Cowards with guns

[Crazed Rabbit]

MOUNT OLIVE -- It was just after 7 p.m. Thursday on West Main Street, a typically quiet stretch in Mount Olive.

Sharon Kulers heard her Dalmatian barking outside, so she made her way to the back yard.
Durham

Photo submitted

Durham, a 2-year-old 45-lb. Labrador retriever.

She saw a Mount Olive Police Department cruiser pull up to the house behind hers.

Then she noticed the shotgun in one of the officer's hands, aimed at her neighbor's 45-pound Labrador retriever.

"I said, 'Please don't shoot that dog. He won't hurt you,'" Mrs. Kulers said.

The officer looked at her, then back at the dog.

A shot rang out -- then, another.

"I said, 'Why did you have to do that? You didn't have to do that,'" Mrs. Kulers said. "He said, 'It showed its teeth.' He said, 'We have a right to do this.'"

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2008/09/21/mount_olive_police_shoot_vicious_dog/

I'm sick and tired of certain police officers who seem to think they can react with deadly force whenever they feel the least bit threatened, and the system that lets them get away with it.

CR

[HoreTore]

This is why we don't let them near guns here :yes:

[Louis VI the Fat]

[off-topic]

It was just after 7 p.m. Thursday on West Main Street, a typically quiet stretch in Mount Olive.

Sharon Kulers heard her Dalmatian barking outside, so she made her way to the back yard.Those lines read like sheer poetry to me! America is so romantic. :smitten:

Guns don't kill people, lack of a poetic mind does! In an agonisingly slow, fading away into oblivion kind of way.

Dang it! I need to travel America coast to coast, on foot, and write my Great American novel!

[Ser Clegane]

I don't get it - the dog [...] even "lunged" at one of them but OTOH the dog was too far away to spray with mace

Am I missing something here?

[Fragony]

These guys have a tiny bit more power then they should have. 'The Police' should be send home anyway they are nothing but dissobedience-tax, private company can do 10 times as much for the same amount of money.

[Husar]

It's a dog...big deal...

Was the dog on a line?
Was there a fence or anything?

If the dog was running around loosely I could almost understand it, if not then that was pretty wrong and stupid, hard to say from the quoted part.

Louis is right about the poetry, the way the whole thing is described rivals shakespeareian description methods, I'm sure I will dream of Louis this tonight.

[yesdachi]

Sounds careless to me but I can only assume that the officer made the right call, after all they have been trained and carefully chosen for their role to protect and serve. :rolleyes:

Why would a lady that is collecting sticks and pinecones call the police on a playful dog? It doesn’t sound like the dog cornered the stick collector, forcing her to take refuge in a trash can while calling the police to come and save her. That stick collecting troll had something against the dog and knew if she called the dog hating police that they would come and take care of the playful troublemaker once and for all. Durham knocked over her pinecone pile one too many times.

It would have been too hard to walk next door and tell your neighbor to keep the dog out of her yard? Neighbors can suck as much as retarded cops.

Moral of the story: invisible fencing works.

[Xiahou]

A 45lb Lab? Clearly it was a vicious animal that was so life-threatening that they had no choice but to shoot it.... even though it was too far away to use mace.....:inquisitive:


Dang it! I need to travel America coast to coast, on foot motorcycle, and write my Great American novel! Fixed. :beam:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Another story of dog-shooting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html

As the police came in, Calvo said, they shot his 7-year-old black Labrador retriever, Payton, near the front door and then his 4-year-old dog, Chase, also a black Lab, as the dog ran into a back room. Walking through his house yesterday, Calvo pointed out a bullet hole in the drywall where the younger dog had been shot.

The police concluded in an internal review that they were justified in killing the dogs, of course. Funny how they always seem to find out that they were justified in whatever they did.

A good editorial on the incident. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/09/swat_fever_its_epidemic_sorry.html)

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

This is why we don't let them near guns here :yes:

:laugh4:

Umm ya.. it was funny on Reno 911, not so much in real life. :thumbsdown:

[Fragony]

Why would anyone shoot a dog, the kindest creatures there are. This is sick happy hunting.

[Kralizec]

"any time an officer feels threatened, they have the right to respond to that."

There is something awfully wrong with this mindset :wall:

[Husar]

So, who of you told the police that the dogs were allied to the octosquids? :inquisitive:
No wonder they are afraid...

I agree about the minefields, yesdachi. :yes:

[Ronin]

A 45lb Lab? Clearly it was a vicious animal that was so life-threatening that they had no choice but to shoot it.... even though it was too far away to use mace.....:inquisitive:

Fixed. :beam:

what are they supposed to do?..."wrassle" it and control it? police officers are not expect neither would accept I expect to take those kinds of risks...I know I wouldn´t

[JR-]

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2008/09/21/mount_olive_police_shoot_vicious_dog/

I'm sick and tired of certain police officers who seem to think they can react with deadly force whenever they feel the least bit threatened, and the system that lets them get away with it.

CR

a disgrace, i hope the police officer gets officially bollocked.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

what are they supposed to do?..."wrassle" it and control it? police officers are not expect neither would accept I expect to take those kinds of risks...I know I wouldn´t

Were they actually under threat? I don't think so. If there's a dog actually acting aggressive, charging in what you can realistically assume is an intent to kill, then maybe you're justified in shooting. In this case, the dog posed no threat to anyone.

[Reverend Joe]

what are they supposed to do?..."wrassle" it and control it? police officers are not expect neither would accept I expect to take those kinds of risks...I know I wouldn´t

So instead they shoot it like a berzerk grizzly. With a 12-gague pump shotgun. And it doesn't occur to anyone to just call animal control, the people actually trained to handle situations like this?

And it's spelled "Rassel."

[HoreTore]

:laugh4:

Umm ya.. it was funny on Reno 911, not so much in real life. :thumbsdown:

Works out great here :2thumbsup:

[Rhyfelwyr]

How that policeman brought himself to shoot an innocent dog is beyond me. A cat maybe... :clown:

[Tribesman]

I'm sick and tired of certain police officers who seem to think they can react with deadly force whenever they feel the least bit threatened, and the system that lets them get away with it.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
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 .



If the dog was running around loosely I could almost understand it, if not then that was pretty wrong and stupid, hard to say from the quoted part.

Read the comments from the Dalmatian owner for clarification .

[Reverend Joe]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
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 .

Let's not even go there. No matter the circumstance, there is still a difference between a potentially dangerous person and a ******* dog.

[Goofball]

Gotta go with Tribes on this one. It was only a dog. Maybe they made the right call, or maybe the dog was actually harmless. But speaking as someone who was put in the hospital after being attacked by a dog (though it was a dalmation that bit me, not a lab), I say, take no chances. An animal's life is not worth anything close to a person's safety.

[Tribesman]

No matter the circumstance, there is still a difference between a potentially dangerous person and a ******* dog.
Yes there is , I would probably think twice before shooting a person .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Gotta go with Tribes on this one. It was only a dog. Maybe they made the right call, or maybe the dog was actually harmless.

An animal's life is nothing compared to a person's safety if the person was actually threatened. You can't just go around shooting animals because they give you a shifty look or two.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gotta go with Tribes on this one. It was only a dog. Maybe they made the right call, or maybe the dog was actually harmless. But speaking as someone who was put in the hospital after being attacked by a dog (though it was a dalmation that bit me, not a lab), I say, take no chances. An animal's life is not worth anything close to a person's safety.

So, shoot every dog that looks at you or advances in your direction?

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes there is , I would probably think twice before shooting a person .

I wouldn't think twice about shooting a person who was a real danger to my life, but I would think twice before shooting a dog that wasn't.

[Tribesman]

I wouldn't think twice about shooting a person who was a real danger to my life, but I would think twice before shooting a dog that wasn't.

And ???? what has that got to do with the price of cheese?
Try following the line of posts ....

No matter the circumstance, there is still a difference between a potentially dangerous person and a ******* dog. :yes:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And ???? what has that got to do with the price of cheese?
Try following the line of posts ....

The dog was obviously not a danger to the life of the person, and therefore should not have been shot.

[Tribesman]

The dog was obviously not a danger to the life of the person, and therefore should not have been shot.
A dog doesn't have to be a danger to the life of a person , an uncontroled dog in a public place unattended can be shot , because any uncontrolled dog can be potentialy dangerous .
Whats up with you people ? havn't you ever shot a dog ?

[Husar]

Immediately, she thought of her Rottweiler, Bella.

"Because of her breed and her size, I could understand if she got loose and scared someone," Ms. Mangum said.

Well, apparently her dogs weren't quite restrained enough, add to that a neighbor who called police thinking the dog was aggressive:


She was in her yard collecting sticks and pinecones when she mistook a playful lunge for one of aggression, she told her neighbor.

Now I wouldn't expect every police officer to be a dog psychologist so if you want your dogs to be safe, keep them inside when you're not at home or make sure your neighbors do not call the police and tell them your dog is being aggressive. :dizzy2:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A dog doesn't have to be a danger to the life of a person , an uncontroled dog in a public place unattended can be shot , because any uncontrolled dog can be potentialy dangerous .

You should not kill things based on potential danger.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A dog doesn't have to be a danger to the life of a person , an uncontroled dog in a public place unattended can be shot , because any uncontrolled dog can be potentialy dangerous .
Whats up with you people ? havn't you ever shot a dog ?

No, they can't be. You're talking out of your ass.
North Carolina laws on dangerous dogs:
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusncst67_4.htm

(2) "Potentially dangerous dog" means a dog that the person or Board designated by the county or municipal authority responsible for animal control determines to have:

a. Inflicted a bite on a person that resulted in broken bones or disfiguring lacerations or required cosmetic surgery or hospitalization; or

b. Killed or inflicted severe injury upon a domestic animal when not on the owner's real property; or

c. Approached a person when not on the owner's property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack.

So no, not just any uncontrolled dog is labeled a "potentially dangerous dog" under the law. And there's no mention of shooting such dogs.

EDIT: The town mayor disagrees with you as well:

[Mount Olive Mayor Ray] McDonald Sr. disagrees.

"I don't know of any rule or regulation that we have got that permits an officer to kill somebody's pet," he said. "It sounds like we made a horrible mistake. ... It's wrong. Absolutely wrong. I'm sure my board feels the same way."
http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2008/09/22/mayor_mount_olive_officer_made_horrible_mistake/

CR

[Tribesman]

if you want your dogs to be safe, keep them inside when you're not at home or make sure your neighbors do not call the police and tell them your dog is being aggressive.
Or hope that your neighbour hasn't got a gun and shoots the dog without calling the police .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Or hope that your neighbour hasn't got a gun and shoots the dog without calling the police .

Did it make a difference in this case?

[KarlXII]

You should not kill things based on potential danger.

Sure you should. You don't give a potentially dangerous creature a chance to hurt anyone, which may or may not have been the case. If the dog was, say, growling and about to strike, sure, I can see the shooting being justified.

[Xiahou]

So instead they shoot it like a berzerk grizzly. With a 12-gague pump shotgun. And it doesn't occur to anyone to just call animal control, the people actually trained to handle situations like this?I hear these work pretty well:
https://img87.imageshack.us/img87/2900/288768293ae1c7fde2dmvt4.jpg

The sensible thing to do would've been to wait for someone to show up with one of those to apprehend the animal. Had the vicious 45lb dog charged the officers, sure, you have to shoot it, but since it was apparently out of mace range, I don't think it was an imminent threat.

Let's go over this again- A neighbor hears a commotion, comes to look and sees the 45lb neighbor's dog barking at officers. She says 'Please don't shoot that dog. He won't hurt you,'... and they shoot the dog. The dog that they claim was out of the range of mace spray. Something doesn't add up here.

If the dog was roaming outside of the owner's yard, then the owner certainly bears some responsibility for what happened- but that fact alone isn't justification for the police to take free reign to do whatever they want.

[Tribesman]

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

My my don't you have silly laws over there :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Just glad we agree you were wrong. :yes: :laugh4:

CR

[Tribesman]

Let's go over this again- A neighbor hears a commotion, comes to look and sees the 45lb neighbor's dog barking at officers.
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 hear these work pretty well:

The sensible thing to do would've been to wait for someone to show up with one of those to apprehend the animal.

Fiscal conservatives and second amendment advocates wanting to waste taxpayers money and resources on a negligent owners mutt ...classic:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:oh sorry the dogs owner wasn't actually the owner was it , her little baby son was someone elses mutt :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
This topic is too funny .

[Xiahou]

Fiscal conservatives and gun nuts wanting to waste taxpayers money and resources on a negligent owners mutt ...classic:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:oh sorry the dogs owner wasn't actually the owner was it , her little baby son was someone elses mutt :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
This topic is too funny .What are you talking about?:inquisitive:

[Koga No Goshi]

Sure you should. You don't give a potentially dangerous creature a chance to hurt anyone, which may or may not have been the case. If the dog was, say, growling and about to strike, sure, I can see the shooting being justified.

By this logic, why not just start a world-wide cooperative effort to eradicate sharks? Of course, that would completely collapse the sea ecosystem and fish population even worse than we have already done, but who cares, right? It would eliminate even the chance of a dangerous animal (sharks) harming someone.

[RabidGibbon]

The article doesn't make clear if the officer wielding the shotgun was in the car or not when he fired.
This extract seems to imply the officers took part in a kind of drive/stop by shooting


Posted bt First Article

She saw a Mount Olive Police Department cruiser pull up to the house behind hers.

Then she noticed the shotgun in one of the officer's hands, aimed at her neighbor's 45-pound Labrador retriever.

"I said, 'Please don't shoot that dog. He won't hurt you,'" Mrs. Kulers said.

The officer looked at her, then back at the dog.

A shot rang out -- then, another.

Its possible the officer was out of the vehicle at the time - after all its hard to see how he could be threatened by the dog otherwise, but then given the tale of the mayor whose house was stormed by police men who'd decided to dress up like commandos and who then chased down and shot his dogs it seems like perhaps the police guide lines on shooting dogs are a bit too lax?

However to counterbalance this, I was watching one of those fly on the wall documentaries about police men. An officer was being chased by a dog and he was backing off like crazy with his gun pointed at it, and even my liberal anti establishment dog loving soul thought "why doesn't he just shoot it?" but then his policeman buddy zapped it with a taser and it just went "Yiiiiiiiiiiip!" and took off.

So I suspect some cops realise that its free fire zone on dogs, whilst others are calm and considerate on the subject. I'd like to say the answer is better training and selection, but better training and selection is probably the answer to every government recruitment problem.

[KarlXII]

By this logic, why not just start a world-wide cooperative effort to eradicate sharks? Of course, that would completely collapse the sea ecosystem and fish population even worse than we have already done, but who cares, right? It would eliminate even the chance of a dangerous animal (sharks) harming someone.

If that shark was circling your boat and looking to lunge, I would shoot it.

Again, didn't read the article, my two cents. If an animal is in a threatening pose and looks like it will strike, do not give it that chance.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why would anyone shoot a dog, the kindest creatures there are. This is sick happy hunting.

Dogs aren't kind when strangers are approaching their turf.


"Some people view their pets as children, and I am one of those people."

Usually the people with this attitude are the people with the least well trained dogs...mind you most people haven't trained their dogs well. I assume the officer had had a bad experience but he must be a huge nancy.

The article is ridiculously melodromatic.

[KarlXII]

The article is ridiculously melodromatic.

Yes, the paragraph quoted sounds like it should've ended in "He then put the now severely hurt dog into a meatgrinder, crushing his remains to fill his power hungry stomach, maybe, just maybe, a symbol of America."

[Koga No Goshi]

It's one thing if a vicious unleashed dog is running around. It's quite another for a dog to be barking at strangers, which is their natural inclination. I think that if mailmen can handle it on a daily basis, a cop should be expected to have one-quarter the common sense required to make a humane decision based on the context.

[Tribesman]

What are you talking about?
I am talking about you who is always complaining about wasting tax money and police taking too long when people call them wanting either police eqipped with dog nooses and anti bite gauntlets or having two officers with a car getting paid to wait doing nothing until they can contact a dog warden and get them to turn up when someone says a loose dog is being aggresive .
Just shoot the mutt , its quicker simpler safer and cheaper .

[Koga No Goshi]

I am talking about you who is always complaining about wasting tax money and police taking too long when people call them wanting either police eqipped with dog nooses and anti bite gauntlets or having two officers with a car getting paid to wait doing nothing until they can contact a dog warden and get them to turn up when someone says a loose dog is being aggresive .
Just shoot the mutt , its quicker simpler safer and cheaper .

I've rescued half a dozen stray dogs who ranged from terrified of me to hostile. I didn't need any special gear, I wasn't injured, and I didn't need to put a bullet into its skull to do it. And I have no special training whatsoever. I think the issue we're tapdancing around is an NRA-esque mentality about how we have to defend any quasi-remotely-justifiable use of firearms to stave off boogeyman gun bans.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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 .

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

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

From my previous link:

(c) The county or municipal authority responsible for animal control shall designate a person or a Board to be responsible for determining when a dog is a "potentially dangerous dog" and shall designate a separate Board to hear any appeal. 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. The owner may appeal the determination by filing written objections with the appellate Board within three days. The appellate Board shall schedule a hearing within 10 days of the filing of the objections. Any appeal from the final decision of such appellate Board shall be taken to the superior court by filing notice of appeal and a petition for review within 10 days of the final decision of the appellate Board. Appeals from rulings of the appellate Board shall be heard in the superior court division. The appeal shall be heard de novo before a superior court judge sitting in the county in which the appellate Board whose ruling is being appealed is located.

Go on and see if you can stick your foot deeper into your mouth. :laugh4:


Just shoot the mutt , its quicker simpler safer and cheaper .

No, that's really stupid. It's never a good idea to approve the wanton use of firearms in neighborhoods simply because it's convenient.

And you're dead wrong; people have died from police using their guns for pest control:
http://newsok.com/article/3098884


NOBLE — The first shot was so loud it made the hair stand straight up on Jack Tracy's arm. The bullet hit the water just a few feet in front of the boat dock where he was standing.

Instinctively, he pulled his 5-year-old grandson, Austin Haley, close to his left side and began yelling that there were people down by the pond.

Then came the second shot, and the unforgettable thump of a 9 mm bullet penetrating a young boy's skull.

"It went right through the back of his head and came out the front,” Tracy said. "He was just bleeding severely and I knew, right then, he was most likely dead, right there.”

Tracy thought he and his grandson were under attack by someone trying to kill them both, so he threw the boy into the back of a 4-wheeler and drove to his daughter's house about 200 yards away.

"Then two officers came out of the brush over there,” he said. "They didn't tell us they were the ones who had been shooting or that they had shot him. They didn't admit a doggone thing.”

Much later, Tracy said, he found out one of the officers had fired two shots in the Crest Lane neighborhood, trying to kill a snake that had become lodged in a birdhouse on the back porch of a house just up the hill from Tracy's pond.

Somehow smilies don't capture the tragic reality of how very wrong you are.


I think the issue we're tapdancing around is an NRA-esque mentality about how we have to defend any quasi-remotely-justifiable use of firearms to stave off boogeyman gun bans.

This hasn't got to do with the NRA (the people defending this are likely anti-NRA, whilst I am very pro-NRA and I started this topic) - its got to do with the mentality of certain police to react with deadly force to any perceived threat and the system that will always back them up.

CR

[Crazed Rabbit]

And another dog dies in Texas:

Haltom City officer under investigation for killing dog
By DOMINGO RAMIREZ JR.
ramirez@star-telegram.com

HALTOM CITY — An internal investigation is under way after a Haltom City police officer fatally shot a Jack Russell terrier (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Jack%20Russell%20terrier&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi) Monday afternoon while officers were serving a search warrant.

The officer, who was not identified, remained on duty, police said Friday.

But family members at the house where the shooting occurred said Friday that Willy, the 40-pound terrier, never attacked the officer.

"I was sitting on the couch when the door busted open," said Don Burns, 85, of Haltom City. "I heard someone say, 'Everyone on the floor. Police.’ "

Burns said Willy was sitting in a chair, jumped down and stood in front of the officer when he was shot. "It all happened so fast," Burns said. "But he [Willy] never attacked the officer."

Burns noted that another dog in the room, a pit bull terrier named Janie, ran to a bedroom when she heard the gunshot.

Haltom City police Sgt. Terry Stayer said Friday that a preliminary report on the incident showed that the animal was aggressive.

Of course they found it was aggressive! And of course it deserved to die for not cowering and wimpering the instant police burst in, and daring to act like any dog when hostile strangers burst in.

CR

[Veho Nex]

Sounds like a jerk with a gun whos only doing it for kicks and giggles... What we need is police officers who actually do it to help people, not to use excessive force when ever they feel butt hurt

[PanzerJaeger]

I think the issue we're tapdancing around is an NRA-esque mentality about how we have to defend any quasi-remotely-justifiable use of firearms to stave off boogeyman gun bans.


Wait what?

The OP is pro-gun rights and so are many of those who have posted against this kind of shooting. You'll find the evil NRA crowd is quite vocal against the misuse of firearms, especially by agents of the government.

Oh and Tribesman is just reaching to find some sort of hypocrisy in that. Its a far, far reach, but if it can be done, he's the guy to do it. :yes:

[Husar]

Meh, it's like it is with animals on a road, if you brake, you lose. Exceptions may apply to elephants, hippos and rhinos.

Concerning them evil SWAT officers storming houses it's either time to stop inviting them by selling drugs/murdering/saying really bad words or it's about time American citizens take the second amendment seriously, get their lazy fat butts off their couches and overthrow the government to reinstate freedom and democracy! ~;)

[Ronin]

From my previous link:
"(c) The county or municipal authority responsible for animal control shall designate a person or a Board to be responsible for determining when a dog is a "potentially dangerous dog" and shall designate a separate Board to hear any appeal. 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. The owner may appeal the determination by filing written objections with the appellate Board within three days. The appellate Board shall schedule a hearing within 10 days of the filing of the objections. Any appeal from the final decision of such appellate Board shall be taken to the superior court by filing notice of appeal and a petition for review within 10 days of the final decision of the appellate Board. Appeals from rulings of the appellate Board shall be heard in the superior court division. The appeal shall be heard de novo before a superior court judge sitting in the county in which the appellate Board whose ruling is being appealed is located."



Just because it´s written in the law doesn´t make it a good idea.......so a cop that comes to a scene and finds a dog behaving aggressively must fill out all the red tape in the world before doing something about it? ridiculous ....you guys over there are a puzzle to me....on one hand you find it natural that all people can have guns...some of you even object to a minimal background check before letting a people buying a gun....but a police officer can´t handle a dangerous dog without 30 volumes of properly filled out documents?? ~:dizzy:

the problem here is that people over humanize their pets.....don´t get me wrong...I love dogs....and on general they are not agressive but I would kill one if it even looked at me or any other human wrong...without hesitation.



I've rescued half a dozen stray dogs who ranged from terrified of me to hostile. I didn't need any special gear, I wasn't injured, and I didn't need to put a bullet into its skull to do it. And I have no special training whatsoever.

the fact that you are willing to risk yourself in such a manner does not mean that the police officers can be expected to do the same.......the simple fact is that if a dog is kept locked up in the owners property or on a leash at all times it can´t endanger anyone and therefore the police would have no excuse to shoot it...if it´s running around loose there´s always a chance something can happen and this is the result of that.



I think the issue we're tapdancing around is an NRA-esque mentality about how we have to defend any quasi-remotely-justifiable use of firearms to stave off boogeyman gun bans.

I don´t see how this is NRA related....the firearms where used by police officers...so I don´t see how it relates. Me myself I am firmly in disagreement with the basic ideas behind the NRA but I don´t have a problem with police officers having guns and using them when necessary.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Meh, it's like it is with animals on a road, if you brake, you lose. Exceptions may apply to elephants, hippos and rhinos.

Or deer, moose, elk, perhaps boar...

[Slyspy]

The interesting thing here is that if the dog had savaged someone while the police stood by doing nothing then context this thread would be completely different, but the message about police incompetence from the OP (and indeed the thread title) would be pretty much the same.

[Husar]

Or deer, moose, elk, perhaps boar...

No, those may damage your car but hitting that tree next to them will not only damage your car.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, those may damage your car but hitting that tree next to them will not only damage your car.

A moose is the worst animal to hit with your car. They have a big, heavy body and long spindly legs. The body goes right through the windshield, almost always fatal.

[Ronin]

No, those may damage your car but hitting that tree next to them will not only damage your car.


The Mythbusters have proven that speeding up in such a situation with such an animal (the used a moose dummy) does not improve your chances.....the moose is still gonna crash with the windshild and dent the roof of your car.

[Goofball]

Wait what?

The OP is pro-gun rights and so are many of those who have posted against this kind of shooting. You'll find the evil NRA crowd is quite vocal against the misuse of firearms, especially by agents of the government.

Oh and Tribesman is just reaching to find some sort of hypocrisy in that. Its a far, far reach, but if it can be done, he's the guy to do it. :yes:

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...

:juggle2:

[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...

:juggle2:

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...

:clown:

[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...

:clown:

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.:clown:

[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.:clown:

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!

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
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.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:



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 :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
And it shows you are talking absolute bollox:2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
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
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
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:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


That, of course, had not happened, so the dog was not potentially dangerous according to the legislation.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:rabbits stuck in a burrow , its the wrong statue for the event rabbit:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Here have a clue rabbit , according to the law you can shoot a loose dog :yes:
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:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[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/bulletins_read/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/police.kill.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. :inquisitive:

[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. :inquisitive:

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. :juggle2:


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. :laugh4:

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]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
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! :juggle2:

[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.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You really don't know the law do you , thats why you should look at cases instead , because judges do .:yes:


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. :shrug:

[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! :juggle2:


How about, People are stupid? :yes::yes::idea2::idea2:

[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 ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
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 :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[KukriKhan]

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

Thanks for all contributions.:bow:

Thread closed.