Posted on 05/07/2008 6:09:50 AM PDT by PittsburghAfterDark
More support for the claim that the shooter drew the gun before the dog was release (and for the probablility that he drew it with the intent to shoot it) since he had time to shoot Aulf twice.
No its not. Your dillusional.
You don’t need to have a gun drawn to be able to shoot a charging animal.
The investigation will happen, and the truth will come out. Hopefully it will conclude a good kill, and not another incident where the cops did something questionable.
Of course you don't, but it does make you more likely to be successful than unsuccessful, especially over short distances.
It's really a time and motion study and one of the main things investigators will look at in comparison to the various statements made by officers and alleged witnesses.
Some witnesses have put the distance well under the 1.5 second/21 foot rule. That a police dog is usually able to cover that distance faster than 1.5 seconds should surprise no one, which makes it likely that the shooter did in fact pull the gun first, that the dog was released after the gun was displayed and not the other way around.
Old PATCO people continue to express extraordinary disgust with Ronald Reagan. No doubt you do not tolerate critics ~ thinking them all "cop haters".
I then found the most serious flaw ~ the handler and his dog were involved in a butt biting incident of an old woman several weeks ago.
Now I think the woman should have had her butt bit ~ she was simply another leftwing moonbat out screaming in rage about my country, but the fact that incident happend definitely casts this incident in an entirely different light.
The lawyers will have fun.
Then, their next client will be a cop. They will have fun again.
Are you suggesting any suspect given orders by police should ignore the order, and if the dog is released, it's reasonable to shoot the dog?
I’m saying survival instinct is just that survival instinct. Fight or flight, have you ever had an animal attack you? I have, you instinctively defend yourself from it. If a dog is lunging for me, or coming after me or any other animal for that matter, and I am armed, I’m going to shoot it... To expect someone to just stand there and take an animal attack just because you said so is ludicrous.
If this guy was threatening the police or the public, then fine send in the dog/shoot etc.. If however he wasn’t, and you send a dog after him, and he defends himself from the attack by the dog, but does not threaten anyone else, and you shoot him for simply defending himself.. that’s problematic.
Are you suggesting any suspect given orders by police should ignore the order, and if the dog is released, it's reasonable to shoot the dog?
Im saying survival instinct is just that survival instinct. Fight or flight, have you ever had an animal attack you? I have, you instinctively defend yourself from it. If a dog is lunging for me, or coming after me
Feel free to answer the specific BOLDED question above this time, not a bunch of hypothetical, or if this or if that crap.
Like I told you earlier...You pick up the phone and call the cops, tell them shots are being fired, you go stand out there and when they pull up, stick your hand up under your shirt. When they tell you to show your hand, refuse...See what happens slick.
After reading this guy's rap sheet, all I can say is it's a shame the dog died.
This punk was destined to kill someone (probably already has -- there's a lot of unsolved gang bang murders.)
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.