This is a placeholder text
Group text
by darylehret on 03 May 2012 - 04:05
Perhaps now that I have spelled it out you and Daryl will see why we do not share the same view points.
Jim, who says my viewpoint is any different than yours? The only thing I even stated was that training should be relevant to the job situation. If you find cause to disagree with that, then maybe you should be taken even LESS seriously.
It's probably with equally RARE occurance that you shoot a person, but I don't advocate sending you to the streets without firearms and firearms training, either. Maybe not in the case of shooting someone, but a situation can still be RARE, yet LIKELY to eventually occur.
Maybe on one of your RARE days off that will LIKELY occur eventually, you can volunteer to organize some sort of class. It would certainly be more productive than trying to belittle everyone on the internet who doesn't subscribe to your line of thought.
by Slamdunc on 03 May 2012 - 06:05
I was explaining why I do not share the same view point as gigante. I can see I really have to spell things out for you. I didn't say anything about your view point. Please go back and read my posts, I went into detail on the academy training and ongoing training that I do for Officers in my Dept. But, you must have missed that. I don't belittle every one on the internet, I do call some people out on some of their outlandish statements. It seems you feel as if you often fall into that category. I really would prefer to just ignore you. Believe me I have only said a fraction of what I've been thinking; I delete or don't bother the vast majority of the time.
by darylehret on 03 May 2012 - 12:05
by Slamdunc on 03 May 2012 - 13:05
by alboe2009 on 03 May 2012 - 16:05
Not speaking for Slam but on our seldom free days off LEOs do have a life and on the seldom days off need to unwind by not taking the job home, (Per Se). Some work a DAY shift for a week, two weeks or even a month. Can't take care of "Business Matters" or daily chores. Let alone if your Department is in 12 hr shifts. So when that rare day off does happen it's like CRAM everything that needs to get done into that day off. To any Public Safety individual, nurses and such these people are aware and understand the schedules involved.
I swear I stated this before; Go down to your local P.D./S.O. and sign up for a "Ride-a-long", not just one.......a few. And don't take a day shift, take a Mid/weekend or a late Swing shift or if a shift is designated a crime/overlapping shift. That way you can get a good side of how we live.
In one year I put in 900 hrs of overtime, trained dogs, and attempted to have a life! We are human just like the rest of the world. Our jobs are stressful, (I did not say the Most stressful or more stressful than any others) but our jobs are stressful due to MANY factors so when our seldom days off do roll around we might not ALWAYS set the example or want to set the example for the rest of the world. We have lives and personal and other responsibilities that take precedent.
For the most part when we get on one of these topics/threads some do a lot of talking with little or no facts. I, for one don't mind debating. Arguing to an extent is okay also. But, in my eyes if you're going to debate or escalate to and argument have some facts, hopefully some experience to back it up. What I see here is a lot of "generalization". Unfortunately certain professions don't generalize. LEO being one of them. I would think the average LEO/Public Safety individual would be able to back up their comments; favorable or unfavorable.
I'm amazed to see that some think that they have the right to speak out and put it here yet when one or two or more rebut those comments, let alone rebut with some facts or experiences that some are offended and ?? cry out ?? to be heard, I don't know?
I'm the type of person that if it was me I would've had posted some pictures and if any reports or articles attached. I would have read them, if any and when posting I would've had said something to the effect of possibly "Appears to be an increase of family pets being shot or killed by LEOs while they are performing their duties. I don't have all the facts but I'm putting a few articles out for readers to read and maybe you could give me some or your thoughts? If you have experience good or bad on this situation hopefully you would post?" IMO, that would have set the tone a little nicer than the way some came across? But, that is just me.
by ciara1 on 03 May 2012 - 18:05
by Gigante on 03 May 2012 - 18:05
Some interesting Facts:
With the number of dog fatalities by law enforcement on the increase, as well as concerns for officer safety, law enforcement officers must advance beyond automatically using their weapons when encountered by a dog.
In most police departments, the majority of shooting incidents involve animals, most frequently dogs.
While there are plenty of documented cases that officers have killed dogs there is, is no documented case of a police or peace officer dying as the result of a dog-bite-related injury. The overwhelming majority of dog bites are minor, causing either no injury at all or injuries so minor that no medical care is required. Fewer than 2 percent of the individuals visiting an emergency room complaining of a dog bite require hospitalization.
(This in my opinion throws a wrench in the common practice of using disproportionate force, Kill dogs when there is no other choice.)
According to Janis Bradley, author of “Dogs Bite, but Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous,” more people are killed by lightning each year than by dogs.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interaction has strongly cautioned against using statistics to target particular breeds as more likely to bite: “Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.”
Officers encounter dogs in the course of almost every kind of police interaction with the public, from making traffic stops and serving warrants to interviewing suspects and witnesses, and even pursuing suspects. The most times officers fire their weapons, it is at animals and at dogs mostly. Like another poster stated "we should allow seals that are afraid of water?"
There are approximately 77.5 million owned dogs in the United States.1 Indeed, dogs are likely to be encountered in 39 percent of residential locations. A recent poll revealed that approximately 53.5 percent of owners consider their dogs family members, another 45.1 percent view them as companions or pets, and less than 1.5 percent consider them mere property. (Shooting family members and companions without real cause is why I believe, your playing with PR dynamite. Even though the state law says property, you know the firestorms that are created in unjustified shootings, perceived or otherwise.)
From the police perspective, the most obvious harm that can result from a dog-related incident is the injury to an officer when a dog bites. If a responding officer shoots at a dog, however, other harms can result, including bystanders and other officers being shot by friendly fire. When an officer kills or injures a dog that is not a serious threat, other significant harms can result. Such incidents often do serious damage to community trust in the department and profession. Controversy particularly arises when an officer’s assessment of “imminent danger” is challenged by witnesses, the dog’s owner, or a video record of the incident.
The killing or injuring of a dog also opens the officer and the department to lawsuits and other legal actions, including 42 USC 1983 claims (deprivation of property without due process) and internal-affairs investigations.
http://cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e051116358_Dog-Incidents-508.pdf
Pets, most commonly dogs, are defined as personal property under state law so it is important to research the applicable local laws. State statutes will be the governing law in this area as federal statutes are silent as to the definition of pets as personal property.
United States v. Place, 469 U.S. 696, 701 (1983). Further, the Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that a seizure of personal property occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.”
While the issues involved in the decision to bring a cause of action for the shooting of a pet may seem complex, they are not by any means insurmountable. There are two general steps to follow to make the determination of whether or not a cause of action exists:
1) Review the state statutes to determine if the pet is considered property subject to seizure. In addition, review any other state statutes relating to animals that may be applicable; and
2) Determine whether immunity can be defeated by addressing the policies of the municipality and the actions of the officer(s) involved.
If the pet is personal property subject to a seizure, no other state statutes defeat or authorize that seizure, and an entity or the officer involved can be held liable by defeating their immunity, a cause of action can be stated and potentially maintained successfully on behalf of the pet owner.
www.animallaw.info/articles/dduspoliceshootingpets.htm
by Slamdunc on 03 May 2012 - 21:05
The population is on the rise, dog ownership and the sheer number of dogs in this country is on the rise. Crime is on the rise, especially violent crime. Felonies are on the rise, from shoplifting, larcenies, drug use, distribution of drugs, burglaries, robberies and malicious wounding. Homicide rates are on the rise, crimes committed with firearms are on the rise. Assaults and homicide of Law Enforcement Officers and K-9's is on the rise. Police involved shootings with suspects are on the rise. This is based on crime statistics in my city, voted one of the safest in the country for it's size at one time..... Statistics are really fascinating, but the world is becoming a very dangerous place.
Again training is crucial to avoid anyone's pets being shot by the Police. Police Officers need to be trained to deal with aggressive dogs, no doubt. We do that and so do the vast majority of agencies. It is mandated training. My dept may go a step further because I feel it is very important. Pet owners also need to be trained to properly contain and control their dogs. That is critical and a role that breeders, pet stores and shelters need to take part in. They have a responsibility to the animals they breed, sell or re home. The pet owner has to accept responsibility for the welfare of his / her dogs. Unfortunately, all too often dog owners are neglectful and let their animals roam free. IMO, there is no excuse for a dog getting loose twice. Once, I can understand but more than that is unacceptable.
In general dog bites are not lethal, but I have seen some pretty horrific damage done by dog bites. Just as we can site articles and post pictures of dogs (we really do not know what BE's pictures were of or where they came from) shot by the Police; I can site many more articles of children and adults killed by aggressive dogs.
Daryl, since you breed so many dogs why don't you step up and start training dog owners how to properly contain their dogs. You have just as much responsibility as any one does. I do my part and train Officers regularly. The training idea is great. Why don't you start teaching people how to keep their dogs safe from the Police, cars, hunters, farmers and other dogs. If everyone does their part and acts locally perhaps a difference can be made.
by Gigante on 04 May 2012 - 00:05
56 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty last year; 72 officers died in accidents while performing their duties; and 53,469 officerswere assaulted in the line of duty. The 2010 edition of Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted.
Zero where killed by dogs.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/crime_091911/crime_091911
by Slamdunc on 04 May 2012 - 01:05
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top