Police fatally shoot dog while executing search warrant

trivalleyherald.com ^ | 9.5.03 | Robert Airoldi

[freepatriot32]

FREMONT -- A 41-year-old Fremont man whose dog was shot by police officers when they forcibly entered his house looking for marijuana plants has a prescription from his doctor to use pot and a certificate from the Oakland Cannabis Cooperative allowing him to grow and possess it, according to documents obtained by ANG Newspapers. Robert Filgo and his wife, Yvette Filgo, 38, were arrested Tuesday night after seven police officers served a search warrant at their Niles home and found 79 plants in the back yard and garage.

[MontanaBeth]

He has a medical prescription from his Doctor, flicker, as was voted and passed by the people of California.

[rightofrush]

You need to do as I do. Scroll down to see the other comments, get a cup of coffee, go to the bathroom, etc.

[Sparta]

Question: Since shooting a police dog can get you the death penatly in many states, will the JBTs who murdered this dog be subjected to the death penalty or do the rules just apply to us serfs?

[ambrose]

During the raid, their 1-year-old shepherd-Akita mix, Little Bear, was shot at nine times and killed as he charged officers, police said.

[ambrose]

"Aim small, miss small..."

[ambrose]

[ironman]

You both need to re-read the article. Your comments seem to imply the dog was shot in the rear as he charged the officers (charging BUTT-FIRST?) but that's not what the article says.

I think the home owners do have a case that they were not given reasonable time to respond. On the other hand 79 plants seems like way more than needed for any one person's medical use.

[coloradan]

I'm once again reminded of the major distinction between the Gestapo and the BATF, SWAT, FBI, et. al. - The Gestapo always knocked first.

No, there are three other distinctions: The Gestapo kept their weapons holstered (unless needed), they came during DAYTIME, and they didn't swear or even raise their voices when they spoke to arrestees.

[Chemist_Geek]

Cops could arrive at the wrong address, or the informant could give the cops wrong information, or anyone else could make a mistake and then, a citizen could lose his life on a drug bust.

That's happened in the past, and every time it does happen again, the stoners and druggies wave the bloody shirt and put the blame solely on the police.

I'm trying to square it away - I want to destroy the druggies, stoners, and those who would steal more lives into the haze of drugs, but, we've got to minimize collateral damage. I don't know how - there is no perfection in this world.

[UCANSEE2]

Unfortunately, the response of SWAT teams comes from the experience of raids on violent criminal types that keep dangerous dogs (or dogs trained by idiots to be dangerous) in the house or yard to attack any stranger. The criminals believe this may give them time to escape.

So, SWAT teams developed a policy of shoot first, see if dog is friendly later.

This, absolutely, is no excuse. First, this man was not a hardcore,violent criminal. Second, you can tell if a dog is going to attack you, usually by the fact the dog has your leg in it's mouth.

These SWAT team guys are pushing the line, shooting the dog, in case the suspect doesn't give them a chance to do any other shooting. They like to keep in practice.

The question is how do we get control of this type of situation?

I think we have to go back to the source of the problem. Some say criminals are more violent today. BALONEY!

You should have lived back in the frontier days, or the gold rush days.

Society is not nearly as violent as it used to be. The violence is concentrated , mostly, in certain areas.

So, what is the source, what is the answer?

The answer is in our justice system. We have lost the only thing that prevents most crimes. That is respect for the law and authority.

What I mean by this is not the mindless sheeple attitude of "laws good, obey laws,hmmmmmm". It is the knowledge that If I commit CRIME "A", I WILL GET PUNISHMENT "A".

It used to be that if a gang of youngsters broke into a house, raped and killed the family, stole or damaged everything, they would be subject to the highest penalty. Today, we have watered down our punishment.

Doctor Spock said don't spank you kids, and the COURTS don't give out punishment related to the crime. Society wants abeyance from the responsibility for improper raising of the children, and gets it by being soft on criminals.

Get the courts to ensure the punishment fits the crime, and you will see violent crime rates start to lower.

[coloradan]

I want to destroy the druggies, stoners, and those who would steal more lives into the haze of drugs

Interesting. You want to "destroy" those who would "steal more lives" into the haze of drugs. Sounds kind of like killing abortionists, except that abortionists kill others while druggies only kill themselves, if they kill anyone at all.

[Chemist_Geek]

Sounds kind of like killing abortionists, except that abortionists kill others while druggies only kill themselves, if they kill anyone at all.

Wrong. Stoners and druggies murder innocents ruthlessly; whether it be directly to steal money for their next fix, or indirectly by recruiting another druggie, every last stoner and druggie continuously attempts to destroy innocent lives.

[jmc813]

I'm trying to square it away - I want to destroy the druggies, stoners, and those who would steal more lives into the haze of drugs

I can assume you are consistent and want to destroy everyone who consumes and sells alcohol, correct?

[jmc813]

The question is how do we get control of this type of situation?

Getting rid of unconstitutional gun laws would be a big step in the right direction IMO.

[Chemist_Geek]

Alcohol doesn't destroy the mind like drugs do.

You stoners and druggies have destroyed so much... How many Einstein-quality minds were instead led into a life of munchies and dime bags? How many people suffered permanent destruction of their minds for a "little high?" How many loves were ruined because a person cared more for their fix, than their partner? - I know of at least one.

[jmc813]

You stoners and druggies have destroyed so much... How many Einstein-quality minds were instead led into a life of munchies and dime bags? How many people suffered permanent destruction of their minds for a "little high?" How many loves were ruined because a person cared more for their fix, than their partner? - I know of at least one.

You forgot to mention having sex with colored jazz musicians. Thank you for clearing up the fact that there is no way in hell you are a scientist, much less a chemist, though.

[coloradan]

You aren't describing "stoners" or "druggies," you are describing violent criminals - murderers, armed robbers and the like. Are you capable of separating drug use from violent crime in your mind? This guy was growing his own pot at home for his own use, with full permission from the state. Why would he rob someone else? He had all he needed growing at home. He was also gainfully employed - or at least was until the government stole his computer.

[meyer]

I'd say that the guy needed more dogs - about 12 would be appropriate.

[coloradan]

How many loves were ruined because a person cared more for their fix, than their partner? - I know of at least one.

How many loves were ruined because a person cared more for their {hobby, job, art, writing, music, fame, computer, sport} than their partner? - I know of many.

[azhenfud]

"You both need to re-read the article."

This is from the article:

"...was shot at nine times and killed as he charged officers, police said.... Then, at least one officer fired at the dog three times, striking him once in the rear."

I take it the "Then" means "afterwards" of the "was shot at nine times and killed", which equates to "The sorry shot couldn't hit a dead dog but once out of three shots and then only in the rear".