Posted on 07/28/2011 2:24:31 PM PDT by Immerito
“Look...cops shooting dogs has become so common it’s becoming a colloquialism “
And that should be of concern to every good cop on the force. They are being tarnished by the actions of their bad “brothers”.
The three threads from you that I posted in this past week, not a sigle one actually was about a policeman found at fault for shooting a dog.
Do me a favor and let me know - of the many others you posted is there one where that is the case?
I appreciate it, Fellow Freeper.
SWAT thugs are pretty much the same low-life criminals they are ostensibly protecting us from.
You a pig? Or just have a fetish?
“I would suggest something the officer can turn on that uses the dogs heightened hearing senses against them, an ultrasonic device that causes them stay away from the officer.”
The dog in this case does not appear to so much as approached the officer in question. Indeed, the dog goes *to* the porch, *away* from the officers on the street, per the video.
The SWAT officers approached the dog in question.
Such a device could easily be used to corner a dog before shooting it. That does not make the device itself bad, however, it fails to take into account that bad cops will not restrain themselves from misusing such a device.
People, including cops, are not found at fault when they commit crimes all the time. Non cop citizens lack the benefit of an internal investigation to clear them when they are caught committing crimes.
That doesn’t make them innocent in the eyes of man or God.
God has seen all that has transpired, and every time a police force has unjustly defended bad cops instead of removing them from their midst, He has not forgotten and will not forget.
There has to be a T-shirt out there about a dog surviving a police encounter, or maybe not.
The police are rapidly running out of friends.
For a reason.
Police feel the need to shoot someone to let off the incredible tensions of a SWAT type raid.
They are permitted because they are always "cleared."
Every citizen who is able should keep a dog on the premises in case of a police "mistaken address" raid for self protection- the dog takes the bullet instead of a family member.
Not a single one then? (freakin pathetic)
Someone needed to shine a light on you.
After a week I consider that done.
Are you a SWAT member who shoots dogs? Does it really release those tensions?
Contrary to what one here might believe, I don't hate law enforcement. Why would I? Theirs/yours is a necessary job and not one I would want or am fit for.
But...I love my dogs and other people's dogs and appreciate the deep bond many have with their dogs. And, I won't shed a tear if I hear of a cop shooting someone's dog and then getting blown away for it.
Why? Dogs are sometimes just animals to their owners, but for many they are family. I've seen many a strong man and a strong woman break down and cry like a baby when their beloved dog crosses that rainbow bridge. I've done that myself.
If you value PR and the respect and assistance of the community you serve, you'll find one of those better ways to deal with dogs than than to just kill them, b/c you are killing a lot more than just a dog. Your post tells me you understand the damage that does.
In the movies, it's the bad guys that kill dogs.
Immerito, I hear alot of people saying “it appeared...it appeared.”
Well, after watching the same video (allegedly as everyone else) all that appeared to me was a black form semi visible through the bars on the porch. I could not see the posture of the dog nor it’s it most obvious and dangerous weapon, its mouth. So no one but number one and two in the stack can say for certain what the dog’s demeanor was.
SWAT team members are trained to deal with obstacles and threats as they come to them and not leave them to where the could be a problem in the middle of the stack. So the lab is not an issue for number one, two, or three, but bites four who is now firing in the middle of the stack. That’s a recipe for disaster, especially since the recommended way to dispatch a canine is not down through the skull but up underneath the throat and then into the brain cavity, this raises even more the chances for stray rounds. A SWAT team movement must flow and a struggle with a dog at the top of some stairs interrupts that flowing and leaves the team vulnerable.
There will be an use of force-weapons discharge report written that will have in great detail the officers actions and perceptions and as well as the other team members perceptions of the dogs demeanor. It will also have whether the team leader concurs with the use of force and concurrence several levels up.
If you are prepared to say the officers will lie about this, then understand there will be an inevitable lawsuit and at least depositions given. An officer that perjures themselves in those proceedings can not only be criminally indicted but at the very least they can have any and all future testimony impeached, making them, for all intents and purposes, unemployable.
That is alot to give up over a dog.
I have met officers who wanted to kick thugs in backside, but never met one who got their kicks out of killing dogs or even showed a desire to shoot one.
I hated to see this but I understand why it was done.
It would be great if you could call animal control for every time you had a call where an animal might be involved. The reality is too many time the situation is fluid and fast-changing and there is simply no time.
Some years ago my Sgt. and I were dispatched to a domestic and upon getting out of our vehicles, and starting our approach to this unfenced house, a pit came charging around the corner from the back of the house, full speed, bone in teeth, figuratively. My Sgt. was ahead of me, and had only time to draw and fire twice while trying run backwards. First round went between the pits legs, second went into his chest as he was lunging on my Sgts. right thigh. That round was fatal but not instantly incapacitating because he ran off back where he came from and died under the back porch. The owner was not happy but understood that it was his responsibility to keep the dog secured. A ticket was written, a complaint was made, in the end both went away.
The point is, we had no time to call animal control, and in the SWAT scenario, they simply could not put an animal control officer in the line of fire. An animal control officer would not want to be there either. Unacceptable risk.
We officers cry too when our K9s are killed in the line of duty and have funerals for them. You have to be particularly attentive to K9 officers when they lose their partners. They get really depressed and some have committed suicide over the loss of their partners.
I would desperately like to see another method but it’s just not there at this time.
Well then, maybe SWAT should quit dressing up like Storm Troopers.
Just for grins, can you find a single solitary article on the internet where the police WERE found at fault for shooting a dog?
The reason the cops are not found guilty is because the ones investigating them are other cops. One only has to read most of these stories to see that the cop is not justified in shooting these dogs most of the time.
Like I said before, I couldn't do your job. But, I'm usually grateful that you and others can and are out there 24/7.
But...some of these stories simply undo all the goodwill you've earned and that can take forever to repair. I hope some new technology or additional training can give you better options in some of those circumstances.
I don't want to be afraid to call you if I truly need help.
If I may, and with respect, I am curious on your opinion about how SWAT should dress, considering what they are tasked with doing?
How ‘bout like police officers rather than Schutzstaffel? Blue shirt and pants, flat hat, black lace up shoes and a .38 revolver with a four inch barrel.
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.