Posted on 08/05/2012 6:25:11 PM PDT by FunkyZero
CLEVELAND COUNTY, Okla.
A Cleveland County woman says she called a sheriff's deputy for help, but when he arrived at her home, he shot and killed her dog without provocation.
(Excerpt) Read more at koco.com ...
Did the police officer break the law? Will he be arrested for shooting the dog?
If her “contained “ dog had bitten a friend the friend could sue her. Her insurance company would have to pay up.
The one with the real irrational behavior is the woman who invites a violent boyfriend into her home, putting her mother and children in danger and then wants others to take care of her business ie the taxpayer.
Yes, unlawfully shooting a dog is against the law.
The dog did not bite anyone. The police officer shot the dog.
Why are you defending the police officer’s irrationality? Do you approve of irrational responses to the mere presence of a dog? Are you cynophobic yourself?
Do you fear that you will be shot by an irrational officer if you do not defend irrationality?
But lets examine what we do know. We do know that this woman has a 7 year old dog that's not spayed and she lets the dog roam free because the 7 year old dog just gave birth to a litter. Dogs who have just given birth are protective so I can see a likely scenario where the dog felt threatened and charged the cop. Sounds like an irresponsible pet owner to me. Lets her dog get knocked up, and is clueless to the aggressive behavior of a new mother dog
We also know that this woman practices bad judgment in her personal life with the violent boyfriend and all.
So we have an irresponsible pet owner and and an irresponsible woman in her personal life.
Do you identify with people who act irresponsibly in what seems to be every aspect of their life? Maybe that's why you overlook all of her irresponsible behavior.
I suggest you do some research here on Free Republic as to the number of officers who have unlawfully shot dogs, and had their behavior ignored by other officers as a professional courtesy.
“The dog charged at me” is dropped as a standard ‘justification’ in nearly all of those cases. No matter whether the officer was called or not. No matter whether the officer intruded on the dog owner’s property or not. Clearly, this is now part of their training to defend their behavior.
Given a government employee who shot a dog based on irrational fear and a non-government employee who has committed no crime and who has not acted irrationally, The word of the non-government employee holds more validity.
Why are you defending the irrational behavior of a government employee?
The behavior is no more appropriate than it would be were the perpetrator a house guest who was invited to the owner’s residence.
Why are you defending a government employee who victimized a private citizen?
Why are you defending a deadbeat with a violent boyfriend and a dog she doesn’t take care of or tie up?
“If you can demonstrate, factually, that unlawful, unwarranted dog shootings of housedogs by LEOs has NOT majorly jumped in the past 20 years, I will apologize on Free Republic and retract my statement.”
Strawman.
FTM, how about YOU present facts as you think they are?
I think the cops need “Dog Sensitivity Training.”
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.