This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Gigante on 16 May 2012 - 22:05
| Gigante, why don't you provide a link to your sources? Here is a site on dog bites in the U.S. and it does not coincide with your information: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php . Yet another site (humane society): http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/stop-animal-abuse/fact-sheets/dog-bites.html . Again, does not coincide with what you posted. |
I have looked over those two sites as well, I did not find anything that did not coincide with the Director Of the COPS program data issued by the DOJ On 09/22/2011 I have posted the link pretty often, this thread is giant, so no worries.
If you can be more specific an actual comment if this is not what you are referring to I will post what data I was using as well.
Link is here: http://cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e051116358_Dog-Incidents-508.pdf
by momosgarage on 16 May 2012 - 22:05
The gist of the article stated that because of all the law suits over police brutality, excessive force, violation of civil rights etc., the police are somewhat reluctant to respond during the comission of a crime. That they would almost rather arrive after the crime is over, collect information, fill out reports and get warrants, then pursue the criminals. They all off the record agreed.
A-HA!!! More anecdotal evidence supporting a comment I made earlier. I'll repost it so it becomes clear to all where LEO's truly stand in regard to thier TRUE ETHICAL DUTY versus thier actual field behavior:
There are times when we are COMPELLED to call for LEO involvement, it doesn't mean you have to trust them, expect them to follow the law or even help you in some cases. You the citizen, are calling them to support proper legal recourse and documentation, not purely protection or rescue. We live in a society with laws and procedure, so we are not allowed to just "protect ourselves" even if we are capable of doing so. There's nothing wrong with being COMPELLED to call for LEO involvement, it's just today some folks forget that "accidents" in the field can quickly turn an LEO against a civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Work with the laws we have, call LEO's when you are COMPELLED to and have proper legal representation "just in case" you happen to be present when the officer "has an accident".
It seems my "LAWYER UP" advice was highly accurate afterall. It would also seem to me that the above comment made by Ninja181, should make us all wonder what the "off the record Policy" is in regards to LEO's engaging civilian owned pets.
Makes you wonder...and if it doesn't, it should.
by Ninja181 on 16 May 2012 - 22:05
The bad guys are sending the dogs after law enforcement.
Dog bites in this country have reached epidemic proportions.
by momosgarage on 16 May 2012 - 22:05
Ninja181 & ggturner, it is SO OBVIOUS you are trying to redirect this discussion. Dog bites are not relevant to any of the cases presented where cornered, fleeing, non-threatning pets were shot by LEO's.
LEO's are also shooting CATS!!! Where is animal control in these cases?
http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/familys-cat-shot-killed-by-police-officer/nGZ4C/
http://www.officer.com/news/10342180/family-wants-policy-changed-after-ohio-police-kill-cat
Also, even IF dog bite data on LEO's was relevant, LEO departments are NOT releasing the data to support such a claim. We have been talking about animals owned by civilians who WERE NOT SUSPECTED FELONS, whom happened to be on the other end of an LEO's "mistake" resulting in the death of the animal and a "we're sorry, wrong house" statement. In fact, your point was already positively supported earlier in the thread. We are PAST your discussion point because it was already agreed that if an LEO's life is TRULY in danger they should be able to defend themselves against said animal. But since you weren't paying much attention, I'll remind you that your point was already made and overwhelminly supported. So, no more need for your "but, dogs bite LEO's" comments.
by Gigante on 16 May 2012 - 22:05
|
Now this is the frame of mind because of over regulation, and society over reacting. And of course frivolous law suits. |
More corn on cobb for you. What are talking about.... Should the officers macing puppies in a cage get a wash.
Please what is your position on the videos and stories of the animals killed and or harmed by the actions of some very bad officers. Its ok. because there are plenty more that would never do some of the despicable things being done.
| The bad guys are sending the dogs after law enforcement. |
As stated your skimming, this is not a peta convention..... Read what has been posted.
Aim for the head and fire away when safe to do so, I'll even give them a mulligan to put one in the owners leg as well . Im good with that.
| Dog bites in this country have reached epidemic proportions. |
Even if you had a point.... Drunk drivers and naughty children are also epidemic. Are you fire away on them as well.
ReAd tHe FrIkIn ThReAd.
by beetree on 16 May 2012 - 22:05
by ggturner on 16 May 2012 - 22:05
momosgarage, who died and made you a moderator? Did I miss something? Get over yourself. My post was in response to Ninja's earlier post, weren't you paying attention?
by momosgarage on 16 May 2012 - 23:05
I'll recap:
Dog bites are not relevant to any of the cases presented where cornered, fleeing, non-threatning pets were shot by LEO's.
LEO's are also shooting CATS!!! Where is animal control in these cases?
http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/familys-cat-shot-killed-by-police-officer/nGZ4C/
http://www.officer.com/news/10342180/family-wants-policy-changed-after-ohio-police-kill-cat
Also, even IF dog bite data on LEO's was relevant, LEO departments are NOT releasing the data to support such a claim. We have been talking about animals owned by civilians who WERE NOT SUSPECTED FELONS, whom happened to be on the other end of an LEO's "mistake" resulting in the death of the animal and a "we're sorry, wrong house" statement. In fact, your point was already positively supported earlier in the thread. We are PAST your discussion point because it was already agreed that if an LEO's life is TRULY in danger they should be able to defend themselves against said animal. But since you weren't paying much attention, I'll remind you that your point was already made and overwhelminly supported. So, no more need for your "but, dogs bite LEO's" comments.
German shepherd dog (admin), findings which are posted on the Animal Legal & Historical Canters website somewhat supports my suspicion that "affluent communites" will have more clear legal definitions and guidelines for LEO's to follow. Most likely because if the residents have access to real legal representation they are likely to use it when needed. The only way LEO departments can cover thier butts in such communities is to be very clear as to what an officer can legally do. In a less affluent community the codes are likely looser and open to interpretation, the side effect being an officer can slide on legal ambiguity.
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/dduspoliceshootingpets.htm
Since if you have decided to get involved and save humanity why not clean up your own occupation first.
Every profession is flawed;
Actually there is one BIG difference, most folks don't carry a a gun to work with the aurthority to point and shoot at another living being. Second, other profession such as doctors, engineers, etc, have insurance premiums to worry about and if a victim is properly represented insurance will PAY out to a wronged plantiff. When an LEO screws up they get unpaid leave or desk work, most other professionals under similar circumstances would find themselves out of work for LIFE and would need to change careers.
Police, Politians and Judges SHOULD BE HELD TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEVEL OF ETHICS. All three have one thing in common that no other professions have. They ALL can decide LIFE or DEATH by the stroke of a pen. Politians and Judges sign death warrants before anyone dies, however, in the case of LEO's the stroke of the pen is used to clear an altercation after a life is exstinguished.
The gist of the article stated that because of all the law suits over police brutality, excessive force, violation of civil rights etc., the police are somewhat reluctant to respond during the comission of a crime. That they would almost rather arrive after the crime is over, collect information, fill out reports and get warrants, then pursue the criminals. They all off the record agreed.
A-HA!!! More anecdotal evidence supporting a comment I made earlier. I'll repost it so it becomes clear to all where LEO's truly stand in regard to thier TRUE ETHICAL DUTY versus thier actual field behavior:
There are times when we are COMPELLED to call for LEO involvement, it doesn't mean you have to trust them, expect them to follow the law or even help you in some cases. You the citizen, are calling them to support proper legal recourse and documentation, not purely protection or rescue. We live in a society with laws and procedure, so we are not allowed to just "protect ourselves" even if we are capable of doing so. There's nothing wrong with being COMPELLED to call for LEO involvement, it's just today some folks forget that "accidents" in the field can quickly turn an LEO against a civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Work with the laws we have, call LEO's when you are COMPELLED to and have proper legal representation "just in case" you happen to be present when the officer "has an accident".
It seems my "LAWYER UP" advice was highly accurate afterall. It would also seem to me that the above comment made by Ninja181, should make us all wonder what the "off the record Policy" is in regards to LEO's engaging civilian owned pets.
All of the above makes you wonder...and if it doesn't, it should.
by beetree on 16 May 2012 - 23:05
by destiny4u on 16 May 2012 - 23:05
as dog OWNERS maybe band together so it does not happen to you??? if every dog owner worked together to protect their dogs maybe something would happen rather than just turn their back to it.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top