Posted on 07/18/2011 6:56:36 PM PDT by Immerito
CLEVELAND— A Cleveland police officer fatally shot a dog Thursday after the animal allegedly attacked him, Fox 8 News reports.
According to Stephen Loomis, President of the Cleveland Patromen's Association, it happened just before 5 p.m. in the 1400 block of West 48th Street.
Officers responded to a residence in that area for a domestic violence incident. While searching for the suspect, two officers entered the backyard through a fence -- unaware that two dogs were on the property.
"The dogs were sleeping when [the officers] went into the yard, and [the dogs] woke up when [the officers] were several feet into yard," Loomis said.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox8.com ...
How about you show me where the police failed a principle?
Even the dog owner says he understands why his dog was shot.
Principles are nice, but the police act on rules, regulations, procedures and the law.
If you want to talk principles how about this for a principle: Tell the police about the dogs in the yard.
Or maybe put a “Beware of Dog” sign on the fence.
Bottom line is you got no case to be hating on the police when the owner himself says he understands.
That actually does call into question your motives.
You should take 10 minutes to think about why you search up “police shoot dog” to create hate against the police on FR. It could be you are an unwitting tool of the Drive-by Media.
Thank you for confirming that you are incapable of defending these cops and are incapable of defending their behavior in light of the principles of their profession.
The fact that you keep trying to focus the spotlight on me continues to highlight your failure on both counts. Keep it up!
But, if you’re done and are ready to get back on topic, then answer the question:
Observing the actions of the police in the article, can you truthfully say that none of these nine principles were ignored or violated?
****
1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5) Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8) Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2672663/posts
What is confusing about two cops who decide to sneak onto a property via a back fence than to go to the front of the house and speak to someone in the house?
Only a fool would enter through a back fence and claim to be “unaware” of a dog or dogs.
The cops have a duty to follow the principles of their own profession. Are you implicitly arguing that none of the nine principles were violated?
Observing the actions of the police in the article, can you truthfully say that none of these nine principles were ignored or violated?
****
1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5) Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8) Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2672663/posts
They had a duty to investigate at the house to which they were called.
That does not translate into license to intrude into the backyard of the dog owner.
Why didn’t the cops knock on the front door? Nothing was impeding them from doing so. Why didn’t they act like their own honest brethren do on a daily basis?
Then don’t call the police?
It was the owners own family that called the police and failed to tell the cops about the their own dogs.
How about this for a sign: Beware of stupid ass white trash.
Moreover, how does one “try to taser” anything?
“Loomis says the officer first tried to taser the animal to get him to release his grip. When that failed, the officer shot the dog twice.”
Is “trying to taser” like “a little bit pregnant”?
You have the last word. Just think about it.
Since there is no indication that there were any other cops in the front-—and no indication that any officers went up to the front door to speak to the homeowners, this does not appear to be a case of surrounding a residence.
You’re welcome.
Very well, I’ll take that as your concession that you cannot say “These cops acted in line with Robert Peel’s principles—the principles of the man who is the Father of Modern Policing.”
“The cops have a right to protect themselves from man and beast.”
Trespassing cops have no right to protect themselves.
It was the owners own family that called the police and failed to tell the cops about the their own dogs.
How about this for a sign: Beware of stupid ass white trash.
It was people at a different residence who called the police. The cops were called to that residence, not the residence of the dog owner.
An honest cop would knock on the front door and explain the circumstances. Why did these cops choose to trespass instead?
Fascinating how the same Freepers who would not defend this behavior (trespassing in someone’s back yard) were it any other civilian attempt to justify it when a cop-civilian engages in the same behavior.
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.