Police Officer Fatally Shoots Family Dog

[nixkid]

Not at all. I'm evaluating what we do have and the dog wasn't barking, growling nor did it have an aggressive posture while running toward the cop. Same way I'm evaluating what we do have in the castile shooting, evaluating what we do have and all signs indicate Castile was shot because he reached for a gun and disregarded the officer telling him not to.

I'm not looking to exonerate anyone, I'm looking at the facts of what happened as we can see them and making a determination.

No, all signs do not point to that. You filled in a bunch of blanks to give the cop the benefit of the doubt.

If there was no body cam footage of the dog killer, would you believe his account that he was fearful? Probably not. You would say it is unreasonable. But yet you'll believe that it's reasonable for a cop to be fearful of a man that 1.voluntarily disclosed that he had a fire arm to the police 2. had his entire family in the car including his 4 year old daughter.

Do you think that if he wanted to get into a shoot out with the cop that he would have told the cop that he had a gun first? No. It's utterly ridiculous. But if you're of the opinion that cops should not have to take ANY risk at all no matter how unreasonable then it makes sense. I just don't see how you square that view with the idea that this cop had no right to protect himself from the dog.

 

[Poatan Power]

A cop shooting at a fleeing unarmed suspect in a neighborhood is equally dangerous but they do it any way. A cop pursuing a fleeing suspect at high speeds is also dangerous (and many innocent people have died) but they still do it. In this case, the cop is shooting at a downward angle so less probably less dangerous.

Cops aren't suppose to shoot at unarmed fleeing suspects.

High speed chases are no longer vogue. They defer to air traffic or let them get away.

If a civilian shot at a dog like this they'd be in jail on charges lol

 

[nixkid]

Cops aren't suppose to shoot at unarmed fleeing suspects.

High speed chases are no longer vogue. They defer to air traffic or let them get away.

If a civilian shot at a dog like this they'd be in jail on charges lol

No. If a person rushes a cop and the cop started shooting and continues to shoot even as the suspect starts to flee, the cop is not getting charged. Even if the suspect was 10 feet away or whatever arbitrary distance.

That was the situation here. Once the cop decides to shoot, he will shoot until the threat is eliminated. Whether the act of continuing to shoot puts others in danger or not.

 

[Ruke Doufus]

No, all signs do not point to that. You filled in a bunch of blanks to give the cop the benefit of the doubt.

If there was no body cam footage, would you believe the cops account that he was fearful? Probably not. You would say it is unreasonable. But yet you'll believe that it's reasonable for a cop to be fearful of a man that 1.voluntarily disclosed that he had a fire arm to the police 2. had his entire family in the car including his 4 year old daughter.

Do you think that if he wanted to get into a shoot out with the cop that he would have told the cop that he had a gun first? No. It's utterly ridiculous. But if you're of the opinion that cops should not have to take ANY risk at all no matter how unreasonable then it makes sense. I just don't see how you square that view with the idea that this cop had no right to protect himself from the dog.

Again, the cop said 4 times for him to not reach for his gun. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the man inside the car nodded and raised both of his hands and the cop kept telling him not to reach for it before shooting him for no apparent reason. If this was his intent he would have behaved differently before and after.

How do you square this idea that the cop wasn't looking to shoot someone but also shot someone who was complying for no apparent reason?

How I square my determination of both events is that in one we have clear video evidence he shot a dog that posed little or no threat to him while in the other we have an officer directing someone not to grab his gun several times before shooting.

 

[Poatan Power]

No. If a person rushes a cop and the cop started shooting and continues to shoot even as the suspect starts to flee, the cop is not getting charged. Even if the suspect was 10 feet away or whatever arbitrary distance.

This isn't true at all. An unarmed suspect that rushes a cop and then runs away after being shot is no longer a threat. You don't understand what "threat is eliminated" means in context to training, and the cop in this situation did not shoot in that manner, either. You need to go take some force escalation classes and stop pretending on the internet you know anything about it.

That was the situation here. Once the cop decides to shoot, he will shoot until the threat is eliminated.

You don't understand the words that you're typing.

The threat still being alive and/or moving does not mean that they are "still a threat." A dog 30 feet away from you after you've shot it and it's running away is no longer a "threat," not that this dog ever was. The cop flinging lead down range at a moving target in a neighborhood is a huge threat. "Eliminating the threat" means the threat is no longer actively threatening your safety with its actions. It does not mean you continue shooting until your heart's content. The officer made a series of errors in his judgements here and only because he's an officer of the law will he get any leniency in his inappropriate use of force and his inability to weigh risks vs benefits of shooting a moving, wounded animal as it ran away. Everyone there is very lucky the officer didn't kill someone so that he could kill that dog.

Officer should be suspended and re-trained before he's allowed to carry a firearm again. Unnecessary risk to civilian life because he nearly got licked by a pooch or beckoned into a game of fetch.

 

[nixkid]

Again, the cop said 4 times for him to not reach for his gun. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the man inside the car nodded and raised both of his hands and the cop kept telling him not to reach for it before shooting him for no apparent reason. If this was his intent he would have behaved differently before and after.

He told him four times to "stop reaching"? According to who?

You don't think this dog killing cop would have a very interesting account of what happened had he not been on camera. Hell, we've seen cops say one thing and the bodycams footage shows something entirely different.

How do you square this idea that the cop wasn't looking to shoot someone but also shot someone who was complying for no apparent reason?

Oh, I don't believe that. I believe the cop was afraid. Just like I don't believe that the dog killing cop just decided to shoot a dog for no reason. I believe he was afraid too. The question is whether the fear justifies the shooting.

How I square my determination of both events is that in one we have clear video evidence he shot a dog that posed little or no threat to him while in the other we have an officer directing someone not to grab his gun several times before shooting.

Based on what the cop that pulled the trigger said.

 

[nixkid]

This isn't true at all. An unarmed suspect that rushes a cop and then runs away after being shot is no longer a threat. You don't understand what "threat is eliminated" means in context to training, and the cop in this situation did not shoot in that manner, either. You need to go take some force escalation classes and stop pretending on the internet you know anything about it.



You don't understand the words that you're typing.

The threat still being alive and/or moving does not mean that they are "still a threat." A dog 30 feet away from you after you've shot it and it's running away is no longer a "threat," not that this dog ever was. The cop flinging lead down range at a moving target in a neighborhood is a huge threat. "Eliminating the threat" means the threat is no longer actively threatening your safety with its actions. It does not mean you continue shooting until your heart's content. The officer made a series of errors in his judgements here and only because he's an officer of the law will he get any leniency in his inappropriate use of force and his inability to weigh risks vs benefits of shooting a moving, wounded animal as it ran away. Everyone there is very lucky the officer didn't kill someone so that he could kill that dog.

Officer should be suspended and re-trained before he's allowed to carry a firearm again. Unnecessary risk to civilian life because he nearly got licked by a pooch or beckoned into a game of fetch.

Cops are trained to shoot in rapid succession until they feel the threat is eliminated. He is not stopping to reassess the situation after every squeeze of the trigger. That is not how they are trained.

This discussion has been has had ad nauseam. Once the cop determines that deadly force is required. Arguing over how many shots he fired or whether he should have stopped 2 seconds sooner is pointless. They are not trained to do that.

 

[DanSavage]

Dixie's owner, Tammie Kerns, says her four yellow Labs ran out of her house and were being rounded up when a cop pulled over.

Perhaps Tammie should have trained her dogs to not run out the door when it's opened?

Will she now train her other three dogs to stay in the house when the front door is opened? Not likely.

Dogs need to be trained that an open door is not an open invitation to leave.

 

[Hog-train]

The back the blue position has been that cops should not have to expose themselves to unnecessary risk. That people have to take accountability for their interactions with police to ensure that an encounter is safe for police. And if they do not then force escalation is justified. That's why police should be given wide discretion. This woman could have controlled her dogs. She could have kept them leashed or in the house during this interaction. That's her responsibility in the same manner that a person should refrain from unnecessary reaching or other "suspicious movements" during an interaction with police. The fact that she did not exposed the cop to unnecessary risk. This is just a fact. And the back blue philosophy is that he should not have to expose himself to risk because a civilian doesn't take care of their responsibility.

Being a cop means one should accept an intrinsic level of risk.

 

[Ruke Doufus]

He told him four times to "stop reaching"? According to who?

You don't think this dog killing cop would have a very interesting account of what happened had he not been on camera. Hell, we've seen cops say one thing and the bodycams footage shows something entirely different.



Oh, I don't believe that. I believe the cop was afraid. Just like I don't believe that the dog killing cop just decided to shoot a dog for no reason. I believe he was afraid too. The question is whether the fear justifies the shooting.



Based on what the cop that pulled the trigger said.

According to the video recording of the event. Without bodycam footage showing EXACTLY what the cop saw some will choose to believe the worst while others give the benefit of the doubt, but the point remains that you won't find an example of a cop shooting someone for no justifiable reason (without any doubt aka the dog situation) being defended and celebrated.

 

[Alphaboy]

Okay so without the bodycam footage we don't know what actually happened in the car but from the interaction and body language it's reasonable to expect the officer after telling him to move his hand several times and him not complying had a reason to use his weapon. He was a bit jumpy but when someone tells you they have a gun and disregard your instructions not to grab it... Not so clear cut.

This is more in line with the typical shit you'd hear from police critics that "an innocent man got shot reaching for his wallet" when it was actually a gun but nobody except the officer and Castile truly know what happened.

What I was asking for was a video of an innocent person clearly doing nothing wrong and being gunned down by a cop for no reason and being celebrated.

Jesus Christ.



Aight, you win bro. There's nothing I would've said that'd have you concede.

 

[SummerStriker]

Dog off the leash should be a felony. Unattended, loose dogs should be shot on sight. I'm not clear how they aren't vermin other than that vermin have a natural role. People wouldn't let their dogs out if they had to go to court and get a new dog every time it happened. If you are too poor, lazy, or incompetent that you can't control your animal, don't own one.

 

[Ruke Doufus]

Jesus Christ.



Aight, you win bro. There's nothing I would've said that'd have you concede.

No, had you provided a video of a cop shooting an innocent person I'd have conceded but the best example you could provide was someone with a gun being shot lol.

 

[Zazen]

You'll have to elaborate since the only article I can find on a shooting of a Brandon Tatum doesn't involve cops nor can I find anyone celebrating it.

He’s a YouTuber. He defended the cops who stood around and watched kids get slaughtered in Texas. He defended a group of cops pulling a man out of his car and beating him to death. Sick dude who chooses blue over anything else. Even his own audience turned on him in those videos

 

[IamStryker]

The context I've seen it used, it always advocates blind allegiance for law enforcement and high tolerance for misbehavior.

If you'd like to clarify the phrase though, I am all ears.

That is not what it means. If anyone told me that's what it means then I woukd say I do not support that. You can support a group without supporting obvious bad behavior.

 

[IamStryker]

It's supporters are people who are in favor of giving police officers wide discretion over decisions to use force.

This is the result of a shoot first, asks questions later culture within police departments and the political apparatus that will defend such behavior. Cops acts like this because there is support for them when they do it to PEOPLE. Why should the rules be different for an animal?

I'm OK with discretion. That doesn't mean you don't call out obvious bad calls.

People have the brains to comply with cops. Animals do not.

 

[The XL]

Cops have way too many privileges and are completely protected by the government. Both cops and the government can get fucked. I know there are good cops, but you're as good as your worst and the institution that protects you and at this point, I couldn't give two shits about the US government or the so called struggles these cops have.

Cops are lawless thugs, point blank. I do my best to stay away from them whenever possible.

 

[Clippy]

Fuck sakes
This is why Mayberry better I just want to think about muffins n shit

 

[mozfonky]

if the officer was that terrified of a lab, he shouldn’t be a fuckin’ cop

probably saw the dog "reachin'".

 

[KnightTemplar]

Perhaps Tammie should have trained her dogs to not run out the door when it's opened?

Will she now train her other three dogs to stay in the house when the front door is opened? Not likely.

Dogs need to be trained that an open door is not an open invitation to leave.

Cops need to be trained that a Labrador running at them does not justify lethal force