LA deputies shoot and kill unarmed man and police dog

Associated Press ^ | 08-25-03

[Rifleman]

I think we need some cops who understand the difference between "protect and serve" and "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".

The bunch in this story seems not to be clear on this.

[KCmark]

If a citizen kills a police dog, they are charged like they killed a cop. Will these morons be charged?

[RobRoy]

>>You would be if you killed the dog.<<

Not if it was self defence. You can even kill a "gone wild" human cop in self defence.

'Course, supporting it against an army of lying cops is another story.

[Gunslingr3]

Not so with a human being, made in the image of God.

That was the target, a man made in the image of God, who favored government verboten plants.

[mhking]

Quick! Shoot through the dog!

Just damn.

If you want on the new list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[RobRoy]

Well, there is that...

[LibWhacker]

That's what I'm thinking . . . Poor animal probably jumped into the line of fire. Too early to pass judgement, but I'm sure the cops wouldn't deliberately shoot their own dog. You'd have to be a real a**hole to do something like that.

[Badray]

" Why the &*%$ did they shoot THE DOG?"

It's the Janet Reno school of law enforcement. Kill the dog (or child) so that it cannot be abused. Then kill the alleged abuser, any witnesses, and then destroy the evidence by burning the house (or compound if religion is involved). Oops, no fire? I guess they missed that part of the class.

[1rudeboy]

There the small problem that the situations you describe are completely different.

[KCmark]

How? If the perp would have killed the dog in THIS situation, he would have been charged w/felony. The JBTs in THIS situation did shoot the dog. For fairness, they should be charged w/killing a fellow officer.

[LibWhacker]

Slap a dog with a sandal and die--- this is not America.

I'm thinking the cops are going to say it looked like he had a gun. He claimed he had a gun. He raised it . . . Was it to shoot at them or slap the dog? Split second decision . . . They could be justified in opening fire.

[RobRoy]

>>How would it be self defense? The dog isn't trained to kill, but to neutralize.<<

Yes, but as the victim, I am not trained to know the difference. In other words, if a dog goes for my arm, I attempt to break it's neck. We'll sort out the dogs intentions later.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I see what you are saying, however do you know what the penalty is for killing a K-9?

[1rudeboy]

Well, that would boil-down to whether the cops that shot their dog were engaged in the performance of their legally-recognized duties.

Conversely, there are not many situations where a citizen shooting a police-dog is permissible.

[RobRoy]

I agree.

[RobRoy]

I believe they come close to equating it with killing a human officer, but I'm not sure. Still, if you can successfully defend a "self defence" plea, the point is moot.

[Jim Cane]

The dog isn't trained to kill, but to neutralize.

With sharp, artery tearing teeth. "Nuetralize" - interesting word.

[1L]

If a dog is between you and the perp, it is the moral equivalent of a houseplant if you shoot "through" it.

It's your IQ that's the equivilent of a house plant. There's no reason to "shoot through" a dog. If the dog is close enough to the perp that your gunfire would hit the dog, you need to wait and let the dog do its job first. Fire only when necessary (there's no reason YOU can't move back) and only after the dog has failed. Otherwise, there is no reason to use the dog in the first place. While I'm sure there have been innocent friendly fire incidents that have wounded and killed police dogs, I would hope that te officers responding -- K-9 or otherwise -- would treat the dog as a fellow officer at best, and a tool at worst, but something much more deserving than getting killed for expediancy.

I believe this is by far the stupidest comment I've ever read on FR, and I've been here quite a while.