Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Killing of family dog unfolds on videotape (Dog shooter gets desk duty)
tennessean.com ^ | 1/9/03 | LEON ALLIGOOD

Posted on 01/09/2003 5:33:49 AM PST by Rebelbase

Edited on 05/07/2004 9:20:17 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Three minutes and seven seconds tells the story of a dog named Patton.

The dog, which was shot at close range Jan. 1 by a Cookeville policeman during a felony traffic stop, belonged to the James Smoak family of Saluda, N.C. At the time, the Tennessee Highway Patrol suspected the Smoaks

(Excerpt) Read more at tennessean.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; dogkiller
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-342 next last
To: Politically Correct
For all you know you have a car full of bank robbers.

What bank were they suspected as having robbed?

What was the basis for this suspicion? A single cell phone call from an anonymous person who saw a wallet fall off the top of the car?

For all I know, the FReeper named "Politically Correct" is really Osama Bin Laden and maybe a Predator drone should zap the location of the computer he is using.

All it takes is a phone call, active imagination and an idiot with the authority to kill w/o consequence.

101 posted on 01/09/2003 8:13:53 AM PST by kako
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Nov3
If had been a police dog shot, rest assured these people would be behind bars, waiting for murder conviction. Shooting a police dog is the equivalent of shooting a police officer in the eyes of the justice system. Shooting a citizen's dog, however, means a slap on the wrist.
102 posted on 01/09/2003 8:14:37 AM PST by fogarty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
You didn't see the video because you can not see the dog "prancing around".

I'm not defending the officer. What I am saying is that the video does not show what kind of agression the dog was showing as it was in the frame for about two seconds before it disappears. That dog's tail was not swinging wildly from side to side like when he greets you at the door. An erect tail, such as in the video, is a sign of alertness. Not necessarily agressiveness, mind you, just that he's on alert. As he jumps out of the vehicle, that alert tail will bounce.

The dog and the cop were out of the picture and at the last instant the cop backed into the camera frame with what "appears" to be the dog lunging at him. Unfortunate as it is, it becomes a he said/she said determination on the part of any judge.

103 posted on 01/09/2003 8:16:55 AM PST by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct
Since no felony had been committed, why was a felony stop indicated.

Having been the "victim" of a felony stop many years ago, I suggest that the cops make sure a felony has been committed before they stop someone at gunpoint.

IS THAT REALLY ASKING TOO MUCH?????????????????
104 posted on 01/09/2003 8:21:22 AM PST by T Wayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: kako
What bank were they suspected as having robbed?
What was the basis for this suspicion? A single cell phone call from an anonymous person who saw a wallet fall off the top of the car?

Sigh.......
Yeah, after the fact we know that.
But that was not the information fed to the officers.
If there's anyone that should suffer for this travisty it's the dispatchers that got all the info screwed up.

Just my opinion........

105 posted on 01/09/2003 8:23:01 AM PST by Politically Correct
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct
From what I understand so far about this case there was not a crime which could even be remotely linked to the Smoak family, their car or location.

Someone saw a wallet & some cash and the cops/dispatchers conjured up a phantom crime to suit their mentality so they could excercise their full jack-booted glory.

106 posted on 01/09/2003 8:30:43 AM PST by kako
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819436/posts?page=117#117
107 posted on 01/09/2003 8:33:39 AM PST by wimpycat (Nothin' could be finer than to be in Caroliner....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
All you cop-haters on this thread make me want to puke! Did the officer in this particular case make a snap decision, perhaps even a hasty decision in shooting the dog? Probably. Would I be upset if this happened to my family. Without doubt. Regardless, cops are human. They are going to make mistakes. They are not perfect like some of you wannabe anarchists on this thread. 99% of the outstanding men and women who serve and protect us do it with class and integrity.

It's ashamed they have to be denegrated by ingrates who are probably too stupid and cowardly to walk in their shoes, risking death every day, to protect the innocent people of this country against those who would do them harm.

108 posted on 01/09/2003 8:39:39 AM PST by American Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
"The dog was NOT in attack stance, it was not running and did not display the typical aggressive signals."

I would suggest you review the clip one more time. Dogs don't necessarily "sprint" to a target when they attack. This dog appears to be heading for the officer that was not in the camera frame right from the get go. The officer backs up into the frame and shoots at what "appears" to be the dog lunging at him (There's a light object that comes into the picture and stops when the gun goes off, I'm assuming that's the dog)

Typical aggressive signs? Just what are "typical agressive signs"? Do you mean the officer has to literally have the dog's mouth around his throat before he can shoot?

BTW, all this happened in three seconds. Check the timer on the screen, there wasn't much time to do any "prancing around" as some were suggesting.

109 posted on 01/09/2003 8:39:40 AM PST by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Darnright
Darnright, you are absolutely right. If someone must take their dog in a car, that dog should be secured in some kind of protective crate.

Of course, if someone needs to bring a big dog just a few lcoal miles to the vet, hauling out the crate might be more work than is necessary. However, given the all-too common occurrence of dogs jumping out into traffic and now, IDIOT MORONS WITH BADGES AND GUNS shooting every dog they see because they think it's a rabid pit bull, dogs should always be secured inside the car with a leash.

This cop deserves a good as* kicking; probably, the boys in blue will slap him on his wrists and release him into the public where, as usual, he'll me more of a menace than anything else.
110 posted on 01/09/2003 8:41:28 AM PST by mg39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: mg39
If your father or brother were a police officer would you consider them "IDIOT MORONS WITH BADGES AND GUNS"?
111 posted on 01/09/2003 8:44:03 AM PST by American Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
"Don't police have the "right" to search a car without consent if they can see things in plain sight? If they close the door, there is less that they can see. "

This why, whenver possible, when you are asked to exit your car, you lock it behind you.
112 posted on 01/09/2003 8:47:55 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: American Blood
I've walked in combat boots for a decade. I've trod in places where most cops have not.

My loyalty is to the US Constitution. Their oath is to protect and serve. When they have departed from that oath, they need to be held accountable.

Let me make my point clear again: when cops trample on the Constitution of the United States, then in my mind it makes them domestic enemies. It is black or white in my mind.

113 posted on 01/09/2003 8:47:55 AM PST by fogarty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ijcr
Why is it that only LEO's are justified with this 2 sec rule?

Because, tsk, silly, there are different rules for lords and serfs.... (sarcasm off)

114 posted on 01/09/2003 8:48:41 AM PST by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: American Blood
I call it like I see it (all too often). I've met plenty of cops; I'm even friends with a cop. None, not one of them, seemed smart, and that includes my friend.

The cop in this case is too damn stupid to have a gun and a badge.
115 posted on 01/09/2003 8:48:49 AM PST by mg39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
"Meanwhile you never breathe word of thanks for the good work they do keeping you and your property safe."

Other than being ready to come out and collect evidence after the fact, how do the cops keep me and my property safe?

116 posted on 01/09/2003 8:50:17 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
The cops, as part of the government have NO rights. They have responsibilities.

Note that I had "rights" in quotes.

117 posted on 01/09/2003 8:51:10 AM PST by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: kako
From what I understand so far about this case there was not a crime which could even be remotely linked to the Smoak family, their car or location.
Someone saw a wallet & some cash and the cops/dispatchers conjured up a phantom crime to suit their mentality so they could excercise their full jack-booted glory.

No doubt that the dispatchers screwed it up.
No evidence that the cops were aware.....me thinks your tinfoil is showing from under your hat.

118 posted on 01/09/2003 8:51:58 AM PST by Politically Correct
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras
Gimme a break! The cop could have used a baton, could have simply used the butt of the shotgun to hit the dog on the snout, could have done any number of things. Police officers should be TRAINED to recognize when a situation is life threatening. It is clear from the aftermath of this event, his life was NOT in immediate danger.

Instead this guy simply blew the head of the dog off with his shotgun.

119 posted on 01/09/2003 8:52:06 AM PST by fogarty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
For someone who has served in our great military, your ungratefulness for the outstanding job that most of our officers do is extremely perplexing. You have plenty of venom for the small percentage who "trample the constitution", but yet I hear no words of praise for the vast majority who serve and protect with honor and integrity every single day. How sad.
120 posted on 01/09/2003 8:56:29 AM PST by American Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-342 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson