. Each time I managed to fend them off without pulling a gun and emptying it into them. We live in a civil society. You just can't do that, even if you are a postman or meter reader. Imagine what it would be like if you could! You can bet that if you or I shot a dog in Englewood, we would be arrested and sued. The officer endangered everyone in that neighborhood shooting when he could have used mace or some other non lethals force. Probably could have just yelled at the dog. In fact, according to the article, he made no other effort to shoo the dog off, just shot it three times according to more than one witness. Witness accounts refute the office's claim that he was being attacked anyway.
Why would you claim that it is different for a policeman to shoot a dog then for anyone else? A policeman, if anything has a higher duty to maintain the peace and not just go shooting up the place.
The only point you successfully make is that the dog's owner should have been more careful to not let the dog get out the door. The owner should have been issued a ticket for that.
I suppose the owner should be glad that it was not a child that ran out the door with a toy gun or such.
It is this kind of a Barney Fife and those who blindly support them that give law enforcement a bad name. There is no need to shoot your way out of every situation and the force would be better off without him. He appears to be just a coward with an itchy trigger finger and a gun.
Quote CD: "To the contrary, clearly it is you who does not care about the law. The law is not a policeman. The law is much larger than a single man. The law is written and codified for everyone to follow. I have the utmost respect for the law and our lawmen and women but I doubt that there is a law in Englewood allowing anybody to shoot animals that they may be afraid of. "
You just admitted you don`t even know what the law is in this area concerning unrrestrained dogs, and what the policy of the police department is when dealing with a situation like this. How can you accuse me of not caring about the law when you don`t even know it yourself? I did not say what the officer did was right, or wrong. I raised some questions , and was critical of you for condemning the officer for his actions without knowing the facts. You say the officer should actually be attacked before acting , I disagree with that totally. The officer may have been completely justified in his actions simply because he felt threatened. If the law allows this, then he didn`t break the law, did he?
And I am going to take a wild guess that this city does not allow dogs to be in public places unrestrained. If so, the owner broke the law. Right? But we cannot hold the owner into account for her dog running loose....( sigh )
Quote CD: "Yes, I have been attacked by dogs before. Each time I managed to fend them off without pulling a gun and emptying it into them."
Good for you. You must be proud of your great feat of bravery. I guess you showed great restraint by not pulling out your gun....You did have a gun at the time of these attacks, didn`t you?
Although I have to admit, I have never heard of policeman who carries a gun that only holds three rounds. That is what this officer shot into the dog, three rounds.....( as the article states ).
Quote CD: "We live in a civil society."
No, if we did, we wouldn`t have rapists, murderers, and untrained/unrestrained dogs running around in our midsts. We live in a somewhat free society ; civility is in the eye of the beholder. But that still doesn`t/shouldn`t allow people to let their animals run wild without taking any responisibilty. Although it happens everyday.
Quote CD: "You just can't do that, even if you are a postman or meter reader."
I never said anyone could just kill a dog, neither did you. But you stated it in such a way here that did not totally add up. If a postman or meter reader is being attacked, they have every right to defend themselves. Do they not?
Quote CD: "Imagine what it would be like if you could!"
Well, there wouldn`t be an unleashed dog problems, that is for sure. But we would also probably have plenty of dead pet owners and pet shooters as well.
Quote CD: "You can bet that if you or I shot a dog in Englewood, we would be arrested and sued."
I don`t know the laws of this community, so I can`t say either way.
Quote CD: "The officer endangered everyone in that neighborhood shooting when he could have used mace or some other non lethals force. Probably could have just yelled at the dog."
Your opinion and speculative.....
Quote CD: "In fact, according to the article, he made no other effort to shoo the dog off, just shot it three times according to more than one witness. Witness accounts refute the office's claim that he was being attacked anyway."
I wasn`t there and the article gives conflicting reports. I think you need to look at the witnesses , and do they maybe have a bias toward the police? Does the officer have a history of this kind of stuff? I don`t know..Neither do you.
Quote CD: "Why would you claim that it is different for a policeman to shoot a dog then for anyone else? A policeman, if anything has a higher duty to maintain the peace and not just go shooting up the place."
When did I make this claim? Please point it out to me. And if you cannot, then don`t put words into my mouth I never said, please....
Quote CD: "The only point you successfully make is that the dog's owner should have been more careful to not let the dog get out the door. The owner should have been issued a ticket for that."
It always seems to come to that in these instances. Blame goes back to the owners for not restraining their pets. Why is that?
Quote CD: "I suppose the owner should be glad that it was not a child that ran out the door with a toy gun or such."
Another topic to be discussed, but right now lets stick to dogs, okay.
Quote CD: "It is this kind of a Barney Fife and those who blindly support them that give law enforcement a bad name. There is no need to shoot your way out of every situation and the force would be better off without him. He appears to be just a coward with an itchy trigger finger and a gun."
Your opinion only. I prefer to stick to facts and then make up my mind. Problem is, the facts are not too obvious in the article.
You know, I seem to recall ole Barney would get himself into alot of trouble because he speculated too much. He would forget those silly little things called facts and go ranting and hollering about this or that and end up looking foolish when the truth finally hit him in the head. I guess thats why Andy always looked so smart. He liked to get the facts.
So a persons right to survive is less than a dogs? Listen I love dogs, but they are just an animal. If the cop felt threatened he should have shot the animal. If it was a mistake then he was wrong and should have to buy a new dog.
Animals have no right to life.
RHINO "So a persons right to survive is less than a dogs?"
What in tarnations are you talking about?
RHINO "Listen I love dogs, but they are just an animal. If the cop felt threatened he should have shot the animal."
That`s what it appears he did.
RHINO "If it was a mistake then he was wrong and should have to buy a new dog."
Agreed.
RHINO "Animals have no right to life."
Depends on where you live.
The detective and his partner were at the Sullivan's apartment complex in the 4600 block of South Decatur investigating an unrelated car theft.
If the cop felt threatened he should have shot the animal.
Lots of them. And NONE of them carried their gun loose in their pocket. Ankle holsters were the most popular; some used shoulder holsters, one guy stuck it in the back of his waistband. Pockets sound more like a gang-banger than a cop. Wonder if he had his sights on the side rather than the top of the gun.
You are running on less facts than I. Interesting to note that there is no report of the officer's partner backing up his story but multiple witnesses contradicting it. The Englewood police spokesperson didn't sound all that credible either. "The dog made some aggressive barking, growling type moves" I have never seen an aggressive growling type move, have you? Sounds to me that he is not even too willing to go out on a limb for this officer or he would have offered something a little more substantive. I grew up in the Metro Denver area, including Englewood and yes I do have a pretty good idea of the laws there. Certainly better than you. Your premise is without logic. You claim that an officer can shoot when ever he feels threatened. You sound like a liberal, it's all about feelings. No, an officer may shoot when he is threatened. and by the way, Department Policy is not law, it's only policy. Learn the difference.
How many roadside stops feel threatening? By your amazing logic, an officer should just open fire when approaching a suspicious vehicle. I feel for the police but somehow, I just don't thing that is how we want our law enforcement to work.
The cop should have shot your Husky years ago when he felt threatened because it would have been okay. After all, he did feel threatened, didn't he? Perhaps then you would have a better grasp of this issue.
LOL That is a pet peeve of mine too! No way to hold a gun.
Okay Doug, if you want to give up , thats your call.
Quote CD: "You are running on less facts than I."
Your opinion.
Quote CD: "Interesting to note that there is no report of the officer's partner backing up his story but multiple witnesses contradicting it."
Maybe they were just not quoted in the article. So you don`t know this, do you?
Quote CD: "The Englewood police spokesperson didn't sound all that credible either. "The dog made some aggressive barking, growling type moves".
Again, your opinion.
Quote CD: "I have never seen an aggressive growling type move, have you?"
Yes, I have.
Quote CD: "Sounds to me that he is not even too willing to go out on a limb for this officer or he would have offered something a little more substantive."
No, sounds like they would like to refer with attorneys before they say something really stupid.
Quote CD: "I grew up in the Metro Denver area, including Englewood and yes I do have a pretty good idea of the laws there. Certainly better than you."
Why didn`t you cite them?
Quote CD: "Your premise is without logic. You claim that an officer can shoot when ever he feels threatened."
Not exactly what I said. But if its within the laws and is within the policy of the department to react this way in this type of situation, then who am I to be an armchair quarterback?
Quote CD: "You sound like a liberal, it's all about feelings."
Your opinion. I want the facts to base my decision, it appears you don`t. That`s the way I see it. And I am so far from being a liberal its not even funny. Take about taking a Barney Fife(sic?) attitude, you just did.
Quote CD: " No, an officer may shoot when he is threatened. and by the way, Department Policy is not law, it's only policy. Learn the difference."
I said the law "and" department policy. You need to learn how to read.
Quote CD: "How many roadside stops feel threatening? By your amazing logic, an officer should just open fire when approaching a suspicious vehicle."
Your reaching and assuming something I never said. We are talking about a dog, not a human being. I do hope you know the difference.....
Quote CD: " I feel for the police but somehow, I just don't thing that is how we want our law enforcement to work."
I need to know that facts to make judgment. Maybe it was justified, maybe not.
Quote CD: "The cop should have shot your Husky years ago when he felt threatened because it would have been okay. After all, he did feel threatened, didn't he?"
If my dog made any agressive move toward the cop, I couldn`t complain, now could I. And why were the cops at my house? Would you like to know?
Quote CD; " Perhaps then you would have a better grasp of this issue."
You don`t even have a grasp of this issue there slick.
Same genius that shot a friendly dog, who knows how he carries!
It may not have been his primary weapon, just the one he grabbed.
For that matter, "pocket" may have actually been from his waist-band, the dog owner may be slightly fuzzy on such a detail after seeing their dog shot.
I give "credence" to people who have nothing obvious to lose or to gain by telling their side of the story. The cop's reaction is going to be to try to protect his career. By the owners' standards, NOTHING would have justified the shooting of their dog.
The neighbor witnessed the event as a third party, and unless his story is found to be contrived, carries more weight than either the officer's or the pet owners.
Your sarcastic reply reflects either a penchant for picking fights or a blind faith in law enforcement to always do the right thing.
Also, the article said "WITNESSES" said the dog jumped up on him in a friendly way. Not just this Mercer guy. Unless the owners have multiple observers in their pockets, some "credence" should be given to what they said.
Granted, there *could* be extenuating circumstances which justify the shooting, but if the facts of the article are correct, and the witnesses reported what they saw even somewhat accurately the cop was out of line.
Another poster made the comment that many detectives or plainclothed cops use a pancake holster or a shoulder holster. To a bystander, it could very well appear he pulled the weapon from his pocket.
"Well he weren't too pleased."
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.