This is a placeholder text
Group text
by 4 mals2sheps on 12 May 2012 - 22:05
I got it ! sounds like you love a man in uniform.(hahaha)or your so living in a policed community.
by beetree on 12 May 2012 - 22:05
Well, isn't that where the anti-cop side is saying where these pets are getting shot... mostly in residential, urban areas is my guess? How many guns per square yard do you think it will take to replace the current police system? Do you really think it is a good idea that everyone in a high rise apt building needs to be packing heat? Doesn't it make more sense to have a sensible society instead of a paranoid one?
Please, I hope folk don't feel the need to search out a rural cop that shot FIFI just to prove me wrong, I'm sure it is out there.
Please, I hope folk don't feel the need to search out a rural cop that shot FIFI just to prove me wrong, I'm sure it is out there.
by 4 mals2sheps on 12 May 2012 - 22:05
Beetree, Why are you so defencive, everyone has an right to give there opinion ,with me putting facts about departments was ment to say, I don't like corruption and I will take care of my self and my animals and I have that right to protect my property . If you chose not too that is your choose and yes I live in a civilized society but it doesn't mean I can not think for or do for myself . sounds to me this to you is more about antiguns and people having there own minds about whats right and wrong ......... <<ITS WRONG TO KILL PEOPLES PETS>>....... that's is my opinion.
by ggturner on 12 May 2012 - 22:05
I don't know if your thought on that post was an attempt to derail or side track anyone from talking about the abuse of animals by some police officers
I started this thread, remember? You have side tracked it over and over again. Why don't you start your own thread bashing LEOs? That was not the intent of this thread.
I started this thread, remember? You have side tracked it over and over again. Why don't you start your own thread bashing LEOs? That was not the intent of this thread.
by beetree on 12 May 2012 - 22:05
I thought I was debating my side, and tried not to make it personal, so I'm sorry if that is how I came across. That was not my intent, but I don't know any other way to say the opposing view. I understand yours, I get it. But it isn't practical for the world is my point.
by alboe2009 on 12 May 2012 - 23:05
I'll reiterate that there are many issues going on in /with this thread. I'll speak on my behalf, my experience and my training.
Not each and every individual, but the majority, (and for sake of conversation that could be 51%/49%) it is an "Us against them" mentality out their in society/on the street. and for the most part it will always be. There are a hundred reasons for that across the country and those reasons will never be totally rectified. There are many reasons why LEO, let alone anyone in any profession, even no profession is either bad, goes bad or any other negative descriptor pertaining to themselves or their job.
For the video with the two officers; Depending on their scope of authority, meaning some entities are multi-profession/multi-authority; their LEOs or Public Safety individuals. Police Powers/EMS powers, Police Powers/AC Powers and such. Don't know if that is the case here? I would think so since Officer #1 had the noose pole either with him or in his cruiser. If not having AC Powers I have no idea why he/they would take it upon themselves to take control of the dog? or even attempt to take control of the dog. If I remember correctly Officer #2 in his left hand had his Taser and no idea why it was not in his weapon hand? I believe later in the video Officer #2 does take out his duty weapon when the dog, (noosed) goes towards him or in his direction. What little info we have I have no idea the need or reason(s) for shooting this dog. With only seeing this video from the time it was shown with no audio and with no "before video" or "after video" knowledge I would be highly outraged! I can see no justification for actions that took place. BUT understand no matter how much you don't want to hear or to acknowledge it, we do not have all the information/the whole story. It would appear that both Officers are young but especially Officer #1, the shooter. no idea why the choice to shoot was initiated let alone Officer #1 doing the shooting? He did not have total control let alone to have control and shoot. Evident by first shot. At no time (in this video) did I see aggression towards anyone let alone the Officers to warrant a shooting. But it would appear in my eyes Officer #1 was talking to a Supervisor on cell phone prior to his actions being taking.
4mals2sheps,
No one is untouchable. There is always a way. First and foremost; Time, effort, money and the ability to handle any and all repercussions and backlash. And not just one person but the family and members. What some forget is that a Sheriff was elected/voted in. And he/she can be voted out. A Sheriff/Sheriffs Deputy are not the same as a Police Chief or Police Officers. Now if there are no Police or County Police than the Sheriffs' Depart is the Police. But the county residents voted him/her in. I would think you have a County Council and they might be interested. If your area is a "Good ole boy system, then you go outside that system: States Attorneys' Office and above. Can't really comment on the drunk Officer incident, appears to be handled wrong. Subject with knife on school property. Probably the only Police in that jurisdiction were the Sheriffs Department. No Deputy is going to arrest their bosses son. A more severe crime, maybe. Can't comment on the warrantless entry, there are many scenarios that Police can enter a residence without a warrant. And FYI, KNOW THE LAW! That "One foot in the doorway and one foot out" theory is a fallacy. Articulation, money, effort and an entity that is afraid of the police.
For the most part, I loved my job. My goal was to be #1 in any and all stats possible. To have the serious crimes and to make the most impact. To put up enough stats and experiences to make "Law Enforcement Officer of the Year". Just to be nominated is an honor. To win is even better. I butted heads more than once over Integrity issues, Principle issues and such. Right is right---wrong is wrong. No two ways about it.
Not each and every individual, but the majority, (and for sake of conversation that could be 51%/49%) it is an "Us against them" mentality out their in society/on the street. and for the most part it will always be. There are a hundred reasons for that across the country and those reasons will never be totally rectified. There are many reasons why LEO, let alone anyone in any profession, even no profession is either bad, goes bad or any other negative descriptor pertaining to themselves or their job.
For the video with the two officers; Depending on their scope of authority, meaning some entities are multi-profession/multi-authority; their LEOs or Public Safety individuals. Police Powers/EMS powers, Police Powers/AC Powers and such. Don't know if that is the case here? I would think so since Officer #1 had the noose pole either with him or in his cruiser. If not having AC Powers I have no idea why he/they would take it upon themselves to take control of the dog? or even attempt to take control of the dog. If I remember correctly Officer #2 in his left hand had his Taser and no idea why it was not in his weapon hand? I believe later in the video Officer #2 does take out his duty weapon when the dog, (noosed) goes towards him or in his direction. What little info we have I have no idea the need or reason(s) for shooting this dog. With only seeing this video from the time it was shown with no audio and with no "before video" or "after video" knowledge I would be highly outraged! I can see no justification for actions that took place. BUT understand no matter how much you don't want to hear or to acknowledge it, we do not have all the information/the whole story. It would appear that both Officers are young but especially Officer #1, the shooter. no idea why the choice to shoot was initiated let alone Officer #1 doing the shooting? He did not have total control let alone to have control and shoot. Evident by first shot. At no time (in this video) did I see aggression towards anyone let alone the Officers to warrant a shooting. But it would appear in my eyes Officer #1 was talking to a Supervisor on cell phone prior to his actions being taking.
4mals2sheps,
No one is untouchable. There is always a way. First and foremost; Time, effort, money and the ability to handle any and all repercussions and backlash. And not just one person but the family and members. What some forget is that a Sheriff was elected/voted in. And he/she can be voted out. A Sheriff/Sheriffs Deputy are not the same as a Police Chief or Police Officers. Now if there are no Police or County Police than the Sheriffs' Depart is the Police. But the county residents voted him/her in. I would think you have a County Council and they might be interested. If your area is a "Good ole boy system, then you go outside that system: States Attorneys' Office and above. Can't really comment on the drunk Officer incident, appears to be handled wrong. Subject with knife on school property. Probably the only Police in that jurisdiction were the Sheriffs Department. No Deputy is going to arrest their bosses son. A more severe crime, maybe. Can't comment on the warrantless entry, there are many scenarios that Police can enter a residence without a warrant. And FYI, KNOW THE LAW! That "One foot in the doorway and one foot out" theory is a fallacy. Articulation, money, effort and an entity that is afraid of the police.
For the most part, I loved my job. My goal was to be #1 in any and all stats possible. To have the serious crimes and to make the most impact. To put up enough stats and experiences to make "Law Enforcement Officer of the Year". Just to be nominated is an honor. To win is even better. I butted heads more than once over Integrity issues, Principle issues and such. Right is right---wrong is wrong. No two ways about it.
by 4 mals2sheps on 12 May 2012 - 23:05
No one has the right to shot someones pet!! back on topic !!
by alboe2009 on 12 May 2012 - 23:05
Situation dictates!
by 4 mals2sheps on 13 May 2012 - 00:05
No administrators and ggturner asked .NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SHOT SOMEONES PET......back on topic ..
by alboe2009 on 13 May 2012 - 00:05
Who are you commenting to???
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top