Posted on 12/24/2008 5:57:06 PM PST by elkfersupper
Who is reporting the story has EVERYTHING to do with whether the facts are straight or not.
The story is more slanted than dan rather’s national guard memo story, but you’re too stupid to see that.
IF this story had any true validity to it, then why didn’t the rest of the local media pick up on it hmmm?
You have based your reasoning on the claims of the so called victim, and a “news” paper that makes the North Korea state news agencies look fair and balanced.
The victim is the one that claimed that the cops went to the back door.
The victim is the one who claimed that the cops left the gate unsecure.
The victim is the one who claimed that he told the ACO to keep his dog alive.
FYI the veternarian on duty at the shelter is the one who decides if the animal can be saved or not.
You do not know what the condition of the dog was when it arrived at the shelter, yet you side with the “victim” based on his emotional pleas of “save my dog”. What was the dog’s quality of life going to be even if they were able to save it?
The police were fully within their right to defend themselves against a dog charging at them, but I guess you’d rather wait for the officer to get mauled before they shoot the dog because you think that everyone who carries a badge is evil and deserves to get ripped to shreds.
All of which make you calling me “too stupid” just that much more amusing. How does it feel to make an ass of yourself in public and beyond any doubt whatsoever?
My reasoning is based on the fact that the police did not, and could not, charge him with anything that merited the havoc they reeked in his life.
Furthermore, YOUR reasoning is based on the very opposite of the “presumption of innocence.” It is not his burden to prove the police shouldn't have intruded into his life, but theirs to prove they should have.
What's more, it is not the decision of the ACO nor the vet to euthanize the guy's dog without his written consent or a judge's order!
You are right about one thing though...I do beleive that everyone who carries a badge is evil and deserves to get ripped to shreds...if that badge doesn't go with a uniform whenever they act in their official capacity.
I wonder how far down the thread I’ll need to read before I come to the fellating freepers who claim LEO’s can do no wrong.
I hope ya use a lot of mouthwash.
But, that's just me. He acted in a threatening manner. He would have deserved to die.
Ms Munoz, if you're going to work in LE, you seriously need to taked a course in COnstitutional law.
Life in prison. That will stop the drug warriors from murdering pets for sure.
Nowhere as amusing as YOU flinging around the insults and acting all innocent about it.
“the police shouldn't have intruded into his life”
They were INVESTIGATING A COMPLAINT. Do I need to put it in coloring book format for you to understand that?
“it is not the decision of the ACO nor the vet to euthanize the guy's dog without his written consent or a judge's order!”
It depends on what the law states, and I never said it was an ACO’s decision. A vet is the one who makes the determination if the dog can be saved or not.
If the dog was too weak to be given anesthesia for the operation it would have died anyways. Once again, a vet, NOT a judge is the one to make that determination.
But hey, let's go prolong the dog's suffering while the vet chases down a judge or the owner to get a permission slip to do his job. It's bad enough that shelters and the vets who work at the shelters are overburdened as it is so let's add more bureaucratic red tape to mess with their job.
Did the police have a lawful purpose for being there? Yes, someone reported a chemical smell and they KNOCKED on the doors of the home to speak to the owner about the smell.
Did the officer act reasonably? If he/she had a reasonable belief, based on his/her training and experience, that the dog was attacking or about to attack him/her, and that attack constituted a serious threat to his/her safety, then YES the officer acted reasonably and the shooting of the dog is sad but legal.
Whether cops should be fighting a drug war or wearing plain clothes or giving out parking tickets or doing any of the other things cops do, is a political debate.
What this shooting is now, is a legal debate. And there is no doubt that the cop who shot the dog, based on even the story put forth by a anti-cop paper, was acting based on a reasonable fear of imminent danger to his/her safety.
So you see, in that respect, I am indeed, innocent.
“Investigating a complaint” my a$$! It doesn't take five armed narcs to investigate a “smell!” Try getting even one uniform out to your house for a prowler, then tell me they weren't looking for an excuse.
It's no wonder you feel qualified to give coloring book guidance. Your level of naivete would make a sit-com seem Byzantine.
Furthermore, I can't imagine the level of discomfort you must feel when reaching so far up your poop chute to pull out excuses for the guys that came out of this encounter, unharmed. I am unaware of ANY state that permits the destruction of an injured pet without written consent of the owner WHEN THAT OWNER'S WHEREABOUTS ARE KNOWN!
How is it you can't seem to get it through your head it is NOT the vet's "job" to make decisions for the pet owner? All your prattle about overcrowded shelters and over worked vets doesn't mean squat, because this was a PRIVATELY OWNED PET, not an injured stray.
You must REALLY like the taste of shoe polish.
We need to legalize drugs and end the corruption of our Constitutional rights.
IMHO any law that must be enforced by meddling in our right to privacy is unconstitutional.
The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses... This little coterie...run our government for their own selfish ends. It operates under cover of a self-created screen...seizes...our executive officers...legislative bodies...schools... courts...newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.” - N.Y. Mayor, John Hylan.
I disagree with your contention the shooting is a legal debate, Ern. “Sad” is not a sufficient response to policies and procedures that result in this kind of result with this kind of suspect.
Frankly, I think the “smell complaint” was more based in their “experience and training” than the response.
YAWN.
More childish insults from an anoyomous troll.
Let me know when you finally get a clue.
I would never do that, but somebody might.
“Count me as one of those who thinks that the cops should just all hang out at the cop shop until somebody asks them to show up for some reason.”
So that means not doing patrols?
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.