Facepalm Of The Day

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

JC29856 said:

k9 cop and the other guy

https://instagram.com/p/BWdyd3CgNzA/embed/

There's so much we don't know about this event before crucifying the cop.

Firstly, the cop is wrestling with the dog to get him off the detained- he is not sitting back and watching.
Secondly, the guy on the ground likely did something that set in motion the events which led to the encounter with the police.

What I would say is that the dog needs some better training. In the event it does not respond to the officer in the future... then it should be put down. One of those dogs- an ex RCMP K9- attacked my son for mo good reason. It did the same thing that mutt did: it grabbed him by the arm and did not let go. It actually shook him so hard his shoe flew off his foot, out of my doorway, over the driveway and on to the street.

We found out later it had bit a pregnant woman beforehand. The dog was apparently put down, but there's a question mark surrounding that (rumour has it that it was given to a local farmer).

"There's so much we don't know". LOL.  So, you mean, "don't believe your eyes". 
The problem is that there is no legitimate reason for police dogs to exist at all.
A dangerous weapon over which you have zero control, deployed in public where it will often injure innocent bystanders.
Then, of course, when more officers arrive they jump on his already motionless legs instead of helping to control the snarling beast that is attacking a cuffed man lying motionless on his face.
The guy who filmed this is awesome, trolling those Dredds like a boss.

The only one having trouble with his eyes is you right now, RG. This just got proven in the other thread and your eagerness to vilify every cop regardless of circumstance has you looking the fool again.

The cop is relentless with his efforts to ge tthe dog off the guy. Yes, the other cops on the scene arrived and busied themselves with the suspect, but he was not motionless and he was detained for something which might have made him dangerous in the officers' eyes. Do you know what he did? I don't.

We can debate whether or not dogs are necessary for police work, but we cannot suggest that 'Dredd' was basking in the moment and cheering his dog on as he takes down another innocent and defenceless citizen like you seem to want ro suggest.

The officer with the dog was trying like hell to get him off, I don't deny that and didn't imply otherwise.  The other officers went for his legs which were not moving in any purposeful way.

Again, it doesn't matter what he did, he was obviously handcuffed, facedown, unarmed, and not resisting.  There is no reasonable, credible reason to consider him a threat.

Maybe by entering the fray and grabbing ahold of the suspect, the dog might better understand that the suspect is under control and it releases its bite? This is just off the top of my head, but perhaps it is a credible reason why the additional officer got involved? I'm pretty sure that any police procedure does not include leaving a suspect unattended on the ground while cuffed (we just had a young woman escape from custody while cuffed in our area a week ago). So, after the dog handler gets his mutt under control... there is a moment where that guy is unattended to. How long did they chase him for? What did he do? Would it be wise to leave him there while standing to the side and risk losing him- no matter how big the chances of doing so might be- again? That was just off the top of my head too.

I bet there's some other reasons as well, but I'm not a cop sooo... yah... it seems like there might be some reasonable, credible reasons to consider him at least a mild threat.

That is all a bit of a reach.  None of that, even if true by a slim margin, is excuse to use that level of force.
The jumping on the legs isn't such a big deal, it's just one more little detail that makes the whole picture look bad.

But if the guy had gotten to his feet, kicked the other officer in the balls and ran off once the dog was secured... the cops would be in the 'Idiot Thread'.

It is unlikely, but possible. I just stated a young woman escaped custody in our area while in cuffs. Police should eliminate any possibility of escape if custody is what they pursue. Come on, man. 

rgambs

Yes, police should eliminate escape with an appropriate level of force.
The dog was a not appropriate, the 2 officers on the legs is somewhat questionable, but not a big deal.  Just a minor complaint.

rgambs

tbergs said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

JC29856 said:

k9 cop and the other guy

https://instagram.com/p/BWdyd3CgNzA/embed/

There's so much we don't know about this event before crucifying the cop.

Firstly, the cop is wrestling with the dog to get him off the detained- he is not sitting back and watching.
Secondly, the guy on the ground likely did something that set in motion the events which led to the encounter with the police.

What I would say is that the dog needs some better training. In the event it does not respond to the officer in the future... then it should be put down. One of those dogs- an ex RCMP K9- attacked my son for mo good reason. It did the same thing that mutt did: it grabbed him by the arm and did not let go. It actually shook him so hard his shoe flew off his foot, out of my doorway, over the driveway and on to the street.

We found out later it had bit a pregnant woman beforehand. The dog was apparently put down, but there's a question mark surrounding that (rumour has it that it was given to a local farmer).

"There's so much we don't know". LOL.  So, you mean, "don't believe your eyes". 
The problem is that there is no legitimate reason for police dogs to exist at all.
A dangerous weapon over which you have zero control, deployed in public where it will often injure innocent bystanders.
Then, of course, when more officers arrive they jump on his already motionless legs instead of helping to control the snarling beast that is attacking a cuffed man lying motionless on his face.
The guy who filmed this is awesome, trolling those Dredds like a boss.

Do you always take a video or picture for what it's worth at face value without context? Maybe you should read my post above and listen to Gladwell's podcast.

Do you use the same level of scrutiny for police statements?

The context of what happened before the video begins isn't really relevant to the question of whether the force was warranted.
When a threat is contained, any further aggression toward the former threat falls into punishment territory, which is beyond the scope of policing.
The threat was contained, the use of force was unnecessary.

It very well looks like the dog could have broken free as opposed to being set loose.  That is context that will be important in determining the punitive reaction, but it isn't context that is important to whether or not excessive force was applied.

FoxyRedLa

The use of force was unnecessary.....ummmm. I didn't see any officers "jump" on any legs. And this is an assumption that the dog was used for a purpose and that makes fleeing obvious and I again assume the officers made the proper decision to maintain custody by quietly sitting next to the perp.

brianlux

tbergs said:

brianlux said:

We've been practicing this sort of thing for several decades.

The first photo you posted above didn't quite occur as it's been depicted and remembered. Not that there wasn't actual scenarios like this that did occur, but it's interesting to hear the real story behind a picture that became a symbol of the civil rights movement.

 http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/07/more_than_confederate_statues.htmlyes,

Yes, interesting story!  And of course you're right, there are many incidents that really did occur, many more than were photographed!

brianlux

Prediction:  lengthy, on-going arguments in this thread over a single incident will eventually earn a...

rgambs

FoxyRedLa said:

The use of force was unnecessary.....ummmm. I didn't see any officers "jump" on any legs. And this is an assumption that the dog was used for a purpose and that makes fleeing obvious and I again assume the officers made the proper decision to maintain custody by quietly sitting next to the perp.

No, they didn't literally jump on his legs.

I don't understand what you are trying to say following that.

FoxyRedLa

I didn't see any excess force in that clip.

Bentleyspop

brianlux said:

Prediction:  lengthy, on-going arguments in this thread over a single incident will eventually earn a...

What's  to argue about?
The cop did it
D'uh!

rgambs

FoxyRedLa said:

I didn't see any excess force in that clip.

You didn't see a dog mauling a man who was handcuffed and lying face down? 
What video did you watch?

In what universe is that not excessive​ force?
America the free I guess.

Shit, why not just turn the dog loose on him in the cruiser!  Confined space, handcuffed criminal...innocent until declared deceased, right?

brianlux

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Prediction:  lengthy, on-going arguments in this thread over a single incident will eventually earn a...

What's  to argue about?
The cop did it
D'uh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDZ_Ymk1Cw

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

FoxyRedLa said:

I didn't see any excess force in that clip.

You didn't see a dog mauling a man who was handcuffed and lying face down? 
What video did you watch?

In what universe is that not excessive​ force?
America the free I guess.

Shit, why not just turn the dog loose on him in the cruiser!  Confined space, handcuffed criminal...innocent until declared deceased, right?

Do you even know what the guy did? I don't think we are talking about a protestor here. 

And nobody is arguing that the dog was within acceptable limits of K9 dog behaviour. We are all in agreement that the dog was out of control. This discussion became centered on the police and their behaviour. It was hardly abusive or excessive. The cop was clearly trying to pull the dog off the guy. The other cop came on to the scene and lent assistance (basically... take care of the dog... I got this guy). I'd speculate that the dog was used out of necessity. In other words, I'm saying the guy had resisted arrest and the K9 was put to work. I highly doubt they released the hound after a jaywalking incident outside of 7-11.

A discussion might occur whether dogs are appropriate or not for police work, but I think- without anyone offering what the guy did to solicit a police response- it has been established that this is not a case of police abusing their powers. If they stood back laughing as the dog went at the guy, or shot the guy as he wrestled with the dog... things would be different. As it stands... a criminal was apprehended and nobody was killed.

rgambs

The canine is considered an officer of the law by most standards, including at least some legal issues.

You continually dodge the question of the relevance of what he did.
It isn't relevant!
Is there some sort of scale, if you commit "X" crime, then police are allowed to use "Y" level of force?  No, the use of force is determined by the threat posed, and an unarmed, handcuffed man lying face down poses a low level of threat that does not excuse use of a deadly animal weapon.

It doesn't matter if he committed unspeakably heinous crimes, if society gives police authority to enact punishments, that authority will absolutely and unquestionably be misused by error and abused on purpose.  That's human nature, and judging from your comments here and in the death penalty thread, I think you are ok with cracking those eggs to make that "justice" omelette you desire.

I wish you meant, "a suspect was apprehended and nobody was killed", but I know you don't think in those terms.  You assume that every person who is detained by police is a criminal and voice it freely.  That is factually incorrect and a little unnerving.  In America we have due process, where guilt is determined by courts of law.

brianlux

I guess the arm has to be completely chewed off before it's considered excessive force. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

The canine is considered an officer of the law by most standards, including at least some legal issues.

You continually dodge the question of the relevance of what he did.
It isn't relevant!
Is there some sort of scale, if you commit "X" crime, then police are allowed to use "Y" level of force?  No, the use of force is determined by the threat posed, and an unarmed, handcuffed man lying face down poses a low level of threat that does not excuse use of a deadly animal weapon.

It doesn't matter if he committed unspeakably heinous crimes, if society gives police authority to enact punishments, that authority will absolutely and unquestionably be misused by error and abused on purpose.  That's human nature, and judging from your comments here and in the death penalty thread, I think you are ok with cracking those eggs to make that "justice" omelette you desire.

I wish you meant, "a suspect was apprehended and nobody was killed", but I know you don't think in those terms.  You assume that every person who is detained by police is a criminal and voice it freely.  That is factually incorrect and a little unnerving.  In America we have due process, where guilt is determined by courts of law.

I ask what he did to be taken down by the dog.

I am assuming the dog was necessary.

I am not even going to respond to the rest of the babble. Sheesh.

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

The canine is considered an officer of the law by most standards, including at least some legal issues.

You continually dodge the question of the relevance of what he did.
It isn't relevant!
Is there some sort of scale, if you commit "X" crime, then police are allowed to use "Y" level of force?  No, the use of force is determined by the threat posed, and an unarmed, handcuffed man lying face down poses a low level of threat that does not excuse use of a deadly animal weapon.

It doesn't matter if he committed unspeakably heinous crimes, if society gives police authority to enact punishments, that authority will absolutely and unquestionably be misused by error and abused on purpose.  That's human nature, and judging from your comments here and in the death penalty thread, I think you are ok with cracking those eggs to make that "justice" omelette you desire.

I wish you meant, "a suspect was apprehended and nobody was killed", but I know you don't think in those terms.  You assume that every person who is detained by police is a criminal and voice it freely.  That is factually incorrect and a little unnerving.  In America we have due process, where guilt is determined by courts of law.

I ask what he did to be taken down by the dog.

I am assuming the dog was necessary.

I am not even going to respond to the rest of the babble. Sheesh.

That is a strange assumption to make, seems biased.
I assume he was already down, because putting handcuffs on a man who's arm is currently being mauled by a dog would be pretty difficult to impossible.  It also seems unlikely that he was up because of the position of the bite, but it's possible he was cuffed and running.  That still doesn't warrant a dog, hustle up officers, surely you can run faster than a cuffed and barefoot person.  If you can't, you shouldn't be on the payroll.

The rest isn't babble, it makes perfect sense and if you won't respond it's because you can't.  You deal with issues of "justice" from a position of passion and not from logic.
They are all just criminals to you and you don't care what happens to them, in fact, you do seem to care, you seem to hope they get roughed up.

rgambs

brianlux said:

I guess the arm has to be completely chewed off before it's considered excessive force. 

Pretty much, even then someone will say "we don't have the full story, we don't know what this scumbag criminal did"!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

The canine is considered an officer of the law by most standards, including at least some legal issues.

You continually dodge the question of the relevance of what he did.
It isn't relevant!
Is there some sort of scale, if you commit "X" crime, then police are allowed to use "Y" level of force?  No, the use of force is determined by the threat posed, and an unarmed, handcuffed man lying face down poses a low level of threat that does not excuse use of a deadly animal weapon.

It doesn't matter if he committed unspeakably heinous crimes, if society gives police authority to enact punishments, that authority will absolutely and unquestionably be misused by error and abused on purpose.  That's human nature, and judging from your comments here and in the death penalty thread, I think you are ok with cracking those eggs to make that "justice" omelette you desire.

I wish you meant, "a suspect was apprehended and nobody was killed", but I know you don't think in those terms.  You assume that every person who is detained by police is a criminal and voice it freely.  That is factually incorrect and a little unnerving.  In America we have due process, where guilt is determined by courts of law.

I ask what he did to be taken down by the dog.

I am assuming the dog was necessary.

I am not even going to respond to the rest of the babble. Sheesh.

That is a strange assumption to make, seems biased.
I assume he was already down, because putting handcuffs on a man who's arm is currently being mauled by a dog would be pretty difficult to impossible.  It also seems unlikely that he was up because of the position of the bite, but it's possible he was cuffed and running.  That still doesn't warrant a dog, hustle up officers, surely you can run faster than a cuffed and barefoot person.  If you can't, you shouldn't be on the payroll.

The rest isn't babble, it makes perfect sense and if you won't respond it's because you can't.  You deal with issues of "justice" from a position of passion and not from logic.
They are all just criminals to you and you don't care what happens to them, in fact, you do seem to care, you seem to hope they get roughed up.

Sure I could respond, but to be frank, your egg mcmuffin metaphor needs work. If I get the gist of what you were trying to say... I'm not into a back and forth (again) where I detail my sentiments regarding criminals (I don't care for them) and you tell me yours (they're groovy).

What you say about the handcuffs makes sense and actually sheds a bit more light on the situation that has not been explained yet. If this point had been raised a page ago, we could have saved some time. Remember, I am not arguing the dog is brutal... I'm arguing that the details need to be revealed before we vilify the cops. Everything I see on the video shows the K9 cop trying to control the mutt. That's not to say the cop might eb an incompetent dog handler, but it is saying he's hardly indifferent and enthusiastic for waht is happening (which is contrary to the police vs us narrative that likes to get played out here).

FoxyRedLa

Rgambs, I did not consider the perp was already handcuffed and face down being a law abiding citizen. I do not agree it would be impossible to handcuff him while the dog was still attached. I do question why the officer didn't know the release signal. I will say I have not had a negative police encounter myself. I will say most of the news stories all start with resisted arrest. All humans look at cops as the bad guys. It's a unfortunate knee jerk reaction. I don't see that same knee jerk reaction about fire fighters or military personnel.

oftenreading

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

The canine is considered an officer of the law by most standards, including at least some legal issues.

You continually dodge the question of the relevance of what he did.
It isn't relevant!
Is there some sort of scale, if you commit "X" crime, then police are allowed to use "Y" level of force?  No, the use of force is determined by the threat posed, and an unarmed, handcuffed man lying face down poses a low level of threat that does not excuse use of a deadly animal weapon.

It doesn't matter if he committed unspeakably heinous crimes, if society gives police authority to enact punishments, that authority will absolutely and unquestionably be misused by error and abused on purpose.  That's human nature, and judging from your comments here and in the death penalty thread, I think you are ok with cracking those eggs to make that "justice" omelette you desire.

I wish you meant, "a suspect was apprehended and nobody was killed", but I know you don't think in those terms.  You assume that every person who is detained by police is a criminal and voice it freely.  That is factually incorrect and a little unnerving.  In America we have due process, where guilt is determined by courts of law.

I ask what he did to be taken down by the dog.

I am assuming the dog was necessary.

I am not even going to respond to the rest of the babble. Sheesh.

So the fact that some people look at individuals in custody as "suspects" and others look at them as "criminals" is babble. That's says everything important about your position right there .