Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: nickcarraway

The discharge of an officer’s firearm is supposed to meet a very specific standard, that of an officer facing a threat of deadly force.

It does not have a standard of ‘the officer felt uncomfortable’ or ‘felt threatened.’ Even police dogs, when deployed against suspects, are considered ‘less than deadly force.’ These dogs are specifically trained to attack, defend themselves, and detain a suspect. They are trained how to bite, and how to hold on. If they are not considered deadly force, how in any form or fashion can any officer claim justification for shooting any dog?


7 posted on 01/18/2014 11:17:50 AM PST by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: kingu

Police officer should have to show actual bite marks. Otherwise, they should be fired for this kind of thing.


9 posted on 01/18/2014 11:18:56 AM PST by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: kingu
It does not have a standard of ‘the officer felt uncomfortable’ or ‘felt threatened.’ Even police dogs, when deployed against suspects, are considered ‘less than deadly force.’ These dogs are specifically trained to attack, defend themselves, and detain a suspect. They are trained how to bite, and how to hold on. If they are not considered deadly force, how in any form or fashion can any officer claim justification for shooting any dog?

Different rules for different people.

11 posted on 01/18/2014 11:22:21 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: kingu

The discharge of an officer’s firearm is supposed to meet a very specific standard, that of an officer facing a threat of deadly force.

It does not have a standard of ‘the officer felt uncomfortable’ or ‘felt threatened.’ Even police dogs, when deployed against suspects, are considered ‘less than deadly force.’ These dogs are specifically trained to attack, defend themselves, and detain a suspect. They are trained how to bite, and how to hold on. If they are not considered deadly force, how in any form or fashion can any officer claim justification for shooting any dog?
___________________________________________________

POlice dogs don’t have the kill rate that pits have. Police dogs are trained to detain whereas pits go into a blood frenzy and refuse to release when ordered to, when beaten, when doused in water or hit with sticks. There is a huge difference. Pits don’t have the social agreement that other dogs have to act in a domesticated manner. An unsecured rottie running up to someone is also quite a threat because while pits kill more people than all other breeds combined, rotties are the second most likely to kill a human.


15 posted on 01/18/2014 11:30:24 AM PST by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: kingu
“Even police dogs, when deployed against suspects, are considered ‘less than deadly force.”,P.

So is mace and pepper spray but try using them on a cop and see how many times he shoots you. Your analogy does not hold up when rational thought is applied. As a long time dog handler I have used a dog (less than deadly force) to distract and detain someone so I can deploy deadly force.

Cops have a right to go home every night whole and undamaged. All cops do not make good decisions in every situation, that is true. Another absolute truth is that they are not going to just do nothing and let their ability to defend themselves be compromised when responding to a a violent or unknown situation.

Last night just down the road from us there was an attack by two loose pit bulls on a calf. The livestock owner saw the attack, attempted to stop it but was unable to, went back into their house to retrieve a firearm but the pit bulls left before they could get back out to where the calf was. This all happened in about one minute. I would post the pictures but they are very graphic and gruesome but the are on face book. The pit bulls ripped off both ears, half of the calf's face and nose and large chunks of mussel from it's body. The calf had to be destroyed because of this pit bull attack.

As soon as they find the pit bulls who savagely attacked this calf they will be detained by animal control and put down unless the owner can convince a judge to decide otherwise. The owners of these dogs will be held libel for the cost of the calf and will face very expensive fines. I will predict here and now, and for the hundredth time, that this will happen again. There will be more attacks on animals and people by pit bulls at a rate that greatly exceeds that of any other dog breed. Anyone want to bet???

38 posted on 01/18/2014 2:02:25 PM PST by oldenuff2no ("For which she should be charged with and face a jury. Not summarily executed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson