And how do they respond to being scared? How do they respond in situations where they are trapped and their fight or flight instinct is engaged? Because all this bird egg stuff is sweet and is evidence of how gentle the dog can be, but it is not applicable to a situation that could be defined as scary to the dog.
Generally? They hide under a table/bed/porch. They are the WORST guard dogs possible, perhaps with the exception of some of teacup breeds, save that it is temperament, and not size.
How exactly, again, did the cop scare the dog that much? Did he start taking pot shots at it? There is almost no animal in the world, let alone a dog, that when scared will turn and fight if it has another option. Even african predators will retreat, or hold their ground and display. Dogs are no different. If the cop cornered the dog, then he is at fault and should have backed the fuck off rather than shoot. Your argument is self-defeating.
Sure, allow me to offer an example. You have a dog with sharp teeth and the officers articulation of his/her observations. The best human equivalent I can come up with is a person with a knife. If a police officer shoots a person with a knife and the officers articulation can be summarized into "The person with a knife advanced on me in a threatening manner" and the ballistics confirm that the subject was shot facing the officer then that shooting with be ruled justified.
In this case, you can derive motive. The person with the knife has a reason to be advancing toward the cop in a threatening manner, they generally articulate their intention to injure the police officer, and the knife is generally in the person's hand or close by. There is evidence that backs up the officer's claim.
Now, take the opposite. A cop (not this one, but for the sake of argument) is a sadistic prick/has a really bad week and shoots a dog for no reason. You will defend that officer apparently against rather significant opposition based only on his word, a mountain full of unjustified assumptions that run counter to the known behavior of the dogs breed and the individual dog... and you will do so purely on the say so of that officer.
It won't matter that the subject spends his free time reading to sick children, donates all his free money, and is described as the "nicest person you'd ever meet".
No. It wont. And generally the cop would only be confronted with such an individual if said person was suspected of a crime/had gone dangerously insane/had already been dangerously insane.
The dog is not dangerously insane, the dog was not suspected of a crime giving the officer a reason to actually confront the dog, and the chances of the dog going insane are very very low.
That's just an example, AD. I'm saying that you're examples of its behavior in one situation does not mean that is how it will react in another completely different situation. You're jumping to conclusions to justify your position in this thread.
When the correlation between 1 set of behavior in one circumstance and its behavior in another is very very strong, we call that correlation a behavioral syndrome.
Why? Because the same physiological pathways that lead to a dog being just fine with kids, lead to them not being aggressive or defenses in other sets of conditions. Same cause, high correlation. So yes, the behavior in one set of conditions DOES mean that they will behave similarly in others.
Take a look at a lab. You notice those floppy ears, big eyes... puppy features? Same fucking cause.
but when you say "The officer was wrong!" you're making a leap in logic and you've been trying to justify it with scenarios of this particular dogs behavior in completely different situations.
When the two behaviors have the same physiological cause, it is not a leap. That said, I am not and have not said that the cop was certainly in the wrong. Only that the probability was amazingly small that he was not.
You on the other hand have relied on suppositions that are counter-indicated by all available evidence in your desperate attempt to defend another cop. Admirable, but in this case misguided.
Define this additional evidence using the same parameters.
Some kind of witness, the dog having a history of freak aggressive incidents. Anything that would give a rational person the reasonable expectation that perhaps the dog was aggressive. In this case, we have the say so of a cop that under a likely scenario has incentive to lie.
You said "in this situation without a witness or camera, yeah." Then you offered your explanation of how it went down. So, yes. Again, such a requirement EVEN in this situation is unprecedented in US law.
Do we typically allow people accused of murder to claim self defense with no additional evidence?
You do not have to wait for your own blood to be drawn before you act.
No, you dont. You do however have to have the reasonable expectation that you will be harmed, and affirmative defenses like that require evidence. In this case, the officer's word and the dog's past behavior are all we have. Expectation of harm=not reasonable. Were a witness to come forward that would change.
I never said blood drawn=ability to act either. I said it would, in the absence of a witness, satisfy the burden of proof on the officer. It is the only thing that really can. In any self defense case the defense must show that the killer had a reasonable expectation that they would be harmed. That is just not here.
You're basically making it so the cop in this situation would be unable to prove that he is justified.
No. I am not doing that. Logic and evidence do that for me. You are a cop. If you have a suspect who is suspected of a crime for a reasonable reason and when confronted with the evidence available has nothing to say but "Trust me, I am an X" would you simply take his word for it?
How beyond his own articulation is the street cop of the present suppose to satisfy you?
Freak incidents like that are unfortunate. I do believe it is why police have partners, cameras, etc.
Since when did the accused say so become evidence?
No, I'm relying on the officers observations.
Which could more easily given all the other evidence be a lie to cover up the shame of a tragic mistake.
If you have ZERO evidence how this particular dog would react in this situation in which the shooting occurred.
When the physiology by which aggressive behavior is controlled is the same, yes, I do, and it is.
I can for example predict with a high degree of accuracy how many animals will react in one situation given its behavior in other, often far more disparate situations provided the mechanisms are the same. You can do the same with people. A person who is aggressive or friendly in one stressful situation is highly likely to aggressive or friendly in another stressful situation. Frankly being poked, prodded and jumped on by three year olds is MORE stressful than a guy calmly entering your yard.
Commander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)
