To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#751
#751
Grand Vol said:
Other than looking for a missing child which isn't your typical situation that would require "extreme caution" before checking a backyard?
Click to expand...

So you are saying that cops shouldn't be expected to exercise extreme caution when entering unfamiliar territory?
 
#752
#752
Grand Vol said:
One tends to assume the worst in those situations. Missing child means you tend to suspect the worst which could be kidnapping, child injured and/or unconscious, or in imminent danger. And contacting said owner under these circumstances might not always be feasible.

In a perfect world where the police had a massive database of who owned what and good contact information I would agree. But it ain't always unicorns and rainbows. You know this.
Click to expand...

I do.

Look this whole situation is nothing more than a shizz sandwich for all involved, I don't even know if/what circumstances they found the kid.

I guess my ruling on this would be: if the officer didn't have a strong case for why he entered the property, heard a kid cry, registered sex offender lives there, tracks ext. I would terminate him but not prosecute. What he did cannot be taken back and a search for a kid doesn't suspend peoples property rights. I understand he was just trying to do his job but sometimes doing your job can bite you in the azz if you don't follow the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#753
#753
hog88 said:
I do.

Look this whole situation is nothing more than a shizz sandwich for all involved, I don't even know if/what circumstances they found the kid.
Click to expand...

The family apparently found him in the basement. Which somehow means that the police were too incompetent to ask if the family had checked the house. Each and every responding member failed to ask that question apparently.

Not my words, just the assumptions of others on here.

hog88 said:
I guess my ruling on this would be: if the officer didn't have a strong case for why he entered the property, heard a kid cry, registered sex offender lives there, tracks ext. I would terminate him but not prosecute. What he did cannot be taken back and a search for a kid doesn't suspend peoples property rights. I understand he was just trying to do his job but sometimes doing your job can bite you in the azz if you don't follow the rules.
Click to expand...

And again, the exigent circumstances of the situation wouldn't require a cry for help and it's not like the cop was there looking for evidence of a crime. He was looking for a missing kid. If that kid was lying unconscious in the backyard this entire situation would be moot.

We can agree to disagree, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be taking this property rights stance if your kid was missing and the cops weren't searching every nook and cranny.
 
#754
#754
SamRebel35 said:
Fact, the man was in this dog's yard having not been aware of dog's presence until it was too late to retreat leaving killing the dog as the only option (this is best case assumption in the cops favor). I don't care how you slice it, he should have known that dog was in the yard prior to being in a scenario of kill or be killed.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely certain you realize how ridiculous this statement is...
 
#755
#755
SamRebel35 said:
So you are saying that cops shouldn't be expected to exercise extreme caution when entering unfamiliar territory?
Click to expand...

You ever been a cop Sam? Can you describe exactly what "unfamiliar territory" is and why specifically one should be exercising "extreme caution" in a missing child case?

We aren't talking about an armed robber here. We're talking about a three year old kid. Put some common sense in your posts and stop quoting phrases you hear on TV shows for crying out loud.
 
#756
#756
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#757
#757
Grand Vol said:
You ever been a cop Sam? Can you describe exactly what "unfamiliar territory" is and why specifically one should be exercising "extreme caution" in a missing child case?

We aren't talking about an armed robber here. We're talking about a three year old kid. Put some common sense in your posts and stop quoting phrases you hear on TV shows for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

Yes, unfamiliar territory might be defined as opening a gate to a fence that you've never been in. Maybe it is a good idea to assume that a fenced in yard just might have a dog in it (seeing as that's the primary purpose of a fence for many families). Any cop that thinks it wise to enter a fence without any knowledge of the outlay and any possible inhabitants is a buffoon and is unfit for duty. You claim I have no common sense, but understanding a dog could be present in a fenced in yard isn't just common sense, it should practicality be a forgone conclusion until verified otherwise.
 
#758
#758
hndog609 said:
This LEO was let go.

ETX deputy who shot dog in head has been fired, investigation ongoing | KETK | East Texas News, Weather and Sports | Tyler, Longview, Jacksonville

This one didn't just go away.

Commerce City officer faces felony charge for shooting dog - The Denver Post

Another officer fired for shooting a dog.

Danville Police officer fired over dog shooting, appeals - WSLS 10 NBC in Roanoke/Lynchburg Va

Just wanted to point out that when it's all said and done LEO's aren't necessarily given a pass. (and shouldn't)
Click to expand...

That's reassuring. Good news.
 
#760
#760
SamRebel35 said:
Yes, unfamiliar territory might be defined as opening a gate to a fence that you've never been in. Maybe it is a good idea to assume that a fenced in yard just might have a dog in it (seeing as that's the primary purpose of a fence for many families). Any cop that thinks it wise to enter a fence without any knowledge of the outlay and any possible inhabitants is a buffoon and is unfit for duty. You claim I have no common sense, but understanding a dog could be present in a fenced in yard isn't just common sense, it should practicality be a forgone conclusion until verified otherwise.
Click to expand...

Well, by your logic, every cop should be approaching a vehicle on a traffic stop with a weapon drawn. Because you know, they should assume everyone in that vehicle is armed and a threat. Any time they knock on your door to let you know your vehicle was smacked in an accident, they should be pointing their pistol in your face, because I mean, they have to assume you're dangerous.

Hey, if we're going to assume the worst, let's just go all out.
 
#761
#761
Grand Vol said:
Well, by your logic, every cop should be approaching a vehicle on a traffic stop with a weapon drawn. Because you know, they should assume everyone in that vehicle is armed and a threat. Any time they knock on your door to let you know your vehicle was smacked in an accident, they should be pointing their pistol in your face, because I mean, they have to assume you're dangerous.

Hey, if we're going to assume the worst, let's just go all out.
Click to expand...

No, that is your interpretation of my logic. You have missed the mark by an embarrassing distance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#762
#762
SamRebel35 said:
No, that is your interpretation of my logic. You have missed the mark by an embarrassing distance.
Click to expand...

I have a fence at my house. Bought it this way though and was there before I had a dog.

Safe to assume that I'm a dog owner because I have a fence? C'mon man, give it a rest.
 
#763
#763
Grand Vol said:
I have a fence at my house. Bought it this way though and was there before I had a dog.

Safe to assume that I'm a dog owner because I have a fence? C'mon man, give it a rest.
Click to expand...

Not safe to assume you have a dog because you have a fence. Safe to assume, however, that a fence has a dog within it until proven otherwise if you are entering without permission or without having ever been there. It is common sense to assume this and idiocy to enter without having assumed it.
 
#764
#764
Grand Vol said:
And again, the exigent circumstances of the situation wouldn't require a cry for help and it's not like the cop was there looking for evidence of a crime. He was looking for a missing kid. If that kid was lying unconscious in the backyard this entire situation would be moot.

We can agree to disagree, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be taking this property rights stance if your kid was missing and the cops weren't searching every nook and cranny.
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure. More than likely I would have searched the neighboring property, yes trespassed, well before the first LEO arrived.

Again it's a crappy deal but the cop messed up in my opinion. The best intentions can lead to bad outcomes.
 
#765
#765
SamRebel35 said:
No, that is your interpretation of my logic. You have missed the mark by an embarrassing distance.
Click to expand...

You know what's embarrassing? The fact that you and others have attempted every which way possible to make the police to be the bad guys in this instance especially not knowing any of the facts of what happened. And while they were attempting to do something good, you still find ways of them being the bad guys.

Property rights, cop should be fired, had no business going in there, stupid cops that didn't even think to ask if the kid was in the house, die in a fire Grand Vol (and you're more than welcome to say that to my face and see how far you get, try it slick...), bullies with badges, incompetence, cowardice, police state, lions, tigers and bears oh my.

NONE of this would matter if that kid had been found in that backyard. And I can flat guarantee you NONE of you would even utter anything like what you were saying if it was your kid.

Frankly, it's embarrassing to see how some of you have responded. I'm through with this because your arguments are moronic and do nothing more than highlight your own hypocrisy in matter to which you are ill informed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#766
#766
porkypig.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#767
#767
Grand Vol said:
You know what's embarrassing? The fact that you and others have attempted every which way possible to make the police to be the bad guys in this instance especially not knowing any of the facts of what happened. And while they were attempting to do something good, you still find ways of them being the bad guys.

Property rights, cop should be fired, had no business going in there, stupid cops that didn't even think to ask if the kid was in the house, die in a fire Grand Vol (and you're more than welcome to say that to my face and see how far you get, try it slick...), bullies with badges, incompetence, cowardice, police state, lions, tigers and bears oh my.

NONE of this would matter if that kid had been found in that backyard. And I can flat guarantee you NONE of you would even utter anything like what you were saying if it was your kid.

Frankly, it's embarrassing to see how some of you have responded. I'm through with this because your arguments are moronic and do nothing more than highlight your own hypocrisy in matter to which you are ill informed.
Click to expand...

Shill speak for "I have a ridiculous stance that I can't defend so I'll throw another debate halting tantrum to play up my moral superiority." You are such a hero.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#769
#769
Grand Vol said:
Keep up the good work Sam. And as a reminder, don't call the cops when you need one, none can be trusted.
Click to expand...

Haven't needed one in 45 years, can't imagine a scenario where I would in a immediate danger situation. Investigate afterword sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#770
#770
Grand Vol said:
Keep up the good work Sam. And as a reminder, don't call the cops when you need one, none can be trusted.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't come anyway. They are always too busy writing speeding tickets and busting skateboarders for loitering. If I could choose to not pay the taxes for their supposed "protection" I would do it in a heartbeat.
 
#771
#771
Is anybody else tired of "save the kids" being yelled in the defense of violating an individual's rights?

How difficult would it have been for the cops to call the homeowner and ask permission to search the premises for this child? They sure called him pretty quickly after trespassing on his property and killing his dog.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#773
#773
Grand Vol said:
You know what's embarrassing? The fact that you and others have attempted every which way possible to make the police to be the bad guys in this instance especially not knowing any of the facts of what happened. And while they were attempting to do something good, you still find ways of them being the bad guys.

Property rights, cop should be fired, had no business going in there, stupid cops that didn't even think to ask if the kid was in the house, die in a fire Grand Vol (and you're more than welcome to say that to my face and see how far you get, try it slick...), bullies with badges, incompetence, cowardice, police state, lions, tigers and bears oh my.

NONE of this would matter if that kid had been found in that backyard. And I can flat guarantee you NONE of you would even utter anything like what you were saying if it was your kid.

Frankly, it's embarrassing to see how some of you have responded. I'm through with this because your arguments are moronic and do nothing more than highlight your own hypocrisy in matter to which you are ill informed.
Click to expand...
Its something that we have to or had to deal with our entire careers. Second guessing, trying to be perfect, dealing with hindsight is always gonna be a bish. My suggestion is if you dont have thick skin be a firefighter, everyone loves firefighters. (Not directed toward you). I feel comfortable knowing I did my best during my career and screwed some really bad guys days/lives up. Never knowingly altered an innocent persons life for longer than needed and showed restraint when half of these bellyachers would've folded. Keep up the good fight and never doubt yourself when the time comes to do what someone forces you to do. Close your ears and mouth and go hug your family.
 
#774
#774
tim said:
Its something that we have to or had to deal with our entire careers. Second guessing, trying to be perfect, dealing with hindsight is always gonna be a bish. My suggestion is if you dont have thick skin be a firefighter, everyone loves firefighters. (Not directed toward you). I feel comfortable knowing I did my best during my career and screwed some really bad guys days/lives up. Never knowingly altered an innocent persons life for longer than needed and showed restraint when half of these bellyachers would've folded. Keep up the good fight and never doubt yourself when the time comes to do what someone forces you to do. Close your ears and mouth and go hug your family.
Click to expand...

Trust me, he never doubts himself. No need to when you're always right and morally superior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#775
#775
GV....I got your back. I have nothing of value to add but I agree with what you're saying.
SamRebel35 said:
Trust me, he never doubts himself. No need to when you're always right and morally superior.
Click to expand...

So show me on the doll where the bad cop touched you when you were 8. That's the only way I could explain your irrational hatted of LEO.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top