Cowards with guns

[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.

[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!

[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.

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...

[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.

[PanzerJaeger]

double post

[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

[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.