- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Michigan court rules okay for police to kill your dog
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:09 am to ballscaster
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:09 am to ballscaster
quote:
pit bull is automatically a threat. Sorry, poochie
Pit bulls are only as vicious as they are trained to be. I have met plenty who would more likely attack you with licks to your face than hurt anything.
Every decade it's a different breed of dog that people use to justify these things, and it is never okay to go in with a "shoot first" attitude.
1
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:14 am to skrayper
quote:Proves my point. I'm fine with cops "racially profiling" dogs. They have too much shite to worry about and don't have time to figure out whether your dog is going to kill them or not. Pit bull = statistical threat. A bullet instantly quells that threat and makes cops safer. Cops > dogs.
Pit bulls are only as vicious as they are trained to be.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:45 am to ballscaster
I can't believe how many people in this thread are okay with a cop slaughtering someone's best friend if it's anything other than a statue.
Yes, a cop's job is damn hard. But giving them carte blanche to murder any dog they wish is not a responsible solution to that problem
Yes, a cop's job is damn hard. But giving them carte blanche to murder any dog they wish is not a responsible solution to that problem
Posted on 12/25/16 at 10:00 am to funnystuff
The court there is being consistent with a strict liability tort standard for the dog owners in this case. Any owner of a wild animal or domesticated animal with vicious propensity will generally be held to the same standard. I have not read the actual opinion yet but I'm willing to wager that is what you will find in the ruling.
ETA:
The court did and agreed with the policy of the agency involved by citing their policy:
Dangerous Animal, defined: An animal that bites or attacks a person or another animal.
Vicious Dog, defined: An animal of the Canis familaris species which, when either unmuzzled or unleashed, or when not confined to the premises of the owner, menaces a person in a manner which an ordinary and reasonable person would conclude to be an apparent attitude of attack.
ETA:
The court did and agreed with the policy of the agency involved by citing their policy:
Dangerous Animal, defined: An animal that bites or attacks a person or another animal.
Vicious Dog, defined: An animal of the Canis familaris species which, when either unmuzzled or unleashed, or when not confined to the premises of the owner, menaces a person in a manner which an ordinary and reasonable person would conclude to be an apparent attitude of attack.
This post was edited on 12/25/16 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 12/25/16 at 10:01 am to ballscaster
quote:
automatically
Your definition of this word is incorrect.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 10:03 am to skrayper
It seems like it's going to be tough to fight this war bc BLM will throw a damn fit if it starts to get traction.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 10:08 am to skrayper
Hell I am going to call my local cops and see if this applies here...I'd love for them to come shoot this bad breathed little shelter refugee that my wife and kids like more than me....
Posted on 12/25/16 at 10:14 am to skrayper
I've had this discussion with my son the cop. He says that cops who shoot dogs are usually unfamiliar with breeds and the mannerisms of a dog that's about to attack you.
He encounters dogs all the time and he has never had to shoot one. As he explains "I can tell immediately if a dog is no threat, some risk or very dangerous. Cops who weren't raised around dogs can't make that judgment."
He encounters dogs all the time and he has never had to shoot one. As he explains "I can tell immediately if a dog is no threat, some risk or very dangerous. Cops who weren't raised around dogs can't make that judgment."
Posted on 12/25/16 at 10:41 am to Zach
Is your son on his agency's tac team serving high risk warrants?
There is a link in the story to the actual court ruling. Page 15 3rd paragraph down. ;-)
ETA from the opinion:
At the hearing, the district court held that, even if it did take the facts in the light most
favorable to Plaintiffs, the unrebutted fact that Officer Klein said the large brown pit bull lunged
at him before he shot her would still establish that his actions were reasonable. (R. 72 at 24, 45.)
A jury could reasonably conclude that a 97-pound pit bull, barking and lunging at the officers as
they breached the entryway, posed a threat to the officers’ safety and it was necessary to shoot
the dog in order for them to safely sweep the residence and insure that there were no other gang
members in the residence and that evidence was not being destroyed.
For what it is worth, I agree with your son. Most dogs I have dealt with in everyday interactions are very agreeable. The circumstances are the key issue. This case was decided by summary judgment which means the plaintiff submitted no evidence that a jury could find to show that the officers acted unreasonably.
There is a link in the story to the actual court ruling. Page 15 3rd paragraph down. ;-)
ETA from the opinion:
At the hearing, the district court held that, even if it did take the facts in the light most
favorable to Plaintiffs, the unrebutted fact that Officer Klein said the large brown pit bull lunged
at him before he shot her would still establish that his actions were reasonable. (R. 72 at 24, 45.)
A jury could reasonably conclude that a 97-pound pit bull, barking and lunging at the officers as
they breached the entryway, posed a threat to the officers’ safety and it was necessary to shoot
the dog in order for them to safely sweep the residence and insure that there were no other gang
members in the residence and that evidence was not being destroyed.
For what it is worth, I agree with your son. Most dogs I have dealt with in everyday interactions are very agreeable. The circumstances are the key issue. This case was decided by summary judgment which means the plaintiff submitted no evidence that a jury could find to show that the officers acted unreasonably.
This post was edited on 12/25/16 at 8:32 pm
Posted on 12/25/16 at 10:54 am to SirWinston
quote:
It seems like it's going to be tough to fight this war bc BLM will throw a damn fit if it starts to get traction.
The ratio of '# of X killed by cops' to '# of X that kill people' isn't very favorable to that cause.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:05 am to ballscaster
quote:
Proves my point. I'm fine with cops "racially profiling" dogs. They have too much shite to worry about and don't have time to figure out whether your dog is going to kill them or not. Pit bull = statistical threat. A bullet instantly quells that threat and makes cops safer. Cops > dogs.
So if a cop barges into your house without a warrant, and your dog barks angrily at him to protect your kids, you're okay with the cop blowing off the dog's head? Then later he can figure out he transposed two digits on your address.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:09 am to Five0
quote:
Is your son on his agency's tac team serving high risk warrants?
He works narcotics. It's pretty dangerous.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:27 am to skrayper
quote:
So if a cop barges into your house without a warrant,
That did not happen here, so...
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:30 am to Five0
I'm not making an argument about whether or not the ruling is consistent with the law. I'm making an argument on the basis of basic human decency.
And the people I'm shocked about in this thread are not making the argument that this ruling is consistent with the law. They are arguing that the law is just and that cops deserve this protection. I strongly disagree, and I can't imagine an argument that would change my mind on this point. Cops simply should not have the right to shoot any pet that moves. That's fricked up.
And the people I'm shocked about in this thread are not making the argument that this ruling is consistent with the law. They are arguing that the law is just and that cops deserve this protection. I strongly disagree, and I can't imagine an argument that would change my mind on this point. Cops simply should not have the right to shoot any pet that moves. That's fricked up.
This post was edited on 12/25/16 at 11:31 am
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:36 am to funnystuff
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:40 am to Zach
quote:
He encounters dogs all the time and he has never had to shoot one. As he explains "I can tell immediately if a dog is no threat, some risk or very dangerous. Cops who weren't raised around dogs can't make that judgment."
The cops should get some training from former newspaper boys and mail carriers from the day when things were delivered to your door. If they had had the same attitude as law enforcement about dogs your mail or newspaper would have never been delivered as it would have been deemed too hazardous.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:48 am to Scoop
Oh hey, you didn't read the article yet you respond that it's justified.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:52 am to Shunface
The opinion gives many more details than the article.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:53 am to EA6B
quote:
The cops should get some training from former newspaper boys and mail carriers from the day when things were delivered to your door. If they had had the same attitude as law enforcement about dogs your mail or newspaper would have never been delivered as it would have been deemed too hazardous.
Years ago I posted my conversations with 'Ghetto Mailman' whom I no longer see at the gym. He worked some streets where every single house got welfare checks. When he had a problem with an unrestrained pit bull he would tell the owner "If you keep letting that dog loose I won't be delivering mail to this house on the 15th or the 30th."
The owners immediately complied with his request.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 12:07 pm to funnystuff
quote:No such thing as murdering a dog.
murder any dog
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News