Cowards with guns

[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