[spunkets]

"Police coming to the house, for them the dog is an inconvenience no question, but they don't have some automatic right to execute the family pet, so it won't be a bother, since it isn't illegal to own one. "

Evidently the boy was selling pot from the home. If the family didn't want the cops in there, they should have told the boy not to do it. The cops had a valid warrant for that house that a judge signed.

" So it is mean and nasty. That's just too bad."

Given the circumstances, the cops had the right to be there. Any thing mean and nasty opposing them and posing a threat to them, is likely to be rightfully shot.

[Casio]

"Police coming to the house, for them the dog is an inconvenience no question, but they don't have some automatic right to execute the family pet, so it won't be a bother, since it isn't illegal to own one. "

Evidently the boy was selling pot from the home. If the family didn't want the cops in there, they should have told the boy not to do it. The cops had a valid warrant for that house that a judge signed.

I am pro-victim, anti-criminal, thus pretty much pro-authority in general. When some cops here and there exceed their authority (even if officially not), it harms the reputation of the police. That's when the pro-criminal anti-victim layer of the society finds excuses to curb the authority of the police. Such as this case. You can be personally critical of marijuana, but let's face it, an 18 year old perhaps selling a bag or two (was not labeled a real dealer, which 18 years olds are usually not) is not the type of crime where the police have a good reason to start firing guns, and handcuffing children. If whoever was there couldn't handle the situation, should have called for backup. It is simple as that.

Protecting the police in an event like this, harms the police in the long run.

Gabor