- 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: Teenage boy, dog fatally shot after animal attacks deputy in Palmdale, CA.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:14 pm to DAbully
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:14 pm to DAbully
I understand where you are coming from. But was there one officer or ten? Regardless if an animal of that size has intentions to inflict injury or death a few officers can't simply detain without some kind of force.
If the dog attacked previously once, what would stop the officer from assuming the dog would attack again. Should he attempted spray or TAZER, yes? And we don't know if he did. (Remember the media doesn't always do the officers or families justice)But to say he didn't deserve to be a cop it without seeing the fully story is ignorant.
If the dog attacked previously once, what would stop the officer from assuming the dog would attack again. Should he attempted spray or TAZER, yes? And we don't know if he did. (Remember the media doesn't always do the officers or families justice)But to say he didn't deserve to be a cop it without seeing the fully story is ignorant.
1
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:30 pm to xxGEAUXxx
I don't care about him shooting it tbh. I wouldn't have shot it but i've also been in a similar situation and I know what I can handle. So shooting the dog is not an issue. Shooting the dog in close quarters with civilians and other officers around is the huge problem and why they will be found liable for the death.
Know your freaking target and what's beyond it. There's no way he acted with regard for the safety of the public if one of the rounds were able to stike a person in the chest. If the only negative were him taking some bites from a dog then he's wrong. He won't be guilty of murder or manslaughter or anything like that but he was wrong plain and simple.
Know your freaking target and what's beyond it. There's no way he acted with regard for the safety of the public if one of the rounds were able to stike a person in the chest. If the only negative were him taking some bites from a dog then he's wrong. He won't be guilty of murder or manslaughter or anything like that but he was wrong plain and simple.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News