Keeping Your Dog Safe from Law Enforcement - Page 14

True, it is so easy to criticize, especially when the critics have no experience in the field they are critiquing.  
 

Do all DA's, Lawyers and Judges have "boots on the ground" LEO experience?  Yes some do, but at the end of the day most don't and these are the people that decide whether the action of an LEO is legal or not.  Sorry but in court, civilians who may or may not be former LEO's, DO decide which action, critique or opinion is LEGAL.  Also, as far as I know no one has spent the capital needed in civil court to make high penalties a true deterence for LEO departments across the nation.  Second it would take a very gutsy DA to try and prosecute an LEO for something like animal cruelty, unlawful discharge of a weapon or similar.  

  or opinion  is I guess the statement, "You Can Beat The Wrap, But You Can't Beat The Ride" is true in many more ways than ONE; but in this case someones Pet can't beat LEO's acting as judge, jury and executioner. 
 

Fortunately, LEO's shooting dogs has never been a problem that I'm aware of in my surrounding communities.

 

Another thing that could be identified with an analysis of national data focusing on LEO's shooting Pets, is the relative financial affluence of a community versus the percentage of Pet shooting by LEO's.  I'll bet the more affluent the community the less likely a Pet will be shot by an LEO.  Once rich people show thier willingness to sue or pursue legal action, LEO's definately watch thier steps.  Not to mention LEO's in affluent communities also are more likely to have cross training and a budget for continuing education.  This would support the musings of Slamdunc and alboe2009, but would only hold true for LEO departments that are well off , but would only hold true  financially.  Most Police and Sheriff departments across the nation are cash poor right now, so the training which Slamdunc and alboe2009 profuse to be common for LEO's would most likely be in the minority and not common in the recessionary  period of 2008-2012.  Coincidentally, we are also anecdotally  seeing an increase in news reports involving Pet shootings during this very same  recessionary  period of 2008-2012.  I also assume that diverse communites are also less likely to have Pets shot due to LEO's needing to actually pay attention to details when pursuing suspects.  Which in these specific diverse communities, would require an LEO to not entirely base thier actions from racial profiling and/or other lazy investigation methods used by LEO's patroling low-income/non-diverse areas.  Combine a finacially affluent community with cultural diversity and I'd bet my house that pet shootings would be very low or non-existant in such a community having the all the traits I mentioned above.

 

 , despite being  



 , bu

 

Another thing that could be identified with an analysis of national data focusing on LEO's shooting Pets

This 2001 article, Is still very accurate today. Police simply don't have to!

It's a bit convenient that some will ask for proof that this is even a problem, knowing full well that dept's don't have turn over the data that would in fact implicate some. I guess pleading the fifth can also be done on a dept level. Dont look for things to change in this area anytime soon. The facebook pages posted ealier for pets killed by police may be the best shot at highlighting animal abuse and stopping it quick fast in a given community. 
 

Published on Sunday, April 29, 2001 in the New York Times When the Police Shoot, Who's Counting? by Fox Butterfield   WE like to think we live in the information age, when daily or even second-by-second statistics on such fare as stock prices and the annual number of homicides are at our fingertips. For all the careful accounting, however, there are two figures Americans don't have: the precise number of people killed by the police, and the number of times police use excessive force. Despite widespread public interest and a provision in the 1994 Crime Control Act requiring the Attorney General to collect the data and publish an annual report on them, statistics on police shootings and use of nondeadly force continue to be piecemeal products of spotty collection, and are dependent on the cooperation of local police departments. No comprehensive accounting for all of the nation's 17,000 police department exists.   The lack of good data is a national scandal. Geoffrey Alpert University of South Carolina This lack of accurate statistics makes it virtually impossible, experts say, to draw meaningful, big-picture conclusions about deadly encounters between the police and the civilian population, including the fatal shooting earlier this month of an unarmed black man in Cincinnati, an incident that incited days of violent protests and vandalism. Without a national barometer, there is no conclusive way to determine whether this or other incidents around the country � like those involving Amadou Diallo in New York and Rodney King in Los Angeles � represent racially based police misconduct, or any kind of trend at all.   The major reasons for the vacuum, the experts agree, are twofold. The lack of information on police shootings is attributable to the failure of police departments in many cities to keep and report accurate figures that distinguish between what the police see as "justifiable" shootings � those in which the suspect posed a serious threat � and incidents where an officer may have unlawfully fired at an unarmed civilian. The International Chiefs of Police, a police organization, tried in the 1980's to collect such information, but "the figures were very embarrassing to a lot of police departments," said James Fyfe, a professor of criminal justice at Temple University who is a former New York City police lieutenant. The results, he said, varied wildly. New Orleans had 10 times as many shootings per 100 officers as Newark. Long Beach had twice as many as neighboring Los Angeles, which in turn had three times more than New York. Some cities did not provide data at all, Professor Fyfe said, but the results, such as they were, showed that "the rates of deadly force are all over the lot," meaning that some cities appear to be much better and some much worse at managing their police forces. As for the lack of figures on the use of nondeadly force, the situation is even murkier because there are no uniform definitions of force and no standard reporting requirements from one police department to another. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, the statistical arm of the Justice Department, has tried to fill in some of the blanks on police behavior, issuing a number of surveys and reports on the topic. Most recently, the bureau quietly released a report, "Policing and Homicide, 1976- 1998." But the report itself underscores the continued problems in knowing what is really happening. On its cover, for example, the report refers to all the victims of police shootings as "felons justifiably killed by police," a categorization that Samuel Walker, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, termed "deeply offensive and legally incorrect." In fact, a Justice Department official said the bureau was so embarrassed by the term, and the lack of distinction between justifiable police shootings and murders, that it did not send out its usual promotional material announcing the report. BUT, the official said, the bureau was trapped because it depends on local police departments to report their figures on police shootings to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and "felons" is the term that police departments insist on using when they do so. Making matters worse, some police departments fail to report their shootings at all, and for some years, figures from entire states are missing. Although the 1994 crime act ordered the Justice Department to collect such data, there is no law requiring local police departments to provide it, Janet Reno, the former attorney general, acknowledged in a 1999 speech. Based on the data available, this most recent report suggests that the number of "justifiable" police killings has not increased since 1976, averaging 373 a year, despite a growth in both the population and the number of police officers. And while the rate at which blacks are killed by the police still far surpasses the rate at which whites are shot and killed, it has dropped to four times the white rate in 1998 compared to eight times in 1976. But the report also acknowledges its own limitations. "One statistic that is impossible to obtain" from the Justice Department's database, it said, "or from any other currently existing database, is the number of murders by police," because in reporting their shooting figures, the police don't distinguish between justified and unjustified killings. The report also fails to break down the number of police shootings by city, unlike other Justice Department reports on crime, making it impossible to compare police performance. Viewed on a case-by-case basis, things do appear to be improving in some cities. Minneapolis, Boston, Miami-Dade County, Tampa, Phoenix, Seattle and Portland, Ore., are among cities that have implemented improved systems to report all use of force and shootings by officers, better systems for keeping track of civilian complaints and a program police departments are calling an early warning system. "The early warning systems collect data on citizen complaints and look for patterns by computer to flag officers with problems," Professor Walker said, adding that this "creates more accountability." Still, the efforts of individual cities often get lost amid the drumbeat and drama of each new instance in which a police officer shoots a civilian, partly because there is no national store of numbers to provide a sense of proportion. And until more comprehensive data are collected, those looking for the national trends behind each local incident are likely to be frustrated. The lack of good data "is a national scandal," said Geoffrey Alpert, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina and a leading authority on police use of force. "It's a scandal in the sense that these are public servants who work for us and are paid to protect us."

I'm AMAZED that so many can "pull" info from the internet. We have many issues going on in/with this thread. One of the biggest misleading one is the majority is generalizing, on many issues. It's nice, kind of cute, that some can honestly voice either the thought process of Slam and myself, able to comment or voice why we do what we do or say what we say.
Do you honestly think the LEO in the back woods of Alabama has the training let alone the social, educated awareness of society, race and income levels? of say the LEO of LA or NY etc., etc. It's not even worth attempting to "enlighten" some because some have "tunnel vision" and some are jumping on that bandwagon to be heard. It's nice to bring forth an article or a news report saying this person did something wrong. Just as someone else can bring forth one saying someone did something right. Honestly, what does it prove?
 
And it's a shame when someone doesn't add anything but as soon as they do, what little they really do and it's either full of negativity or accusation. GSD Admin, you pop in a few sentences but (at least for me), I didn't see the facts, article etc., The average everyday citizen doesn't have a clue what happens in their community. Honestly! They don't. They believe their little world/community is safe and genuinely a nice/good community. Not saying there aren't any, but when you're sleeping the real world is there. Where you're at work, the real world is there. So, when you say, that Slam or I condone, look the other way or by our job are forced to be silent....... about what the bad, if any, officers' action take place (I'll speak for me and my experience) I'll say you don't have a clue, I'll call you a liar and say you honestly don't know what you are talking about. I won't argue and if there's a problem then you can PM me. And when you say the officer's you have dealt with.......... Your attitude plays a major part of what experience you have dealing with LEOs.

We all have our stories......... The AVERAGE citizen doesn't like a stranger telling them they did something wrong let alone fining or penalizing them for doing it. We could go on and on butting heads but as LEOs, we deal with the majority of "THIS" on a daily basis, DAILY. Also, for the situation with the homeless individual..... (and I don't know the facts of your story) But FYI, homeless people are one of the most dangerous to encounter; majority of homeless are either on some form of addiction, have a disease, mentally unstable or have a weapon(0ne, to protect themselves from their counterparts.) Pull up some stats or take a ride over to the DC Metro area and talk to folks about homeless individuals. A good percentage of those homeless people carry an edged weapon, usually a filet knife. Why? Do you know the type of damage a filet knife can do? So, it's kind of nice, NOT, to sit back on your farm or some other area where you're not touched by reality and try and comment on how a LEO needs to do their job.

And for the poster who stated about DAs, Judges and courts, etc., having LEO experience? You're comparing Apples to Oranges. And that is an entire different conversation/debate. But a good percentage of Law Enforcement have problems with the Judicial System! That's why as a LEO you can't let it tear you apart when the judge or court takes your SOLID arrest and turns it into a joke and the scumbag walks or gets a lesser crime. But like I said, that's a whole nother ball of wax!




 

Well damn, you done stepped on my toes now, I guess stereotypes do die hard. I will mention that most LE in my area of backwoods Alabama must have a minimum level of college to be considered.

I would also like to point out that the rocket motors that sent the astronauts to the moon were being designed and built here in the backwoods long before your esteemed citizens of LA decided to burn the city down, over gasp, police brutality.

go figure,
Rik

Alboe, Gigante, BE, Daryl et al, what do you do to earn a living?

Hey, Hey.................. stepping on toes wasn't the intention. If I did I will be the first to apologize to you RIK.  At times I'm not the most eloquent speaker.  

I have never visited CA due to thinking those people are just a little too much for me.  I'm from the back woods of Michigan............................... and look where that state is now?

Blitzen, for me; Left Law Enforcement for DoD, Explosive Detection Dog Handler, Civilian Contractor. Also, have a side work business: Carpentry/remodel/build (ALBOE2009: "A Little Bit Of Everything")

Gomer and Goober Pyle as well as Forrest Gump are/were all Alabamians. How anyone could know this and still think we are backwoods is beyond me.

Rik

Blitzen, I think both Jim and alboe would do everything in their power to avoid such an incident.  And, the only things I recall disagreeing with was whether these incidences were indeed "rare", and that LEO's should continue to be held unaccountable.  So, you want to scrutinize ME or my profession, because I have an opinion that differs from yours?

Alboe2009,

None of my statements were directed in your way at all. I come from a family with several LE, but those officers are humble much like yourself. I generally like cops but have met a few that will lie, cheat and steal just like any career criminal. Like you I am not the best speaker in the world, I have long accepted that and my loved ones have accepted it. That is all that matters to me.

---

I respect a good humble cop but not a bully who feels the need to lie to others that they should be showing respect to. It would be no different than an off duty officer going into a business and showing the management/owner their ass. No different at all. A badge is not a right to run over others you should be respecting and if you have a problem with that respect thing, you should just stay out of things you can't control and not show your ass, as doing so only makes you look the ass. Same here, we are in charge of the site whether you know who we are or not, whether you like it or not, it doesn't matter, a certain amount of respect is due the admins. Period, no excuses. Period. And frankly I don't see it from people who should know better and who demand that respect in their jobs, life and hobbies. No excuses.

---

Here is a great little article. A cop goes to far. I love the quote highlighted in yellow it fits.

http://www.copblock.org/

http://wtvr.com/2012/05/11/holmberg-vcu-pays-10000-for-improper-police-stop/

  RICHMOND, Va. (WTVR) –Do you believe you have the right to talk trash to the police?Iraq war veteran Nathan Cox does, and so does his attorney, Richmond free-speech crusader Tom Roberts.
They just got $10,000 settlement check from the state for an alleged illegal traffic stop by a Virginia Commonwealth University police officer last spring.
Cox, a libertarian who founded the Virginia branch of an organization called CopBlock.org, was driving his car on N. 7th Street downtown near the Coliseum last April when he passed a VCU police officer pulled over on the side of the road, talking with someone.
Cox picked up his bullhorn and addressed the officer out of his window. “I simply turned my head and said, stop harassing people, we pay your paychecks.”
Very quickly, the officer’s vehicle appeared in his rear view, emergency lights and siren activated, Cox said. He picked up the small video camera he keeps on hand.
The officer, four-year veteran Shawn Kelley, approached the car on the video clip that Cox later downloaded to Youtube to chronicle his fight for what he sees as his Constitutional rights.
“How are you doing sir?” Cox asks.
“All right. How are we doing?” the officer responds.
“Doing fantastic,” Cox says.
The officer asks for Cox’s license and registration.
“Can I ask why you pulled me?” Cox asks.
“Yessir. For . . . ah . . . “
“Freedom of speech?” Cox asks.
“You look like you were a little distracted driving,” the officer responds.
Cox immediately asks for the officer’s supervisor to come to the scene, saying he didn’t believe the officer had probable cause to pull him over.
The officer goes to his car and comes back with a citation for obstruction of justice. Cox says he won’t sign it until a supervisor comes.
Eventually, a supervisor does come. A Freedom of Information Request filed in the case shows the officer calls the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office during the wait.
Cox is eventually charged with disorderly conduct.
When the case went to traffic court “the initial judge found me guilty for quote-unquote being a jerk,” Cox recalled.
They appealed it to Circuit Court. Tom Roberts, the attorney, said they didn’t even have to present any evidence. The judge heard the officer’s case and dismissed the charge.
“The second judge was pretty reluctant to dismiss the charge,” Cox said. “But he said what I said was protected under the First Amendment.”
Tom Roberts prepped a civil suit against the police department, but VCU settled out of court.
Roberts said police officers have a  badge and a gun – and a lot of power. “That requires him to not go after people because he doesn’t like what they have to say. He has that training. He knows that. In this case, the court found that’s what he did.”
Nathan is a staunch libertarian, an army infantry veteran of the war in Iraq who got involved in watchdogging the police after he heard libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul speak.
Does he hate the police?  “No, not at all,” he replied. “I do not hate the police. In fact, before I joined the Army in 2006, I was actually trying to become a police officer.”
The settlement check went to cover Robert’s expenses.
“It’s the principle that matters,” Cox said. “I hope the officer and the police department, and departments as a whole realize you might not like something that’s said to somebody, but you can’t pull people over for it . . . I hope they learned their lesson.” 
He said police officers have gone from being peace officers and protectors of the public,  to aggressive fine collectors and enforcers of laws that don’t pass Constitutional muster.
We left messages with officer Kelley and VCU’s police chief, but haven’t heard back from them.
Nathan says CopBlock.org’s mission “is to hold police accountable, to also educate people on their rights, specifically when interacting with the police.”
Roberts says the case is really simple; the police need probable cause to stop you and a perceived insult does not reach that threshold.  
“I don’t think you or anybody else would believe he would have chased this man down if he had yelled out of his window, ‘Hey, you’re doing a great job. Keep up the good work.’”
Roberts said the officer involved was courteous throughout the traffic stop and he seemed like a nice guy.
And he acknowledges not everyone could do the job.
But anyone wanting to be an officer, Roberts added, “better make sure you’re trained, you better make sure you have the personality that can withstand a little verbal abuse and say, you know, that’s why I’m on these streets, protecting your freedom – your freedom to be disagreeable. And I may not like it, but you know, it’s bigger than you and me.”
“The second judge was pretty reluctant to dismiss the charge,” Cox said. “But he said what I said was protected under the First Amendment.”
Tom Roberts prepped a civil suit against the police department, but VCU settled out of court.
Roberts said police officers have a  badge and a gun – and a lot of power. “That requires him to not go after people because he doesn’t like what they have to say. He has that training. He knows that. In this case, the court found that’s what he did.”
[Download the CBS 6 Breaking News App for your smartphone: Android | Blackberry |  iPhone and iPad]
Nathan is a staunch libertarian, an army infantry veteran of the war in Iraq who got involved in watchdogging the police after he heard libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul speak.
Does he hate the police?  “No, not at all,” he replied. “I do not hate the police. In fact, before I joined the Army in 2006, I was actually trying to become a police officer.”
The settlement check went to cover Robert’s expenses. “It’s the principle that matters,” Cox said. “I hope the officer and the police department, and departments as a whole realize you might not like something that’s said to somebody, but you can’t pull people over for it . . . I hope they learned their lesson.”  He said police officers have gone from being peace officers and protectors of the public,  to aggressive fine collectors and enforcers of laws that don’t pass Constitutional muster.
We left messages with officer Kelley and VCU’s police chief, but haven’t heard back from them.
Nathan says CopBlock.org’s mission “is to hold police accountable, to also educate people on their rights, specifically when interacting with the police.”
Roberts says the case is really simple; the police need probable cause to stop you and a perceived insult does not reach that threshold.  “I don’t think you or anybody else would believe he would have chased this man down if he had yelled out of his window, ‘Hey, you’re doing a great job. Keep up the good work.’”
Roberts said the officer involved was courteous throughout the traffic stop and he seemed like a nice guy.
And he acknowledges not everyone could do the job.
But anyone wanting to be an officer, Roberts added, “better make sure you’re trained, you better make sure you have the personality that can withstand a little verbal abuse and say, you know, that’s why I’m on these streets, protecting your freedom – your freedom to be disagreeable. And I may not like it, but you know, it’s bigger than you and me.

---

And finally this, does this make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Stupid cops shooting a restained dog, look at their piss poor training and we allow these people to carry guns? Someone needs to stop this. Cops get a a slap on the back, owner charged with whatever stupid charge to deflect the incompetence of the police.  Poor dog. LEOs can you find a way to spin this one?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/06/19/video-shows-missouri-cop-shooting-restrained-bulldog/

GSD Admin, if none of the comments were directed towards Slam or my way then I'll stand corrected.

For the first story, what information is present/available I totally agree with the citizen. Understand, that VA is a Common Wealth State; governed by Common Law. But in MD ( and can't remember if I seen an incident  described on the PDB recently or on MSN? But in MD "Disturbing the Peace can not "take place if only two individuals are present, one being the on duty Police Officer. The way our law is written is that the LEO, on duty,  is "not in the picture Per Se",  as a citizen/complainant. Now if a third party, (not another on duty LEO) is present and he/she complains then "Disturbing the Peace" can be charged. Some need to realize that no matter how some laws seem, or even if they are/appear to be stupid/ridiculous is that the LEOs didn't make it, the law(s), but we/they are bound by oath/duty to take action. Now, situation dictates and there is "Officer Discretion" but a good LEO won't let that bite him/her in the ass.

What information was presented, I can't speak for the VCU Officer but personally have no idea what his PC was for initiating the traffic stop. There are a few other questions that come to mind but won't do any good to bring them forward.

The second story, the video............. You probably won't like my response but without knowing ALL the facts, mine had no audio so that missing piece could be vital. It would appear that the video is the dash cam? A few questions come to mind and I'll play "Devil's Advocate"; Are these in fact the Police or Animals Control? We don't know the "Call for service"?, did the dog bite or attack someone and that is why the Police were called? There are so many "unknowns". It would "appear" that Officer #1 is talking on the phone and since he is doing it "during" the incident I would presume he is getting direction from a Supervisor. If we had audio we would know more than just what we are seeing. With out knowing all the facts, the rules, regulations and policies of that Department we can't really say anymore. I'm not agreeing or condoning what appears to be happening but there is more to the story. Is the dog rabid? There are a lot of questions here?