Cops shoot dog, leave note

[Edi]

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.

OF the five you listed, the only things known to the cop at the time would be #4 and possibly #2. The other three are impossible for him to know. Yet you and the rest of the pack of fucking morons in this thread insist that the cop's decision should automatically have taken all five into account.

I already pointed out earlier just how many fucking unknowns were involved in the situation and that didn't seem to faze any of you.

We'll see what moderator arbitration said about this thread, since it's quite apparent that nothing less than that is going to bring any resolution. Obviously I will not be the person doing that, since I'm involved in this thread myself.

[Alphawolf55]

Except none of us said that the cop should know that the dog wasn't violent. We're not saying "Oh officer X had a dog snarl at him, but he should've known the dog was just j/king!" we're arguing that most likely the dog wasn't snarling to begin with but was merely running andbarking like dogs do (behavior that a person familiar with dogs would find normal but not familiar might find threatening), and the guy shot the dog in perceived self defense. We're then arguing that rather then admit that he made a mistake or admit that he was ignorant in a particular field, the cop is most likely turning behavior from a dog that could be misintrued as threatening and reporting that the dog commited outright threatening behavior. The cop didn't claim "The dog ran up and started barking" no one would find that weird. What we're questioning is that the dog got violent to begin with.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

So your entire argument is based upon assumptions.

Thank you for admitting as much. I'm glad you cleared that up.

[Alphawolf55]

Both sides are, you idiot.

One side is based on the assumption that the dog wouldn't go against past behavior.

The other is based on the assumption that the cop is telling the truth.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Yes, except condemning someone on assumptions is less reasonable than assuming innocence. That's sort of how justice systems work, you know. Presumed innocent until proven guilty. Ring any bells? We only have the officer's word as to what happened. There were no other witnesses. Condemning him is the less rational of the two.

As it stands, I'm trying not to assume either way. I'm taking that stance that there's no way of knowing, because frankly there isn't. We have no way to determine if he was telling the truth at all. And if we can't prove guilt or innocence either way, all the assumptions in the world don't mean shit.

Dog had a limp? So what? As has been stated numerous times, dogs with arthritis that normally limp are capable of running if they damn well please. And quite fast at that.

Dog was old? Fun fact. Senility can cause increased aggression and irritability in dogs. Not that I am asserting that this dog is senile, I'm merely pointing out that age does not necessarily mean it will be less aggressive than a younger dog.

No history of violence? Well of course not. Most dogs with that are violent towards humans are usually put down if they cause any serious injury. That doesn't stop dog attacks from happening. Non-violent dogs can snap without warning. Especially with strangers, especially if there's no one around that the dog knows or considers part of its "pack". As has already been stated.

So it's possible the officer was lying, and it is possible he was telling the truth. Now, if you want to condemn someone based on assumptions, that's your business, but it's pretty fucking stupid in my opinion. I for one believe that the dog probably wasn't acting aggressively and the officer misjudged, but I am not so full of myself - nor so unhinged from reality - as to believe my assumptions should carry any sort of weight, or that because I believe something to be more likely then it must be true.

For the record, either way I believe an apology is in order. Pets are considered family members, and not apologising over something like that is pretty fucking cold.

And this post was a lot longer than I intended it to be...

[Alphawolf55]

Why? Why should one assume innocence when there are holes in the theory? No one is talking about sending the man to jail, that would be ridiculous. But the problem is, there are plently of reasons to believe the dog wasn't violent, there's only the presumption of innocence to believe he was. By assuming the cops innocence, you forgo the victims innocence and yes the dog is a victim either way. Even then, we condemn based on evidence all the time. That senator that received 200,000 dollars from Corporate entities? Who voted against health care? We're all willing to condemn him for accepting bribery even though we have no proof the money influenced his vote.

Again, innocent till proven guilty is a great technique in criminal justice, but it doesn't have to carry over to personal belief.

[Anguirus]

Edi, what is your beef here? If anything, things have calmed down significantly since the police department made their statement.

OF the five you listed, the only things known to the cop at the time would be #4 and possibly #2. The other three are impossible for him to know. Yet you and the rest of the pack of fucking morons in this thread insist that the cop's decision should automatically have taken all five into account.

Since I suspect that the cop acted rashly, I guess that makes me part of the "pack" right? In any case, I certainly don't think the cop could have or should have known any of that. What those 5 facts are is information that we now have that lessens the chance that the dog was in fact a serious threat, compared with other dogs that would one should expect to be routinely encountered when one tromps into a home waving a gun around.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Did someone drop a big dose of stupid onto the board recently? How many times do all of us have to state that we're already 9/10ths in agreement with the resident cops here, our only difference of opinion is that we feel the cop in question should just own up and admit they made a mistaken assumption? Fuck it, I'm bowing out of this thread because I can't continue to debate people who habitually strawman our position.

[Edi]

Edi, what is your beef here? If anything, things have calmed down significantly since the police department made their statement.

My beef has been that the same arguments kept being trotted out time after time and it went on for pages and pages. Things have calmed down some, but that does not in any way excuse the behavior that has been exhibited in this thread here by many people.

OF the five you listed, the only things known to the cop at the time would be #4 and possibly #2. The other three are impossible for him to know. Yet you and the rest of the pack of fucking morons in this thread insist that the cop's decision should automatically have taken all five into account.

Since I suspect that the cop acted rashly, I guess that makes me part of the "pack" right? In any case, I certainly don't think the cop could have or should have known any of that. What those 5 facts are is information that we now have that lessens the chance that the dog was in fact a serious threat, compared with other dogs that would one should expect to be routinely encountered when one tromps into a home waving a gun around.

To be fair, you're not nearly as bad as some others have been. I myself was the opinion that there was the possibility that the cop acted rashly, but that the available information was not sufficient to make a determination. We have the better information in hindsight, which just lessens some of the unknowns, but does not remove them.

Too many people have been looking at this with far too black and white glasses, as if it was some versus debate where there was an either/or choice when the situation was more complex than that.

[Thanas]

I am going to lock this thread. If anybody has any new information to this situation, he or she can PM me and request me reopening this thread.

This whole thread hinges on two issues:
a) Whether the dog, in this particular case was aggressive
b) Whether the cop was acting overly aggressive in shooting the dog.

Since b is directly dependant on A, a is the real question here. However, we simply do not know what happened with regards to the dogs behaviour.
This is not the same as the police shooting a caged animal or stuff. This was a free dog.
It may be he was friendly and the cops misinterpreted him. It may be that the dog was going to rip their throats out. The information we have is little to nonexistent and in the end it comes down to a matter of trust in the word of the cop. At which point the discussion should have ended, because there is no way to determine whether he was lying or not.


FWITW, my personal opinion is that they should have posted an officer there for the family, but I do not know anything about their resources so that is a moot point.

So I see no point in having another 7 pages filled with this debate when it is clear there can be no real resolution here.