- 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: Florida Cop Shoots Pet Dog Feet From Terrified Homeowners (Graphic)
Posted on 10/22/15 at 8:53 am to craig8sm
Posted on 10/22/15 at 8:53 am to craig8sm
quote:
Besides Warren v. District of Columbia sets a precedent that LEO's do not have a duty/obligation to protect, it does not prohibit them from protecting.
quote:
They have no duty to act
You're wrong. And in most cases they can be punished for not acting.
So he's not wrong?
1
Posted on 10/22/15 at 9:05 am to craig8sm
We need to stop pretending like police have any obligation to do anything other than protect themselves. Saying cops have some kind of duty is just ridiculous. It's just a way to put a spin on a stupid situation that happened because a cop was being nosy. Of course, what I call nosy you will call proactive. Either way, it's not within his job requirements, it's a decision he made on his own.
If it was required by him to go investigate every open door he noticed, then I would be defending him for shooting the dog. However, it's not required of him. He fricked up, he needs to own his mistake and the department needs to revisit their training procedures. We CAN NOT have cops running around with guns if they are going to get spooked by a fricking dog. It's asinine at best.
This is a very interesting board most of the time, but when it comes to police the ideas around here are turpid and, at times, disturbing. Especially when LEO members speak. It's scary, yet they wonder why nobody trust them.
If it was required by him to go investigate every open door he noticed, then I would be defending him for shooting the dog. However, it's not required of him. He fricked up, he needs to own his mistake and the department needs to revisit their training procedures. We CAN NOT have cops running around with guns if they are going to get spooked by a fricking dog. It's asinine at best.
This is a very interesting board most of the time, but when it comes to police the ideas around here are turpid and, at times, disturbing. Especially when LEO members speak. It's scary, yet they wonder why nobody trust them.
This post was edited on 10/22/15 at 9:07 am
Posted on 10/22/15 at 9:08 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Oh I am sure a good DA could come up with some creative charges. Discharging a weapon illegally, child endangerment, aggravated assault... And that assumes he possessed the gun legally. If not he's federally fricked for illegal possession of a gun during a crime.
Nope, same outcome. You are entitled to protect yourself. Dumbass dog owners should be prosecuted.
Posted on 10/22/15 at 9:14 am to BiggerBear
quote:
Nope, same outcome. You are entitled to protect yourself. Dumbass dog owners should be prosecuted.
Except one small point. There's no qualified immunity for being a pizza delivery guy. All a police officer has to do is convince a judge that a reasonable police officer would have done the same and he is off the hook.
I think that will be difficult to prove for a pizza delivery guy unless you know of more stories where a pizza guy opened fire? I doubt that a judge would find that reasonable.
Posted on 10/22/15 at 9:23 am to Salmon
quote:Likewise. I mean, someone like you, who has actually experienced nature should know better. That pit bull was going to bite the absolute frick out of that guy. It's not even debatable. Your take here is pathetic.
Like I said
The way you people think horrifies me
Posted on 10/22/15 at 9:24 am to sullivanct19a
quote:And yet 100 times more intelligent than you are. Damn.
AlxTgr
Yep, you're an idiot.
Posted on 10/22/15 at 9:31 am to Sao
LINK
quote:
An online petition has gathered more than 20,000 signatures calling for the termination of a Florida police officer that shot and killed a dog just 3-feet from her owner.
quote:
Officer Terry has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. He has been with the force for 5 years. This year alone, Terry has earned 8 commendations but was suspended for a day in February for hitting a mailbox with his patrol car and leaving the scene.
Posted on 10/22/15 at 9:36 am to TigerBait1127
quote:
So he's not wrong?
Warren v. District of Columbia was about LEO duty to protect a citizen, it was not about LEO's duty to perform their jobs to investigate crimes and arrest suspected criminals.
Yes he was wrong,
Posted on 10/22/15 at 9:49 am to craig8sm
Man I'm pretty impressed that this thread has gone as long as it has. All over a dog! The OT is growing a heart
Posted on 10/22/15 at 9:50 am to Barf
quote:
If it was required by him to go investigate every open door he noticed, then I would be defending him for shooting the dog. However, it's not required of him. He fricked up, he needs to own his mistake and the department needs to revisit their training procedures. We CAN NOT have cops running around with guns if they are going to get spooked by a fricking dog. It's asinine at best.
This is you're opinion and is not in line with how things really work.
If a LEO see's a situation that leads him to a reasonable assumption that a crime may have been committed of may be in progress, it is his duty to investigate. We're not even getting into to possibility of the officer being hired by the neighborhood for the explicit purpose of watching the area for possible crimes. I don't know if that's what he was doing but you seem perfectly comfortable;e assuming things that lean in favor ot your point of view, I'll throw that out there because there is a very high probability that this neighborhood had off duty LEO for that explicit purpose and it could very well have been this officer. And before you try to argue he was off duty and would not have had any official authority to act as a LEO, stop, that's not how it. works. Every city and district accepts these types of extra duty assignments as extensions of their LEO's duties.
quote:
This is a very interesting board most of the time, but when it comes to police the ideas around here are turpid and, at times, disturbing. Especially when LEO members speak. It's scary, yet they wonder why nobody trust them.
There is nothing to distrust in LEO's once you stop listening to the fearmongers and actually talk to LEO's about their jobs.
Posted on 10/22/15 at 9:54 am to AlxTgr
quote:
That pit bull was going to bite the absolute frick out of that guy. It's not even debatable.
well it certainly is debatable...we never seen the dogs mouth until he is on the ground and the cop was shooting the dog as soon as it came out the door
am I too just assume that every dog that runs out of doors is doing it because it is going to bite someone?
every time my neighbors beagle slips between his legs and out the door when I knock on it, am I too assume that he is going to bite me?
Posted on 10/22/15 at 9:54 am to Sao
the tail wagging breaks your heart.......fricking idiot
Posted on 10/22/15 at 10:00 am to craig8sm
quote:
There is nothing to distrust in LEO's once you stop listening to the fearmongers and actually talk to LEO's about their jobs.
I feel like even that window is closing as more and more people spit on police.
I also think people get the wrong impression from stories like this and others (for example asset forfeiture) where there is ample evidence of a possible crime, and the cops are just protecting the public, often from themselves.
People need to trust that the police know what's best for them, and recognize that resisting that authority has it's consequences. Just go along with what they are doing, stay out of their way, and everyone can cuddle with their pets at night. Why do so many have so much trouble getting the message?
Posted on 10/22/15 at 10:01 am to craig8sm
quote:
This is you're opinion and is not in line with how things really work.
If a LEO see's a situation that leads him to a reasonable assumption that a crime may have been committed of may be in progress, it is his duty to investigate. We're not even getting into to possibility of the officer being hired by the neighborhood for the explicit purpose of watching the area for possible crimes. I don't know if that's what he was doing but you seem perfectly comfortable;e assuming things that lean in favor ot your point of view, I'll throw that out there because there is a very high probability that this neighborhood had off duty LEO for that explicit purpose and it could very well have been this officer. And before you try to argue he was off duty and would not have had any official authority to act as a LEO, stop, that's not how it. works. Every city and district accepts these types of extra duty assignments as extensions of their LEO's duties.
The only part of this I disagree with is the part that he as a duty to investigate. He does not.
quote:
There is nothing to distrust in LEO's once you stop listening to the fearmongers and actually talk to LEO's about their jobs.
There is no reason to trust a cop based on his badge alone. Not one single person in the legal profession will ever advice someone to voluntarily speak with the police without a lawyer present. I know it's a .00001% chance but innocent people have been executed by the state because a cop lied. That is enough for me.
Posted on 10/22/15 at 10:03 am to craig8sm
quote:
Warren v. District of Columbia was about LEO duty to protect a citizen, it was not about LEO's duty to perform their jobs to investigate crimes and arrest suspected criminals.
Yes he was wrong,
Posted on 10/22/15 at 10:07 am to Barf
quote:
There is no reason to trust a cop based on his badge alone.
Meh, if a cop is testilying (yeah it's a real term look it up), there's usually a good reason for it. Goes back to trust.
Posted on 10/22/15 at 10:16 am to NYNolaguy1
Nope...not watching!
Posted on 10/22/15 at 10:26 am to Sao
I regret watching. So fricked up.
Posted on 10/22/15 at 10:26 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Meh, if a cop is testilying (yeah it's a real term look it up), there's usually a good reason for it. Goes back to trust.
I'm not quite sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Sounds like you're making a justification for perjury by a police officer?
edit- Must be a troll attempt.
This post was edited on 10/22/15 at 10:27 am
Posted on 10/22/15 at 10:39 am to Barf
quote:
I'm not quite sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Sounds like you're making a justification for perjury by a police officer?
Let's take an example. Cop pulls over drug dealer. Cop finds drugs in car. Cop testifies in court that drugs were in plain sight. In reality they were in glove box. Is the police officer really doing anyone a disservice by making sure the drugs don't get suppressed b/c of an illegal search?
My point is that if the cop is testilying, there's usually a good reason - like he wants to put away a drug dealer - and he works the situation to everyone's benefit.
Like I said, it goes back to trust- and that doesn't even bring up parallel construction (you should Google that term as well).
This post was edited on 10/22/15 at 10:45 am
Page 17 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News