Posted on 07/07/2011 11:28:16 AM PDT by Immerito
“It is not an environment for pittbulls and/or rottweilers.”
Some guys just can’t get by without their four-legged penis extensions.
Why would you suppose that this thread is not about either of the two dogs involved?
“There is no reason that an honest, honorable cop should object to having the actions of a dishonest, dishonorable cop exposed.”
Unless they are corrupt as well.
“There is no reason that an honest, honorable cop should object to having the actions of a dishonest, dishonorable cop exposed.”
Unless they are corrupt as well.
“And you will likely go to prison for a very long time.”
Not if I’m on the jury.
Wrong discussion. The “other poster” he referred to said THIS:
“Any man who shoots a dog is a coward.. Period.”
A stupid, glib statement all too typical of the many people who have little true respect for The Dog; their other favorite glib statements include “Dog is God spelled backwards” and “Dogs just so unconditionally love us”. Those along with the above ignore that dogs do in fact kill people intentionally (and not just because they “were brought up badly”); there are 2 sides. Respecting a dog, like a wild tiger, includes recognizing all it’s capable of, good or bad.
A corrupt cop would not meet the qualifications of honesty and honor.
There is plenty of reason for a corrupt cop to object to having the actions of a dishonest, dishonorable cop exposed-—he/she fears having his/her own decisions and actions likewise exposed.
What do you penis infatuated butt packers say when a woman owns the dog?
I would put it otherwise (”Unnecessarily and unlawfully shooting a dog should not be tolerated”).
Frankly, I think the perimeter of the area where the festival is held should be posted with no animals/bikes, etc. signs.
You do understand that the dog wasn't shot as punishment for starting the fight, right? The dog was shot because he was out of control and had already attacked three people and another dog.
Well, on one hand, we've got some kid who lost control of his dog, and according to the only witness was on the ground wrestling with the dog. The dog owner's "spokesperson" (never called a witness) said the police officer "didn't try hard enough" to subdue the dog. The photo you mention is just that, a photo, the image of one 100th of a second.
Lastly, in case you missed it, the officer was a K9 officer who is EXTENSIVELY trained in dog handling. Why would someone who's put in for a highly coveted, demanding position as a K9 handler go out and maliciously shoot a dog?
Somehow, I'll take the version of the highly trained K9 officer, the witness, and the owner's "spokesperson", which all report an out of control dog.
yes on top of all that we know the cop threw the dog down the stairs with the intention of causing injury and then shooting it.
we also know the general proclivities cops have for shooting dogs
Well, why don't you find out and tell us? The article did say there's never a shortage of cops at the Adams Morgan day - right at the very beginning in fact, just before it says the dog got out of hand.
Also, the designation "K9 cop" means a cop specially trained as a dog handler, not "two or three cops" as you seemed to deduce.
I guess that's why they're one of the few professions that not only partners with dogs, but deputizes them as fellow officers.
Your hatred for cops has so blinded you that you've lost all touch with facts and reason.
“Your hatred for cops has so blinded you that you’ve lost all touch with facts and reason.”
Assumptions are dangerous, hopefully you aren’t a detective as you can’t see figure out stuff for squat.
Sucks to be a public servant doesn’t it.
Yeah, what could possibly lead anyone to think that a person who believes a K9 officer would have a proclivity for shooting dogs might be blinded by cop-hatred?
Your words.
It's funny how you state that assumptions are dangerous and then, in the same breath, make the assumption that I'm a police officer.
I've never been so angry that I couldn't think straight, but I've seen it in others.
“Two or three cops” was not my deduction, but the observation of an eyewitness.
Since “two or three cops” were described as being at the scene, it is clear that they decided the most important criminal matter at hand was forcibly removing one dog from its owner who was calming his dog after a common dogfight.
Why did a K9 officer tackle the dog as though he were a human perp and did not grab the dog’s hind legs? The K9 officer, because of his training, should be expected to know such a procedure.
Furthermore, why did a K9 officer, who presumably should know that dogs respond best to their alphas, forcibly remove a dog from its alpha, a decision certain to intensify the dog’s fear and aggression?
“The article did say there’s never a shortage of cops at the Adams Morgan day -”
Apparently there is a surplus of cops at the Adams Morgan festival, if intervening in an already broken up dogfight was important enough to draw the attention of “two or three cops”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.