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.
__________________ This <----This
Last edited by Robtard on Aug 17th, 2012 at 03:32 PM
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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.
__________________ This <----This
Last edited by Robtard on Aug 17th, 2012 at 04:00 PM
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?
__________________
"End when I find myn Hertland, efter Irfet end Woo,
In Dale af Paper, worin Ink Nymphen dans’n,
I’ll endly have somthing stour ta gib ta myn Fremdin.
O Vers’ af de Musen, dwan’t ferlet me noo!"
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.
Agreed. IMO, he acted like an amateur.
__________________ This <----This
Last edited by Robtard on Aug 17th, 2012 at 05:19 PM
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...
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.
__________________ This <----This
Last edited by Robtard on Aug 17th, 2012 at 05:45 PM
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 rich and white it's like I'm runnin gainst a cheeeeesecaaaaake
I hope you aren't going to attempt a slippery slope argument here.
__________________
"End when I find myn Hertland, efter Irfet end Woo,
In Dale af Paper, worin Ink Nymphen dans’n,
I’ll endly have somthing stour ta gib ta myn Fremdin.
O Vers’ af de Musen, dwan’t ferlet me noo!"
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?
__________________
"End when I find myn Hertland, efter Irfet end Woo,
In Dale af Paper, worin Ink Nymphen dans’n,
I’ll endly have somthing stour ta gib ta myn Fremdin.
O Vers’ af de Musen, dwan’t ferlet me noo!"
KMC Community Forums
Aug 17th, 2012 03:21 PM
