- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Jury Finds Woman Innocent in Protecting her Dog from a Cop
Posted on 3/8/16 at 12:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/8/16 at 12:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
he testified to that, per the article, so i doubt the police would allow him to lie about that. that was probably their defense
"it's fricked up, but it's within our regulatory power" essentiallly
I'm telling you, that version of "the truth" is highly doubtful.
Two things to consider:
1) this is the media REPORTING what was said.
2) just because he testified that way does NOT mean that he was correct about the policy or that he was testifying exactly as the police agency lawyer wanted him to.
2)a). He probably had a separate lawyer from the police agency
The use of force against dogs as he described DOES NOT fit in with any force continuum I have ever heard of.
1
Posted on 3/8/16 at 12:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
At the end of the video it says the cops went in the house and confiscated all phones and cameras.
WTF?
WTF?
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
testified that he was not afraid of the dog, but was following training that required him to kill all dogs that approach him, even if it was chained and wagging its tail
Would suck to be walking your dog on a leash and pass an idiot who thinks this is legitimately his duty as a cop.
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
There's a cause I could get behind - there should be no law enforcement agency anywhere with a policy that an officer "kill all dogs that approach them."
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:03 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
Cook "testified that he was not afraid of the dog, but was following training that required him to kill all dogs that approach him, even if it was chained and wagging its tail as Buddy was doing in this case."
It's a job requirement
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:03 pm to gmrkr5
quote:
cop would probably have to kill me as well. which im sure he'd have no problem doing
that depends. are you black?
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:06 pm to Dale Murphy
quote:
that depends. are you black?
no, but i would immediately become an enemy combatant.
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:09 pm to gmrkr5
quote:
no, but i would immediately become an enemy combatant.
If you did and I was on the jury, I'd vote "not guilty."
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:09 pm to gmrkr5
quote:
no, but i would immediately become an enemy combatant.
If you did and I was on the jury, I'd vote "not guilty."
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
Grown arse male afraid of family pet example #24582597248
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:33 pm to nes2010
On the one hand, it's going to really suck in the next 20 years when audio and video is embedded everywhere and very few places aren't covered but a small upside is that shite like this will be coming to an end.
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:33 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
I cannot understand a policy that says all dogs that approach MUST be killed.
Snoop should probably avoid that jurisdiction.
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:34 pm to nes2010
quote:Yay America
At the end of the video it says the cops went in the house and confiscated all phones and cameras.
WTF?
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
was following training that required him to kill all dogs that approach him
what in the actual frick...is this real life?
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:42 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
'm telling you, that version of "the truth" is highly doubtful.
Two things to consider:
1) this is the media REPORTING what was said.
2) just because he testified that way does NOT mean that he was correct about the policy or that he was testifying exactly as the police agency lawyer wanted him to.
2)a). He probably had a separate lawyer from the police agency
The use of force against dogs as he described DOES NOT fit in with any force continuum I have ever heard of.
The cop stated under oath on the stand that he was following his training. That's pretty cut and dry. So one of two things are true here
1. He was telling the truth about being required to shoot any dog that approaches him, even if he does not feel threatened
Or
2. He lied on the stand which makes him guilty of perjury.
Which one do you think is true?
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:43 pm to rondo
There is no way that's true. There is no way any use of force action has a required outcome. The use of force is a fluid principle. Now maybe the officer is an idiot and should therefore be fired, but I refuse to believe he was trained that way.
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:56 pm to MyNameIsNobody
quote:
Just look at that vicious beast.
He even scared the dog.
Posted on 3/8/16 at 1:59 pm to MyNameIsNobody
Is that the actual video?
Posted on 3/8/16 at 2:04 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
testified that he was not afraid of the dog, but was following training that required him to kill all dogs that approach him, even if it was chained and wagging its tail as Buddy was doing in this case.
I'm thinking many of these incidents come from these idiots misunderstanding their training.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News