Cop took just 3 seconds to shoot dog

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, January 9, 2003

[eno_]

If Whitcomb's story is accurate, why is the sniper who pulled the trigger considered the one at fault rather than those who designed the HRT response and gave the orders?

Two part answer: a) Obviously the responsibility goes all the way up the chain of command. b) The journey up that chain begins with Lon Horiouchi: Horiouchi would have to say "I may have been given illegal orders" and then it would be time to look at who gave the orders.

[SerpentDove]

>>- If Whitcomb's story is accurate, why is the sniper who pulled the trigger considered the one at fault rather than those who designed the HRT response and gave the orders? Seems that more than anything
this was a massive failure, if not deliberate crime, on the part of leadership.<<

Are you familiar with the Nuremburg trials? "I wass just following orderrsss" is no defense.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...hey, I've only read Point of Impact about 15 times...:)

"Mr Vincent, that bullet is not to be inserted in-" :)

[Wordsmith]

Thanks! I agree, "just following orders" is not necessarily a valid excuse. But, from Whitcomb's account at least, the snipers weren't given enough information to make that call. They were told, in essence, "officer down attempting to serve a legimate warrant, suspects armed and dangerous". The decision to shoot first, while near the extreme end of the list of valid responses, didn't necessarily seem to Horiuchi (he was the shooter, correct?) to be entirely off the reservation based on the limited information the HRT response team was given. This is why I'd like to read up on it some more. I wasn't following the news back in '94, and have only sketchy knowledge of the incident to go with my reading of Cold Zero.

[BibChr]

You, I'll answer.

If the cops had a description of a gigantic bald guy with a red beard as a dangerous felon on the loose, and they stopped me at gunpoint, questioned me, discovered their mistake, and released me, I'd have a story to tell. And no complaints.

If I had a dog that attacked one of them "growling" and so forth, and he shot it, I'd also have no complaints.

You're my FRiend; you asked, I answered.

So if this unleashes a fresh flood of clueless, don't-ask-me-to-take-off-the-tinfoil-and-think abuse on me, you answer it. I'll also forward you the FRemail abuse.

Dan
(c;

[rwfromkansas]

The officer should be arrested and charged with murder.

Even in the scenerio he is trying to lie and pass off as being the case, he could have shot him in the tail or something, not the head.

He is guilty of getting his jollies by offing a dog. He should be set to prison for the sick bastard he is.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..this was an enormous screw up by those cops, and now they are scrambling to do damage control. We should be thankful their ineptitude didn't kill a person....

Exactly.

Just by the way I don't think the shooting was an accident. My guess is that shooting arrestees' dogs when they are running loose at the scene is SOP for this outfit. What better way to intimidate the owner into immediate submission? I find it very pertinent that the boss cop is so arrogant as to expect us to disbelieve the evidence of our own eyes. He has the air of someone who's an expert in stonewalling with lies. What we should really be thinking about after viewing this video is the number of BATF raids on gun dealers homes, where someone in the family has been shot, and the agency head has then said 'we were only defending ourselves.' Hopefully all gun dealers and others under direct threat from police state agencies have installed those cheap mini cameras in their homes, thereby giving a chance to record cop brutality, in the same way it has been recorded with this dog shooting.

[rwfromkansas]

He shot the dog in the head and reacted wrongly. He could hvae shot the dog in a spot that would not have resulted in certain death. He deliberately killed the dog and should be held accountable in a court of law for the crime of murder.

[dirtboy]

If I had a dog that attacked one of them "growling" and so forth, and he shot it, I'd also have no complaints.

I think there are two issues on this level. First of all, the cops could have heeded the Smoaks, taken a second and simply closed the car door, and nothing would have gone awry and this story would never have happened. And second, I think the cop who shot the dog probably overreacted. What should come from this is better training of police to quit being full-blown hardasses in every instance, and think a bit more - with all three people in the car handcuffed, and the number of cops on the scene, they could have done a much better job here.

[Gargantua]

Dan, "Let your 'yes' be yes, and your 'no' be no." "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

The dog didn't attack a human. For you to state that he did is a lie. You should not lie, as God's Holy Word tells you not to.

Either do not lie, or change your login from that deceptive acronym for "biblical Christian." n'Kay?

[BibChr]

Not inconceivable.

But as I see the video (102), the dog looks to me (as I said) to be pretty much in the cop's lap when he shoots. Othrwise, check #140, if you haven't already.

Dan

[dcwusmc]

I winced myself.... and I wrote it... but it would be fitting, for sure!

[BibChr]

For you.

[dirtboy]

But as I see the video (102), the dog looks to me (as I said) to be pretty much in the cop's lap when he shoots. Othrwise, check #140, if you haven't already.

I checked the video. It was rather inconclusive - however, my impression is that the dog was not behaving in an agressive manner. I own a very protective malamute/shepherd mix, and if she thought I or my wife were being threatened, she would not amble out of the car, she would be going full-speed in a line for the person's throat. That dog seemed to be meandering around - not the mark of a dog wanting to attack someone.

[dirtboy]

Chill out. Dan said "if", and it's his opinion that the dog was threatening. I disagree - and the video is hardly conclusive. Best to let the investigators sort this one out.

[Stew Padasso]

"The problem is not the event, it's the trend"

This video is of the notorious Sheriff of Davidson County NC back in 96:

Right click and save: http://libertyteeth.com/Hegge.mpg

Not for the bandwidth impaired!

This county has had its share of problems and is also aprt of the story with the couple who lost their dog.

[Lurking Libertarian]

He deliberately killed the dog and should be held accountable in a court of law for the crime of murder.

I'm a dog-lover and a (small-l) libertarian, but don't you think you're the one overreacting a bit here? Last time I checked, the crime of murder required a human victim.

[Dan Day]

But as I see the video (102), the dog looks to me (as I said) to be pretty much in the cop's lap when he shoots.

Whoop-de-freaking-doo.

I've had countless dogs "pretty much in my lap". That's what friendly dogs do. Not once was I pansy-ass enough to think that having a dog approach me was a threat to my life which necessitated blowing the dog's head off "just in case".

There's absolutely no justification for your claim that the dog "attacked" the officer, and if you think mere proximity proves an "attack", you're as clueless as the loose-cannon cop -- and should be kept equally far from lethal weapons and positions of authority.

Jobs on the police department should be limited to those people who are bright enough to be able to tell the difference between a dog "attack" and an approaching dog -- and who would be able to deal even with an attacking dog in a more sane manner (the pepper spray that all officers carry works wonders on dogs).

Instead, the officer was clearly acting on a "woo baby, I get to kill somethin'!" level. Give him twenty years flipping hamburgers to think it over, where he can't hurt anybody if the makes another stupid judgement call.

[dirtboy]

I didn't realize that there was now capital punishment for killing a dog. You and several others on this thread need to chill a bit here. IMO this was a mistake by the cop, and probably in training and tactics as much as an individual mistake. No human life was lost here, and I imagine the Smoaks will get fair compensation for what they have been through. But all this over-the-top commentary isn't helping - instead, call for police departments to curtail the hardass attitude they instill in their cops.