Cops shoot dog, leave note

[Serafina]

No, the burden of proof is not on him. The burden of proof is on the positive claim that he shot the dog maliciously. You must prove this beyond a reasonable doubt before he can be required to make any affirmative defense, and citations of the dog's behavioral history are not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again - would you apply the same logic to a human being? If you do, you can shoot anyone when you have not witnesses and just claim that he was acting agressive towards you and therefore you acted in self-defense. Which is what the cop is doing here - sure, he might be right or have genuinely misjudged the situation, but we only have his claim for that right now.

Also, it's nice to see that you do not consider misjudgement worthy of investigation, because you only consider mailicious intent. That's bullshit, grievous misjudgements should carry penalties as well (tough not too harsh in this case, but still).

[SVPD]

I've covered this in the thread already. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The officer is stating he was defending himself from a dog he preceived as dangerous. He is innocent until proven guilty. Just as a person who shot another person be persumed innocent until proven guilty. The difference and an unfortunate disadvantage for dogs is that they are usually armed with sharp teeth which the best human equivalent would be knives.

If we would apply your standards to a case where a cop shot a human, it would be impossible to show that the cop was doing something wrong - you could write off everything as self-defense.

That is totally absurd. Human beings do not automatically come with knives and even if they did have a knife, they can be told to drop the knife and are capable of doing so.

We already know that the cop shot the dog. We also know that this dog was unlikely to be aggressive (not impossible, just unlikely).

No, we don't. We have AD trying to claim that the dog's behavior in completely dissimilar situations somehow dictates its behavior in this one. The dog's behavior on other occasions is not evidence any more than a woman's sexual history is evidence.

That's the evidence a prosecution would collect. Now they would look for evidence for self-defence - if none is to be found, then we can not assume it was self-defense.

No, we absolutely cannot. that is not how the legal system works.

What you want is proof of a negative - that the dog could not have been aggressive under any possible circumstances.

No one has asked for any such thing. In fact, neither KS, I, or anyone else cricticizing this leap to conclusions that the dog could not have been aggressive gives a shit about any circumstances other than the one that actually occured. In fact, KS cited exactly how you could prove the dog was not aggressive - demonstrate it was shot from the rear or side.

That's impossible to poove and you know it - you are just looking for something to justify your a-priori assumption that it was self-defense.

No, you are simply trying to strawman what people have said in order to create the impression the burden of proof is being shifted when no such thing has happened.

Now i don't believe that the cop just killed the dog just because he felt like it. I have said it earlier, others have said it as well: I think the cop mistook a peaceful dog for an agressive one and thus "defended himself". Depending on the exact circumstances, that's everything from a mistake anyone would make to one due to insufficient training. I am NOT accusing the cop of any conscious misdeed. I am NOT saying that he should have put the dogs life above his own once he thought to be attacked.
What i AM saying is that general police policies are apparently handling these situations wrongc and that those cops have apparently insufficient training with dogs.

Which, while more reasonable, is still based ont he same faulty idea that you can take the dog's behavior round children and assume it cannot be aggressive, or what-have-you.

Also, they handled the dog was dead pretty badly, which is my main grief with this situation. If you make a mistake, at least you can try to make amends for it - apparently, no one did that. That's not going to inspire any trust.

It has yet to be demonstrated that any mistake was made.

[SVPD]

No, the burden of proof is not on him. The burden of proof is on the positive claim that he shot the dog maliciously. You must prove this beyond a reasonable doubt before he can be required to make any affirmative defense, and citations of the dog's behavioral history are not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again - would you apply the same logic to a human being? If you do, you can shoot anyone when you have not witnesses and just claim that he was acting agressive towards you and therefore you acted in self-defense. Which is what the cop is doing here - sure, he might be right or have genuinely misjudged the situation, but we only have his claim for that right now.

Of course I would apply the same logic. That's the foundation of the idea of innocence until guilt is proven.

No, that does not mean you can shoot anyone because they acted aggressively. Humans are not dogs. Let me explain this AGAIN so that you can get it through your addled brain:
1) Human beings can be spoken to and reasoned with and can respond. Dogs cannot.
2) Humans do not have body parts that function as natural weapons that are as inherently dangerous or powerful as a dog's
3) Humans who do have weapons can drop them, as follow from 1 and 2.

Your argument utterly fails because it rests on ignoring the differences in capabilities for physical harm and for communication and comprehension between a dog and a person.

Also, it's nice to see that you do not consider misjudgement worthy of investigation, because you only consider mailicious intent. That's bullshit, grievous misjudgements should carry penalties as well (tough not too harsh in this case, but still).

I said no such thing. I said that no misjudgement has been demonstrated.

[Serafina]

Apparently, you do not get what proof you are asking for - which is what i am actually critizing.
You standards for proof here are absolutely laughable. Tell me: What would you accept as proof that the dog was not doing anything to threathen the cop?
You have the a-priori assumption that the cop was justified in shooting the dog and you have rejected any evidence to the contrary so far.

No, we absolutely cannot. that is not how the legal system works.

Really? Then tell me: If a cop shoots a human being, do you automatically assume that he acted in self-defense until evidence to the contrary turns up?

[SVPD]

Apparently, you do not get what proof you are asking for - which is what i am actually critizing.
You standards for proof here are absolutely laughable. Tell me: What would you accept as proof that the dog was not doing anything to threathen the cop?
You have the a-priori assumption that the cop was justified in shooting the dog and you have rejected any evidence to the contrary so far.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever to the contrary. You are simply assuming an a-priori assumption on my part, when in fact I am making no such assumption. I have pointed out, and so has KS that a bullet hit on the dog from an angle other than generally to the front would eb excellent evidence. The dog's behavior or general physical characteristics are not evidence any more than someone's sexual history is evidence.

No, we absolutely cannot. that is not how the legal system works.

Really? Then tell me: If a cop shoots a human being, do you automatically assume that he acted in self-defense until evidence to the contrary turns up?

I assume he acted in defense of self or others. In the absence of evidence to prove that he was acting in a manner other than to defend self or others beyond a reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter or felonious assault. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that he committed a crime, which precludes self defense.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No, the burden of proof is not on him. The burden of proof is on the positive claim that he shot the dog maliciously. You must prove this beyond a reasonable doubt before he can be required to make any affirmative defense, and citations of the dog's behavioral history are not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wait, so you mean that if someone claims self defense, emotional distress etc that the prosecution has to prove that it was NOT? What legal texts have you been reading? Once the guilt of shooting the dog is established then it goes affirmative. That is how the system works:


http://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/Beneman_Affir ... erials.pdf

A. What is an Affirmative Defense?
An affirmative defense is one which provides a defense without negating an essential
element of the crime charge. To establish an affirmative defense the defendant must place
before the jury sufficient proof to generate a jury instruction on the particular defense theory
sought. Normally, an affirmative defense is expressly designated as affirmative by statute,
or is a defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the
accused.

B. How is an Affirmative Defense different from a “Regular” Defense?
The presumption of innocence is legally all a defendant needs to be acquitted. The
defense is reasonably free to argue the Government has failed to prove any essential element
of the crime charge reasonable doubt (BRD) and jury may find a defendant not guilty. This
tact does not require the defense to produce any evidence. The judge must instruct the jury
on the government’s burden, presumption of innocence, unanimity and proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. A defendant is entitled to a theory of defense instruction “as long as it is legally
valid and there is sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, to permit
a reasonable juror to credit the defendant’s theory.” United States v. Josleyn, 99 F.3d 1182, 1194
(1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Meade, 110 F.3d 190, 201 (1st Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Reed, 991 F.2d
399, 400 (7th Cir. 1993).
An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, be
it testimonial or physical. The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of
Government witnesses or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief.
Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either
justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the
charge. A defendant must generate an affirmative defense instruction.

Think what you are asking. The positive claim here is not "the police officer shot the dog maliciously". If you could read, you will note that no one who is taken seriously has said that. We are claiming the negation: The dog was not acting aggressively. The positive claim is that it was. You cannot prove the negation save by the one asserting the positive failing to meet burden of proof.

Guess what you can do. You can fuck right the hell off, then go read a text in basic propositional logic.

Your argument is no different than claiming that a woman must have consented to sex because she has a history of sexual promiscuity.

I am not attacking the victim here in order to undermine the credibility of said victim. Your analogy is so false I ought not (but still will) dignify it with a response.

Determining whether or not a defendant has an established pattern of conduct which includes the offense in question is perfectly valid in our legal system. A person who is a well known rapist is of course more likely to commit rape again than someone who has never raped before.

I also love how you completely ignore the physiological argument.

The presence of affirmative defense does not in any way shift the prosecutions' burden to the defense.

It does if the elements of the crime are not contested.

Intent (to kill the dog): Check. Got this one.

Conduct: He killed the dog

Concurrence: Intent and Action occurred at the same time. Got this one.

Causation: The cop shooting his gun caused the dog to die.

All elements of the crime established and admitted by the police officer. The defense is affirmative.

More importantly, how it would be handled if it were a person is irrelevant. Animals are not entitled to all the legal protections people are, and regardless of how that may offend your personal sense of morality, we don't suddenly change the rules of the legal system to satisfy your emotional needs.

Maybe not. It does not however mean that we cannot use the legal system as an analogy by which to examine the police officer's actions. Moreover the lack of legal accountability does not remove the moral accountability that attaches itself.

It has yet to be demonstrated that any mistake was made.

The cop made the positive claim. An affirmative defense. In a case of personal negligence leading to someone's death (IE. Person X left the machine on, someone fell in, and died) then you might have a point. The prosecution would need to determine if Person X did in fact leave the machine on, while the defense only needs to say "No he did not". In other words, the prosecution must prove the positive.

In this case, the police officer is making a claim that someone/something else made a mistake (the dog was aggressive in this case) and he was attempting to mitigate that mistake via self defense. In this case, he is asserting the positive. In both basic logic, and the legal system the burden of proof is on him.

Which, while more reasonable, is still based ont he same faulty idea that you can take the dog's behavior round children and assume it cannot be aggressive, or what-have-you.

Listen you illiterate waste of oxygen. I did not spend 45 minutes checking on the physiology of aggression, behavioral syndromes etc and then post that massive thing proving your position incorrect--cockslapping you with my own area of intellectual specialty, just to have you ignore it. Go back. Read. Learn.

No one has asked for any such thing. In fact, neither KS, I, or anyone else cricticizing this leap to conclusions that the dog could not have been aggressive gives a shit about any circumstances other than the one that actually occured. In fact, KS cited exactly how you could prove the dog was not aggressive - demonstrate it was shot from the rear or side.

So, what if the dog was just looking at him? Are all dogs facing a police officer aggressive?

It is not our proposition that he walked up to the dog and shot it by surprise you nitwit. We will stipulate that it was at least facing in his direction. The issue is whether it was aggressive or not.

If the burden of proof for a police officer shooting someone incorrectly is "He was facing me", then we have some really serious fucking problems. With a person, you can derive intent from the presence of a knife or something. Dogs come pre-equipped and the existence of a weapon on themselves does not indicate intent to violence. Something I should have brought up before, but was too flabbergasted by the implication to mention.

No, we don't. We have AD trying to claim that the dog's behavior in completely dissimilar situations somehow dictates its behavior in this one. The dog's behavior on other occasions is not evidence any more than a woman's sexual history is evidence.

Are you a behavioral ecologist? I did not think so. There is a HUGE amount of literature on behavioral syndromes in animals. We are not talking about besmirching a rape victim.

That is totally absurd. Human beings do not automatically come with knives and even if they did have a knife, they can be told to drop the knife and are capable of doing so.

Your just defeated yourself. Dogs come pre-armed and cannot drop the knife. Therefore the presence of the metaphorical knife is not reason to shoot.

[Anguirus]

The burden of proof is on the positive claim that he shot the dog maliciously.

Who made this claim?

I've just slogged my way through 6 pages of this thread and the vast majority of it is focused on whether the cop reacted with excessive force or not, whether he was trained properly to deal with the situation, etc.

There's not anything that can be done about the dog, as apparently three bullets will quite thoroughly kill an arthritic golden retriever. The points that are of interest are about the institutional culture of police departments and whether it encourages or discourages the destruction of family pets, which I believe everyone in the thread has agreed is less than ideal.

Post hoc, we know that this dog ranked rather low on the scale of Threatening Dogs in the Continental U.S., due to the history of the animal, medical status of the animal, and the behavioral characteristics of the breed (convincingly summed up by Alyrium using no anecdotes whatsoever. The synonym of "data I don't like" is not "anecdotes" no matter how many pejoratives you toss into your post).

Therefore, if police are pouring bullets into dogs with a relatively low overall threat level while performing a routine investigation (false burglar alarm, suburban home, family dog barking at completely unknown cops entering the home), it is worth asking whether there are other ways the situation could have been handled.

The opposing side (to be general and inclusive) in this conversation has made two statements.
1: that such shootings are acceptably rare, thus strongly implying that given the utter bog-standardness of this situation that there IS a framework for dealing with dogs in the home being investigated (any and all of which are likely to be "threatening" given the circumstances) and it simply was not followed in this case.
2: that shooting a dog reacting to an apparent threat in its own home is absolutely proper due to the threat it represents to the officer. I.e. this was not an "accident," nothing "went wrong," and nobody is at fault for any carelessness or negligence whatsoever.

These two statements do not play well with each other. They are all but contradictory...it would be amazing, and of course unacceptable, for police not to have a set of procedures for investigating a home when a family is absent but their dog is present. If one did not exist, or did exist and was not followed, or did exist and actually promoted the use of gunfire in this situation, then the bereaved have a right to know why, not to mention an apology from the officer and quite possibly to compensation.

Assuming that ANY procedure to minimize bloodshed exists for entering a home with a family dog present, the only alternative to momentary carelessness on the part of the investigating officer is that this animal reacted with unusual speed and ferocity on the "Dogs in the Continental U.S." scale, compelling an immediate instigation of deadly force (three squeezes of the trigger). The case has been more than adequately made that this is extremely unlikely. This means that any dog of similar size (and quite a few that are smaller) that had been at that home was at a relatively high risk of eating ~3 bullets from this police officer. I find this to be insufficient preparation for entering a home. I would not be comfortable with this police officer entering my home.

One-in-a-million tragedies happen. However, knee-jerk protection of police officers by police officers happens a lot more often, and it is this that makes this situation (and thread) interesting. In large degree in the US, other police officers determine whether police officers have acted inappropriately. They are inevitably disinclined to do so. Therefore, we "civilians" (little people) will inevitably be skeptical of police officers when there is evidence of misuse of force. (Especially accompanied by a perfunctory letter, confiscation of the evidence, and concealed identities of the officers involved.)

You've got badges and guns. We hold you to a high standard. Sorry?

[Alphawolf55]

Seriously KS and SVPD, what evidence could be brought up against the officer if he did shoot the dog accidently or without justified reason? Don't say one or two things, give a real list.

[Sela]

Umm... maybe nobody noticed my ghetto-edit comment a few pages back . .. but there is reference not to officer (as on page1) but also to "officers" (p3 of this topic).

Assuming that means two or more, you've already got a pair of witnesses who will testify to the same thing.

[Alphawolf55]

Actually interesting that you mentionthat. In the first story, it's a single officer and he shot the dog when it "ran at him"

Now the story is that it was several officers and the dog advanced menacingly?


Edit: Actually additional info

http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-san-jos ... of-a-puppy

The family admits that the dog barked alot and was a bit protective but was basically harmless. This kind of reinforces my idea that most likely the dog ran up to the cop and started barking and the cop misinterpreted it. I like the police are willing to donate a puppy but it's kind of a moot point when it's donated by citizens rather then actually coming from the police themselves but at least the police themselves are admitting there are probably better ways they could've handled it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Actually interesting that you mentionthat. In the first story, it's a single officer and he shot the dog when it "ran at him"

Now the story is that it was several officers and the dog advanced menacingly?


Edit: Actually additional info

http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-san-jos ... of-a-puppy

The family admits that the dog barked alot and was a bit protective but was basically harmless. This kind of reinforces my idea that most likely the dog ran up to the cop and started barking and the cop misinterpreted it. I like the police are willing to donate a puppy but it's kind of a moot point when it's donated by citizens rather then actually coming from the police themselves but at least the police themselves are admitting there are probably better ways they could've handled it.

This response is of course perfectly acceptable.

[Alphawolf55]

One thing does bother me though, they admitted in a kind of secondhand way that they could do better .But they still said the dog came from the back door, and advanced menacingly snarling yet somehow the cop didn't have time to switch weapons? In fact the original story states that the officer backed up, was cornered by the dog and without anywhere left to back up to he had to shoot the dog, and yet he had no time to switch weapons?

http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-san-jos ... -by-police

[JCady]

One thing does bother me though, they admitted in a kind of secondhand way that they could do better .But they still said the dog came from the back door, and advanced menacingly snarling yet somehow the cop didn't have time to switch weapons? In fact the original story states that the officer backed up, was cornered by the dog and without anywhere left to back up to he had to shoot the dog, and yet he had no time to switch weapons?

http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-san-jos ... -by-police

Switch to what? Pepper spray and mace aren't effective against canines, a Taser is too short-range, and I wouldn't bet on a baton unless I was REALLY good with it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

One thing does bother me though, they admitted in a kind of secondhand way that they could do better .But they still said the dog came from the back door, and advanced menacingly snarling yet somehow the cop didn't have time to switch weapons? In fact the original story states that the officer backed up, was cornered by the dog and without anywhere left to back up to he had to shoot the dog, and yet he had no time to switch weapons?

http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-san-jos ... -by-police

Switch to what? Pepper spray and mace aren't effective against canines, a Taser is too short-range, and I wouldn't bet on a baton unless I was REALLY good with it.

Yeah. Against a charging dog you need something with a lot of stopping power. Either a gun, or a boar spear...

[Alphawolf55]

One thing does bother me though, they admitted in a kind of secondhand way that they could do better .But they still said the dog came from the back door, and advanced menacingly snarling yet somehow the cop didn't have time to switch weapons? In fact the original story states that the officer backed up, was cornered by the dog and without anywhere left to back up to he had to shoot the dog, and yet he had no time to switch weapons?

http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-san-jos ... -by-police

Switch to what? Pepper spray and mace aren't effective against canines, a Taser is too short-range, and I wouldn't bet on a baton unless I was REALLY good with it.

That's not what he said though. He didn't say "In a situation like this, the gun is the only reasonable weapon" he specifically acknowledged the use of another weapon and then claimed he didn't have time. My point is, his story seems to keep making small little changes that don't add up, it might be the police doing this or the individual news agencies, but they're noticable if you pay attention.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Except that in this case the cop is effectively the prosecution (and judge, jury and executioner, but I fully understand this is necessary in the line of duty), the cop is the one who shot the dog. This evidence is not in question. But the cop is also the one asserting that the dog was behaving in such a manner that shooting it was the only reasonable way out of the situation. His assertion, his responsibility to provide evidence for it.

Quite correct. The officer articulated his probable cause for a seizure of property under the fourth amendment. Specifically, stating the actions of the dog gave him probable cause that he was about to be attacked, and thus he acted upon that probable cause.

Since we have no other eyewitnesses, all we have to go on are the cop's word and the dog's history. The cop's word is that the dog was acting in a manner that was dangerous. The dog's history? It's old, debilitated, is certified and trusted around children (who are notorious for bringing out any aggressive side animals may have due to their innately inquisitive nature), has over a decade of experience dealing with strangers, and as far as we know, does not have a single instance of recorded aggressive/dangerous behaviour.

It seems that the history of the police officer doesn't matter. That's my problem with this whole thread. This officer is in a situation that can't be proven to your satisfaction because you've set standards that make it impossible for an officer to defend himself in this situation. I've asked over and over. What evidence do you think would exist if the officer account is completely accurate?

You've also decided that an individual officers articulation of his/her observations isn't enough to establish probable cause. Which, by the way, is in direct contradiction to the courts in this country.

These two accounts do not match. Since one side has over a decade of experience with this very dog, and the other has a total of, what, five seconds before he shot it? I'm going to go with the former's account based on available evidence.

How can you go with the former when they were not actually present during this incident. They're great character witnesses for the dog, but we've already covered that it isn't impossible for the dog to have actually become aggressive. It's been stated over and over that it appears to be unlikely. Well, who are you to say that the unlikely didn't happen? The officer says it happened. So, again how would an officer in this situation satisfy you with the standard equipment carried on the uniform of a police officer.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If that's true, and a cop gets no warning and no reprimands. Why when it's found that a cop has filed a false report is there not an automatic firing?? Like in that Maryland beating case, they had absolute proof right away that the cop at least lied a little bit, why not fire them right away instead of suspending them and continue investigating if it's such a no tolerance policy? I dont doubt that they specifically say don't lie, all jobs do and I don't deny that there are real punishments for being proven to lie about big things. But can you point to actual cops being kicked off the force automatically for small lies in a case?

I guess you'll have to define small lie since those don't make it to the news papers. I can give you quite a few stories that happened in my department, but I suspect that won't be enough for you. As for the Maryland beating case? I don't have all the information, but I believe they are just going through the motions and following their employee policy. Even if you have a slam duck you still need to go throug the steps.

Also I came to that conclusion because it's human nature to choose the easy way out. Without witnesses, it's practically impossible to prove that the dog wasn't dangerous, and it's pretty much shown that the police will trust the cops judgment and word. Most people when presented with the scenario of a lie that's almost impossible to be caught on, and telling the truth when it doesn't actually fix the situation in any real way (the dog can't be brought back). Will choose to lie and justify it to themselves.

You realize it is also not possible for the officer to prove that the dog was dangerous, right? Anyway, that doesn't mean he actually lied. If you're trying to prove that humans are capable of lying...I believe you.

Be honest, unless the cop made a total fuck up like shoot the dog from behind, what evidence could honestly be brought up against him in this case? Perhaps there is real evidence that could be brought against him in which case I apologize, but you haven't pointed to many kinds of evidene that could reasonably be brought up against the cop. You did bring up shooting it in the back, but that's not much.

LOL how much evidence do you think they'd be? That's my whole point. It goes both ways. This is one of those situations where you can't prove it either way. So, what do you do? Reprimand a cop that says he was defending himself? Basically, calling him a liar without evidence to do so?

Anyway, the other pieces of evidence would be being behind the fence, chained to tree or post.

[Alphawolf55]

So wait you admit there's no real way to prove whose telling the truth?

Also none of those things deal with the idea of cops making mistakes. All those are evidence of malicious behavior by the cop, but we're not arguing that, we're arguing that he misinterpreted the dog or acted too hastily. He made a claim that the dog was snarling and advancing on him, that he had no where to run while backing up, yet had no time to pull out a different weapon (I mean his conflicting stories seem to be one thing to be brought up against him). But without direct evidence, you then go to the next thing, circumstanial evidence. In this case the dogs prior behavior is perfectly fair game in judging the cop's claim.

I mean unless you allow that, you're basically admitting that as long as a cop shoots a dog facing him, regardless of the dogs history, he should always be believed.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Wait, so you mean that if someone claims self defense, emotional distress etc that the prosecution has to prove that it was NOT? What legal texts have you been reading? Once the guilt of shooting the dog is established then it goes affirmative. That is how the system works:

Yes, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt if that is what the defendant is stating. The officer articulated his reasoning and satisfied the affirmative defense.

As for your remarks about the texts SVPD reads let me assure you of one thing. We both have easily read quite a bit more than you have, and those include specific training and classroom time on the use of deadly force as a peace officer. So, climb off your high horse, Dog Whisper.

http://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/Beneman_Affir ... erials.pdf

HAHA. Did you even notice this part; "An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, be
it testimonial or physical. " Note the lack of an "and". I'm glad we can be done with this...

Think what you are asking. The positive claim here is not "the police officer shot the dog maliciously". If you could read, you will note that no one who is taken seriously has said that. We are claiming the negation: The dog was not acting aggressively. The positive claim is that it was. You cannot prove the negation save by the one asserting the positive failing to meet burden of proof.

If the dog wasn't acting aggressively, then you are asserting that the officer is lying. A positive claim. If the dog was not acting aggressively, and the officer was not lying. Then you are asserting that the officer was mistaken. Again, a positive claim.

Your argument is no different than claiming that a woman must have consented to sex because she has a history of sexual promiscuity.

I also love how you completely ignore the physiological argument.

You show me that you can prove without a doubt that the dog wasn't aggressive then your physiological argument will come into play and matter. However, it doesn't prove or disprove the alleged actions of the dog during this incident.

It does if the elements of the crime are not contested.

Intent (to kill the dog): Check. Got this one.

Conduct: He killed the dog

Concurrence: Intent and Action occurred at the same time. Got this one.

Causation: The cop shooting his gun caused the dog to die.

All elements of the crime established and admitted by the police officer. The defense is affirmative.

And satisfied by the testimony from the officer. Just like your link stated. Thus, the ball is the defense court.

Maybe not. It does not however mean that we cannot use the legal system as an analogy by which to examine the police officer's actions. Moreover the lack of legal accountability does not remove the moral accountability that attaches itself.

Which is why I brought up the example of a suspect with a weapon and the officer with no witnesses or other evidence. The news article would read something like "While checking the perimeter the man advanced on the officer in a threatening manner before being shot and killed". Now, barring any contradictory evidence on scene this officer would be cleared of wrong doing. Why should the shooting of a dog require a higher undefined standard?

The cop made the positive claim. An affirmative defense. In a case of personal negligence leading to someone's death (IE. Person X left the machine on, someone fell in, and died) then you might have a point. The prosecution would need to determine if Person X did in fact leave the machine on, while the defense only needs to say "No he did not". In other words, the prosecution must prove the positive.

In this case, the police officer is making a claim that someone/something else made a mistake (the dog was aggressive in this case) and he was attempting to mitigate that mistake via self defense. In this case, he is asserting the positive. In both basic logic, and the legal system the burden of proof is on him.

He satisfied that by giving his testimony which cited his observations that lead to his decision. Now, the defense must show that self defense was not necessary.

Listen you illiterate waste of oxygen. I did not spend 45 minutes checking on the physiology of aggression, behavioral syndromes etc and then post that massive thing proving your position incorrect--cockslapping you with my own area of intellectual specialty, just to have you ignore it. Go back. Read. Learn.

I'm afraid you did. Sorry. Again, if you can show that it would be impossible for this dog to have become aggressive then this will matter. All you've done is shown us that this dog is very friendly. You did not show us that this dog is incapable of aggressive...just that it is unlikely.

So, what if the dog was just looking at him? Are all dogs facing a police officer aggressive?

Way to let that point sail over your head.

It is not our proposition that he walked up to the dog and shot it by surprise you nitwit. We will stipulate that it was at least facing in his direction. The issue is whether it was aggressive or not.

If the burden of proof for a police officer shooting someone incorrectly is "He was facing me", then we have some really serious fucking problems. With a person, you can derive intent from the presence of a knife or something. Dogs come pre-equipped and the existence of a weapon on themselves does not indicate intent to violence. Something I should have brought up before, but was too flabbergasted by the implication to mention.

Was "he was facing me" the reasoning the officer gave? No, it wasn't. I don't even know why you're going off on this tangent. Someone asked for an example of evidence that could be used to prove that the dog was not aggressive in this situation and one was given.

Your just defeated yourself. Dogs come pre-armed and cannot drop the knife. Therefore the presence of the metaphorical knife is not reason to shoot.

[/quote]

No, and the presence of a knife in the hand of a human isn't reasoning to shoot either. That presence must be combined with an action that a reasonable person would interpret as threatening.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So wait you admit there's no real way to prove whose telling the truth?

Taking the story at face value. No. You have the character witnesses for the dog, but you also have them for the police officer. So, you're forced to pick your liar, or whatever.

Also none of those things deal with the idea of cops making mistakes. All those are evidence of malicious behavior by the cop, but we're not arguing that, we're arguing that he misinterpreted the dog or acted too hastily. He made a claim that the dog was snarling and advancing on him, that he had no where to run while backing up, yet had no time to pull out a different weapon (I mean his conflicting stories seem to be one thing to be brought up against him). But without direct evidence, you then go to the next thing, circumstanial evidence. In this case the dogs prior behavior is perfectly fair game in judging the cop's claim.

Dig up the real report. Not the articles from newspapers. Basically, you're quoting examples of hearsay.

If the dogs prior behavior is perfectly fair than so is the police officers.

I mean unless you allow that, you're basically admitting that as long as a cop shoots a dog facing him, regardless of the dogs history, he should always be believed.

If no other evidence on scene exists. Yeah, he should. That's the whole point of the beyond a reasonable doubt rule.

Replace the dog and cop with two men armed with knives. One dies. The other has no other evidence besides his word. The dead man has many character witnesses and is regarded as harmless by those character witnesses and non-violent. What do you do?

[Alphawolf55]

What character witness have we had for the officer? No one has come out and said "This is a man of integrity" or "This man would never shoot a dog if he didn't have to" or most importantly "This man has plently of experience with dogs, he knows when a dog is being violent and when it's just being a dog. He has worked with dogs for 10 years and has always shown the ability to recognize their behavior"

Also I think you're forgetting one thing, beyond a reasonable doubt only exist in a court room setting, not a place of employment. No one has talked about charging the guy in a court of law, they just want him to man up and admit his mistake and possibly take a class on dog behavior.

[SVPD]

No, the burden of proof is not on him. The burden of proof is on the positive claim that he shot the dog maliciously. You must prove this beyond a reasonable doubt before he can be required to make any affirmative defense, and citations of the dog's behavioral history are not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wait, so you mean that if someone claims self defense, emotional distress etc that the prosecution has to prove that it was NOT? What legal texts have you been reading? Once the guilt of shooting the dog is established then it goes affirmative. That is how the system works:


http://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/Beneman_Affir ... erials.pdf

A. What is an Affirmative Defense?
An affirmative defense is one which provides a defense without negating an essential
element of the crime charge. To establish an affirmative defense the defendant must place
before the jury sufficient proof to generate a jury instruction on the particular defense theory
sought. Normally, an affirmative defense is expressly designated as affirmative by statute,
or is a defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the
accused.

B. How is an Affirmative Defense different from a “Regular” Defense?
The presumption of innocence is legally all a defendant needs to be acquitted. The
defense is reasonably free to argue the Government has failed to prove any essential element
of the crime charge reasonable doubt (BRD) and jury may find a defendant not guilty. This
tact does not require the defense to produce any evidence. The judge must instruct the jury
on the government’s burden, presumption of innocence, unanimity and proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. A defendant is entitled to a theory of defense instruction “as long as it is legally
valid and there is sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, to permit
a reasonable juror to credit the defendant’s theory.” United States v. Josleyn, 99 F.3d 1182, 1194
(1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Meade, 110 F.3d 190, 201 (1st Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Reed, 991 F.2d
399, 400 (7th Cir. 1993).
An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, be
it testimonial or physical. The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of
Government witnesses or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief.
Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either
justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the
charge. A defendant must generate an affirmative defense instruction.

Think what you are asking. The positive claim here is not "the police officer shot the dog maliciously". If you could read, you will note that no one who is taken seriously has said that. We are claiming the negation: The dog was not acting aggressively. The positive claim is that it was. You cannot prove the negation save by the one asserting the positive failing to meet burden of proof.

Guess what you can do. You can fuck right the hell off, then go read a text in basic propositional logic.

No, you can fuck right off. The positive claim is "the police officer shot the dog when he should not have" regardless if whether "should not have" is because of malicious reasons or because of error. You are the one that wants something to change; namely some sort of training in recognition of dog behavior. You are making the positive claim that a situation existed that should not have.

You need to establish that with some actual evidence from the actual event. The dog's behavioral history, is, by itself, legally insufficient to oversome the evidence of the officer's testimony, and as someone pointed out another article indicates there was more than one officer, so you may need enough to overcome that of two or three, and before you even say it, "covering for their buddy" or something is not evidence either; that's simply unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Until that happens, you cannot claim any requirement to establish affirmative defense. Shooting an animal is not the same as shooting a person. If you live in an area where discharge of firearms is legal, you can take your animal out and put it down with a gun any time you please. You can't do the same with a person. I don't give a fuck if this offends your personal sense of morality or whatever.

Therefore, the mere fact that the dog was shot does not, in fact, establish that a crime possibly occured in the way it would with a human. With a human, justifiable homicide can and often is determined before a crime is even charged, and if a crime is charged then the affirmative defense comes into play.

You need to make up your mind whether you're claiming the officer has committed animal cruelty (shot it maliciously) or whether he merely damaged property (shot it negligently) then come up with evidence other than your attempts to claim that certain behaviors necessarily happened based on predictions from past behavior which, quite frankly, you are getting from the biased word of an upset family member and your own assumptions. Once you provide that evidence (such as the dog being shot from the side or something) then you can talk about affirmative defenses.

I'd tell you to go read about propositional logic, but evidently what you really need is a basic education in how the legal system works, and one in how not to be a dishonest fuck with principles of logic. Don't play that burden of proof card again, asshole.

Your argument is no different than claiming that a woman must have consented to sex because she has a history of sexual promiscuity.

I am not attacking the victim here in order to undermine the credibility of said victim. Your analogy is so false I ought not (but still will) dignify it with a response.

Determining whether or not a defendant has an established pattern of conduct which includes the offense in question is perfectly valid in our legal system. A person who is a well known rapist is of course more likely to commit rape again than someone who has never raped before.

And yet, if your only evidence that he committed the rape is the fact that he committed rape before, you cannot even charge someone with rape, much less convict them of it. Past behavior unrelated to the case is, by itself, not even sufficient to meet the standard of reasonable suspicion much less reasonable doubt.

In any case, my analogy is not false because it has nothing to do with undermining the credibility of a victim. It has to do with attempting to use past behavior as proof of specific behavior in a specific situation. The reason it's not allowable to bring sexual history into court is that consenting to sex with any given number of people does not necessarily mean consent in any other situation.

I also love how you completely ignore the physiological argument.

I ignore it because it's a line of horseshit. You are wildly exaggerating the effects of physiology to claim that an animal can have only one possible response regardless of the situation. Dogs that are perectly friendly around people they know but are aggressive towards strangers such as mailmen and deliveryment are common, and many of those are breeds commonly thought of as friendly. I've personally encountered many of them.

The presence of affirmative defense does not in any way shift the prosecutions' burden to the defense.

It does if the elements of the crime are not contested.

Intent (to kill the dog): Check. Got this one.

Conduct: He killed the dog

Concurrence: Intent and Action occurred at the same time. Got this one.

Causation: The cop shooting his gun caused the dog to die.

All elements of the crime established and admitted by the police officer. The defense is affirmative.

False. You must show that shooting a dog is a criminal act. I can tell you right now that shooting the dog is not animal cruelty in and of itself. I have yet to see you cite a statute that the officer violated. You keep trying to escape this by saying "But I'm not claiming he did it maliciously!" Well, are you claiming the officer committed a crime or not? If you are, then you must follow the legal system's striuctures to argue guilt. If not, you may not demand that your opponent provide an affirmative defense by legal standards. Stolen concept fallacy.

Maybe not. It does not however mean that we cannot use the legal system as an analogy by which to examine the police officer's actions. Moreover the lack of legal accountability does not remove the moral accountability that attaches itself.

You're engaging in a massive stolen concept fallacy. You can't pick and choose parts of the legal system where they are convenient.

Moreover, the moral accountability is not an issue I give a fuck about unless you can show the officer shot the dog maliciously. I've already stated that the city should compensate the family for the dog as property value so if there was no ill intent there is no moral concern worthy of my time.

The cop made the positive claim. An affirmative defense. In a case of personal negligence leading to someone's death (IE. Person X left the machine on, someone fell in, and died) then you might have a point. The prosecution would need to determine if Person X did in fact leave the machine on, while the defense only needs to say "No he did not". In other words, the prosecution must prove the positive.

In this case, the police officer is making a claim that someone/something else made a mistake (the dog was aggressive in this case) and he was attempting to mitigate that mistake via self defense. In this case, he is asserting the positive. In both basic logic, and the legal system the burden of proof is on him.

No, he is not. The dog is not "someone else", and did not "make a mistake". It was being a dog. In basic logic, and in the legal system, the one making the positive claim is the one claiming the dog was shot when it should not have been. You're simply attempting to shift the burden of proof by rephrasing it.

Listen you illiterate waste of oxygen. I did not spend 45 minutes checking on the physiology of aggression, behavioral syndromes etc and then post that massive thing proving your position incorrect--cockslapping you with my own area of intellectual specialty, just to have you ignore it. Go back. Read. Learn.

No. I won't. You spent 45 minutes cherry-picking physiological arguments while attempting to acknowledge the effects of conditioning (socialization) just enough that no one could claim you ignored that. The fact of the matter is that socialization in one situation does not automatically translate to socialization in wildly different circumstances, and yes, having the higher standing members of the "pack" (the owners) not present is a completely different circumstance for a dog and greatly increases its stress level.

More to the point, I don't believe that your area of specialization is dogs, or even mammals; I seem to reall you being involved in amphibians or something like that as a specialty. You might also want to know that my degree happens to be in Psychology, and I know perfectly well that you cannot make the claim that conditioning under one circumstances translates perfectly to any other given circumstance, especially when that circumstance is very different. So you can stop appealing to your own authority.

The fact is that, as you yourself already acknowledged, you can make nothing more than a probability estamite, and you have made assumptions about the dog's history and taken the family's claim at face value in order to jack that probability as high as you can get away with. The bottom line is that probabilities simply do not stand up in the face of an observation of the actual circumstance in question by an observer actually present because they are, ultimately, probabilities, and the improbable does sometimes happen

So, what if the dog was just looking at him? Are all dogs facing a police officer aggressive?

That's your problem, not mine. You go find some evidence. I gave you an example.

It is not our proposition that he walked up to the dog and shot it by surprise you nitwit. We will stipulate that it was at least facing in his direction. The issue is whether it was aggressive or not.

A very clever way of saying "I have no evidence whatsoever but I don't want to concede".

If the burden of proof for a police officer shooting someone incorrectly is "He was facing me", then we have some really serious fucking problems. With a person, you can derive intent from the presence of a knife or something. Dogs come pre-equipped and the existence of a weapon on themselves does not indicate intent to violence. Something I should have brought up before, but was too flabbergasted by the implication to mention.

Oh fucking well. The fact remains that a dog is not a person. No one claimed the dog's teeth give it intent; the claim is that they give it capability. You're just strawmanning with that, and doing it in order to support your attempts to shift burden of proof onto the officer. No one claimed he could shoot the dog just because it was facing him; he was the person at the scene and he stated the dog was aggressive. This bullshit about shooting people is a complete red herring.

Are you a behavioral ecologist? I did not think so. There is a HUGE amount of literature on behavioral syndromes in animals. We are not talking about besmirching a rape victim.

I don't give a flying fuck about how much literature there is; nor do I need to be a behavioral ecologist. There's this field called "psychology" that I have a degree in and (surprise) has studied animals extensively. "Behavioral syndromes" do not absolutely dictate behavior in any circumstance, and theory does not override observation. You can have an entire library of volumes on the subject and if someone observes something to the contrary that indicates that it does not hold in all circumstances, no matter how probable you think it is.

Your just defeated yourself. Dogs come pre-armed and cannot drop the knife. Therefore the presence of the metaphorical knife is not reason to shoot.

Wow, you really are desperate aren't you? I didn't claim that the mere presence of a knife was a reason to shoot a person either in the absence of aggressive behavior. The fact is that the inability of the dog to drop its weapon means that it is always treated as armed which contributes to the totality of circumstances that lead to the decision to shoot or not. We don't ignore the fact that the dog is armed because the dog can't be disarmed.

[SVPD]

What character witness have we had for the officer? No one has come out and said "This is a man of integrity" or "This man would never shoot a dog if he didn't have to" or most importantly "This man has plently of experience with dogs, he knows when a dog is being violent and when it's just being a dog. He has worked with dogs for 10 years and has always shown the ability to recognize their behavior"

Why would anyone feel it necessary to do so? This is a minor local news story.

Also I think you're forgetting one thing, beyond a reasonable doubt only exist in a court room setting, not a place of employment. No one has talked about charging the guy in a court of law, they just want him to man up and admit his mistake and possibly take a class on dog behavior.

Why should he need to? No one has yet established he made a mistake. What does place fo employment have to do with it? Did yhe violate some policy?

[Alphawolf55]

"Fine past history is fair game as long as the cop's can be used as well"

"Okay, use the cops past history, oh wait it's not given"

'Why should anyone point it out!"

Seriously you guys are crying foul of us, using past history and then demand that we use the cops non-existent respected history?


Also, you should apologize for shooting a dog regardless, the fact is the cop was on the dog's property, and even if the dog was being aggressive it was just being a dog. Two, he has yet to prove in any way that it was required (but that's pretty much impossible), but more facts point to the idea he didn't have to then he did. Seriously, no one has a reason that he's telling the truth other then 'He's a cop, and he said it's the truth", even though the story potentially changes and there are contradictory facts, I think you guys truly believe that cops are a more honest and trust worthy bunch, when they're just as likely to lie, mislead or exagerrate as anyone else.

This is the scenario if you want to say it didn't need to happen

Fact:

The dog was old
The dog had a limp
The dog regularly worked with children and was noted as nonviolent
The dog was of a particularly non-violent breed.
The dog has no history of violence.

Those are things you can't make up, those are facts.

These are the facts on the cop's side.

The cop said it happened.

Now you can say "There's no direct evidence!" But Sith himself admitted that it's almost impossible to prove each side either way. Even so, the fact the police department themselves admit that they need to revise their tactics show something. This department has a history of using violence first in regards to animals (they shot a deer dead before even letting animal control have a shot). If the cop was following the official policy, then the policy needs to be changed. Now maybe you don't have a problem with the police having a wide variety of authority and power (I know in Ohio, cops are given more authority then usual and have some pretty broad power), but most people in the rest of the country do.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Quite correct. The officer articulated his probable cause for a seizure of property under the fourth amendment. Specifically, stating the actions of the dog gave him probable cause that he was about to be attacked, and thus he acted upon that probable cause.

Yes, and what evidence has the cop provided that this is in fact what happened? Why are we supposed to simply take his word for it? In a case where a cop pulls someone over and the driver's acting nervous, the cop has probable cause to search his vehicle. He finds something? Awesome, the hunch is proven correct. He finds nothing? He has to admit he fucked up. This cop shot a dog on 'probable cause'. So far there is *no* verifiable evidence that the dog was actually showing this probable cause, yet the cop is not admitting he fucked up. Someone's wrong with that.

It seems that the history of the police officer doesn't matter. That's my problem with this whole thread. This officer is in a situation that can't be proven to your satisfaction because you've set standards that make it impossible for an officer to defend himself in this situation. I've asked over and over. What evidence do you think would exist if the officer account is completely accurate?

1) No one's actually offered the cop's history, therefore this is a moot point.

2) The evidence that would make the officer's account more likely is if the dog already has a history of violence, poor training and aggressive behaviour. Our problem is that this dog's history is the *exact* opposite, it's less likely to be violent than even your average middle-class domesticated dog.

You've also decided that an individual officers articulation of his/her observations isn't enough to establish probable cause. Which, by the way, is in direct contradiction to the courts in this country.

Back to the pulled-over car analogy: If the cop pulls someone over, the driver acts nervous, the cop searches his vehicle on probable cause, and finds nothing, the cop is not allowed to arrest him for acting nervous. He acted on the probable cause and couldn't find anything to back it up. The judge would laugh him out of court if the cop's case was "I arrested him on probable cause for acting suspiciously nervous, couldn't find anything, so now I want him charged with... I don't know, acting suspicious, I'm sure we'll find something eventually."

Or to put it in a closer analogy: A cop shoots a person on probable cause. He's the only witness, and he claims the person attacked him with a knife. Forensics discovers the person had a knife, but it was a small pocket knife and never left his back pocket, and they can't find any other evidence that the person actually attacked the police officer. In any reasonable court of law, the impetus is on the officer to bring forward more evidence that he was actually at risk.

How can you go with the former when they were not actually present during this incident. They're great character witnesses for the dog, but we've already covered that it isn't impossible for the dog to have actually become aggressive. It's been stated over and over that it appears to be unlikely. Well, who are you to say that the unlikely didn't happen? The officer says it happened. So, again how would an officer in this situation satisfy you with the standard equipment carried on the uniform of a police officer.

Okay, let's go over this slowly since you just answered your own damn question, just stated what others here have been trying to get through to you:

We. Have. No. Evidence. Of. What. Actually. Happened.

Because of this, all we can go on is personal accounts and other circumstantial evidence. We can only go with what is the most likely scenario. The dog did no measurable harm, we know that for certain. The cop did measurable harm by shooting the dog, we know that for certain. All the evidence points to the fact that the dog is highly unlikely to attack someone. So from what little evidence we have, we can construct a number of scenarios:

A: Most likely: The cop fucked up, misinterpreted the dog's actions and shot it. Sucks, but understandable, now if only the parties involved would just own up to it.

B: Much less likely: The dog went against everything its history would suggest and suddenly turned into a dangerously aggressive specimen, attacking the officer with intent to wound and having to be shot to protect the officer.

You're asserting that we should go with scenario B, despite all available evidence pointing to scenario A because... what? Because of the officer's non-existent character testimony? Because scenario B's less likely, and logically we should go by the less likely scenario? Because the dog's owners and everyone at that pre-school who had history with that dog are lying? Because one officer in a very stressful situation couldn't have possibly misinterpreted the facts for long enough to make a mistake?