Posted on 10/20/2012 10:49:07 PM PDT by Altariel
There was nothing James Woods could do.
He screamed; he pleaded. ”Please don’t harm my dogs,” he begged police, who moments earlier had barged into his east-side home looking for marijuana.
Woods was forced into a corner last week when the first shot rang out – a 12-gauge shotgun. Woods’ young pit bull, Tank, who neighbors and witnesses say was confined to a locked fence outside and unable to harm anyone, lay dead in a puddle of blood, shot in the face.
Fearing police would hurt his two other dogs, who were inside the house, Woods cried out: “Please! They won’t hurt you! Stop chasing them! They’re just scared. ”
Witnesses told a consistent story: Police chased the dogs, Hump and Janey, around the house, shooting Woods’ longtime companions as they fled.
“They came in like they were shooting deer,” Woods said.
Janey, a small, older pit bull, dragged a trail of blood around the house until she finally collapsed.
“They shot her four times as she was trying to get away,” Woods said, his pale blue eyes welling up. “She didn’t have a chance. It just isn’t right.”
Neighbors said the three dogs, which included a German shepherd mix, were tame and friendly.
“They were good dogs,” a neighbor said.
Police didn’t respond to calls or emails for comment.
Woods, a financially struggling jack-of-all-trades, spent the next two days in jail, grieving his companions.
His friend, Scott Kraz, photographed the carcasses in hopes of proving that police shot the dogs from behind.
“From the position of the two dogs inside the building, they were running away from the door, away from the police,” Kraz said.
After collecting the evidence, Kraz buried the three dogs in the front yard of the home, where Woods now lives alone, with a heavy heart.
On Tuesday afternoon, Woods finished up a long day of trimming trees and sparked a cigarette.
“They killed my dogs,” he said, shaking his head. “The Detroit Police Department murdered my dogs.”
I’m sorry, where was the evidence of a “Pot growing operation”?
Are you suggesting that it is acceptable for police to shoot house dogs just because they claim to be engaged in a “pot bust”?
So you are blaming the victim of an assault by government employees instead of blaming the government employees who shot the dogs? The dogs would have been in zero danger had the cops acted like peace officers instead of blood-thirsty orcs.
Not one shred of evidence has been produced that there was pot at the residence.
What next? Will it be acceptable for cops to shoot children they find at a residence when they conduct a “pot bust”? How about the elderly? Pregnant women?
By the way, bear in mind that several of the Founding Fathers grew hemp on their property. Would modern day cops have been justified to slaughter dogs and slaves they found on the plantation simply because it is known that Washington (and others) grew the plant?
I found the link you referenced:
“It just shows the danger of combining government bureaucrats and guns. “
—StinkCat_14
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=721884
This quote sums up the problem rather nicely. :-D
Somebody might set that up eventually. I’ve been thinking of building something near the front door to help protect us and to teach some people a lesson.
We need to protect the innocent in all ways possible.
Your statement goes against everything I have learned in my life about what is right and wrong.
We dont know all the facts but your tacit approval of cops murdering dogs is much more horrendous to me then someone growing a dam weed.
Not to mention that Michigan has MM laws that allow the subjects of the State to grow pot for personel use.
“We dont know all the facts but your tacit approval of cops murdering dogs “
First of all, I don’t think you can’t “murder” dogs. I do think you can kill them.
Secondly, I don’t approve of dogs being killed for no reason.
I am just pointing out that it seems the dog owner deliberately put them in harm’s way, so I don’t feel too sorry for him.
“Not one shred of evidence has been produced that there was pot at the residence.”
I don’t know about that. Of course I don’t support an illegitimate raid. The story does not give that info.
I am making the larger point that an dog owner should not be surprised something bad happens to his dogs if he deliberately endangers them. Walk him along the railroad tracks, and then get surprised they get hit.
“Are you suggesting that it is acceptable for police to shoot house dogs just because they claim to be engaged in a “pot bust”?”
No, I am suggesting dog owners shouldn’t deliberately endanger their animals.
“Where is tht apparent? At this point, it’s admitted that there is no evidence of his guilt presented. It’s like a Pavlovian reaction to the word ‘pot’ appearing in the title. “
The only place it’s apparent is in the title - pot “bust” - which leads me to believe he was arrested, which leads me to believe there was enough evidence to sustain an arrest - of course I don’t know for a fact, as the story is none too helpful in that area.
My response in not pavlovian. I just notice the cops getting very viciously characterized and no one seems to care that the owner had so little (apparent) concern for his dogs’ safety. He bears responsibility for that.
“By that logic my poodle, Staffordshire, and Tabby are fair game because I enjoy their company and/or might be cultivating radishes...or just “because”.”
No, because having company or cultivating radishes is not illegal and is not subject to police raids.
You may not like it, but growing pot is illegal, and if you do it, why keep your animals around, subject to a drug raid? Go it alone.
If you are growing radishes, I wouldn’t say you are deliberately making your pet (or child) live the “thug life” with all of its hazards.
Suppose you took your dog with you to rob banks. Should I feel sorry for you when your dog gets shot? I’ll feel sorry for the dog.
“What pot growing operation?”
It says it was a pot “bust,” so I assume he was arrested for something, probably the pot growing. But I do have to infer that, because the article seems to be written just to make us hate police and love drug dealers.
This man may be innocent, I don’t know. His dogs presumably were. But the article is stupid, and IF a man keeps his dogs around at his pot growing operation, he should not be surprised if they get hurt or killed. If not by the cops, then by fellow growers/dealers. It’s real out there.
On what basis does it seem to you that the dog's owner deliberately put them in harm's way?
Seriously. What is the thought process that goes on in your head that produces that conclusion based on the evidnce presented in this article? I want to understand how that works, because right now it's seems to violate every tenet of critical thinking that would apply, along with the basic principle of presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence of guilt.
At this point it appears that the mere appearance of the word "pot" is sufficient to elicit an assumption of guilt, and a conclusion that the dog's owner brought this all on himself.
“On what basis does it seem to you that the dog’s owner deliberately put them in harm’s way? “
He kept dogs at his pot growing operation.
I pick that up from the word “bust,” in the very poorly written article. I could be wrong. But my general statement, that pot growers should not be surprised if their dogs get hurt or killed, is not wrong. He endangered his dogs. That was a bad thing to do.
On what evidence do you submit that there was a "pot growing operation"?
The word "pot" appears in the title, but nowhere else in the article, and there is no mention of a "growing operation" anywhere in evidence.
What is the thought process that results in making statements of fact without any apparent evidence to back them up?
On what evidence do you submit that there was a "pot growing operation"?
The word "pot" appears in the title, but nowhere else in the article, and there is no mention of a "growing operation" anywhere in evidence.
What is the thought process that results in making statements of fact without any apparent evidence to back them up?
“On what evidence do you submit that there was a “pot growing operation”? “
The title says “bust,” that is all I have to go on.
You've been well programmed. When you read about a SWAT raid that mention guns, do you start talking about the machine shop in the garage where they were manufacturing machine guns?
if they would have used swat exactly how they sold the idea to the public this kind of crap wouldn’t happen. instead they use paramilitary force to terrorize citizens, not go after known, hardened drug houses and gang headquarters (yes often the same places) which was the original reasons for swat. but they don’t.
I have long maintained that nowadays most cops are selected for hiring on the basis on their level of high aggressiveness and that largely accounts for the problems we see in this and other areas.
let me get this correct.
you are okay with cops chasing down fleeing dogs, trying to get away from them, and pumping multiple shots into them until they are dead?
what is stupid is any citizen assuming cops can use any speck of judgment and restraint not to give themselves an excuse to unload rounds into a person’s animals when they have no reason to.
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.