You cannot read, I said the cop had no business in the yard,
If a cop has no business in the yard, then if a cop enters a yard, it follows he has trespassed illegally. Therefore, he was illegally on her property and illegally shot her dog. He has committed a crime.
then I said the article says it was a pitbull
Nowhere in the article is the dog called a pitbull.
The dog is described as a “Foxhound Mix”. The two exact words used in the article. The word “pitbull” occurs nowhere in the article.
and the picture in the article of a dog with a wound is a pitbull. Now when do you want that appointment.
How are you coming with the objective evidence that the dog is an American Staffordshire Bull Terrier? Do you even known what one looks like?
Why are you taking the claims of those caught committing illegal activity (”the dog was a pitbull”) more seriously than the claims of the victim of the crime—the owner of the dog, OUR FELLOW CITIZEN, who had committed no crime?
Why are you taking the word of the State above that of the Private Citizen?
PitBull is a generic name for several types of Terriers and mixes.
The cops claimed that they shot a “pitbull” to cover their government-employed arses. They trespassed illegally, and they had the audacity to claim that a dog THEY shot in the side was “coming at” them. In other words, the placement of the bullet wounds on the animal contradicts the story told by the cops.
Cops are not experts in identifying dog breeds and consistently mis-identify dog breeds, particularly when they need to cover their arses when they believe it warranted. Good cops can tell a consistent story that lines up with the facts. They know that the facts and evidence will corroborate their story.
A pity that far too many Law Enforcement Officers don’t follow Sir Robert Peel’s principles like Peace Officers used to, isn’t it? Then we woulnd’t be reading this story about a fellow citizen victimized by those members of the citizenry who took oaths to serve and protect their fellow citizens.
Or at the very least, we would be reading about how the deputies in question had been removed from the force, prevented from ever serving on any other force in the nation and how the Chief of Police announced that the force would be covering the dog’s veterinary expenses in order to amend the wrong done.
Know what the public response would have been by most conservatives if that is what occurred? A crime was committed, but the guilty paid and the victim was compensation. Justice was done.
The cops claimed that they shot a “pitbull” to cover their government-employed arses. They trespassed illegally, and they had the audacity to claim that a dog THEY shot in the side was “coming at” them. In other words, the placement of the bullet wounds on the animal contradicts the story told by the cops.
Cops are not experts in identifying dog breeds and consistently mis-identify dog breeds, particularly when they need to cover their arses when they believe it warranted. Good cops can tell a consistent story that lines up with the facts. They know that the facts and evidence will corroborate their story.
A pity that far too many Law Enforcement Officers don’t follow Sir Robert Peel’s principles like Peace Officers used to, isn’t it? Then we woulnd’t be reading this story about a fellow citizen victimized by those members of the citizenry who took oaths to serve and protect their fellow citizens.
Or at the very least, we would be reading about how the deputies in question had been removed from the force, prevented from ever serving on any other force in the nation and how the Chief of Police announced that the force would be covering the dog’s veterinary expenses in order to amend the wrong done.
Know what the public response would have been by most conservatives if that is what occurred? A crime was committed, but the guilty paid and the victim was compensated. Justice was done.