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?

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Walking the Earth

Member since Feb 2013

17260 posts

Posted on 3/8/16 at 2:12 pm to Darth_Vader

I see your point but, in fairness, he appears to have perjured himself multiple times.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Jimbeaux

Member since Sep 2003

20202 posts

Posted on 3/8/16 at 7:47 pm to Darth_Vader

Option 2 or ....

Option 3, which you didn't mention: the guy is a dumb arse and is just wrong, but not intentionally lying, or ..,

Option 4 : The reporter missed some of the nuance of his statement. He MAY have said something to the effect that in his opinion, he was trained that he IS ALLOWED to shoot a dog in circumstances other than when he fears he is in danger FROM THE DOG. Such as when the dog poses a significant distraction during a life or death confrontation where he perceives that the totality of the circumstances poses an immediate risk of danger to himself or the community.

It sounds like it was likely a combination of options 3 and 4, if I had to guess.

0 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board