Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Xy58M6-XPNQ



It is not graphic, just sounds horrible (you don't see blood, guts, or anything. Very clean shot).

Is the cop wrong?




I don't think he is. He was obviously called to the situation because the dog is clearly attacking people. It attacks passerby at the beginning of the video. Looks like it bites that person. The homeless man that appears to be the owner is incapacitated or something.


What is truly sad is the dog was just trying to protect its "pack-mate". The problem isn't what the dog is doing, it is how it was trained to act or it was acting on instincts. Humans are at fault for its behavior, not the dog. What the cop did seems pretty justified as he was being attacked and the view was clear to shoot (he waited for the dog to clear the homeless dude enough so it wouldn't hit the homeless dude).


So, I think the cop is justified but the situation just shows we don't treat animals as best as they should be: the dog should have been trained. But how much blame can you put on a homeless man? That dog would be very excellent to have when you're trying to sleep and some sleezebag is trying to take your stuff. Nice guard dog if you're homeless, right?



Oh well.



Was the cop right or wrong in shooting the dog?


For those that want to read the "story" from the youtube uploader:

Only watched about 30 secs and didn't read, but the *** has a taser and pepper-spray; he should have had those out.

Do those work on dogs?

The taser definitely does.

It's sad. Cop probably coulda handled it differently in hindsight, but the dog was rushing at him and snarling, it was clearly self defense. Dog survived, though, so hopefully it pulls through.

I could give two shits if the dog died or lived. It's just a dog.

Was the cop in the right? Yes. A snarling dog was charging him. The dog could have had rabies, or any number of things that could infect people if it bites them. Shooting it was perfectly acceptable in that situation. Not only is it acceptable, it should be the standard MO when dealing with dogs as a cop. If the dog is going to charge a 6'1 cop with gun, it will charge a defenseless little girl. Putting it down is simply doing the world a favor.

This isn't really a big deal. This is the kind of thing that should be settled between the cop and the dog's owner. The cop didn't break any laws (or do anything I'd consider unjustified given the circumstances) but in his position I might still apologize to the owner for the necessity of self-defense.

Totally unacceptable and cruel. That "officer" knew that he could have used his tazer or pepper spray to subdue that dog. So inhumane.

I did not know he had pepper spray or a taser. I thought they only had guns: I can't tell from the shitty low-res video if they had tasers or pepper spray on their person.


If they did, seems like a much better choice. But how permanent is that? Would the taser kill the dog (it is much smaller than a human). Some news site or something called for animal control for the police. With a city as big as NY, you'd think that they would know how to deal with mean animals.

At least the dog survived. Hopefully, it pulls through.

Originally posted by Impediment
Totally unacceptable and cruel. That "officer" knew that he could have used his tazer or pepper spray to subdue that dog. So inhumane. You're joking, right?

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
You're joking, right?

Not in the slightest.

That cop had every right to defend himself, but he jumped the gun. No pun intended.

I don't agree. The taser could have very easily outright killed the dog, since the voltage is tweaked to drop 200 pound, 6'2 men, not 80 pound dogs, thus it wouldn't be any more "humane" than shooting it. As well, a taser only has one shot, whereas a gun has 10, so if he had missed with the taser he would have been ****ed.

The pepper spray could have simply not affected the dog at all, pepper spray is notoriously temperamental regarding its effectiveness from person to person.

A charging dog is the equivalent of someone running at you with a knife, with the intention to stab you with it. Deadly force is absolutely the most logical response.

My logic on the matter is that, ultimately, a bullet fired from a handgun has a near 100% chance of preventing a dog from biting or injuring someone- tasers and pepper spray do not. Is the dog's welfare more important than a human being's welfare? Is a dog's welfare worth enough to risk a human being's welfare? If a rabid pittbull was charging your child, and you had a gun and a taser on your person, you would use the taser, knowing that you have only seconds to act, and the taser has only one shot?

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I don't agree. The taser could have very easily outright killed the dog, since the voltage is tweaked to drop 200 pound, 6'2 men, not 80 pound dogs, thus it wouldn't be any more "humane" than shooting it.

The pepper spray could have simply not affected the dog at all, pepper spray is notoriously temperamental regarding its effectiveness from person to person.

A charging dog is the equivalent of someone running at you with a knife, with the intention to stab you with it. Deadly force is absolutely the most logical response.

There's also the problem of it having attacked that lady right before it went after the cop. Looks like it bites her leg. Cop was probably fearing for his life or some-shit. "It's either me or the dog."


And, yes, I have read on the interwebz that spraying an enraged dog with pepper spray could cause the dog to flip out and bite everything and everyone around it, including the master it was originally trying to protect. Just depends on the dog. But, for the most part, it is very effective against dogs.

so many killings and shootings going around
you'd think the news would focus on a more postive note*
Man shoots mans best friend? I dont want to see this... WTF! I want to see GRamma turns 115* surrounded by her family, I dont want to see death and distruction all the time.. I want to see homeless man wins lottery or they found a cure for little timmy..

I mean whats the point of living if we are all going to hell?

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I don't agree. The taser could have very easily outright killed the dog, since the voltage is tweaked to drop 200 pound, 6'2 men, not 80 pound dogs, thus it wouldn't be any more "humane" than shooting it. As well, a taser only has one shot, whereas a gun has 10, so if he had missed with the taser he would have been ****ed.

The pepper spray could have simply not affected the dog at all, pepper spray is notoriously temperamental regarding its effectiveness from person to person.

A charging dog is the equivalent of someone running at you with a knife, with the intention to stab you with it. Deadly force is absolutely the most logical response.

My logic on the matter is that, ultimately, a bullet fired from a handgun has a near 100% chance of preventing a dog from biting or injuring someone- tasers and pepper spray do not. Is the dog's welfare more important than a human being's welfare? Is a dog's welfare worth enough to risk a human being's welfare? If a rabid pittbull was charging your child, and you had a gun and a taser on your person, you would use the taser, knowing that you have only seconds to act, and the taser has only one shot?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, now. Was this dog a pit bull? Was this dog rabid? (Looked like the dog was doing its job, defending its owner) Was there a child in immediate danger? Let us assess the situation at hand, not some other that didn't happen.

This cop clearly overreacted like a trigger-happy retard fresh out of the academy. Tazer would have brought the dog down and has a massively less chance of killing compared to a bullet. He probably could have kicked the dog and made it stop if it came to that. There was also at least one other cop there backing him up, while the dog had a collapsed bum as back-up. The cop was in minimal danger at worst.

To further prove this cop is an idiot, people are saying the dog didn't die, so he's also clearly incompetent, as he failed in his mission. Guy should be ranked down to meter-maid duty.

Originally posted by Robtard
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, now. Was this dog a pit bull?Does it matter? Not really. Pitbulls aren't more innherently badass than, say, a labrador. An angry dog is an angry dog.

Who knows? It belongs to a homeless guy. Who knows how healthy it may or may not have been.

There was a crowd of people surrounding it and from what I understand it had tried to bite someone earlier.

One shot means if he had missed he'd be ****ed. As well, a tazer would have likely killed it. I carry a tazer on my person every day and am trained and authorized to use one. Are you?


LOL. Tell that to the tons of people who get their throats ripped out every year. "Well they should have tried to kick it!

No. The cop did the absolute right thing in just shooting it.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Does it matter? Not really. Pitbulls aren't more innherently badass than, say, a labrador. An angry dog is an angry dog.

Who knows? It belongs to a homeless guy. Who knows how healthy it may or may not have been.

There was a crowd of people surrounding it and from what I understand it had tried to bite someone earlier.

One shot means if he had missed he'd be ****ed. As well, a tazer would have likely killed it. I carry a tazer on my person every day and am trained and authorized to use one. Are you?


LOL. Tell that to the tons of people who get their throats ripped out every year. "Well they should have tried to kick it!

No. The cop did the absolute right thing in just shooting it.

Size and breed matter a lot when it comes to dogs and their potential to inflict damage. Would you shoot a charging pomeranian as you would a charging adult pit bull? No, if you're sensible.

Not only is rabies rare, it's curable. So the cop didn't know and if we're being intelligent, it's not likely that a fear or rabies was on his mind and factored in.

You see the dog snap at a pedestrian that got too close to the bum on the floor, yet backs off when the person did. The dog seemed to be protecting his downed owner, not going Cujo.

No, but I can read and rationalize just the same. Tazers aren't classified as lethal, guns are. That's the point of cops carrying lethal and non-lethal weapons. While there's a chance the tazer could have killed the dog, there's a ridiculously higher chance of the gun doing it. If he missed, he still has a gun and a partner, if need be.

LoL, wut? 31 people died via dogs in 2011; 71% of those were by pit bulls. So again, properly assessing the situation is vital, especially if you're a person entrusted with a gun.

The cop lost his cool and overreacted, especially considering the dog was most likely just defending; not an attack raging adult pit bull or other large breed and the cop had back-up if shit got serious. Dude's a dunce who failed at Cop 101, properly assessing the situation.

Originally posted by Robtard
Size and breed matter a lot when it comes to dogs and their potential to inflict damage. Would you shoot a charging pomeranian as you would a charging pit bull? No, if you're sensible.The only thing that matters are its size. It obviously wasn't chihuahua-sized so whether its a pitbull or some other similar sized dog is irrelevant.

Irrelevent. Just because it's rare doesn't mean you can tell if a dog has one or not. As well, you seem to have forgotten that this dog is owned by a HOMELESS MAN. Think about that. How well groomed and sanitary do you think it was? Who knows what kind of shit its mouth has been digging around in. This is basic logic dude.

So are knife wounds hurrr. Doesn't stop brandishing a knife at a cop from being a bullet-in-the-ass worthy action though.

Seemed to be is speculation and irrelevant. When the dog charges at you you don't know if he's going to back off if you back off or if he's decided to rip your throat out. Better safe than sorry.

tazers aren't classified as lethal ON HUMANS, because they voltage FOR THAT SPECIFIC TAZER was tweaked specifically to hurt human-sized targets without killing them. A dog is not a human sized target. Again, this is common sense.

Don't be a clown. A dog can cover twenty in feet in less than one second. The dog in the video was half that distance away from the cop. If he had missed he wouldn't have had time to draw his gun, and his partner wouldn't fire his own weapon with the dog so close to the other cop, for fear of hitting him. Knowing police protocol and how they're trained to use their weapons is part of my job- is it part of yours?

31 people would still be alive today if they had just kicked the dog! hurr.

Dog got what it got and the cop did what he was trained to do. It's easy to sit here on the internet and say "hurr he should have rationalized the situation" but 1 you weren't there and 2 you obviously aren't aware that we in the law enforcement/security business are trained to assess dogs as potentially lethal threats, so if you want to blame someone because some homeless guy's animal got put down, blame the guy's training.

I would have shot it too.

Actually, looking at it again, I would have front kicked it in the face.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's sad. Cop probably coulda handled it differently in hindsight, but the dog was rushing at him and snarling, it was clearly self defense. Dog survived, though, so hopefully it pulls through.

this

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
The only thing that matters are its size. It obviously wasn't chihuahua-sized so whether its a pitbull or some other similar sized dog is irrelevant.

Irrelevent. Just because it's rare doesn't mean you can tell if a dog has one or not. As well, you seem to have forgotten that this dog is owned by a HOMELESS MAN. Think about that. How well groomed and sanitary do you think it was? Who knows what kind of shit its mouth has been digging around in. This is basic logic dude.

So are knife wounds hurrr. Doesn't stop brandishing a knife at a cop from being a bullet-in-the-ass worthy action though.

Seemed to be is speculation and irrelevant. When the dog charges at you you don't know if he's going to back off if you back off or if he's decided to rip your throat out. Better safe than sorry.

tazers aren't classified as lethal ON HUMANS, because they voltage FOR THAT SPECIFIC TAZER was tweaked specifically to hurt human-sized targets without killing them. A dog is not a human sized target. Again, this is common sense.

Don't be a clown. A dog can cover twenty in feet in less than one second. The dog in the video was half that distance away from the cop. If he had missed he wouldn't have had time to draw his gun, and his partner wouldn't fire his own weapon with the dog so close to the other cop, for fear of hitting him. Knowing police protocol and how they're trained to use their weapons is part of my job- is it part of yours?

31 people would still be alive today if they had just kicked the dog! hurr.

Dog got what it got and the cop did what he was trained to do. It's easy to sit here on the internet and say "hurr he should have rationalized the situation" but 1 you weren't there and 2 you obviously aren't aware that we in the law enforcement/security business are trained to assess dogs as potentially lethal threats, so if you want to blame someone because some homeless guy's animal got put down, blame the guy's training.

LoL at you editing out what you didn't like.

And it wasn't that big of a dog, definitely not some dog who would have "ripped throats" out of one, let alone two grown men.

Not irrelevant, if "OMG, death via rabies" is going o be a reason to shoot a dog, realize that the chances are minuscule. See: Overreacting. Lots of homeless people own dogs (you should know this, you live or work in SF); homeless doesn't = rabid pets, as some default.

I'd expect a cop to properly assess the situation and opt for tazering an assailant who was armed with a knife instead of shooting them with gun if possible. Bit trigger happy are we, eh.

Again, properly assessing the situation. The dog was guarding its owner; had previously charged another person and backed off once they did.

LoL. Bullets are still more potentially lethal to a dog. This is common sense.

Stop overreaching. It's wasn't that large of a dog and there were two grown men. This wasn't a scene out of Cujo where we have a 100+ pound dog overpowering multiple adults.

Strawman. Don't act like a jackass cos you made a BS claim "tons of people die!" to support your claim and it was shown to be wrong. If this had been a charging pit, mastiff or rottweiler, sure, use lethal tactics first. Back to 'properly assessing the situation.'

1) You weren't there either 2) you've not had police training, so lets not get too high and mighty here. That dog was hardly a threat going from its actions, cop lost his composure and overreacted. He should have had his tazer out; tazered the dog since the man possibly was in dire need of medical attention. If the dog happened to have did from said tazer, that would have been an unfortunate outcome, but it's better than firing your gun in a crowded area.

Originally posted by Robtard
Tazers aren't classified as lethal, guns are. That's the point of cops carrying lethal and non-lethal weapons.

Cops who have tasers are supposed to be sent to training to break them of this belief. There is no such thing as non-lethal, tasers are less lethal. That means they are unlikely to kill an healthy adult human. There is little reason to believe the dog would have been in less danger if he shot it with the taser.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Cops who have tasers are supposed to be sent to training to break them of this belief. There is no such thing as non-lethal, tasers are less lethal. That means they are unlikely to kill an healthy adult human. There is little reason to believe the dog would have been in less danger if he shot it with the taser.

Why I said they're classified as non-lethal, despite deaths happening, they're not supposed to kill. Guns with bullets are.

Except of course for the above. Cops have tazered dogs and they've not died. Some don't even stay down for long; but run off pissing themselves scared shitless.

Are we really putting the safety of a dog over the safety of a human, Rob?

Look, you can argue that the cop might have had less lethal options, but in heat of the moment situations you really have no idea how you'd react.

Who's to say you wouldn't do the same thing in the cop's position?

agreed, I think we can differentiate between "the officer acted in a less than optimal way" and "the officer did something wrong"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Are we really putting the safety of a dog over the safety of a human, Rob?

Look, you can argue that the cop might have had less lethal options, but in heat of the moment situations you really have no idea how you'd react.

Who's to say you wouldn't do the same thing in the cop's position?

Clearly I'm not. As I've said if I felt a dog was a serious threat, put it down.

For me and you, sure, 100% agreed. Call me crazy, but I hold police officers who are entrusted with upholding laws that affect us and are armed with guns to a MUCH higher level.

Originally posted by Oliver North
agreed, I think we can differentiate between "the officer acted in a less than optimal way" and "the officer did something wrong"

Agreed. IMO, he acted like an amateur.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed. IMO, he acted like an amateur.

For sure

It would be interesting to know what the general protocol for this type of situation is, and what training, if any, officers get when dealing with aggressive dogs.

While I do agree with you, that officers need to be held to a higher standard than regular citizens in these things, it is also true that their job requires them to make instantaneous decisions that impact their own health and others, and sometimes that wont be the most perfect choice. I'm the first person to criticize the police when that choice is clearly the wrong one, but here, it seems within the realm of reasonableness, idk.

Your point about firing a gun on a crowded street is interesting though, and to think about it, it is strange the second officer isn't trying to get people to step away from the scene...

Originally posted by Oliver North
For sure

It would be interesting to know what the general protocol for this type of situation is, and what training, if any, officers get when dealing with aggressive dogs.

While I do agree with you, that officers need to be held to a higher standard than regular citizens in these things, it is also true that their job requires them to make instantaneous decisions that impact their own health and others, and sometimes that wont be the most perfect choice. I'm the first person to criticize the police when that choice is clearly the wrong one, but here, it seems within the realm of reasonableness, idk.

Your point about firing a gun on a crowded street is interesting though, and to think about it, it is strange the second officer isn't trying to get people to step away from the scene...

Officers are allowed to shoot attacking dogs. But again, properly assessing the situation is vital. This cop could have shot the dog within parameters, but he acted far more cool and sensible than that clownshoe.

Nothing criminal, but it was amateur hour in that scene through and through, imo.

It was argued "what if the cop missed with the taser?"; I ask, what if the cop missed with the gun, considering that dog wasn't standing still and is a relatively smaller target than a human. Bullets ricochet and kill people just the same.

Originally posted by Robtard
Officers are allowed to shoot attacking dogs. But again, properly assessing the situation is vital. This cop could have shot the dog within parameters, but he acted far more cool and sensible than that clownshoe.

Nothing criminal, but it was amateur hour in that scene through and through, imo.

It was argued "what if the cop missed with the taser?"; I ask, what if the cop missed with the gun, considering that dog wasn't standing still and is a relatively smaller target than a human. Bullets ricochet and kill people just the same.

the best part: at the end of the video, when they are interviewing the black officer in his car, the caption underneath is "cocoa police department"

LoL, didn't notice that.

Rob is a smart guy in this ITT, listen to him.

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3081/efriedburgers1.jpg

Would you now?

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL at you editing out what you didn't like.

And it wasn't that big of a dog, definitely not some dog who would have "ripped throats" out of one, let alone two grown men.

Not irrelevant, if "OMG, death via rabies" is going o be a reason to shoot a dog, realize that the chances are minuscule. See: Overreacting. Lots of homeless people own dogs (you should know this, you live or work in SF); homeless doesn't = rabid pets, as some default.

I'd expect a cop to properly assess the situation and opt for tazering an assailant who was armed with a knife instead of shooting them with gun if possible. Bit trigger happy are we, eh.

Again, properly assessing the situation. The dog was guarding its owner; had previously charged another person and backed off once they did.

LoL. Bullets are still more potentially lethal to a dog. This is common sense.

Stop overreaching. It's wasn't that large of a dog and there were two grown men. This wasn't a scene out of Cujo where we have a 100+ pound dog overpowering multiple adults.

Strawman. Don't act like a jackass cos you made a BS claim "tons of people die!" to support your claim and it was shown to be wrong. If this had been a charging pit, mastiff or rottweiler, sure, use lethal tactics first. Back to 'properly assessing the situation.'

1) You weren't there either 2) you've not had police training, so lets not get too high and mighty here. That dog was hardly a threat going from its actions, cop lost his composure and overreacted. He should have had his tazer out; tazered the dog since the man possibly was in dire need of medical attention. If the dog happened to have did from said tazer, that would have been an unfortunate outcome, but it's better than firing your gun in a crowded area. http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f122/blaxican_templar/are-you-shtting-me-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe.gif

Turrible logic.Originally posted by Omega Vision
Are we really putting the safety of a dog over the safety of a human, Rob?

Look, you can argue that the cop might have had less lethal options, but in heat of the moment situations you really have no idea how you'd react.

Who's to say you wouldn't do the same thing in the cop's position? Originally posted by Oliver North
agreed, I think we can differentiate between "the officer acted in a less than optimal way" and "the officer did something wrong"

Exactly. There's an obvious difference between what was practical and what would be like, some silly moral stance. The cop did what he was trained to do.

So just trollin, cool. Had a feeling when you implied breed doesn't matter/is a factor.

lol. Whatever you say, Dadudemon.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
lol. Whatever you say, Dadudemon.

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/2019/blankstarea.jpg

Dogs are people too.

Originally posted by Robtard
Clearly I'm not. As I've said if I felt a dog was a serious threat, put it down.

For me and you, sure, 100% agreed. Call me crazy, but I hold police officers who are entrusted with upholding laws that affect us and are armed with guns to a MUCH higher level.

I hope you aren't going to attempt a slippery slope argument here.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I hope you aren't going to attempt a slippery slope argument here.

If you think, please point it out.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you think, please point it out.
The way it seemed you were heading is that if this cop shoots first and asks questions later, what's to stop him from doing the same with humans?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The way it seemed you were heading is that if this cop shoots first and asks questions later, what's to stop him from doing the same with humans?

LoL, no. Cop shot a dog, it's not the end of the world.

Just that I hold cops to a higher degree when it comes to using guns than either of us, considering their job and training.

I doubt they have much training in regards to animals.

They're trained to assess threats and act accordingly. Not lose it cos there's a 30lbs pound coming.

In regards to humans.

That's why cops call animal control.

And they're trained to assess the situation and act accordingly until said help arrives.

That's what he did.

I obviously disagree and for reasons posted back. No need to recap.

You aren't a cop, you don't know his training.

I do.

According to his training he did.

LoL, another RJ. Glad to see it actually.

You're just mad that I'm more like McClane than you'll ever be.

I'm not bald, that's for sure.

Then you're not a man.

the pair of testicles between my legs that I dipped into your mouth say otherwise, ******. /face

Those were dust mites.

You were coughing on them. /face again

False.

Your testicles are no more real than your ability to admit defeat.

Originally posted by Robtard
They're trained to assess threats and act accordingly. Not lose it cos there's a 30lbs pound coming.
I'll say right up front that this is anecdotal at best, but a friend of mine knew an MP who worked in Eglin AFB, and he was telling me that this MP always felt safer when he had his dog with him, because even though he always carried a gun there were plenty of rowdies who'd still test him. But whenever he had his dog--a big German shepherd--with him, even the rowdiest drunks toed the line.

My point being that people have been hardwired to fear snarling canines for far longer than most threats, including firearms.

Originally posted by Mindset
False.

Your testicles are no more real than your ability to admit defeat.

It's a good thing having my balls in your mouth doesn't impede your typing. /faced

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'll say right up front that this is anecdotal at best, but a friend of mine knew an MP who worked in Eglin AFB, and he was telling me that this MP always felt safer when he had his dog with him, because even though he always carried a gun there were plenty of rowdies who'd still test him. But whenever he had his dog--a big German shepherd--with him, even the rowdiest drunks toed the line.

My point being that people have been hardwired to fear snarling canines for far longer than most threats, including firearms. Rob doesn't actually know anything about the subject.Originally posted by Robtard
It's a good thing having my balls in your mouth doesn't impede your typing. /faced Reality doesn't impede your opinions.

Now you're coming off as angry, friend. That wasn't my intent.

I am always angry.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3pnipZddJ1rp0qeeo1_400.gif

Glad we all agree you are wrong.

I'll give Robtard a gun, some pepper spray, and a taser and have Mindset charge him.

Will Rob 1) use the gun 2) use the spray 3) use the taser or 4) crap his pants?

Rob will be halfway to rapetown before he can react.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'll give Robtard a gun, some pepper spray, and a taser and have Mindset charge him.

Will Rob 1) use the gun 2) use the spray 3) use the taser or 4) crap his pants?

I'd properly properly assess the situation and opt for 5) Yell loudly

It works well on toy breeds that are all yap and no bite.

Yelling won't stop me from raping you.

But neither will any of the other choices.

Originally posted by Mindset

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3pnipZddJ1rp0qeeo1_400.gif

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Knowing police protocol and how they're trained to use their weapons is part of my job- is it part of yours?

OH SNAP! lol

Originally posted by Oliver North
It would be interesting to know what the general protocol for this type of situation is, and what training, if any, officers get when dealing with aggressive dogs.


Based upon the backlash and demands of the NYC people to train their Police to handle aggressive dogs, it seems as if little not no training is offered, currently.

Originally posted by Robtard
This cop could have shot the dog within parameters, but he acted far more cool and sensible

I agree. And when the dog charged him, he kicked the dog away...gently. That didn't stop the dog, but that should be the first choice. Notice that the cop drew his gun, though? Did you see that? Did you hear the commentary that they also had the option to shoot the dog? Those cops seemed better trained to handle dogs, though. His partner's first reaction was the taser.

Originally posted by Oliver North
the best part: at the end of the video, when they are interviewing the black officer in his car, the caption underneath is "cocoa police department"

Cocoa Colorado.


Originally posted by Tzeentch._
lol. Whatever you say, Dadudemon.

Says the person that dissected Robtard's posts, point by point (not even sentence by sentence), with multiple quotes in an extremely dadudemon-ish fashion. But, Robtard is like me in a way: he's almost always right.

So then he's not like you at all.