Officer shoots dog during foot chase thru dog's backyard. Right or wrong? - Page 15

BE,

The muzzle comment was mine but I didn't understand the rebuttal to my comment?

Alboe,
That's ok I didn't get it either.  I also didn't get the comment about drinking a bottle of alcohol then going out and looking for DUI drivers.  She needs to work on her analogies.  But, it could be me....I'm really bad with internet sarcasm, I just don't get it sometimes.

Jim

 10-4

Jim,

I think that buying chickens as bait to have an excuse to slaughter dogs is utterly repulsive.
I personally know most of my close neighbor's and their dogs and take steps to socialize my dog with them, mailmen, kids, etc...

Hmmmn? Missing my last part. But hopefully we get the picture?

Lee,

Jim and Alboe,

I can't speak for BE but if my guess is the alcohol comment was relating to hypocritical sarcasm.

Example: (from Illinois Law) http://www.illinoishumane.org/law.htm

§ 510 ILCS 70/3.02.  Aggravated cruelty

Sec. 3.02. Aggravated cruelty. No person may intentionally commit an act that causes a companion animal to suffer serious injury or death. Aggravated cruelty does not include euthanasia of a companion animal through recognized methods approved by the Department of Agriculture.

A person convicted of violating Section 3.02 is guilty of a Class 4 felony. A second or subsequent violation is a Class 3 felony. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, upon conviction for violating this Section, the court may order the convicted person to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo any treatment at the convicted person's expense that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation. If the convicted person is a juvenile or a companion animal hoarder, the court must order the convicted person to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo treatment that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation.

So it becomes hypocritical when the law is above or immune from the law. 
Please don't take this post as a personal attack or think that I am trying to tie it to the OP's video.
Just food for thought.

Chickens do however come to mind.

Lee,

You wrote:
So it becomes hypocritical when the law is above or immune from the law.  

Police Officers are not above or immune to the law.  But, there are some exceptions made for LEO's to be able to do their job and protect citizens. We all know there is a speed limit on every public road.  If you are in a car accident would you want the Police, EMS and Firemen go the speed limit to help you or a family member injured in a car accident or can we safely speed to the scene?  If we exceed the speed limit aren't we breaking the law by your definition?  Are we now hypocrites for breaking the speed limit? 

Your animal cruelty doesn't fit the OP.  Read your prior links and read what I highlighted in yellow in my earlier post.  There is a reasonableness standard that governs LEO's actions.  Do you really have friends that are Police Officers?  You must drive them crazy. 


 

Jim, I couldn't agree more, the excerpts were in "support of my case".  You probably couldn't state anything more OBVIOUS.

The part you hilighted was basically what I said myself several pages ago, about LEO's "feeling threatened" being legally justified.  And THUS, that is the whole reason that training can help reduce the unnecessary sense of vulnerability than an inexperienced LEO would face in that split-second moment, in regards to reading a dog and/or overpowering one.  As I suspect, most shootings are the result of errors in perceiving a dog's intent, not because they WANT to shoot the dog.  I don't know how many more ways I can spell this out for you, without stooping to the same sort of class you're showing.  Not all departments train as yours does, thereby not saying much at all for "your case".

Lee,

I speak for myself. This is good. This will reiterate one of my points. I, for one do not take this example as an attack. So, please don't misunderstand my point/response.

First, what some might not know is, (and I can't remember #s right now) but a certain amount of states are governed by "Common Law" something like laws from the old days. I'm tired and it's late. And others are not governed by "Common Law". Now, D.C. is not a State so they are governed differently. But when we see Illinois  these "codes" might not be in another state. 


One must try and understand that when a recruit is in an academy it's just not about driving cruisers and being at the gun range. Certain "blocks" could be weeks long. You will have "Constitutional Law", "Criminal Law" and NUMEROUS other categories. But for the above, (yours) for "laws" there are "layman's terms" and "verbatim" and most LEO who pride themselves will take the verbatim route. Just to CYA. Once you teach yourself "good Habits" it becomes the normal, like breathing. For the "law" there are "power words" or "definitive words" that MUST BE PRESENT in order for the "CRIME" to be "COMMITTED". A "CRIME" can be an "ACTION" BUT a "ACTION CAN NOT BE A CRIME" unless certain things are present. I'll break things down: Sec 3.02. INTENTIONALLY was not present. And from that moment there is no grounds for anything more.  I'm not saying the law is black in white with no gray but most is, IT IS the lawyers and the judicial system that muddy the waters. So without that one word being present, end of discussion. (I'm not saying ours here. Just stating, legally, criminally, and by Sec 3.02. end of discussion.


Here's a PRIME example................ I make a traffic stop at 0200 on a Sunday morning. Upon approaching the vehicle I notice 3 subjects in the vehicle. As the driver rolls down the widow I smell an odor that I know to be Marijuana due to my Knowledge, Experience and Training. I have subjects exit vehicle and after conducting a search I find a bag of Marijuana. After parties are separated I question and no one "ADMITS" that the Marijuana is theirs. So, now I arrest all three. One or two are pleading, crying that the Marijuana is not theirs. We as LEO have all these rules, procedures and criteria to follow. But since no one is "ADMITTING" I am allowed to arrest all three. I can not in that location determine if the Marijuana belongs to one or two or three.  BUT, and BUT, this is what JQP doesn't know or is unaware of. In order to be found "GUILTY" certain criteria has to be present in order for the crime to have been committed.


Now say there was no odor, but the driver came back suspended, (driving privileges) now searching the vehicle you find a bag of Marijuana, but it looks "OLD" In all honesty the bag might be "old" and the driver just bought the vehicle a week ago. Again, in order to be found "GUILTY" certain criteria has to be present. Being ARRESTED is not the same as GUILTY!