Posted on 10/20/2012 10:49:07 PM PDT by Altariel
“You have also said repeatedly that he’s responsible for endangering his dogs by running a pot growing operation.”
No, I have asserted that anyone who deliberately puts their dogs in harm’s way bears some responsibility if they come to harm.
I do not feel sorry, for example, for a man who has his dog hit by a car if he lets him play in the street. Even if he alleges that some meanie sped up and hit him on purpose. Maybe the meanie did, maybe he didn’t. But you shouldn’t let your dog play in the street.
When asked how you determined that, you replied, at post #52:
He kept dogs at his pot growing operation.
What, in your mind, makes it OK to say that, then claim you never did?
“He kept dogs at his pot growing operation.
What, in your mind, makes it OK to say that, then claim you never did? “
My repeated, repetitive, numerous posts that point out that IF that was the case, then. . .
Allow me to quote Myself:
“My point stands whether the guy is guilty of not, and it is this: should you really have vulnerable people, or vulnerable animals, around, if you want to engage in illegal activity that is known for violent scenarios.” (post 19)
“I am just pointing out that it SEEMS (emph added) the dog owner deliberately put them in harm’s way, so I don’t feel too sorry for him.” (post 46)
” Of course I don’t support an illegitimate raid. The story does not give that info.” (post 47)
“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.” (post 49)
“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.” (post 51)
“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.” (post 53)
“The title says “bust,” that is all I have to go on.” (post 56)
“All of my comments have been based on the idea that he was busted because there was probable cause. The article is lousy, which is not anyone’s fault here on FR. Of course if he was just an average Joe home with his dogs, the cops are totally culpable. No one supports home invasion dog killing here.” (post 71)
“I am getting a little tired of repeating the fact that the only way we have reason to think there was a real pot growing crime going on is because of the “bust” in the title. I have said repeatedly, as we all I think acknowledge, that the article is terribly written.” (post 72)
“If I am INDEED (emph. added) growing pot, I must bear some of the responsibility of a minor or a pet of mine who gets hurt or killed in a drug raid or a drug war. I know perfectly well it is an environment which invites violence. I should not have vulnerable children or animals in that mix.” (post 73)
“There are three basic possible scenarios, here:
1. The guy is an innocent fellow minding his own business, the cops bust in and shoot his fleeing dogs. 100% cop’s fault.
2. The guy is a pot grower who keeps his dogs around to keep him safer from raids and rival dealers. The cops overzealously shoot his dogs when they shouldn’t. The owner and the cops bear responsibility, here.
3. The guy is a pot grower and the cops didn’t behave at all as alleged. The owner is now 100% responsible. He used his dogs to save his own criminal skin and I have no respect for that.” (post 74)
“o, good grief. Have you read any of my posts.
I keep saying IF. IF. IF.
If he is indeed a pot grower, I think he bears some responsibility!” (post 92)
“I am giving the OPINION that I think DOPE GROWERS should not FUSS if cops shoot their dogs. Because they endangered their dogs in the first place.
This man may have been framed. I have made it quite clear, repeatedly, that in that case he has my sympathy.” (post 93)
“It’s all inferred information due to a terribly written article. I’ve said so more times than I care to rehearse now.
The man could be guilty; or innocent.” (post 94)
“I know that warrants are only issued on probable cause. I know also that a handful of times a year, they are not done on the right person. Usually, though, they are.
I have said. . . repeatedly. . . that this man may be innocent, and if he is, he is nothing but a victim.) (post 97)
“No, I have not, I have said repeatedly the man may be innocent and is entitled to his day in court. I am aware that innocent people are sometimes raided, and sometimes arrested.” (post 99)
I am really at a loss to prove any further that I THINK THE MAN COULD BE INNOCENT BUT I DO NOT HAVE SYMPATHY FOR DOG OWNERS WHO PUT THEIR DOGS IN HARM’S WAY AND THEN CRY BECAUSE THEIR DOGS GET SHOT. I am not going to preface EVERY comment I make with “he may be innocent, he may be innocent, he may be innocent.” This is a conversation forum, and you can not have a conversation if you repeat everything over and over every time you make a comment.
If you can not understand the plain English of the above posts I can not help you.
Those started after you made the assertions that he was running a pot growing operation and was responsible for his dogs getting shot, and got callled on it. Had you started out saying that IF that was the case, there wouldn't be any disagreement.
Like I said: I can’t help you. If someone needs to continually reassert every proposition every time he makes a point in a conversation, no real conversation can take place.
You wouldn't have to do that if you'd actually think about whether what it is you're saying is supported by the evidence before you put it out there. You can't have a real conversation with somebody that just makes stuff up because they think it sounds good, either.
I didn’t make anything up. I expressed an opinion.
I think he kept dogs at a pot growing operation.
This is a statement of fact:
He kept dogs at his pot growing operation.
“This is a statement of fact:
He kept dogs at his pot growing operation. ‘
Standing alone, yes. In the context of the conversation, no.
Why not? By your own account it's a poorly written article, and it's entirely possible that you could have information about the events that's not included in the article.
” it’s entirely possible that you could have information about the events that’s not included in the article. “
No, that would be highly unlikely.
What does that have to do with it? You can second guess all you want. but the commission of a crime does not absolve another crime committed by someone else. What these police did is beyond criminal. There is a special place in hell for someone who would indiscriminately kill a dog in such a way.
I made the assumption that you might actually have some information to contribute.
It seems now that that was a mistake, and you don't want people making that assumption.
“Does this man have so little concern for his dogs that he keeps them around his pot growing operation?
What does that have to do with it?”
It’s my opinion that it does have something to do with it. See my previous posts. We shouldn’t endanger our dogs unnecessarily, should we? If we keep our dogs at a pot grow, is it reasonable to fuss if they get hurt or killed by a raid, or fellow dealers, or thieves? It goes with the territory.
I don’t mind endangering a dog for a noble purpose. Bomb sniffing dogs on the warfront come to mind. I happen to think it’s wrong to keep dogs around your drug lab or pot grow or similar. Maybe you think it’s a great idea, I don’t know.
I have a better idea. End the war on drugs and demilitarize the local PDs. Dogs and dog owners will be much safer.
“I have a better idea. End the war on drugs and demilitarize the local PDs. Dogs and dog owners will be much safer. “
Oh, that would be great! We could have people eating people’s faces off, babies born meth addicts, sane people going schizophrenic, turf wars, way more high drivers, kids with stoned parents, people willing to do anything for a fix. . .because if dope of all kinds was legal, no one would be desperate for a fix! The price would be low, and they’d be functioning fine, so they’d just wait for pay day and go buy their budgeted drugs! They wouldn’t burgle, or rob, or do anything like that for money. They’d stay employable and competent, and earn enough to pay for their dope after the rent, phone bill, and groceries are paid for.
of course, after they broke the law, we could book them then. You know, after their victims are dead, hurt, or robbed.
Because being high is not a crime! Only the crimes you do while high are a crime. So if someone is running after you naked (also legal!) with a butcher knife, you can arrest him THEN. Not when he smokes his PCP!
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.