Cowards with guns

[Strike For The South]

In fairness to Tribes, there is some hypocricy here. I recall another thread about a guy who shot two men to death when they were fleeing a neighbor's house with stolen goods. They were running away from the shooter and posed absolutely no threat to him, yet he said he feared for his life and had no choice but to gun them down (in the back, as they ran away) even after the 911 operator he was talking to advised him to just stay in his house and wait for police.

Some of the same people who are in this thread saying the cop should not have shot the dog because it posed no threat to him (even though they weren't there and can not possibly have any idea whether or not the cop felt threatened) defended the shooter in the other article, saying that the fleeing suspects posed a threat to him and he was absolutely justified in murdering them.

But illegal Mexican immigrants aren't cute, soft and furry, so I can see where they are coming from on this one...

They weren't mexican they were Afro-colombian and they were coming back towards him. I agree with you but do your homework before you you make accusations.

[Goofball]

They weren't mexican they were Afro-colombian and they were coming back towards him. I agree with you but do your homework before you you make accusations.

My apologies. They were illegal immigrants of the visible minority sort, so it really makes no difference to my point. I still stand by the fact that they were neither cute, soft, nor furry.

And they were not coming back towards him, they were crossing his lawn to get away. They made no threatening moves towards him whatsoever. The shooter himself even admitted after the fact that if he had to to it all over again, he wouldn't have shot them.

Do your own homework, college-boy...

[Strike For The South]

My apologies. They were illegal immigrants of the visible minority sort, so it really makes no difference to my point. I still stand by the fact that they were neither cute, soft, nor furry.

And they were not coming back towards him, they were crossing his lawn to get away. They made no threatening moves towards him whatsoever. The shooter himself even admitted after the fact that if he had to to it all over again, he wouldn't have shot them.

Do your own homework, college-boy...

If you saw them you'd think they were black but that is neither here nor there, I think implicating that some people on this board vuale a dogs life over a minorities only serves the purpose to instigate.

[Goofball]

If you saw them you'd think they were black but that is neither here nor there, I think implicating that some people on this board vuale a dogs life over a minorities only serves the purpose to instigate.

If you mean instigate discussion, I agree. That was the point of my post.

[Tribesman]

Oh man, you didn't read that link, did you? Hilarious!

Crazed Rabbit doesn't understand that his "golden find" statute has absolutely nothing to do with the topic , and on top of that has confused one section c with an entirely different section c to try and make his irrelevant point .
As I am sure you won't understand something so simple rabbit let me put it very plainly . A state statute determining the legal responsibilities and penalties for owners of reported and assesed dangerous dogs and the usual paperwork and appeals process after a report has been made to it has absolutely nothing to do with police methods when responding to a report of a potentially dangerous dog when the dog is unrestrained unattended and outside of its owners property .

Go on and see if you can stick your foot deeper into your mouth.

Oh and Tribesman is just reaching to find some sort of hypocrisy in that.

Hey Panzer ...Some of the same people who are in this thread saying the cop should not have shot the dog because it posed no threat to him (even though they weren't there and can not possibly have any idea whether or not the cop felt threatened) defended the shooter in the other article, saying that the fleeing suspects posed a threat to him and he was absolutely justified in murdering them.

[Tribesman]

BTW rabbit if you want to try and find the relevant statutes , proceedures and even court judgements when police have shot dogs that were not on their owners property that site you link to is so simple to use
And it shows you are talking absolute bollox

[Crazed Rabbit]

Poor rabbit doesn't understand that his "golden find" statute has absolutely nothing to do with the topic , and on top of that has confused one section c with an entirely different section c to try and make his irrelevant point .
As I am sure you won't understand something so simple rabbit let me put it very plainly . A state statute determining the legal responsibilities and penalties for owners of reported and assesed dangerous dogs and the usual paperwork and appeals process after a report has been made to it has absolutely nothing to do with police methods when responding to a report of a potentially dangerous dog when the dog is unrestrained unattended and outside of its owners property .

And deeper in it goes.

Let's review;
You made incorrect claims about the law in North Carolina. So, I found the relevant laws in NC.
You said this after I first linked to the legislation and posted a bit of it:

Yes lets , you missed the part where the police turned up after being told there was a dangerous dog according to section c of that legislation Rabbit supplied .

But according to the same legislation, which I did not post but which was in the link:

The person or Board making the determination that a dog is a "potentially dangerous dog" must notify the owner in writing, giving the reasons for the determination, before the dog may be considered potentially dangerous under this Article.

That, of course, had not happened, so the dog was not potentially dangerous according to the legislation. So this quote:

Yes lets , you missed the part where the police turned up after being told there was a dangerous dog according to section c of that legislation Rabbit supplied .

Is wrong.

You are trying to shift the subject, as usual, by mixing in the issue of how police respond to dangerous dog alerts. That is not covered in the legislation I linked to, but tribesy is trying to make it seem as though I was using this legislation to discuss how police legally respond to reports of dangerous dogs.

I did not, of course, use this legislation to make claims about how police legally respond; I only posted more and more of the legislation as tribesy continued to make false claims about the law.

Indeed, when tribesy made the irresponsible claim that:

[police should]Just shoot the mutt , its quicker simpler safer and cheaper .

I responded with an example of how very, tragically, wrong he was. Of course, being tribesy, he chooses to ignore that and then attempt to weasel his way out of the hole he's dug for himself.

Some of the same people who are in this thread saying the cop should not have shot the dog because it posed no threat to him (even though they weren't there and can not possibly have any idea whether or not the cop felt threatened) defended the shooter in the other article, saying that the fleeing suspects posed a threat to him and he was absolutely justified in murdering them.

1) They weren't merely fleeing as you claim.
2) They had just committed a robbery. The dog had done no wrong.

CR

[Tribesman]

And deeper in it goes

absolutely clueless

You made incorrect claims about the law in North Carolina. So, I found the relevant laws in NC.

that statute has absolutely nothing to do with the topic , you didn't find the relevant laws at all

That, of course, had not happened, so the dog was not potentially dangerous according to the legislation.

rabbits stuck in a burrow , its the wrong statue for the event rabbit
Here have a clue rabbit , according to the law you can shoot a loose dog
Why can you shoot a loose dog ? because it can be potentialy dangerous .
Why not just restrain the dog or call the dog warden ? Because they don't have to , its acceptable before the courts that you can shoot loose dogs in North Carolina (just like it is in Ireland).
Come on Rabbit do yourself a favour , just look up recent cases in North Carolina where people have tried to bring cases against the police , sheriifs departments , highway patrol and the State for the shooting of their loose dogs .
Its very very clear .
North Carolinas Judges say bollox to your lame attempt at understanding legislation

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sheesh, I just said:

You are trying to shift the subject, as usual, by mixing in the issue of how police respond to dangerous dog alerts. That is not covered in the legislation I linked to, but tribesy is trying to make it seem as though I was using this legislation to discuss how police legally respond to reports of dangerous dogs.

I did not, of course, use this legislation to make claims about how police legally respond; I only posted more and more of the legislation as tribesy continued to make false claims about the law.

You're still acting like I was using the legislation to talk about the legality of police responding to reports of dangerous dogs.

that statute has absolutely nothing to do with the topic , you didn't find the relevant laws at all

Not with the topic of police shooting dogs, but with the topic you brought up about the legality of "potentially dangerous dogs" where you mentioned nothing about the police doing the shooting. The laws were relevant to your claim of what a "potentially dangerous dog" is.

its the wrong statue for the event rabbit

I linked to those laws, then you made a comment about them, and then I posted more of those laws. I never said those laws have to do with with the original event; they only serve to rebut your multiple incorrect posts.

I never said those links apply to the original event. They apply only to your false claims about NC law.

You are simply trying to get out of the fact that you were twice wrong about NC law.

North Carolinas Judges say bollox to your lame attempt at understanding legislation

Links or you're lying. But I expect them to say that the laws I linked to don't apply to police shootings.

The only lame understanding going on here is yours. I'm not using the legislation to speak to the legality of the police shooting dogs. But you persist in thinking that way.

But I have made my point. If you have something new to add, please do so instead of continuing to insist I'm saying the legislation I linked to applies to the police shooting in my original post.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

double post

[PanzerJaeger]

In fairness to Tribes, there is some hypocricy here. I recall another thread about a guy who shot two men to death when they were fleeing a neighbor's house with stolen goods. They were running away from the shooter and posed absolutely no threat to him, yet he said he feared for his life and had no choice but to gun them down (in the back, as they ran away) even after the 911 operator he was talking to advised him to just stay in his house and wait for police.

Some of the same people who are in this thread saying the cop should not have shot the dog because it posed no threat to him (even though they weren't there and can not possibly have any idea whether or not the cop felt threatened) defended the shooter in the other article, saying that the fleeing suspects posed a threat to him and he was absolutely justified in murdering them.

But illegal Mexican immigrants aren't cute, soft and furry, so I can see where they are coming from on this one...

Apples and oranges...

If you saw them you'd think they were black but that is neither here nor there, I think implicating that some people on this board vuale a dogs life over a minorities only serves the purpose to instigate.

Wait, which minorities are we talking about...

[KarlXII]

Apples and oranges...

Nice to know.

[Crazed Rabbit]

More incidents:
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/...ad/101975.html

The officer was there to serve a child support warrant for my step-son who did not live with us. Alledgely the officer went to our front door and side door and then went to the back of the house where Max was on his leash, approached Max by the door, alledgely was snipped at, and then his fired 7 shots into our dog.

And then this truly appalling incident from 2003:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/09/pol...dog/index.html

COOKEVILLE, Tennessee (CNN) -- Police video released Wednesday showed a North Carolina family kneeling and handcuffed, who shrieked as officers killed their dog -- which appeared to be playfully wagging its tail -- with a shotgun during a traffic stop.

There's a video.

This happens because the cops who do it get away with it; they are not punished or reprimanded. If the message got out to the cops who like to prove how big they are by killings that they'd be punished, innocent family pets would stop dying from cop bullets.

CR

[Husar]

Maybe there is something that happens during police training that makes them want to kill dogs, surely this cannot be coincidence. Maybe they are being brainwashed or the new federal policy of the USA is to eradicate dogs from this planet, something like that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Maybe there is something that happens during police training that makes them want to kill dogs, surely this cannot be coincidence. Maybe they are being brainwashed or the new federal policy of the USA is to eradicate dogs from this planet, something like that.

No, it's letting bullies with badges get away with it.

tribesy, repeat it as much as you want, but NC law defines dangerous dogs, and it doesn't agree with you. I said dogs can't simply be shot in public places, and upon further searching at the animal law link, found nothing that went against that.

I did find:

§ 67-3. Sheep-killing dogs to be killed

If any person owning or having any dog that kills sheep or other domestic animals, or that kills a human being, upon satisfactory evidence of the same being made before any judge of the district court in the county, and the owner duly notified thereof, shall refuse to kill it, and shall permit such dog to go at liberty, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, and the dog may be killed by anyone if found going at large.

Amended by Laws 1973, c. 108, § 24; Laws 1977, c. 597; Laws 1993, c. 539, § 530; Laws 1994 (1st Ex. Sess.), c. 24, § 14(c), eff. March 26, 1994.

and

When quarantine has been declared and dogs and cats continue to run uncontrolled in the area, any peace officer or Animal Control Officer shall have the right, after reasonable effort has been made to apprehend the animals, to destroy the uncontrolled dogs and cats and properly dispose of their bodies.

and

(b) Any unmuzzled dog running at large upon any wildlife refuge, sanctuary, or management area, when unaccompanied by any person having such dog in charge, shall be seized and impounded by any wildlife protector, or other duly authorized agent or employee of the Wildlife Resources Commission.

But none allow for wanton killing of uncontrolled dogs in public places. Considering these laws, I conclude it is very unlikely there is any such law for NC as you describe.

So until you present some evidence, you are just making stuff up out of thin air.

wrong legislation rabbit , completely irrelevant crap that has no bearing whatsoever on what I wrote

Maybe you should specify that when you mention 'potentially dangerous dogs' just which legal definition of 'potentially dangerous dogs' you are referring to. Or are the misspelled words supposed to be the key?

I provided a definition from NC law for 'potentially dangerous dogs'. You quickly managed to misinterpret it:

Yes lets , you missed the part where the police turned up after being told there was a dangerous dog according to section c of that legislation Rabbit supplied .

I notice you aren't even trying to defend that.

Or, more importantly, your foolhardy directive to just shoot strays.

CR

[Prodigal]

Pretty much dislike all dogs with the exception of labradors, they're probably the friendliest, least threating dogs I've ever come across. They're used as guide dogs...No doubt because of their savage reputation as pit fighting killers.

In relation to the police, I remain amazed at the sheet they believe they can get away with, assaulting people because they don't like them, beating annoying children that own skateboards, tasering people infront of their children for absolutly no reason, pushing people off bikes...Most of the above seems to be the kind of spiteful nastiness you'd expect to see in someone having a really bad day or who was simply hung over. The thing is that imo if someone chooses to enforce the law then they should behave with bloody decorum & in a manner that sets them above those they are policing.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

From someone who loudly supports the right to shoot people if they feel the least bit threatened .

If you have a dog keep it secure in your property , if you fail to act responsibly then don't moan when someone shoots the mutt .
Simple isn't it .



Read the comments from the Dalmatian owner for clarification .

I don't argee with you most of the time, but on this I do. I mean Jesus, if you that crazy to let your dog run around loose and it starts attacking or SEEMS like it will. Then don;t cry when it dies.

In relation to the police, I remain amazed at the sheet they believe they can get away with, assaulting people because they don't like them, beating annoying children that own skateboards, tasering people infront of their children for absolutly no reason, pushing people off bikes.

Because those person derseved it. If you act STUPID, then what the cops suppose to do? Be Nice to You? Yeah, If someone is on Drugs and acting crazy, I should shoot them.... Wait No, I would kill them.

I can Tase them! Non-Lethal!.... but Wait, that could kill him to if not done right... Lets just let them run loose, smart move!

[AlexanderSextus]

You know Sean Bell was shot 50 TIMES ON HIS WEDDING NIGHT Because the cops "Felt threatened" or "Feared Harm". Dude didn't even have a gun. Oh, Yeah, he also happened to be black.

Yeah i know a person isnt the same as a dog, but hey, same situation.

I despise 98% of police officers. There's that small 2% that are okay people, but obviously they are few and far between.

Protect and serve doesn't exist anymore. It got trumped by this thing called a Quota, and that other thing called a Paycheck.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I despise 98% of police officers. There's that small 2% that are okay people, but obviously they are few and far between.

That's what I don't understand about American law enforcement. 99% of all police officers I have talked to treat me courteously and with respect, on and off duty. I know customs officials in America can be a little blunt - is it the same with police officers?

[AlexanderSextus]

That's what I don't understand about American law enforcement. 99% of all police officers I have talked to treat me courteously and with respect, on and off duty. I know customs officials in America can be a little blunt - is it the same with police officers?

Did they actually have a REASON to be where you were or were you just talking to them casually??

If its the latter, then thats why they're nice. If someone Gives them any little reason to suspect you're doing something wrong, they almost 100% of the time will treat you like a piece of crap.

They will also tend to break the law because they know they can just make up something in court and the judge will believe them because they are cops. They are totally allowed to lie.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Did they actually have a REASON to be where you were or were you just talking to them casually??

Both, of course.

If its the latter, then thats why they're nice. If someone Gives them any little reason to suspect you're doing something wrong, they almost 100% of the time will treat you like a piece of crap.

I do not have that experience with police officers here.

[Tribesman]

tribesy, repeat it as much as you want, but NC law defines dangerous dogs, and it doesn't agree with you. I said dogs can't simply be shot in public places, and upon further searching at the animal law link, found nothing that went against that.

You really don't know the law do you , thats why you should look at cases instead , because judges do .

I did find:

Ah the livestock one , irrelevant to the topic but an interesting piece . In North Carolina you have to be very careful when using that statute because the wording isn't the same as in other States and you can come unstuck , like the farmer who shot the greyhound that was apparently hunting coyotes . If he had just called it a potentially dangerous dog he was OK , but he tried to use the livestock statute and failed .

But I see you are completely lost , unable to comprehend the legal issues in the slightest .
So I suppose you need some sort of clue to see how far you have dug yourself into a hole .
Can you perhaps find any statute or local ordinance that prohibits a policeman or private citizen from shooting what they percieve to be a dangerous dog ?

Pretty much dislike all dogs with the exception of labradors, they're probably the friendliest, least threating dogs I've ever come across. They're used as guide dogs...No doubt because of their savage reputation as pit fighting killers.

Ah the lovely friendly labrador , at #12 on the list of dogs that fatally attack people in America .

[Husar]

My guess is it might have something to do with the chance that the suspect has a gun, in some countries it's lower and in others it's higher, if it's higher the police will be more nervous and take less chances I would think.

[PanzerJaeger]

You know Sean Bell was shot 50 TIMES ON HIS WEDDING NIGHT Because the cops "Felt threatened" or "Feared Harm". Dude didn't even have a gun. Oh, Yeah, he also happened to be black.

Yeah i know a person isnt the same as a dog, but hey, same situation.

I despise 98% of police officers. There's that small 2% that are okay people, but obviously they are few and far between.

Protect and serve doesn't exist anymore. It got trumped by this thing called a Quota, and that other thing called a Paycheck.

You get what you pay for.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

You know Sean Bell was shot 50 TIMES ON HIS WEDDING NIGHT Because the cops "Felt threatened" or "Feared Harm". Dude didn't even have a gun. Oh, Yeah, he also happened to be black.

Yeah i know a person isnt the same as a dog, but hey, same situation.

I despise 98% of police officers. There's that small 2% that are okay people, but obviously they are few and far between.

Protect and serve doesn't exist anymore. It got trumped by this thing called a Quota, and that other thing called a Paycheck.

Oh Yeah, Every time a cop does it, he is racist!


How about, People are stupid?

[Tribesman]

Where oh where is that rabbit ?
For all his calls of wrong wrong liar and false has he actually realised he is stuck in hole of his own making ?
Ever since rabbit wrote

No, they can't be. You're talking out of your ass.

he as been completely lost . Because you can shoot a dog that you consider dangerous as there is no law that says you cannot , just as there is no law that says you are obliged to refer it to adjudication or call the dog warden...and for any help you need in deciding if you can consider a dog as a potentially dangerous dog and shoot it there is a nice definition on the statutes of the state .
So for all the talk of other people not understanding the law and obviously incorrect statements like......

You are simply trying to get out of the fact that you were twice wrong about NC law.

....Rabbit hasn't the faintest idea what he was talking about .
If only he had used the link he so kindly provided eh

[KukriKhan]

I guess we're finished then, discussing 'police over-reaction' or 'justifiable use of force'.

Thanks for all contributions.

Thread closed.