Posted on 01/08/2003 11:35:54 PM PST by JohnHuang2
From the time the dog left the car until the shot was THREE SECONDS.
It was less than THREE MINUTES from the time the car was pulled over until the dog was shot.
BTW, I went to the Channel 5 news website and didn't see any "latest report" about the dog being part Pitbull. Could you provide a link or title of the article you read?
So if someone sees a lot of cash flying out of or off of a car, they shouldn't call the police? Or if the police get such a report, they should ignore it?
I don't know the area. Here we have a lot of meth labs. But other places it could be a nice guy who left his wallet on the roof and Andy Griffin would pull him over to hand it back to him, while Barney picked up all the stray bills for him.
Can't believe I let that go by unchallenged. I'm slipping in my old age!
Look, I was a kid, I got bit by a dog, and that was that.
Maybe it was different where you grew up, but in my neighborhood kids had fights, bloodied noses, fell out of trees and broke bones, and got bit by dogs.
The parents knew those were the risks of growing up and being a kid.
No one tried to blame others for their own kid's stupidity and nobody gave a psychobabbling thought about questions of whether we "deserved" it or not.
No, that isn't my evidence that Hall was going after the dog. Is Hall's "backing up when he shot the dog" your only evidence that he wasn't going after the dog?
No wonder you refuse to admit he was backing up when he shot the dog. That would ruin your case.
Would it? You mean, of course, my saying that Hall moved forward from his covering position to shoot the dog intentionally?
Tell ya' what. You tell me where Hall was at 17:20:38. Find him. Where was he at that time?
Hall's a liar, but it isn't my job to prove it. Tell ya' something else. That lying lunatic almost blew Smoak's head off too after he'd finished with the dog's.
It's clear on the tape that he turns to cover the Smoaks again but doesn't advance (like you claim he did with the dog). In fact he stands perfectly still, and doesn't move an inch for the rest of the tape. Had he shot at Mr. Smoak from his position he would have also hit both the of the cops holding Smoak. So, no, he didn't "almost blow Smoak's head off too".
Hall's back is to the camera after he shoots the dog and Smoak is yelling "Ya'll shot my dog, why'd you shoot my dog?" We hear the voice of the TV female person .
Hall is most definitely moving sideways toward Mr. Smoak. My details are accurate. It's probably your failure to understand the clip isn't linear...if you watch it again, you should see exactly what I've described. I've done all I can do here. If you watch this clip as said, and focus on Hall as described, you will see I am right. If you still can't see it, you're blind and I can't help you.
sue Sue Sue SUE SSSSSUUUUUUUEEEEE!!!!!
That's Funny!
The police need to be de-militarized and a workable procedure for dealing with animal occupants of stopped vehicles should be created. The officer in question should apologize, and the family should be modestly compensated (by settlement). As for me, I'm going to restrain my dogs while transporting them from now on.
Part II Of Exclusive Interview With Cookeville Police Officer Eric Hall "Moments later one of the dogs, a boxer/bull terrier mix named Patton, jumped from the car."
Part II Of Exclusive Interview With Cookeville Police Officer Eric Hall "Moments later one of the dogs, a boxer/bull terrier mix named Patton, jumped from the car."
That is a quote from Hall, hardly unbiased in this. He is spinning the story to make you believe the dog was something it wasn't. What if he said "Moments later one of the dogs, a Godzilla/Rodan mix named Patton, jumped from the car"? It still would not change Patton into a Godzilla/Rodan mix, just as him saying "boxer/bull terrrier mix" does not change Patton into a boxer/bull terrier.
Actually, it is a statement witten by a reporter, i.e., no quotes around it and no reference made to Hall or any other source. It is also spoke by a reporter in one of the video segments on the newschannel5 website, not as a quote of Hall, but as a fact. Maybe its wrong, I don't know, but other reporters write stories stating that the dog was a "1 1/2-year-old pit bull-boxer mix":
"I don't ever want to see this happen to anybody else. That's why we can't let this go away," said James Smoak, who owned the 1 1/2-year-old pit bull-boxer mix named Patton." Police shoot vacationing family's dog by mistake By JOHN GEROME, Associated Press Writer
'The governor said he was "disappointed" and "outraged" that the 1 1/2-year-old pit bull-boxer mix was killed as the Smoaks returned from a Nashville vacation to Saluda, N.C.' Tenn. governor apologizes to N.C. family over shooting of dog By COLIN FLY Associated Press Writer.
"Our animal control officers haven't had to shoot a dog in the past 10 years. The training is going to be a really positive, wonderful thing."
Doesn't the juxtaposition of the above two statements beg the question: Is police training regarding shooting people equally defective? If animal control officers had ZERO situations where deadly force was required against a dog, one wonders if a similar goal regardin police chases, etc. would reduce -perhaps eliminate - fatalities.
My response -> (click me)
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.