To Protect and to Serve...

[Toujours Pret]

Sorry ma'ma, can't search for your child. Don't want to go traipsing through a backyard when your kid is missing.

Have a nice day, give us a call if you find them.

And leave a trail of destruction behind, because i'm a **** with a badge who does what I want.

 

[Grand Vol]

And leave a trail of destruction behind, because i'm a **** with a badge who does what I want.

Yeah, that's it.

How silly of me to refrain from passing judgment before knowing all the facts.

Tell you what, why don't you actually be different than 99% of the people who whine in this thread and actually follow this case up to conclusion and get all the facts of what happened?

Be different for a change and actually get educated on the basis of being outraged for the right reasons instead of just whining because of a YouTube video.

 

[Toujours Pret]

Yeah, that's it.

How silly of me to refrain from passing judgment before knowing all the facts.

Tell you what, why don't you actually be different than 99% of the people who whine in this thread and actually follow this case up to conclusion and get all the facts of what happened?

Be different for a change and actually get educated on the basis of being outraged for the right reasons instead of just whining because of a YouTube video.

A non aggressive dog was shot for running out to see who was in his yard. Just another day at the office for your heroes in blue.

Added to the fact that the piece of **** shouldn't have been on the property. And that he had several options that would have been feasible, beginning with withdrawal, that could've been taken in the time it took to draw and fire an aimed round into the pet.

 

[Grand Vol]

A non aggressive dog was shot for running out to see who was in his yard. Just another day at the office for your heroes in blue.

So you know for a fact this was a non-aggressive dog? You've got both sides of the story of what happened? You know for a fact this dog was passive and walked up to the officer wagging it's tail and the cop shot it for no reason?

Didn't think so.

Added to the fact that the piece of **** shouldn't have been on the property.

Yeah, that would at least give you something to whine and cry about instead. "The cops refused to help look for a lost child!"

And that he had several options that would have been feasible, beginning with withdrawal, that could've been taken in the time it took to draw and fire an aimed round into the pet.

And you know this didn't happen? You know for a fact this wasn't what the officer did? Can you please link the story where the officer's side of this has come out?

No, never mind, you're right, he probably went into the yard with the specific intent of killing that dog because, well, I don't know, because he hates dogs and he's a bully with a badge I guess. How quite irrational of me to assume there could be another side to this story that I should probably hear first.

Thank you for educating me on the proper way of being outraged before knowing all the facts.

 

[Grand Vol]

Die in a fire, man. Really. This incident was easily avoidable, and you know it. Quit your grandstanding.

That's pretty rich.

So, you want to counter what I posted other than wishing ill on me? No? Want me to stop making you look foolish and leave you alone to continue your outrage unabated instead?

 

[SamRebel35]

Dogs are alert and protective of their pack's safety and property. That's kind of the point of having a dog for a lot of people. The officer, being a self aware entity with the capacity for free will (we'll suppose) should have used his brain to elevate himself in the situation rather than his gun. Dog didn't deserve to die for being a dog on his own property. Grand, if you can't see the hypocrisy of a dog on the force being treated like an officer, but them treating a family's dog as target practice, then you really are nothing more than a shill for non compassionate martial law.

 

[Grand Vol]

Dogs are alert and protective of their pack's safety and property. That's kind of the point of having a dog for a lot of people. The officer, being a self aware entity with the capacity for free will (we'll suppose) should have used his brain to elevate himself in the situation rather than his gun. Dog didn't deserve to die for being a dog on his own property. Grand, if you can't see the hypocrisy of a dog on the force being treated like an officer, but them treating a family's dog as target practice, then you really are nothing more than a shill for non compassionate martial law.

Yeah, I'm the resident LEO shill hankering for me some martial law so I can beat people down all right...

Here's the deal. As always in these situations, I'll stand by the advice I typically give and say "we probably should wait until the facts are known."

Right now we have a passionate YouTube video of an owner screaming about his dog being dead. We do NOT have the other side of what led the LEO to shoot. There very well could be some significant mitigating circumstances that led to this. And there very well may not be. But I'll expect the typical response with most of the posters in this thread to be outraged, police are corrupt, bullies with badges, automatically in the wrong, etc. And I don't expect any follow up on it for them to actually find out both sides of the story. Because they never do since it might conflict with their automatic LEO hatred and outrage.

There's two sides to this. And I'm not taking either one until all the facts are known.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

That's pretty rich.

So, you want to counter what I posted other than wishing ill on me? No? Want me to stop making you look foolish and leave you alone to continue your outrage unabated instead?

Here's "both sides" of the story. Cop wanders onto someone's PRIVATE property looking for a missing 3-year-old child -- as if that child could've entered a secure fence to begin with from a quarter of a mile away -- and shot someone else's pet. That's called trespassing.

If a grown ass man cannot handle a dog without shooting it, he doesn't need to be in that line of work. The child was in the parents' basement the whole time -- and if they would've done some basic Barney Fife police work to begin with, this whole situation could've been avoided.

Do we need to start taking the guns away from cops? We know the tasers need to go.

 

[Grand Vol]

Here's "both sides" of the story. Cop wanders onto someone's PRIVATE property looking for a missing 3-year-old child -- as if that child could've entered a secure fence to begin with from a quarter of a mile away -- and shot someone else's pet. That's called trespassing.

If a grown ass man cannot handle a dog without shooting it, he doesn't need to be in that line of work. The child was in the parents' basement the whole time -- and if they would've done some basic Barney Fife police work to begin with, this whole situation could've been avoided.

Do we need to start taking the guns away from cops? We know the tasers need to go.

I might actually read your post, but knowing how irrational you tend to be about anything along these lines, I'll just skip it.

You can probably save yourself some trouble by just saying "cops suck and I hate them" next time instead.

 

[SamRebel35]

I might actually read your post, but knowing how irrational you tend to be about anything along these lines, I'll just skip it.

You can probably save yourself some trouble by just saying "cops suck and I hate them" next time instead.

Here you go again with your expert debating skills. Then again, what can we expect from a cop that has never been told he's wrong (at least not by somebody he couldn't then lock up on trumped up charges). Enjoy your inflated self sense of worth and superiority from having once carried a badge of oppression.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

It's not hard, the cop was trespassing. He should have the cost of the dog deducted from his pay check then he should lose his job as well. If he cannot use his brain in a confrontation with a domestic pet, do we really need his trigger happy azz on the street?

 

[Grand Vol]

Here's "both sides" of the story. Cop wanders onto someone's PRIVATE property looking for a missing 3-year-old child -- as if that child could've entered a secure fence to begin with from a quarter of a mile away -- and shot someone else's pet. That's called trespassing.

If a grown ass man cannot handle a dog without shooting it, he doesn't need to be in that line of work. The child was in the parents' basement the whole time -- and if they would've done some basic Barney Fife police work to begin with, this whole situation could've been avoided.

Do we need to start taking the guns away from cops? We know the tasers need to go.

I'll tell you what GG, I'll actually take this post on merit alone and respond.

So a parent calls up the police and reports their three year old child missing. First off, I'm not sure how Barney Fife didn't ask if they checked the house. It's kind of inconceivable to think each and every responding officer out there failed to ask the question "did you check the house?" Do you honestly think that each and every one of them are that incompetent not to ask such a simple question? That would certainly have been my first one and immediately followed by "where was he seen last?"

Secondly, if the police didn't "trespass" on this property as you say and that child had been laying injured in a backyard somewhere (let's what if this) and they made they claim they COULDN'T go in because it was private property, it opens the department to a huge civil lawsuit. And you cannot tell me that wouldn't happen this day in age. And I'm not sure how familiar you are with three year olds, but they can flat move out and be way further than you think and get into places you might not find logical. We had something similar happen a few years ago and the kid was a half mile away within twenty minutes and ended up inside a building that he barely could reach the door handle to. So this line that he couldn't have gotten into that backyard doesn't fly with me because I've seen kids get into places they shouldn't have been able to myself.

So who says the cop couldn't handle the dog? Again, what's the circumstances we aren't hearing about yet? Do you honestly think that cop went into that backyard with the express intent of shooting that dog? And if the officer attempted to leave the property and was getting eaten alive by said dog?

You ever been attacked by a dog? Because I have and I know there are few things that will stop one from eating your ass alive once they get to going. And that has nothing to do with breed as that poor weimaraner was obviously so docile...

So who's to blame here? The cops? The kid? The parents for getting the police involved? No matter what in your eyes, and many others, nothing the police would have done in this situation would have been right.

But until both sides of this come out, I'll again attempt to refrain from prejudging someone looking for a lost child that got into an incident that I have nothing but a YouTube video about.

 

[Grand Vol]

Here you go again with your expert debating skills. Then again, what can we expect from a cop that has never been told he's wrong (at least not by somebody he couldn't then lock up on trumped up charges). Enjoy your inflated self sense of worth and superiority from having once carried a badge of oppression.

Sam, you want to respond to what I posted in response to your reply? Or do you want to continue your pathetic attempts to inflate your own sense of self worth and moral superiority?

 

[Gannon Goodson]

I might actually read your post, but knowing how irrational you tend to be about anything along these lines, I'll just skip it.

You can probably save yourself some trouble by just saying "cops suck and I hate them" next time instead.

Why don't you explain how I'm "irrational" when debating law enforcement issues. I'd like to know what's irrational about my positions so we can have a logical debate. Or you could just go all liberal on me and scream, make noise, and try to silence the debate.

And I don't think cops suck or hate them. I do, however, detest the bad ones and feel too many cops have utter contempt for the citizens they allegedly serve. Moreover, it seems too many police officers do not respect property rights.

So why don't we hit reset and start with the facts. What would've led this cop to believe a 3-year-old child could've made it a quarter of a mile to this man's home and enter a secure fence? In addition, why did he feel the need to enter private property absent any probable cause and kill a family pet? Or are those "irrational" questions?

 

[SamRebel35]

Sam, you want to respond to what I posted in response to your reply? Or do you want to continue your pathetic attempts to inflate your own sense of self worth and moral superiority?

Answer my question about the hypocrisy of the police using other people's dogs as target practice, but treating their own dogs as distinguished officers of the law? If it is ok for a cop to shoot a dog because he feels threatened, then it should be perfectly accept for anybody to shoot a police dog when they feel threatened by it. Answer that with something other than a programmed shill Leo response and I will be impressed.

 

[Grand Vol]

Why don't you explain how I'm "irrational" when debating law enforcement issues. I'd like to know what's irrational about my positions so we can have a logical debate. Or you could just go all liberal on me and scream, make noise, and try to silence the debate.

And I don't think cops suck or hate them. I do, however, detest the bad ones and feel too many cops have utter contempt for the citizens they allegedly serve. Moreover, it seems too many police officers do not respect property rights.

So why don't we hit reset and start with the facts. What would've led this cop to believe a 3-year-old child could've made it a quarter of a mile to this man's home and enter a secure fence? In addition, why did he feel the need to enter private property absent any probable cause and kill a family pet? Or are those "irrational" questions?

http://www.volnation.com/forum/10291557-post688.html

How secure was this fence for one? Simple latch? Locked?

Second this whole "probable cause" nonsense from the video is just that, nonsense. It doesn't apply in this situation. The person on the video was spouting something he obviously heard from TV and has no clue what the meaning is. The cop was searching that yard for a lost child as any reasonable person might do. Because again, kids can move a lot faster than you think and it's not outside the realm of possibility he got that far. Because again, we don't know the facts. How long between the time of the report of the lost child and the encounter in the backyard? Do you think that child couldn't have gotten that far in say...an hour? Half hour? So that simple fact right there would be helpful to know.

So why was he in the backyard? Looking for a lost child. You have a report of a lost child so you're telling me the cops should stop before looking for said lost child because it's private property? What if it was a fireman instead? Would that change the situation? Because they can and often do help with these sorts of things. At least answer that...

 

[Gannon Goodson]

I'll tell you what GG, I'll actually take this post on merit alone and respond.

So a parent calls up the police and reports their three year old child missing. First off, I'm not sure how Barney Fife didn't ask if they checked the house. It's kind of inconceivable to think each and every responding officer out there failed to ask the question "did you check the house?" Do you honestly think that each and every one of them are that incompetent not to ask such a simple question? That would certainly have been my first one and immediately followed by "where was he seen last?"

Secondly, if the police didn't "trespass" on this property as you say and that child had been laying injured in a backyard somewhere (let's what if this) and they made they claim they COULDN'T go in because it was private property, it opens the department to a huge civil lawsuit. And you cannot tell me that wouldn't happen this day in age. And I'm not sure how familiar you are with three year olds, but they can flat move out and be way further than you think and get into places you might not find logical. We had something similar happen a few years ago and the kid was a half mile away within twenty minutes and ended up inside a building that he barely could reach the door handle to. So this line that he couldn't have gotten into that backyard doesn't fly with me because I've seen kids get into places they shouldn't have been able to myself.

So who says the cop couldn't handle the dog? Again, what's the circumstances we aren't hearing about yet? Do you honestly think that cop went into that backyard with the express intent of shooting that dog? And if the officer attempted to leave the property and was getting eaten alive by said dog?

You ever been attacked by a dog? Because I have and I know there are few things that will stop one from eating your ass alive once they get to going. And that has nothing to do with breed as that poor weimaraner was obviously so docile...

So who's to blame here? The cops? The kid? The parents for getting the police involved? No matter what in your eyes, and many others, nothing the police would have done in this situation would have been right.

But until both sides of this come out, I'll again attempt to refrain from prejudging someone looking for a lost child that got into an incident that I have nothing but a YouTube video about.

I stopped right there (bold) because your entire argument is shot with that claim. The police are under no legal obligation to protect anyone or find anyone's missing child. And no, they cannot be sued. Any attempt at a lawsuit will be thrown out of court.

Again, your position I think proves my point about how cops in general have utter contempt for property rights. He knew he was entering someone's property, and he damn sure knew he just killed someone else's dog after the fact. He should've had the sack to wait on the owner to arrive and explain the situation to him.

 

[Grand Vol]

Answer my question about the hypocrisy of the police using other people's dogs as target practice, but treating their own dogs as distinguished officers of the law? If it is ok for a cop to shoot a dog because he feels threatened, then it should be perfectly accept for anybody to shoot a police dog when they feel threatened by it. Answer that with something other than a programmed shill Leo response and I will be impressed.

Okay, I'll answer your question with what you will take as an LEO shill response.

What were the conditions of what led this officer to shoot that dog? You give me the specifics of what happened and I'll give you a response. Because all we know right now was the LEO walked into that backyard, pulled his weapon and shot that dog dead. At least according to the one side of the story.

Now, what says you can't shoot a police dog? How are they threatening you? Barking? Growling? Straining at the leash? Specifically what actions are "threatening?" You have to be specific here so I can format an answer.

But I do get the feeling that nothing I'm going to say is not going to be taken by you as anything but a canned LEO response.

 

[Grand Vol]

I stopped right there (bold) because your entire argument is shot with that claim. The police are under no legal obligation to protect anyone or find anyone's missing child. And no, they cannot be sued. Any attempt at a lawsuit will be thrown out of court.

Please provide the proper Utah or Salt Lake City statues that state that Law Enforcement are not under an obligation to find a child...

And I think you give the courts far too much credit for tossing a case like that out.

Again, your position I think proves my point about how cops in general have utter contempt for property rights. He knew he was entering someone's property, and he damn sure knew he just killed someone else's dog after the fact. He should've had the sack to wait on the owner to arrive and explain the situation to him.

Thought we were going to hit the reset button and talk about this rationally?

ETA: Do you think as emotionally charged as the victim was that having the LEO that did the shooting around would be a good idea? Because I don't think that would have been wise.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

http://www.volnation.com/forum/10291557-post688.html

How secure was this fence for one? Simple latch? Locked?

Second this whole "probable cause" nonsense from the video is just that, nonsense. It doesn't apply in this situation. The person on the video was spouting something he obviously heard from TV and has no clue what the meaning is. The cop was searching that yard for a lost child as any reasonable person might do. Because again, kids can move a lot faster than you think and it's not outside the realm of possibility he got that far. Because again, we don't know the facts. How long between the time of the report of the lost child and the encounter in the backyard? Do you think that child couldn't have gotten that far in say...an hour? Half hour? So that simple fact right there would be helpful to know.

So why was he in the backyard? Looking for a lost child. You have a report of a lost child so you're telling me the cops should stop before looking for said lost child because it's private property? What if it was a fireman instead? Would that change the situation? Because they can and often do help with these sorts of things. At least answer that...

It was secure enough in that a dog could not exit the backyard. The officer had to overcome an obstacle to enter the property. That's secure enough. Secondly, cops don't get to violate someone else's property rights just because a child is missing. There are no qualifiers to rights, and that goes back to my original argument a la cops vs. rights.

We do know the facts in this case. Child reported missing... police fan out in the immediate area going house to house looking for said child... no one answers the knock at this man's door... police decide to enter the backyard absent any reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a child is/could be back there... cop encounters dog... dog barks at unknown/unfamiliar intruder... cop shoots dog because "he was in fear for his life" (I believe that's the standard response)... and now police department faces lawsuit that will be paid out at the expense of taxpayers.

 

[Grand Vol]

It was secure enough in that a dog could not exit the backyard. The officer had to overcome an obstacle to enter the property. That's secure enough. Secondly, cops don't get to violate someone else's property rights just because a child is missing. There are no qualifiers to rights, and that goes back to my original argument a la cops vs. rights.

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/childsearchassistanceact1990.pdf

There's the legal reference in case you were wondering.

We do know the facts in this case. Child reported missing... police fan out in the immediate area going house to house looking for said child... no one answers the knock at this man's door... police decide to enter the backyard absent any reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a child is/could be back there... cop encounters dog... dog barks at unknown/unfamiliar intruder... cop shoots dog because "he was in fear for his life" (I believe that's the standard response)... and now police department faces lawsuit that will be paid out at the expense of taxpayers.

You probably need to look up the legal definition of "probable cause" before throwing it around like you are. Because I know it doesn't mean what you think it means...

And you are assuming quite a bit here. Again, can we at least know all the facts before jumping to conclusions?

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Please provide the proper Utah or Salt Lake City statues that state that Law Enforcement are not under an obligation to find a child...

And I think you give the courts far too much credit for tossing a case like that out.



Thought we were going to hit the reset button and talk about this rationally?

ETA: Do you think as emotionally charged as the victim was that having the LEO that did the shooting around would be a good idea? Because I don't think that would have been wise.

It's called common law. The police have no legal duty to act(See Warren v. District of Columbia). There are thousands of missing people reported each year and many more thousands over the years that are unsolved. Guess how many departments have been sued for failing to find a missing individual? I'll give you a hint: it's between zero and zero.

As for your second point, I would've gotten the satisfaction of seeing this guy give a verbal beating to the officer -- and maybe a physical one. The guy should get at least one free shot for his troubles.

 

[SamRebel35]

Okay, I'll answer your question with what you will take as an LEO shill response.

What were the conditions of what led this officer to shoot that dog? You give me the specifics of what happened and I'll give you a response. Because all we know right now was the LEO walked into that backyard, pulled his weapon and shot that dog dead. At least according to the one side of the story.

Now, what says you can't shoot a police dog? How are they threatening you? Barking? Growling? Straining at the leash? Specifically what actions are "threatening?" You have to be specific here so I can format an answer.

But I do get the feeling that nothing I'm going to say is not going to be taken by you as anything but a canned LEO response.

Let's say I'm a supposed criminal who has had a police dog let loose on me. If I shoot that dog, will I be treated as though I had killed an officer of the law? Yes or no? Now, if a dog comes off the deck in his own back yard and charges the officer that has let himself into a fenced in area, how will the officer be treated once he shoots the dog? My suspicion is that a civilian's dog is just a disposable animal, while the police dog is a distinguished officer of the law. Is that incorrect?

 

[Grand Vol]

It's called common law. The police have no legal duty to act(See Warren v. District of Columbia). There are thousands of missing people reported each year and many more thousands over the years that are unsolved. Guess how many departments have been sued for failing to find a missing individual? I'll give you a hint: it's between zero and zero.

How many departments have been sued over far less than violating public law (see previous post) and not conducting a search for said child?

However, your Warren vs DC case doesn't apply here since it deals with public duty as an individual rather than the community as a whole.

Public-Duty Doctrine Law & Legal Definition

Departments get sued for everything under the sun. So you expect me to believe a judge would toss out a case where the officers failed to conduct even a cursory sweep of the immediate area?

As for your second point, I would've gotten the satisfaction of seeing this guy give a verbal beating to the officer -- and maybe a physical one. The guy should get at least one free shot for his troubles.

Yeah, that certainly would have made matters better.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/childsearchassistanceact1990.pdf

There's the legal reference in case you were wondering.



You probably need to look up the legal definition of "probable cause" before throwing it around like you are. Because I know it doesn't mean what you think it means...

And you are assuming quite a bit here. Again, can we at least know all the facts before jumping to conclusions?

The National Child Search Assistance Act is the best you can do? That law does not require that police find missing children. You of all people should know the federal government cannot co-opt local law enforcement. Secondly, I do know what probable cause is, and it definitely relates to this case. It's what gives police the right to search or arrest absent a warrant. If the cop heard a child scream from the backyard, he would've had probable cause to enter said property. It's called exigent circumstances in your former line of work.

The fact remains this idiot had no reason to be in this man's backyard. The child could've wandered into an unlocked home. Do the police have the right to just walk into your home because a child is missing somewhere in the vicinity? You know the answer.