To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,126
#1,126
n_huffhines said:
Somebody suggested that they don't look for toddlers? That person is practicing cop logic, too.
Click to expand...

Not my words...

DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
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?
Click to expand...

Gannon Goodson said:
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.
Click to expand...

hog88 said:
As I said if the cop had a suspicion/probable cause to think the kid was there, by all means go in.

Again, I know nothing of this case, if it was a suspected abduction and they thought someone on that property had something to do with it, yep have at it. If it was just a kid that wondered off, what would it have hurt for the officer to knock on the door and ask? Get in touch with the property owner and ask to look around?

It sounds harsh but a missing kid doesn't trump property rights.
Click to expand...

So there is the legal and ethical dilemma.

n_huffhines said:
Much better than shooting a dog on a no-knock raid. A lot less wasteful (except in the case of the Utah toddler, who was never lost and at home).
Click to expand...

My stance on no knock raids has been made clear in previous posts on the subject. But if, during any raid that is by the books and legal, a dog threatens responding officers yes there is serious justification there to prevent injury to responding officers.

Case by case basis I know and there are a lot of conditional factors to take into account, but you and I both know there are people that have overly aggressive dogs. Case in point:

Ogden police shoot dog in alleged attack by owner - Good4Utah.com
 
#1,127
#1,127
n_huffhines said:
He's saying cops shouldn't be excused from unnecessarily killing pets. They can look for toddlers without killing, pretty sure.
Click to expand...

How are you sure that this was unnecessary? Were you there? Did the officer wake up and say.... "I'm gonna kill a family pet today and get all kinds of negative attention"? Your agenda is showing again.
 
#1,128
#1,128
tim said:
How are you sure that this was unnecessary? Were you there? Did the officer wake up and say.... "I'm gonna kill a family pet today and get all kinds of negative attention"? Your agenda is showing again.
Click to expand...

I'll give Huff credit for not always taking the opposing position here. He is objective about this subject from time to time.
 
#1,129
#1,129
Grand Vol said:
Mentor...
Click to expand...

Yes. Well, he has never killed anyone's family pet after trespassing. And he certainly wouldn't lump it in with just part of your every day toddler search. And btw, I wasn't saying all cops. I said all of Tim's cop buddies. Assuming that if they are of his ilk, then they must certainly be demented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,131
#1,131
tim said:
How are you sure that this was unnecessary? Were you there? Did the officer wake up and say.... "I'm gonna kill a family pet today and get all kinds of negative attention"? Your agenda is showing again.
Click to expand...

The cop didn't even get bit. It would have to be a life-threatening scenario for it to be a justified kill. Say it's not a cop. Say it's the neighbor looking for his child and shoots the dog. What happens then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,132
#1,132
n_huffhines said:
The cop didn't even get bit. It would have to be a life-threatening scenario for it to be a justified kill. Say it's not a cop. Say it's the neighbor looking for his child and shoots the dog. What happens then?
Click to expand...

Here is his objective view on display for all to see Grand.. I guess we should get shot before returning fire also. Maybe we should let terrorist blow us up before doing anything about them... oh wait.
 
#1,135
#1,135
tim said:
Here is his objective view on display for all to see Grand.. I guess we should get shot before returning fire also. Maybe we should let terrorist blow us up before doing anything about them... oh wait.
Click to expand...

So murder is justified any time you feel threatened, regardless of what the situation actually was?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,136
#1,136
tim said:
Here is his objective view on display for all to see Grand.. I guess we should get shot before returning fire also. Maybe we should let terrorist blow us up before doing anything about them... oh wait.
Click to expand...

These comparisons are only valid if you see a barking dog as threatening as a terrorist or armed assailant.

Did you actually think this was a good argument?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,137
#1,137
tim said:
Here is his objective view on display for all to see Grand.. I guess we should get shot before returning fire also. Maybe we should let terrorist blow us up before doing anything about them... oh wait.
Click to expand...

Huff indirectly brought up the same item I've pointed out time and time again.

That not all the facts were known before someone pushed the outrage button and went on their typical rants.

His post wasn't wrong necessarily and I'll call it incomplete. The circumstances do have to fit the actions and maybe the cop didn't get bit. You are correct that preventative actions are necessary sometimes in the performance of duties. But you and I also understand the whole use of force continuum and the old intent, capability and opportunity applies to humans as well as animals. But getting others to look at it from that viewpoint when they automatically are biased against any actions done by police?

The problem with this thread in particular is the fact nobody ever follows up on the outrage posts they make. They post the initial story (that's typically slanted) with half the facts and go off about a police state or cops suck and are dumb or whatever rant they want that day. And rarely does anyone actually follow up on said stories and find out what happens next. And even if the story turns out that the conditions warranted the use of force, they turn and say "that's just the pigs lying and covering it up!" Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
 
#1,140
#1,140
Grand Vol said:
Huff indirectly brought up the same item I've pointed out time and time again.

That not all the facts were known before someone pushed the outrage button and went on their typical rants.

His post wasn't wrong necessarily and I'll call it incomplete. The circumstances do have to fit the actions and maybe the cop didn't get bit. You are correct that preventative actions are necessary sometimes in the performance of duties. But you and I also understand the whole use of force continuum and the old intent, capability and opportunity applies to humans as well as animals. But getting others to look at it from that viewpoint when they automatically are biased against any actions done by police?

The problem with this thread in particular is the fact nobody ever follows up on the outrage posts they make. They post the initial story (that's typically slanted) with half the facts and go off about a police state or cops suck and are dumb or whatever rant they want that day. And rarely does anyone actually follow up on said stories and find out what happens next. And even if the story turns out that the conditions warranted the use of force, they turn and say "that's just the pigs lying and covering it up!" Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Click to expand...

The use of force continuum does not require one to follow it to the tee as situations escalate and deescalate frequently.. I know you know this, but laymen probably do not. It's merely a tool to help officers understand, lots of departments are getting away from it because it's often used against officers when on trial and a defense attorney is asking why the officer bypassed soft hands and went straight to taser or worse.

Another valid point you make and most do not know is that when a use of force occurs and litigation regarding said use of force is pending the agency is generally prohibited from commenting which allows for speculation and rumors to form. Generally always wrong, incomplete, and or one sided. A lot of that occurs on this board and for the life of me I cannot understand why some on here are not deft enough to figure it out. I know why, but that's generally bias that is so ingrained that no amount of explaining allows for true debate just jabs at one another and I'm somewhat guilty here also.

I have stated several times that I have had the responsibility of investigating and arresting several LE officials and know that there are bad seeds first hand, but some on here view me as a partisan shill when I'm actually giving a little insight on real life.
 
#1,145
#1,145
tim said:
The use of force continuum does not require one to follow it to the tee as situations escalate and deescalate frequently.. I know you know this, but laymen probably do not. It's merely a tool to help officers understand, lots of departments are getting away from it because it's often used against officers when on trial and a defense attorney is asking why the officer bypassed soft hands and went straight to taser or worse.

Another valid point you make and most do not know is that when a use of force occurs and litigation regarding said use of force is pending the agency is generally prohibited from commenting which allows for speculation and rumors to form. Generally always wrong, incomplete, and or one sided. A lot of that occurs on this board and for the life of me I cannot understand why some on here are not deft enough to figure it out. I know why, but that's generally bias that is so ingrained that no amount of explaining allows for true debate just jabs at one another and I'm somewhat guilty here also.

I have stated several times that I have had the responsibility of investigating and arresting several LE officials and know that there are bad seeds first hand, but some on here view me as a partisan shill when I'm actually giving a little insight on real life.
Click to expand...

I think it does boil down to objective reasonableness in the end. And both terms are completely foreign to some on here.

It's not easy investigating other officers as I think many of us have been in that same boat. I know I felt like utter **** when I had to bust one my first time as I had rose colored glasses on concerning the career field. In time it passed, but I never got over the unease that some would flagrantly violate the laws we swore to uphold. Maybe I'm still a bit of a dreamer, but that kind of thing never got any easier.
 
#1,148
#1,148
Grand Vol said:
I feel so sad that all you seem to do is crawl the web for stories about bad cops.

So sorry your life is blinded by your hatred.
Click to expand...

tOzltmU.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,150
#1,150
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I'm sorry for you because you cannot see past your mythical blue line.

I just posted the link, you don't have to read it you know.
Click to expand...

Actually, I can see past the "blue line" you speak of and call a spade a spade when the need arises.

Sadly for you, the hatred you hold so dear keeps your objectivity from emerging.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top