I am not necessarily agreeing that the right actions were taken by the law with the owner of the dog. Whether or not he needed to be handcuffed and arrested is to be determined after the story comes out.
Having said this... viscious dog attacks are also becoming commonplace. Good lord, man. What you expect from the police is flabbergasting. With the conditions you would have them work under... why would anyone wish to do that job?
You want cops who shoot second? So, in other words... get bit or get shot before you draw your weapon prepared to defend yourself? Ridiculous.
Why is necessary to repeat what I've already said? There are less than lethal options. I never said wait until he was bitten to shoot it, those are your words. What is ridiculous is the shoot first attitude that many cops seem to believe is the correct path to take. It doesn't matter if it is a dog or a person, way too many are more than happy to pull the trigger first. Way too many think they are Dirty Harry and think they are untouchable, there are stories all over the place of police abuse. THIS VERY COP was involved in an abuse case previously, he has a history of excessive force. He shouldn't be allowed to protect and serve anymore.
I am not necessarily agreeing that the right actions were taken by the law with the owner of the dog. Whether or not he needed to be handcuffed and arrested is to be determined after the story comes out.
Having said this... viscious dog attacks are also becoming commonplace. Good lord, man. What you expect from the police is flabbergasting. With the conditions you would have them work under... why would anyone wish to do that job?
You want cops who shoot second? So, in other words... get bit or get shot before you draw your weapon prepared to defend yourself? Ridiculous.
Why is necessary to repeat what I've already said? There are less than lethal options. I never said wait until he was bitten to shoot it, those are your words. What is ridiculous is the shoot first attitude that many cops seem to believe is the correct path to take. It doesn't matter if it is a dog or a person, way too many are more than happy to pull the trigger first. Way too many think they are Dirty Harry and think they are untouchable, there are stories all over the place of police abuse. THIS VERY COP was involved in an abuse case previously, he has a history of excessive force. He shouldn't be allowed to protect and serve anymore.
I totally agree. As I said before, next time it could be a 12 year old with a water gun or something. Cop was too quick to shoot, and that is scary.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I am not necessarily agreeing that the right actions were taken by the law with the owner of the dog. Whether or not he needed to be handcuffed and arrested is to be determined after the story comes out.
Having said this... viscious dog attacks are also becoming commonplace. Good lord, man. What you expect from the police is flabbergasting. With the conditions you would have them work under... why would anyone wish to do that job?
You want cops who shoot second? So, in other words... get bit or get shot before you draw your weapon prepared to defend yourself? Ridiculous.
Why is necessary to repeat what I've already said? There are less than lethal options. I never said wait until he was bitten to shoot it, those are your words. What is ridiculous is the shoot first attitude that many cops seem to believe is the correct path to take. It doesn't matter if it is a dog or a person, way too many are more than happy to pull the trigger first. Way too many think they are Dirty Harry and think they are untouchable, there are stories all over the place of police abuse. THIS VERY COP was involved in an abuse case previously, he has a history of excessive force. He shouldn't be allowed to protect and serve anymore.
The only thing you have repeated is that the cops are pigs, you are mad, these guys should be fired, and something else should have been done.
Let's hear what non-lethal option you would have preferred. This is what you have not provided. You have armchair quarterbacked and cast judgement... but from my recollection... you have offered nothing other than criticism. It's easy to do that; but it's not so easy to describe how they should have handled it.
It should be a brilliant response and much greater than the display of force we witnessed because remember... you have the luxury of time and being out of the moment as you describe your suggestion.
Why is necessary to repeat what I've already said? There are less than lethal options. I never said wait until he was bitten to shoot it, those are your words. What is ridiculous is the shoot first attitude that many cops seem to believe is the correct path to take. It doesn't matter if it is a dog or a person, way too many are more than happy to pull the trigger first. Way too many think they are Dirty Harry and think they are untouchable, there are stories all over the place of police abuse. THIS VERY COP was involved in an abuse case previously, he has a history of excessive force. He shouldn't be allowed to protect and serve anymore.
You keep mentioning his "history of excessive force" without regard for the fact of how often excessive force complaints are lodged.
As a lawyer, I can tell you that there are a number of areas of law where it's generally accepted that people will file complaints with the expectation of getting a settlement, independent of the merits of the claims or not. Police brutality and civil rights law is one of them. That's not to say they don't happen, but rather that every time there's a settlement doesn't mean there's been a finding of fault on the part of the officer.
I'd like to believe that when a defendant lies and says an officer of mine used excessive force that there isn't some schmuck civil attorney willing to fire off a complaint, hoping for a quick settlement, but they unfortunately do exist and it does happen. Again, that's not to say excessive force doesn't happen. But many cities (large cities, typically), will settle these cases routinely, if only to save costs of potential litigation, regardless of whether or not the incident is exactly as alleged. In short, it's worth more to settle a case than it is to litigate. There are some attorneys who know this, and so suddenly, there's an "excessive force" complaint filed and the corresponding trail of official records to go with it.
Quick lesson on the law: a settlement is NOT an admission of guilt.
I'm not saying this is the case with this officer, but through all your complaints in this thread, there's this theme about the officer being too hasty in shooting the dog and now about how this officer shouldn't even have a gun because he has a history. No where have you considered the other possibilities that could explain both. On the dog issue, you can speculate and criticize all you want about what he should have done, what the dog was doing, what the dog wasn't doing, but the fact is, officers are given wide latitude in high-conflict situations. If the officer felt he was in danger, he's empowered to defend himself. There's no state I know of that requires an officer to use less-than-lethal force when it comes to animals (which makes your complaint about his actions inappropriate; call your legislator if you want the rules changed). He might be a dick for shooting, but if he's entitled to under the law, your complaint really isn't with him. On the issue of his history, if you can only point to the settlement reached but no official records or investigation results, then you really don't have much. If he was cleared by his department, it's still very possible that the City (which is the entity sued in brutality cases) made an independent decision to settle. When people cry "police brutality," most of the time an independent investigation - sometimes thorough, sometimes cursory - is triggered. It's very possible that you're decrying the paper trail that exists and not actual conduct.
If you think this guy shouldn't be an officer and is a true example of "pigs out of control" (my phrase, not yours), the fact that he still has a badge and a gun should have you waging a letter-writing campaign to the independent review boards that continue to let him have a badge and a gun. Sorry, but not everything can fit your theory on life.
And on it goes...
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
i am totally a dog person - grew up around rots my whole life -- parent still have 2 and one is 160 lbs so i am really bias on this situation.
That being said before i came to this thread and having only read what happened as i can't stomach the video, I was totally outraged and disappointed by the police officer.
After reading through a lot of your posts i can see points on each side. There is plenty of blame to go around.
the number 1 culprit is the dog owner.
The report states the problem was that he was playing his music too loud and the cops had asked him to turn it down several times because it was interfering with the investigation. So Mr. Dog owner - you should respect the authorities and turn it down and move away.
Also in a lot of ways dogs are like children -even the most well behaved can still be unpredictable. So why would you even tempt fate by having your dog around people with guns.
the police man has his share of blame as well. IT IS A DOG! and you have a bunch of guys with guns standing right by you! Unless the video is like a movie clip where the dog is leaping in the air with his teeth about to clamp down and the cop shot him in the face - he was out of line. A real cowardly move. Worst case scenario for that officer was a 1/2 second bite before one of his co-workers would have put a stop to it.
The police did not say that they shot the dog because they felt threatened - they said they shot it to protect the dog owner because he was in cuffs which in turn is a very vulnerable position. That is complete bullshit. Yes an officer has better, more pressing things to deal with but that shouldn't be an acceptable excuse.
Everything i know and have been taught is that police are here to protect us, and that drawing a firearm let alone using the firearm is a LAST RESORT. This clearly is not the mentality of this particular officer and i do think that action needs to be taken. He should have just earned himself a nice little desk job back at the station.
i am totally a dog person - grew up around rots my whole life -- parent still have 2 and one is 160 lbs so i am really bias on this situation.
That being said before i came to this thread and having only read what happened as i can't stomach the video, I was totally outraged and disappointed by the police officer.
After reading through a lot of your posts i can see points on each side. There is plenty of blame to go around.
the number 1 culprit is the dog owner.
The report states the problem was that he was playing his music too loud and the cops had asked him to turn it down several times because it was interfering with the investigation. So Mr. Dog owner - you should respect the authorities and turn it down and move away.
Also in a lot of ways dogs are like children -even the most well behaved can still be unpredictable. So why would you even tempt fate by having your dog around people with guns.
the police man has his share of blame as well. IT IS A DOG! and you have a bunch of guys with guns standing right by you! Unless the video is like a movie clip where the dog is leaping in the air with his teeth about to clamp down and the cop shot him in the face - he was out of line. A real cowardly move. Worst case scenario for that officer was a 1/2 second bite before one of his co-workers would have put a stop to it.
The police did not say that they shot the dog because they felt threatened - they said they shot it to protect the dog owner because he was in cuffs which in turn is a very vulnerable position. That is complete bullshit. Yes an officer has better, more pressing things to deal with but that shouldn't be an acceptable excuse.
Everything i know and have been taught is that police are here to protect us, and that drawing a firearm let alone using the firearm is a LAST RESORT. This clearly is not the mentality of this particular officer and i do think that action needs to be taken. He should have just earned himself a nice little desk job back at the station.
While I think you should watch the video to form an opinion, I agree that using the firearm should ALWAYS be a LAST RESORT, and this cop clearly doesn't think so. Not acceptable.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
i am totally a dog person - grew up around rots my whole life -- parent still have 2 and one is 160 lbs so i am really bias on this situation.
That being said before i came to this thread and having only read what happened as i can't stomach the video, I was totally outraged and disappointed by the police officer.
After reading through a lot of your posts i can see points on each side. There is plenty of blame to go around.
the number 1 culprit is the dog owner.
The report states the problem was that he was playing his music too loud and the cops had asked him to turn it down several times because it was interfering with the investigation. So Mr. Dog owner - you should respect the authorities and turn it down and move away.
Also in a lot of ways dogs are like children -even the most well behaved can still be unpredictable. So why would you even tempt fate by having your dog around people with guns.
the police man has his share of blame as well. IT IS A DOG! and you have a bunch of guys with guns standing right by you! Unless the video is like a movie clip where the dog is leaping in the air with his teeth about to clamp down and the cop shot him in the face - he was out of line. A real cowardly move. Worst case scenario for that officer was a 1/2 second bite before one of his co-workers would have put a stop to it.
The police did not say that they shot the dog because they felt threatened - they said they shot it to protect the dog owner because he was in cuffs which in turn is a very vulnerable position. That is complete bullshit. Yes an officer has better, more pressing things to deal with but that shouldn't be an acceptable excuse.
Everything i know and have been taught is that police are here to protect us, and that drawing a firearm let alone using the firearm is a LAST RESORT. This clearly is not the mentality of this particular officer and i do think that action needs to be taken. He should have just earned himself a nice little desk job back at the station.
As hard as it is to watch, I went back and paused it as the first shot rings out. It appears the dog is in mid-air, lunging at the officer.
But the issue I have is, before he shoots, he maneuvers around the other officers who are cuffing the dog owner. In this time, he could've tried his taser if he had one. Again, I dont agree with what he did, but I'm trying to see both sides. I would've probably been bitten by that dog before I shot it, and that makes me think he might have been bitten had he not shot it. Its a very tough situation either way.
Okay. You seem to have an answer for everything here. Four things as I try to let this one go:
1. You have cast judgement on the officers and have deemed them barbaric for defending themselves from a seemingly menacing dog. You say the dog was not challenging them. You say they should have tried a bunch of things instead of shooting it- but never really said what. Your example from your personal experience can't come into play here- the owner was handcuffed and couldn't come to the rescue. The officers are not going to uncuff the guy so that he can control his dog: there are multiple scenarios where this action could be disastrous. I illustrated one, but just use your imagination as to how something like that could backfire dramatically.
2. I would suggest reading up a bit on post mortem nerve reflexes. It might have been what you witnessed during the video- even though you saw a cat from 8 inches from your face that never exhibited residual neural signals. Your dismissal of the notion that this might have been what we witnessed before the dog ceased to move points to a certain level of closed-minded thinking.
3. Why do you ignore the 'tougher to answer' questions such as: would the officers be in the right to defend themselves if the dog bit one of them? And... to that... do they have to wait to get bit before defending themselves?
4. Do you place yourself at risk when you go to work? You seem to speak from the position as one who does. If so... then perhaps I need to reconsider my position. If not... then perhaps you might wish to reconsider yours.
1. I don't believe from what I saw that they needed to defend themselves to that extent, and I did say what they should have tried a lot of times, and they had options. I said they could have let the owner step forward, as he was trying to do, so he could calm the dog down and be between the dog and the cops, and/or the cops should have stepped back a couple of steps to see what the dog did. The owner totally could have come to the rescue simply by stepping forward 3 feet and talking to the dog. No hands needed. And the owner TRIED to do that, but the cops held him back.
2. IMO the dog was alive and in pain after being shot, and I don't think there is any point in us arguing about that. The dog was squealing, and took a while just to fall down. In any case, neither of us are vets, and that whole issue is actually completely separate from the main point anyway, which is that the cop shot the dog and shouldn't have.
3. I never saw anyone ask if they would have been right or wrong in shooting the dog had it bit one of them (I did not read anything in this thread before my first post and I'm sure have not read some posts since then), but I don't find that a hard to answer question at all. If the dog had bitten one of them then he would have been right in shooting it. But it didn't. And didn't even TRY to. If it had even TRIED to bite one of them, shooting MIGHT have been justified, but probably not without them even trying to take a step away from the dog.
4. I am not a cop or a fireman or anything.... but I do place myself at risk in that on a semi-regular basis I deal with volatile, upset, and/or mentally ill or emotionally unstable people, and I often have to tell them what they don't want to here - things that seriously impact their lives at times. I have felt threatened several times in this context. I have had to call security many times while I was fearful for my safety, and I have also taken courses on how to deescalate threatening situations and how to deal with conflict (with people). But I don't actually know why you're asking. If I knitted mittens for a living, I could still have a valid opinion about what happened on that video. I have been attacked by dogs 3 times. One bit me in the face, another jumped on me and scratched my back really badly, one bit my leg. And then there was the stand off I was in with a very sinister rotti that was ready to lunge. So I think I can say that I have experience with dealing with threatening dogs.
Incomplete response. The second question was: do they have to wait to get bit before defending themselves?
Okay. You seem to have an answer for everything here. Four things as I try to let this one go:
1. You have cast judgement on the officers and have deemed them barbaric for defending themselves from a seemingly menacing dog. You say the dog was not challenging them. You say they should have tried a bunch of things instead of shooting it- but never really said what. Your example from your personal experience can't come into play here- the owner was handcuffed and couldn't come to the rescue. The officers are not going to uncuff the guy so that he can control his dog: there are multiple scenarios where this action could be disastrous. I illustrated one, but just use your imagination as to how something like that could backfire dramatically.
2. I would suggest reading up a bit on post mortem nerve reflexes. It might have been what you witnessed during the video- even though you saw a cat from 8 inches from your face that never exhibited residual neural signals. Your dismissal of the notion that this might have been what we witnessed before the dog ceased to move points to a certain level of closed-minded thinking.
3. Why do you ignore the 'tougher to answer' questions such as: would the officers be in the right to defend themselves if the dog bit one of them? And... to that... do they have to wait to get bit before defending themselves?
4. Do you place yourself at risk when you go to work? You seem to speak from the position as one who does. If so... then perhaps I need to reconsider my position. If not... then perhaps you might wish to reconsider yours.
1. I don't believe from what I saw that they needed to defend themselves to that extent, and I did say what they should have tried a lot of times, and they had options. I said they could have let the owner step forward, as he was trying to do, so he could calm the dog down and be between the dog and the cops, and/or the cops should have stepped back a couple of steps to see what the dog did. The owner totally could have come to the rescue simply by stepping forward 3 feet and talking to the dog. No hands needed. And the owner TRIED to do that, but the cops held him back.
2. IMO the dog was alive and in pain after being shot, and I don't think there is any point in us arguing about that. The dog was squealing, and took a while just to fall down. In any case, neither of us are vets, and that whole issue is actually completely separate from the main point anyway, which is that the cop shot the dog and shouldn't have.
3. I never saw anyone ask if they would have been right or wrong in shooting the dog had it bit one of them (I did not read anything in this thread before my first post and I'm sure have not read some posts since then), but I don't find that a hard to answer question at all. If the dog had bitten one of them then he would have been right in shooting it. But it didn't. And didn't even TRY to. If it had even TRIED to bite one of them, shooting MIGHT have been justified, but probably not without them even trying to take a step away from the dog.
4. I am not a cop or a fireman or anything.... but I do place myself at risk in that on a semi-regular basis I deal with volatile, upset, and/or mentally ill or emotionally unstable people, and I often have to tell them what they don't want to here - things that seriously impact their lives at times. I have felt threatened several times in this context. I have had to call security many times while I was fearful for my safety, and I have also taken courses on how to deescalate threatening situations and how to deal with conflict (with people). But I don't actually know why you're asking. If I knitted mittens for a living, I could still have a valid opinion about what happened on that video. I have been attacked by dogs 3 times. One bit me in the face, another jumped on me and scratched my back really badly, one bit my leg. And then there was the stand off I was in with a very sinister rotti that was ready to lunge. So I think I can say that I have experience with dealing with threatening dogs.
Incomplete response. The second question was: do they have to wait to get bit before defending themselves?
Read again: " If it had even TRIED to bite one of them, shooting MIGHT have been justified..."
I think that answers the question. They at least wait until the dog acts as though it wants to bite them. It didn't.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
i am totally a dog person - grew up around rots my whole life -- parent still have 2 and one is 160 lbs so i am really bias on this situation.
That being said before i came to this thread and having only read what happened as i can't stomach the video, I was totally outraged and disappointed by the police officer.
After reading through a lot of your posts i can see points on each side. There is plenty of blame to go around.
the number 1 culprit is the dog owner.
The report states the problem was that he was playing his music too loud and the cops had asked him to turn it down several times because it was interfering with the investigation. So Mr. Dog owner - you should respect the authorities and turn it down and move away.
Also in a lot of ways dogs are like children -even the most well behaved can still be unpredictable. So why would you even tempt fate by having your dog around people with guns.
the police man has his share of blame as well. IT IS A DOG! and you have a bunch of guys with guns standing right by you! Unless the video is like a movie clip where the dog is leaping in the air with his teeth about to clamp down and the cop shot him in the face - he was out of line. A real cowardly move. Worst case scenario for that officer was a 1/2 second bite before one of his co-workers would have put a stop to it.
The police did not say that they shot the dog because they felt threatened - they said they shot it to protect the dog owner because he was in cuffs which in turn is a very vulnerable position. That is complete bullshit. Yes an officer has better, more pressing things to deal with but that shouldn't be an acceptable excuse.
Everything i know and have been taught is that police are here to protect us, and that drawing a firearm let alone using the firearm is a LAST RESORT. This clearly is not the mentality of this particular officer and i do think that action needs to be taken. He should have just earned himself a nice little desk job back at the station.
As hard as it is to watch, I went back and paused it as the first shot rings out. It appears the dog is in mid-air, lunging at the officer.
But the issue I have is, before he shoots, he maneuvers around the other officers who are cuffing the dog owner. In this time, he could've tried his taser if he had one. Again, I dont agree with what he did, but I'm trying to see both sides. I would've probably been bitten by that dog before I shot it, and that makes me think he might have been bitten had he not shot it. Its a very tough situation either way.
Going back and looking at it objectively was a good thing to do when really deciding where you stand on this. You have described what I saw: the dog was a little more aggressive than some have made it out to be.
What practices are in place to safeguard police from unnecessary harm? There are procedures in placed that limit the amount of risk an officer needs to face when on duty. With regards to dogs... I guarantee that the practice is to use lethal force if the dog is menacing. I guarantee you they have been trained to do as they did based on the numerous encounters policemen have had where someone was attacked and bitten.
PJ Soul and Unsung... I am not happy with the fact that the dog is dead. The situation was a poor one for the officers to be in. I'm thinking it would be fairer to cast blame towards the owner. None of this had to happen if he had complied like all the other citizens stopping to watch the scene. His belligerence cost his dog its life and the officers a pile of grief.
Incomplete response. The second question was: do they have to wait to get bit before defending themselves?
Read again: " If it had even TRIED to bite one of them, shooting MIGHT have been justified..."
I think that answers the question. They at least wait until the dog acts as though it wants to bite them. It didn't.
Might is too grey- you are avoiding the question. These officers need to know what is expected of them so that they can act appropriately next time.
Should the police procedure for dealing with aggressive dogs be "Wait until bitten" or "Shoot to protect yourself"?
Incomplete response. The second question was: do they have to wait to get bit before defending themselves?
Read again: " If it had even TRIED to bite one of them, shooting MIGHT have been justified..."
I think that answers the question. They at least wait until the dog acts as though it wants to bite them. It didn't.
Might is too grey- you are avoiding the question. These officers need to know what is expected of them so that they can act appropriately next time.
Should the police procedure for dealing with aggressive dogs be "Wait until bitten" or "Shoot to protect yourself"?
:roll: I'm not avoiding. Pretty basic. Shooting is last resort. Let the owner intervene if he's trying to, if that fails try to back away from danger, see if they can calm the dog down. If all that fails or the dog tries to attack, shoot. I've already said all this.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
:roll: I'm not avoiding. Pretty basic. Shooting is last resort. Let the owner intervene if he's trying to, if that fails try to back away from danger, see if they can calm the dog down. If all that fails or the dog tries to attack, shoot. I've already said all this.
Agreed. Dogs don't like tazers or pepper spray either and cops carry those. If I can deal with grizzly bears with pepper spray, a cop can deal with a dog in a similar manner.
:roll: I'm not avoiding. Pretty basic. Shooting is last resort. Let the owner intervene if he's trying to, if that fails try to back away from danger, see if they can calm the dog down. If all that fails or the dog tries to attack, shoot. I've already said all this.
So...
The officers did back away from the dog on 3-5 occasions. The dog showed no indication it was stopping its behaviour. One cop tried to grab the leash to see if he could control it. The dog lunged at the officers. It was shot.
Don't you think you have contradicted yourself?
Here you are saying that discretion should be exercised, but shoot before being bit. The officers used their discretion and after about 10 seconds of dog vs. man- with the dog becoming more aggressive as time elapsed- they shot it.
:roll: I'm not avoiding. Pretty basic. Shooting is last resort. Let the owner intervene if he's trying to, if that fails try to back away from danger, see if they can calm the dog down. If all that fails or the dog tries to attack, shoot. I've already said all this.
So...
The officers did back away from the dog on 3-5 occasions. The dog showed no indication it was stopping its behaviour. One cop tried to grab the leash to see if he could control it. The dog lunged at the officers. It was shot.
Don't you think you have contradicted yourself?
Here you are saying that discretion should be exercised, but shoot before being bit. The officers used their discretion and after about 10 seconds of dog vs. man- with the dog becoming more aggressive as time elapsed- they shot it.
No, I'm not contradicting myself. The dog didn't lunge, the cops didn't back up (do you mean flinching, or... ?). The dog was not lunging when it was shot. They did not allow the owner to intervene to calm the dog down even though he tried. The dog was showing no indication of escalating its behaviour. And as Snakeduck said, they have other means to disable a dog.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
:roll: I'm not avoiding. Pretty basic. Shooting is last resort. Let the owner intervene if he's trying to, if that fails try to back away from danger, see if they can calm the dog down. If all that fails or the dog tries to attack, shoot. I've already said all this.
Agreed. Dogs don't like tazers or pepper spray either and cops carry those. If I can deal with grizzly bears with pepper spray, a cop can deal with a dog in a similar manner.
Potential scenario:
The cops choose to use pepper spray on an upset 80 pound Rottweiler- sending the dog running- crazed and bewildered after being sprayed and its owner in handcuffs- into the crowd of onlookers. A woman gets mauled as the dog reacts violently once getting its bearings. Another man gets bitten trying to subdue the dog. Officers are forced to leave the original scene and the cuffed suspect to chase after the dog.
:roll: I'm not avoiding. Pretty basic. Shooting is last resort. Let the owner intervene if he's trying to, if that fails try to back away from danger, see if they can calm the dog down. If all that fails or the dog tries to attack, shoot. I've already said all this.
Agreed. Dogs don't like tazers or pepper spray either and cops carry those. If I can deal with grizzly bears with pepper spray, a cop can deal with a dog in a similar manner.
Potential scenario:
The cops choose to use pepper spray on an upset 80 pound Rottweiler- sending the dog running- crazed and bewildered after being sprayed and its owner in handcuffs- into the crowd of onlookers. A woman gets mauled as the dog reacts violently once getting its bearings. Another man gets bitten trying to subdue the dog. Officers are forced to leave the original scene and the cuffed suspect to chase after the dog.
Their policies are in place for a reason.
Potential scenario: missed shots, or shots that go through the animal, ricochet off the ground and kill a small child. Oh wait, cops have never hit an unintended target before... nevermind.
:roll: I'm not avoiding. Pretty basic. Shooting is last resort. Let the owner intervene if he's trying to, if that fails try to back away from danger, see if they can calm the dog down. If all that fails or the dog tries to attack, shoot. I've already said all this.
So...
The officers did back away from the dog on 3-5 occasions. The dog showed no indication it was stopping its behaviour. One cop tried to grab the leash to see if he could control it. The dog lunged at the officers. It was shot.
Don't you think you have contradicted yourself?
Here you are saying that discretion should be exercised, but shoot before being bit. The officers used their discretion and after about 10 seconds of dog vs. man- with the dog becoming more aggressive as time elapsed- they shot it.
No, I'm not contradicting myself. The dog didn't lunge, the cops didn't back up (do you mean flinching, or... ?). The dog was not lunging when it was shot. They did not allow the owner to intervene to calm the dog down even though he tried. The dog was showing no indication of escalating its behaviour. And as Snakeduck said, they have other means to disable a dog.
I don't think we are talking about the same video.
Johnny P (admitting he was neutral in this discussion) stated: As hard as it is to watch, I went back and paused it as the first shot rings out. It appears the dog is in mid-air, lunging at the officer.
The dog was showing no intention of stopping its approaches and was definitely getting bolder- eventually lunging at the officer. This is what I saw from the video as well. These actions fall into the category that you said might be responded to with deadly force.
Potential scenario: missed shots, or shots that go through the animal, ricochet off the ground and kill a small child. Oh wait, cops have never hit an unintended target before... nevermind.
Potential scenario: missed shots, or shots that go through the animal, ricochet off the ground and kill a small child. Oh wait, cops have never hit an unintended target before... nevermind.
Hypotheticals are fun.
So is Risk Management.
or maybe the dog goes postal and chews up a small child....but that never happens.
Potential scenario: missed shots, or shots that go through the animal, ricochet off the ground and kill a small child. Oh wait, cops have never hit an unintended target before... nevermind.
Hypotheticals are fun.
So is Risk Management.
or maybe the dog goes postal and chews up a small child....but that never happens.
Godfather.
I've seen dog bites and bullet holes and while neither is pleasant, I'll take a potential upset dog in my neighborhood over stray bullets fired from people with a proven history of very little accountability.
The officers did back away from the dog on 3-5 occasions. The dog showed no indication it was stopping its behaviour. One cop tried to grab the leash to see if he could control it. The dog lunged at the officers. It was shot.
Don't you think you have contradicted yourself?
Here you are saying that discretion should be exercised, but shoot before being bit. The officers used their discretion and after about 10 seconds of dog vs. man- with the dog becoming more aggressive as time elapsed- they shot it.
No, I'm not contradicting myself. The dog didn't lunge, the cops didn't back up (do you mean flinching, or... ?). The dog was not lunging when it was shot. They did not allow the owner to intervene to calm the dog down even though he tried. The dog was showing no indication of escalating its behaviour. And as Snakeduck said, they have other means to disable a dog.
I don't think we are talking about the same video.
Johnny P (admitting he was neutral in this discussion) stated: As hard as it is to watch, I went back and paused it as the first shot rings out. It appears the dog is in mid-air, lunging at the officer.
The dog was showing no intention of stopping its approaches and was definitely getting bolder- eventually lunging at the officer. This is what I saw from the video as well. These actions fall into the category that you said might be responded to with deadly force.
Yeah, I saw that post from JP. I disagree with him. It doesn't at all look to me like the dog was in mid-air lunging at the officer when the gun was fired, and JP was the first to even say that. I think he misinterpreted what was happening there. The only time I saw the dog in the air was when the bullet first hit him. Maybe that's what JP was seeing.
What I see is that the dog was just about to back down. What I also saw was the cops holding the owner back from calming the dog down.
So anyway, I've said absolutely everything I can possibly say as far as what my opinion is and I've said very clearly why my opinion is what it is several times, after watching the video three times. I am comfortable with my position. So maybe enough with the third degree.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yeah, I saw that post from JP. I disagree with him. It doesn't at all look to me like the dog was in mid-air lunging at the officer when the gun was fired, and JP was the first to even say that. I think he misinterpreted what was happening there. The only time I saw the dog in the air was when the bullet first hit him. Maybe that's what JP was seeing.
What I see is that the dog was just about to back down. What I also saw was the cops holding the owner back from calming the dog down.
So anyway, I've said absolutely everything I can possibly say as far as what my opinion is and I've said very clearly why my opinion is what it is several times, after watching the video three times. I am comfortable with my position. So maybe enough with the third degree.
You perceive it one way. Others perceive it differently. And, the officers on duty and dealing with the situation had their perceptions: which were likely much more rich and perceptive than any of ours.
This situation was more complex than most care to admit. I have expressed that I feel badly the dog was killed. I have stated the owner is responsible for letting the situation get to where it got. I have also defended the officers saying they were placed in a really shitty situation and they responded how they likely have been trained to do: the dog wasn't shot on first approach. Truth be told... they exercised much more patience than I might have. I don't think a video showing one of the officers getting bit should be the only evidence suggesting they acted appropriately.
I don't think it is fair to judge these officers as a bunch of incompetent, cold, heartless, shitheads and question their strategy or their levels of patience for dealing with the dog.
I watched it a few times in slow-mo. and here's a still form what appears the first shot. I dont think I misinterpreted anything. To me, the dog was clearly lunging, and shot when it was up on its back legs coming at the officer. Go back and watch it, and pause as the dog lunges...
But you all raise another good point - there are WAY too many people standing all around for this guy to even fire ONE shot. He could've easily hit a bystander too - as I noticed there were folks on the other side of the fences and all along the sidewalk.
Yeah, I saw that post from JP. I disagree with him. It doesn't at all look to me like the dog was in mid-air lunging at the officer when the gun was fired, and JP was the first to even say that. I think he misinterpreted what was happening there. The only time I saw the dog in the air was when the bullet first hit him. Maybe that's what JP was seeing.
What I see is that the dog was just about to back down. What I also saw was the cops holding the owner back from calming the dog down.
So anyway, I've said absolutely everything I can possibly say as far as what my opinion is and I've said very clearly why my opinion is what it is several times, after watching the video three times. I am comfortable with my position. So maybe enough with the third degree.
You perceive it one way. Others perceive it differently. And, the officers on duty and dealing with the situation had their perceptions: which were likely much more rich and perceptive than any of ours.
This situation was more complex than most care to admit. I have expressed that I feel badly the dog was killed. I have stated the owner is responsible for letting the situation get to where it got. I have also defended the officers saying they were placed in a really shitty situation and they responded how they likely have been trained to do: the dog wasn't shot on first approach. Truth be told... they exercised much more patience than I might have. I don't think a video showing one of the officers getting bit should be the only evidence suggesting they acted appropriately.
I don't think it is fair to judge these officers as a bunch of incompetent, cold, heartless, shitheads and question their strategy or their levels of patience for dealing with the dog.
I certainly do not assume that police officers' perceptions are the ones to necessarily be trusted when other people are weighing in! It sounds like you do?? If there is disagreement, trust the actions of the cops? I can't remember where you're from, but in Vancouver, I think it is now instinct to NOT trust the perceptions of the cops in these kinds of situations because they fuck up and show excessive force so often. I think it's safer for society when considering these kinds of incidents to NOT give the cops the benefit of the doubt. I am no cop hater. But I know there are a lot of issues with the actions of some cops, and systemic problems within police forces.
But really, I just can't stop imagining what would have happened if some tweeker had been showing the same level of aggression with this cop. Bullet to the head? I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I watched it a few times in slow-mo. and here's a still form what appears the first shot. I dont think I misinterpreted anything. To me, the dog was clearly lunging, and shot when it was up on its back legs coming at the officer. Go back and watch it, and pause as the dog lunges...
But you all raise another good point - there are WAY too many people standing all around for this guy to even fire ONE shot. He could've easily hit a bystander too - as I noticed there were folks on the other side of the fences and all along the sidewalk.
Which is why the police demand people stay way back from their proceedings- let them do their jobs without getting in harm's way. And also why this guy found himself in cuffs.
I watched it a few times in slow-mo. and here's a still form what appears the first shot. I dont think I misinterpreted anything. To me, the dog was clearly lunging, and shot when it was up on its back legs coming at the officer. Go back and watch it, and pause as the dog lunges...
But you all raise another good point - there are WAY too many people standing all around for this guy to even fire ONE shot. He could've easily hit a bystander too - as I noticed there were folks on the other side of the fences and all along the sidewalk.
Which is why the police demand people stay way back from their proceedings- let them do their jobs without getting in harm's way. And also why this guy found himself in cuffs.
The guy shouldn't have been in cuffs. That was a public sidewalk. Cops just hate it when people film them. I've seen cops act like that toward people filming them several times.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yeah, I saw that post from JP. I disagree with him. It doesn't at all look to me like the dog was in mid-air lunging at the officer when the gun was fired, and JP was the first to even say that. I think he misinterpreted what was happening there. The only time I saw the dog in the air was when the bullet first hit him. Maybe that's what JP was seeing.
What I see is that the dog was just about to back down. What I also saw was the cops holding the owner back from calming the dog down.
So anyway, I've said absolutely everything I can possibly say as far as what my opinion is and I've said very clearly why my opinion is what it is several times, after watching the video three times. I am comfortable with my position. So maybe enough with the third degree.
You perceive it one way. Others perceive it differently. And, the officers on duty and dealing with the situation had their perceptions: which were likely much more rich and perceptive than any of ours.
This situation was more complex than most care to admit. I have expressed that I feel badly the dog was killed. I have stated the owner is responsible for letting the situation get to where it got. I have also defended the officers saying they were placed in a really shitty situation and they responded how they likely have been trained to do: the dog wasn't shot on first approach. Truth be told... they exercised much more patience than I might have. I don't think a video showing one of the officers getting bit should be the only evidence suggesting they acted appropriately.
I don't think it is fair to judge these officers as a bunch of incompetent, cold, heartless, shitheads and question their strategy or their levels of patience for dealing with the dog.
I certainly do not assume that police officers' perceptions are the ones to necessarily be trusted when other people are weighing in! It sounds like you do?? If there is disagreement, trust the actions of the cops? I can't remember where you're from, but in Vancouver, I think it is now instinct to NOT trust the perceptions of the cops in these kinds of situations because they fuck up and show excessive force so often. I think it's safer for society when considering these kinds of incidents to NOT give the cops the benefit of the doubt. I am no cop hater. But I know there are a lot of issues with the actions of some cops, and systemic problems within police forces.
But really, I just can't stop imagining what would have happened if some tweeker had been showing the same level of aggression with this cop. Bullet to the head? I have no reason to believe otherwise.
You're no cop hater, huh?
There are problems within all aspects of life, but to tell me the instincts and actions of cops on the job should not be trusted is tantamount to saying they are pigs.
I lived in Vancouver for 5 years. I'm from Kamloops. Your attitude is disturbing.
You perceive it one way. Others perceive it differently. And, the officers on duty and dealing with the situation had their perceptions: which were likely much more rich and perceptive than any of ours.
This situation was more complex than most care to admit. I have expressed that I feel badly the dog was killed. I have stated the owner is responsible for letting the situation get to where it got. I have also defended the officers saying they were placed in a really shitty situation and they responded how they likely have been trained to do: the dog wasn't shot on first approach. Truth be told... they exercised much more patience than I might have. I don't think a video showing one of the officers getting bit should be the only evidence suggesting they acted appropriately.
I don't think it is fair to judge these officers as a bunch of incompetent, cold, heartless, shitheads and question their strategy or their levels of patience for dealing with the dog.
I certainly do not assume that police officers' perceptions are the ones to necessarily be trusted when other people are weighing in! It sounds like you do?? If there is disagreement, trust the actions of the cops? I can't remember where you're from, but in Vancouver, I think it is now instinct to NOT trust the perceptions of the cops in these kinds of situations because they fuck up and show excessive force so often. I think it's safer for society when considering these kinds of incidents to NOT give the cops the benefit of the doubt. I am no cop hater. But I know there are a lot of issues with the actions of some cops, and systemic problems within police forces.
But really, I just can't stop imagining what would have happened if some tweeker had been showing the same level of aggression with this cop. Bullet to the head? I have no reason to believe otherwise.
You're no cop hater, huh?
There are problems within all aspects of life, but to tell me the instincts and actions of cops on the job should not be trusted is tantamount to saying they are pigs.
I lived in Vancouver for 5 years. I'm from Kamloops. Your attitude is disturbing.
No, I'm not a cop hater at all (what are you, saying I'm lying??). But they should never be given the benefit of the doubt. They have too much power to be given the benefit of the doubt (nor should criminals be given the benefit of the doubt). And what does that have to do with saying they're pigs?? I don't even understand the meaning of that term in relation to cops. No idea where it came from or why people call them that. It's not even in my vocabulary.
How is my attitude disturbing?? I don't understand why it would be. It doesn't affect anything at all except my belief that we should all be very careful when examining whether or not cops are using excessive force or abusing their position of power or making bad decisions that hurt others. If you don't think so, that's kind of disturbing. And if you don't think that there are palpable systemic problems with the Vancouver Police force and the RCMP and you're from Vancouver, that is REALLY disturbing. Just because someone is aware and concerned about real problems in a police force, it doesn't mean they are cop haters. At all. I am well aware that only the cops in this video did not do what they could have to avoid using that gun. Has nothing to do with all cops.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
Why is necessary to repeat what I've already said? There are less than lethal options. I never said wait until he was bitten to shoot it, those are your words. What is ridiculous is the shoot first attitude that many cops seem to believe is the correct path to take. It doesn't matter if it is a dog or a person, way too many are more than happy to pull the trigger first. Way too many think they are Dirty Harry and think they are untouchable, there are stories all over the place of police abuse. THIS VERY COP was involved in an abuse case previously, he has a history of excessive force. He shouldn't be allowed to protect and serve anymore.
The only thing you have repeated is that the cops are pigs, you are mad, these guys should be fired, and something else should have been done.
Let's hear what non-lethal option you would have preferred. This is what you have not provided. You have armchair quarterbacked and cast judgement... but from my recollection... you have offered nothing other than criticism. It's easy to do that; but it's not so easy to describe how they should have handled it.
It should be a brilliant response and much greater than the display of force we witnessed because remember... you have the luxury of time and being out of the moment as you describe your suggestion.
You keep mentioning his "history of excessive force" without regard for the fact of how often excessive force complaints are lodged.
As a lawyer, I can tell you that there are a number of areas of law where it's generally accepted that people will file complaints with the expectation of getting a settlement, independent of the merits of the claims or not. Police brutality and civil rights law is one of them. That's not to say they don't happen, but rather that every time there's a settlement doesn't mean there's been a finding of fault on the part of the officer.
I'd like to believe that when a defendant lies and says an officer of mine used excessive force that there isn't some schmuck civil attorney willing to fire off a complaint, hoping for a quick settlement, but they unfortunately do exist and it does happen. Again, that's not to say excessive force doesn't happen. But many cities (large cities, typically), will settle these cases routinely, if only to save costs of potential litigation, regardless of whether or not the incident is exactly as alleged. In short, it's worth more to settle a case than it is to litigate. There are some attorneys who know this, and so suddenly, there's an "excessive force" complaint filed and the corresponding trail of official records to go with it.
Quick lesson on the law: a settlement is NOT an admission of guilt.
I'm not saying this is the case with this officer, but through all your complaints in this thread, there's this theme about the officer being too hasty in shooting the dog and now about how this officer shouldn't even have a gun because he has a history. No where have you considered the other possibilities that could explain both. On the dog issue, you can speculate and criticize all you want about what he should have done, what the dog was doing, what the dog wasn't doing, but the fact is, officers are given wide latitude in high-conflict situations. If the officer felt he was in danger, he's empowered to defend himself. There's no state I know of that requires an officer to use less-than-lethal force when it comes to animals (which makes your complaint about his actions inappropriate; call your legislator if you want the rules changed). He might be a dick for shooting, but if he's entitled to under the law, your complaint really isn't with him. On the issue of his history, if you can only point to the settlement reached but no official records or investigation results, then you really don't have much. If he was cleared by his department, it's still very possible that the City (which is the entity sued in brutality cases) made an independent decision to settle. When people cry "police brutality," most of the time an independent investigation - sometimes thorough, sometimes cursory - is triggered. It's very possible that you're decrying the paper trail that exists and not actual conduct.
If you think this guy shouldn't be an officer and is a true example of "pigs out of control" (my phrase, not yours), the fact that he still has a badge and a gun should have you waging a letter-writing campaign to the independent review boards that continue to let him have a badge and a gun. Sorry, but not everything can fit your theory on life.
And on it goes...
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
That being said before i came to this thread and having only read what happened as i can't stomach the video, I was totally outraged and disappointed by the police officer.
After reading through a lot of your posts i can see points on each side. There is plenty of blame to go around.
the number 1 culprit is the dog owner.
The report states the problem was that he was playing his music too loud and the cops had asked him to turn it down several times because it was interfering with the investigation. So Mr. Dog owner - you should respect the authorities and turn it down and move away.
Also in a lot of ways dogs are like children -even the most well behaved can still be unpredictable. So why would you even tempt fate by having your dog around people with guns.
the police man has his share of blame as well. IT IS A DOG! and you have a bunch of guys with guns standing right by you! Unless the video is like a movie clip where the dog is leaping in the air with his teeth about to clamp down and the cop shot him in the face - he was out of line. A real cowardly move. Worst case scenario for that officer was a 1/2 second bite before one of his co-workers would have put a stop to it.
The police did not say that they shot the dog because they felt threatened - they said they shot it to protect the dog owner because he was in cuffs which in turn is a very vulnerable position. That is complete bullshit. Yes an officer has better, more pressing things to deal with but that shouldn't be an acceptable excuse.
Everything i know and have been taught is that police are here to protect us, and that drawing a firearm let alone using the firearm is a LAST RESORT. This clearly is not the mentality of this particular officer and i do think that action needs to be taken. He should have just earned himself a nice little desk job back at the station.
As hard as it is to watch, I went back and paused it as the first shot rings out. It appears the dog is in mid-air, lunging at the officer.
But the issue I have is, before he shoots, he maneuvers around the other officers who are cuffing the dog owner. In this time, he could've tried his taser if he had one. Again, I dont agree with what he did, but I'm trying to see both sides. I would've probably been bitten by that dog before I shot it, and that makes me think he might have been bitten had he not shot it. Its a very tough situation either way.
Incomplete response. The second question was: do they have to wait to get bit before defending themselves?
I think that answers the question. They at least wait until the dog acts as though it wants to bite them. It didn't.
Going back and looking at it objectively was a good thing to do when really deciding where you stand on this. You have described what I saw: the dog was a little more aggressive than some have made it out to be.
What practices are in place to safeguard police from unnecessary harm? There are procedures in placed that limit the amount of risk an officer needs to face when on duty. With regards to dogs... I guarantee that the practice is to use lethal force if the dog is menacing. I guarantee you they have been trained to do as they did based on the numerous encounters policemen have had where someone was attacked and bitten.
PJ Soul and Unsung... I am not happy with the fact that the dog is dead. The situation was a poor one for the officers to be in. I'm thinking it would be fairer to cast blame towards the owner. None of this had to happen if he had complied like all the other citizens stopping to watch the scene. His belligerence cost his dog its life and the officers a pile of grief.
Might is too grey- you are avoiding the question. These officers need to know what is expected of them so that they can act appropriately next time.
Should the police procedure for dealing with aggressive dogs be "Wait until bitten" or "Shoot to protect yourself"?
Agreed. Dogs don't like tazers or pepper spray either and cops carry those. If I can deal with grizzly bears with pepper spray, a cop can deal with a dog in a similar manner.
So...
The officers did back away from the dog on 3-5 occasions. The dog showed no indication it was stopping its behaviour. One cop tried to grab the leash to see if he could control it. The dog lunged at the officers. It was shot.
Don't you think you have contradicted yourself?
Here you are saying that discretion should be exercised, but shoot before being bit. The officers used their discretion and after about 10 seconds of dog vs. man- with the dog becoming more aggressive as time elapsed- they shot it.
Potential scenario:
The cops choose to use pepper spray on an upset 80 pound Rottweiler- sending the dog running- crazed and bewildered after being sprayed and its owner in handcuffs- into the crowd of onlookers. A woman gets mauled as the dog reacts violently once getting its bearings. Another man gets bitten trying to subdue the dog. Officers are forced to leave the original scene and the cuffed suspect to chase after the dog.
Their policies are in place for a reason.
Potential scenario: missed shots, or shots that go through the animal, ricochet off the ground and kill a small child. Oh wait, cops have never hit an unintended target before... nevermind.
Hypotheticals are fun.
I don't think we are talking about the same video.
Johnny P (admitting he was neutral in this discussion) stated: As hard as it is to watch, I went back and paused it as the first shot rings out. It appears the dog is in mid-air, lunging at the officer.
The dog was showing no intention of stopping its approaches and was definitely getting bolder- eventually lunging at the officer. This is what I saw from the video as well. These actions fall into the category that you said might be responded to with deadly force.
So is Risk Management.
or maybe the dog goes postal and chews up a small child....but that never happens.
Godfather.
I've seen dog bites and bullet holes and while neither is pleasant, I'll take a potential upset dog in my neighborhood over stray bullets fired from people with a proven history of very little accountability.
What I see is that the dog was just about to back down. What I also saw was the cops holding the owner back from calming the dog down.
So anyway, I've said absolutely everything I can possibly say as far as what my opinion is and I've said very clearly why my opinion is what it is several times, after watching the video three times. I am comfortable with my position. So maybe enough with the third degree.
You perceive it one way. Others perceive it differently. And, the officers on duty and dealing with the situation had their perceptions: which were likely much more rich and perceptive than any of ours.
This situation was more complex than most care to admit. I have expressed that I feel badly the dog was killed. I have stated the owner is responsible for letting the situation get to where it got. I have also defended the officers saying they were placed in a really shitty situation and they responded how they likely have been trained to do: the dog wasn't shot on first approach. Truth be told... they exercised much more patience than I might have. I don't think a video showing one of the officers getting bit should be the only evidence suggesting they acted appropriately.
I don't think it is fair to judge these officers as a bunch of incompetent, cold, heartless, shitheads and question their strategy or their levels of patience for dealing with the dog.
But you all raise another good point - there are WAY too many people standing all around for this guy to even fire ONE shot. He could've easily hit a bystander too - as I noticed there were folks on the other side of the fences and all along the sidewalk.
But really, I just can't stop imagining what would have happened if some tweeker had been showing the same level of aggression with this cop. Bullet to the head? I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Which is why the police demand people stay way back from their proceedings- let them do their jobs without getting in harm's way. And also why this guy found himself in cuffs.
You're no cop hater, huh?
There are problems within all aspects of life, but to tell me the instincts and actions of cops on the job should not be trusted is tantamount to saying they are pigs.
I lived in Vancouver for 5 years. I'm from Kamloops. Your attitude is disturbing.
How is my attitude disturbing?? I don't understand why it would be. It doesn't affect anything at all except my belief that we should all be very careful when examining whether or not cops are using excessive force or abusing their position of power or making bad decisions that hurt others. If you don't think so, that's kind of disturbing. And if you don't think that there are palpable systemic problems with the Vancouver Police force and the RCMP and you're from Vancouver, that is REALLY disturbing. Just because someone is aware and concerned about real problems in a police force, it doesn't mean they are cop haters. At all. I am well aware that only the cops in this video did not do what they could have to avoid using that gun. Has nothing to do with all cops.