Officer shoots dog during foot chase thru dog's backyard. Right or wrong? - Page 18

Jim,

I thought I was clear that the information was presented for the purpose of clarifying another member's sarcasm and not related to you or the op video. (or even my opinion - my opinion part mentions chickens)
It looks to me (by your response) like you misunderstood my point. - no big deal

I did talk to one today and asking questions did not drive him crazy. lol
He substantiated much of what you say pertaining to the OP's video and felt bad about the dogs death. 
(and provided info on other things)


Lee

Okay Daryl,
I was at about a 20 hr work day, so a little brain dead. What I meant was your definition of unnecessary is my definition of an accident. Not accidental shooting. Yes a tragedy but still an accident.

 Yep, this thread is for Rocco that is for sure <insert beer glass>.  Pretty immpressive thread to say the least.

Maybe you mean "misfortune", because as a LEO in court "accident" is not a word I'd want to use, except maybe in the context "by accidental design," as referring to a series of random and unpredictable events determined by means outside the limits of our control.

Jim, I think I understood all along, but was being misunderstood.  I'm sure it didn't help that sometimes I used a touch of sarcasm, and didn't always clearly indicate whether my comments at times were referring to the OP's specific incident, while at other times to all similar incidents 'in general'.

Daryl,
 I told you I am really bad with internet sarcasm.  I mean really bad, there are times when others get it and I just don't. 

Lee, I'm glad you didn't drive him crazy. 

Jim

Daryl,

We are not in a court room, we are on a dog forum. I would think articulation would be a little different in the court room. But talking on this forum the majority of information needs to be in "layman terms" for our readers. Hence one of my original points. In reality we have at least "two worlds" talking about a tragic incident. And for the MAJORITY it doesn't seem to be working or there doesn't seem to be an agreement on the FACTS, the facts of which every person who has read, entered a post, every person has the EXACT SAME FACTS!  

Also, with you I just feel we are butting heads and I am not the only person feeling that way. But in all my court room appearances I have NEVER heard the context "by accidental design" used either for or against a LEO's case or even for or against a DEFENDANT"S case.

This is where I state you play with words. We ALL need to stay FOCUSED on the ORIGINAL POST! Clear that hurdle first then maybe onto another thread? We could talk about how JQP interprets the law, how JQP "feels" about his/her interpretation of that law We could talk about the true legal definition of that law-by the lawmakers who enacted that law and if we still have time maybe we could even talk about the context of "by accidental design," as referring ..................? Because that has no bearing on this case! 

"Accidental", isn't a layman's term.  It's an inappropriate choice of words.  Nothing accidental occured in the incident.  A few comments were made about it being dark and hard to see, but the FACT was this occured at 6pm in the month of April, and hardly difficult to see that time of the evening.  Some other conditions known, was that it was cold and windy, according to the mother in a followup story who said that's why her 4 year old was inside, until seconds before the shooting.  Lucky enough the kid didn't get caught up in the gunfire, but what I want to know is, since he went outside seconds later after the sound of his dog screaming, how do you think that kid's going to feel about law enforcement when he grows up?  Like I originally said, might be fewer problems in the end, if police just start shooting fleeing suspects to begin with. 

The article said a "suspect". This would mean that Police didn't even know if this was a home invader at the time, and besides, your innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So, shooting people in the back as they run from the cops isn't right either. Gezzz What if the "suspect" was just running from multiple parking ticket fines he couldn't pay ? Young people prolly do this.

Advocating shooting people in the back as they run from cops isn't a good idea at all ... imagine the human death toll if that was allowed. So much for peacetime.

But then again, this country would save alot of physical labor and tax money just killing everyone "suspects" who turn their back and runs from the Police. Kinda make me wanna stay home from the Rallies now. Maybe even barbwire the fenceline to keep my dog safe too.

Accident.............................. tragedy..........................terrible situation..............................unfortunate.................

You're starting to give me a headache..... Up until pg. 18 we have been talking (or should have been) about what surrounded the situation the OP brought forth. With the INFORMATION that was presented by the OP and article. Through all this mess and now on pg. 19  you add what you have added. I'm not sure what the point is being?

Two days ago, Talbot County, MD. The weather was so bad that at 1513 hrs. it looked like night time. What is your point? What does "cold and windy" have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that criminals stay indoors when the weather is bad? Or that there is no crime when it's cold and windy?

I won't even comment on the comment of what the kid will think about law enforcement!  

 

What stinks is when multiple cementers are enthusiastically posting is that you can't always comment to the "last commentary". Be nice to have a "split screen" or something like that. I have to open up another "PDF" and flip back and forth to screens to keep  up and hopefully respond to the right poster.

BabyEagle? Who stated "shoot the suspect in the back"? I know no LEO/Public Safety Personnel stated that. It takes a lot of time and effort to explain things about some of the information enclosed. What causes problems is when an individual talks or tries to talk about something they do not know. Yes, we can have a conversation and it's not always about wrong or right. But WE ARE ONLY TALKING OF THIS SITUATION. Yes, we can bring our opinions into it, for conversation purposes. Not legal purposes. What we learn in the Academy over 6/7 months and along our careers can't just be taught in a few days over the internet. Especially to some who don't want to listen to either facts or truth.

If you ask a question and we give you an answer either due to our experience, location or agency why would any of you think we would lie? None of us know the LEO in the OP case. And for the most part I believe the four or five LE personnel commenting believe "Right IS RIGHT, WRONG IS WRONG" and if this LEO did in fact do anything against his rules and regulations, policies and procedures then by all means ACCOUNTABILITY but up to this point that has not been the case. We have had more opinions, interpretations and feelings than the facts of this case itself.

In my eyes it's hard to talk, explain, define, educate or bring examples, case law or experiences forward because everybody is talking about everything. What started as a drop is now a bucketful.

BE, we are not talking about guilt or innocence. We are talking of a "suspect" who has allegedly committed a crime and that needs to be taken into custody by arrest. No more no less. The courts/judicial systems determine guilt or innocence not the police officer. I have this on the back of my business cards, just like  I also would carry photographs, not graphic ones, of accidents where drivers  that were in MVAs weren't wearing their seatbelts. Or of DWI/DUI accidents. Attempting to educate the public. To show that we are human and sincerely care about your well being. Now in a "High Crime Area" or a "Serious Crime Area" priorities have to be shifted.
 

"The Police are the Public, The Public are the Police"

"The Police are only members of the pubic who are paid to give full-time attention to duties that are incumbent on every citizen in the interest of Community welfare and existence


                                                                                                   Sir Robert Peel,  1829

Now stating that I am sure that there will be those that will try and dissect that statement/quote.