” it was at least as likely as not that the shooting was legit, therefore...”not guilty”...”not responsible”.
Did they have a warrant? Were they not trespassing? Should they be allowed to open the front door and walk in the house and shoot their pet dog? Why not? The door to their property was the front gate, in the fence. They can’t just walk in without permission. It’s the same as their front door.
What if an unarmed teenager rushed the cop? Should they just shoot the teenager? The teenager might bite them.
These are “trigger happy” cops who have been trained to see ANY threat, as life threatening allowing lethal force to be used. This is nonsense. They won’t die from a dog bite IF and I say IF the dog was going to bite them.
I know from 35 years of going to peoples homes every day as a stranger and my uniformed wife for 30 years going to hundreds of locations (homes) a day, that we are very much alive and well. We never had to shoot a dog, well, we never would have shot any dog if we were armed. You see we were not cowards. We were not afraid of dogs. We knew they were 99% bark. You could tell the ones that might cause you harm, so you would be cautious and take precautions to protect yourself. Also I can tell you the breed has nothing to do with it.
In my opinion, it is NEVER, I say NEVER, necessary for a cop to shoot a dog.
I don't know.There was no mention of it.One would think that that family could get a lot more from a lawsuit alleging illegal entry than one regarding a dead dog.So I would bet that,under *that* case's particular circumstances,their presence on the property violated no laws.
Should they be allowed to open the front door and walk in the house..
Depends on the circumstances.I didn't notice any mention made of either of them having entered the dwelling without permission...or entering it at all,for that matter.If I've missed anything regarding these points do point it out to me.
These are “trigger happy” cops who have been trained to see ANY threat, as life threatening allowing lethal force to be used.
We can't know if they're "trigger happy" or not until we know their full history as cops.And it's reasonable for cops to use different standards when deciding whether to fire upon a person or an animal.With an animal the standard needn't be "life threatening" whereas with a person it most assuredly must be exactly that.
In my opinion, it is NEVER, I say NEVER, necessary for a cop to shoot a dog.
So will you extend that to "it's never necessary for a *person* to shoot a dog"? Or are cops the only ones who are never allowed to do so.Perhaps we should scour the reports of the nation's ERs to see if they ever treat people who are seriously injured (or worse) by dogs.I'd be stunned if we didn't find at least some...if not many.Perhaps if there an ER doc/nurse..or a cop reading this he/she/they can weigh in on that rather important issue.
Actually, yes. That happens occasionally.Officers are not required to experience discomfort or risk ơf mussing their uniforms. any level of force is justified to prevent these things. "I felt threatened," justifies any use of force at all.