Cops arrest man for filming, kill his dog too

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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"?

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

Snakeduck

PJ_Soul wrote:

: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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul wrote:

: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.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

: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.

MotoDC

cincybearcat wrote:

unsung wrote:

Fwiw, my stepfather was a K9 officer for over twenty years so I've been around it my entire life. My opinions are based off first hand information.

'Some of my best friends are black..." :fp:

When you use a term like pigs you have crossed the same line as the N word or any of the other terrible terms out there.

Uh, not even close. But to each their own.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Snakeduck wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

: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.

Snakeduck

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Snakeduck wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

: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.

Hypotheticals are fun.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

: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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Snakeduck wrote:

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.

Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Snakeduck wrote:

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.

Snakeduck

Godfather. wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Snakeduck wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul wrote:

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.

JonnyPistachio

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.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

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.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.