police dog shot by freindly fire

[Richards 0]

I agree. In a situation like that you have to take some responsibility for your own well being. You need to realise that the officers pointing guns at you are scared and want to go home alive. You need to think about how your every act will be interpreted before you carry it out. They cannot possibly know your intentions.

Still feel terrible for the dog though.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

People before canines.

Quote

under every circumstance? come on

Since there were so many people available in this particular situation, simultaneous treatment would have been acceptable.

Canine before humans? Absolutely not.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

• Quote

[GQ_jumper 4]

Canine before humans? Absolutely not.

Quote

So if I volunteer to become a military dog handler and go to Iraq with my dog and in a firefight both my dog(teammate) and an insurgent get shot, who should I treat first, the insurgent who shot my dog, or my teammate, and what if the dog was shot while stopping the insurgent from shooting me. Screw the insurgent, he's a terrorist and deserves to die, my teammate comes first and if I can stabilize him and the insurgent is still breathing I'll work on him.

I know in your world criminals are hero's and everything the Police do is evil and they are only here to hold us down cause they are the man but to those of us who work closely with people who are their to watch our backs and bring us home safely our loyalty goes to our teammates first.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[billvon 3,009]

>my teammate comes first . . .

Humans come first in my book. I guess I have a different book than a lot of people here.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Canine before humans? Absolutely not.

Quote

So if I volunteer to become a military dog handler and go to Iraq with my dog and in a firefight both my dog(teammate) and an insurgent get shot, who should I treat first, the insurgent who shot my dog, or my teammate, and what if the dog was shot while stopping the insurgent from shooting me. Screw the insurgent, he's a terrorist and deserves to die, my teammate comes first and if I can stabilize him and the insurgent is still breathing I'll work on him.

I know in your world criminals are hero's and everything the Police do is evil and they are only here to hold us down cause they are the man but to those of us who work closely with people who are their to watch our backs and bring us home safely our loyalty goes to our teammates first.

As I said, humans before canines. I honestly can't believe there are civilized people trying to rationalize anything different.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

• Quote

[GQ_jumper 4]

As I said, humans before canines. I honestly can't believe there are civilized people trying to rationalize anything different.

Quote

And I can't believe you hold criminals in such high regards

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And I can't believe you hold criminals in such high regards

Nice blatant misrepresentation of my post.

It not about holding criminals in high or low regard. It's about not minimizing the value of human life just because it's not mine or because I don't agree with the actions of that person. It's not my place to be judgmental.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And I can't believe you hold criminals in such high regards

isn't there a judge involved before you can make that statement?

[Skyrad 0]

Personally I can't help thinking that if it was my dog I'd be exactly the same.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Richards 0]

Quote

As I said, humans before canines. I honestly can't believe there are civilized people trying to rationalize anything different.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Rationaly what you say makes sense but in the heat of the moment a person might react to save his dog over the other guy who was brandishing a gun at him. Particularly if he feels guilty that his own fuckup is what got mans best freind shot. I am not sure if you have ever had a dog but if you have then you realise the attachment that a person can have to a dog. Obviously it would be a deplorable decision for a Doctor to make in the clinical environment of an emergency room, but for the cop on the scene he just reacted with emotion. He is only human.

Like I previously posted. I can understand the handler going straight to helping the dog. It's still the wrong decision, but I can understand the emotional charge.

However, in this particular situation, no attempt was made to give the suspect medical attention in a timely manner by any of the cops, at least before the video ended. That does not speak highly of the officers involved, nor those who are defending their inaction.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[GQ_jumper 4]

isn't there a judge involved before you can make that statement?

Quote

if a man attacks a police officer, would you consider him innocent or a criminal?

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

if a man attacks a police officer, would you consider him innocent or a criminal?

It would be very difficult to draw a conclusion unless I had seen everything that led up to the attack. A badge in and of itself does not make its bearer a good guy or a bad guy.

Would you immediately jump to a conclusion without knowing the facts?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[akarunway 1]

Quote

isn't there a judge involved before you can make that statement?

Quote

if a man attacks a police officer, would you consider him innocent or a criminal?

Depends. Was he defending himself against a crooked cop. All kinds of scenarios come to mind. I've had the shit beat outta me by cops. DEFENDING MY CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS. The one time I got away w/ it the media was present and they had to let me walk. Cop whispered in my ear he was gonna fuck me up next time Wonder why I hate cops?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

• Quote

[GQ_jumper 4]

I was trying to put it in the simplest form, I know there are many different scenarios but let's draw a quick one out, man runs into the middle of the street, draws a gun and fires on a cop who he chose at random. What does that make this man?

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I was trying to put it in the simplest form, I know there are many different scenarios but let's draw a quick one out, man runs into the middle of the street, draws a gun and fires on a cop who he chose at random. What does that make this man?

As deserving of the protections of the justice system as someone who was arrested for jaywalking.

Suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Police officers are not the judge, juror or executioner. If they cannot perform their duties without passion or prejudice, they should find a different line of work.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Richards 0]

Quote

However, in this particular situation, no attempt was made to give the suspect medical attention in a timely manner by any of the cops, at least before the video ended. That does not speak highly of the officers involved...,

The entire way they handled the standoff does not speak well of them.

Quote

....nor those who are defending their inaction.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

I was trying to put it in the simplest form, I know there are many different scenarios but let's draw a quick one out, man runs into the middle of the street, draws a gun and fires on a cop who he chose at random. What does that make this man?

I'd say in that scenerio he's a criminal and deadly force is justified. Any more? Edit to add: If he's still alive do you let him lay there and bleed to death if you didn't kill him? How bout this one. If some criminal broke in my house and I shot him and I didn't kill him the minute I felt safe I'd try to keep him alive. Would YOU? Who knows. Maybe he'd change his life and become the next Einstien w/ a little rehab

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

I was trying to put it in the simplest form, I know there are many different scenarios but let's draw a quick one out, man runs into the middle of the street, draws a gun and fires on a cop who he chose at random. What does that make this man?

As deserving of the protections of the justice system as someone who was arrested for jaywalking.

Suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Police officers are not the judge, juror or executioner. If they cannot perform their duties without passion or prejudice, they should find a different line of work.

As pollyanna as your response is... the suspect took aim and fired and you think he should be treated like a jaywalker?! Yes he does deserve the protection of the courts... but if he's shooting at the cops, they respond. That doesnt make them judge, juror or ececutioner... that makes them responding to a lethal situation. I think you missed the mark with that analogy.

[GQ_jumper 4]

As pollyanna as your response is... the suspect took aim and fired and you think he should be treated like a jaywalker?! Yes he does deserve the protection of the courts... but if he's shooting at the cops, they respond. That doesnt make them judge, juror or ececutioner... that makes them responding to a lethal situation. I think you missed the mark with that analogy.

Quote

You have it all wrong, you aren't allowed to defend yourself if you are an officer of the law, you guys all got it wrong, the correct response was this. First, read him his rights(you may want to use a bullhorn as the firearm he is discharging at you is very loud), second, ensure he understands these rights by having him sign a form(but before he signs the form give him a breathalizer/sobriety test, urine test for drugs, and ask him if there is something in his personal life that would prevent him from fully understanding the form), third, wait for a lawyer to arrive on scene(you shouldn't have to worry at this point about getting shot as he most likely would have expended all ammunition in your direction and he should be waiting quietly for his lawyer), and finally, once the lawyer arrives on scene ask him if there is any medical treatment you could offer him(perhaps a bandaid for the blister he got on his trigger finger), ensure he is fealing fine and dandy as you send him on his merry way(which is a must or the lawyer will press charges against you for being a police officer in public and demand you pay for the wasted ammunition), and after this has all happen reprimand your teammates who are on the ground most likely dead in a pool of their own blood because surely amidst all the gunfire one of them raised their voice in order to be heard and this could have in some way traumatized the poor man shooting at them(don't forget to mention that they should be ashamed of themselves for getting in the way of that nice man's bullets). Oh, and don't forget to dock their pay for not offering to help pick up the bullet casings the INNOCENT shooter left behind so he could reload them and save a bit of money. Good grief, do I have to do all the thinking around here.

Seriously though, by definition in the US the man is not a "criminal" until proven so in a court of law(I don't disagree with that), but at the moment when he opens fire on an officer of the law he has broken the law and until the immedeate threat is mitigated needs to be dealt with accordingly. And an officer returning fire doesn't make them judge, jury, and execuctioner, it makes them an officer of the law responding accordingly to the situation which has presented itself.

On the original topic, I still need to take a close look at that video, but in all honesty is this world really going to miss a man who beats women? I'm sure there was a better way to deal with him but hey, I won't miss him.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

As pollyanna as your response is... the suspect took aim and fired and you think he should be treated like a jaywalker?! Yes he does deserve the protection of the courts... but if he's shooting at the cops, they respond. That doesnt make them judge, juror or ececutioner... that makes them responding to a lethal situation. I think you missed the mark with that analogy.

If a cop shoots a suspect, and that suspect shot first, the cop is justified. If there is no justification for the cop to use lethal force, and he does, that cop should face charges.

I've had enough experience with the police to know that a substantial portion of the time, they cause their own problems. Maybe I'm cynical, or maybe I'm just a realist, but when I hear cop vs someone else, I no longer assume someone else is guilty until I see evidence of it.

This is the United States, not a television police drama cleverly crafted so that the protagonist is always right and always wins in a nice hour time frame.

It's truly a shame that poor cops are not culled from the force, but as long as that appears to be the case, I do not automatically assume to police to be in the right.

Maybe I missed the point of the analogy, or maybe you don't understand why it is so important to presume innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

I've had enough experience with the police to know that a substantial portion of the time, they cause their own problems.

Quote

Maybe I missed the point of the analogy, or maybe you don't understand why it is so important to presume innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you automatically assume a suspect is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, an admirable quality as a lot of the time it is easy to oh so quickly write a person off as a criminal simply because they are on the news in handcuffs. Something I gather from your posts though is that anytime there is a scuffle between a citizen and a law enforcement officer is that you like to assume that the officer created the problem, this implies that you assume guilt on the part of the officer. Do you see where i am going with this?

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So you automatically assume a suspect is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, an admirable quality as a lot of the time it is easy to oh so quickly write a person off as a criminal simply because they are on the news in handcuffs. Something I gather from your posts though is that anytime there is a scuffle between a citizen and a law enforcement officer is that you like to assume that the officer created the problem, this implies that you assume guilt on the part of the officer. Do you see where i am going with this?

Not guilty would be a more accurate phrase than innocent, but yes, I do not assume guilt without evidence.

If a cop scuffles with a civilian, I do not automatically assume guilt on the part of the officer. Nor do I automatically assume guilt on the part of the suspect. Without evidence I withhold judgement.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[GrabGrass 0]

I've had enough experience with the police to know that a substantial portion of the time, they cause their own problems.

I take that to mean more than half?

A statement like that demonstrates either an extreme naivete or an inability to objectively make a logical argument without stating ill informed emotional impressions as fact.

Are you saying you KNOW that more then HALF of ALL cops that find themselves in a bad situation CREATED it THEMSELVES?

Conjecture isn't proof of fact.

OR, it could be that maybe you are a little naive, in which case allow me to perhaps open your consciousness in some small way in regard to what it's like to be a police officer in the real world.

To say that police cause their own problems is as ludicrous as saying the Catholic Nuns that were raped and killed during their attempts to render aid to the needy, 'had it coming' and caused THEIR own problems.

The street cop answering radio calls rarely if ever is being summoned to attend a tea party, his or her presence is being requested because a situation has developed negatively to the point that it is out of control for the average citizen's ability to contend.

It's a job that REQUIRES you to carry a firearm and bullet resistant clothing...stop here, and think about that for a minute.

You may think you were 'stressed' on your first night 8 way, try walking into a dark unfamiliar building filled with screams for help and gunfire...

Do you KNOW what a gunshot victim LOOKS like up close?

Have you ever seen what a shotgun does to a human being's face?

Carry THOSE images with you as you try to calmly clear a house and settle an armed confrontation peacefully.

...Then fill out a report and move on to THE NEXT problem that someone has called about, then the next...

When I was in law enforcement, my single primary objective when I left for work was to return home safe and alive.
If I could help people in my need during that time "BONUS", if I had to hurt someone in order to achieve my primary objective successfully, then so be it.
I never arbitrarily just pulled someone over, or walked into someones home uninvited to start some shit for an ego boost.

I worked in Detroit not May-berry, in some of the areas patrolled it's a statically known and proven FACT that in just under 70% of the arrests after 11pm- illegal drugs, excessive alcohol and use of weapons were factors.

So if you worked 3rd shift, answered 10 calls, almost 3/4's of them... you were dealing with mentally impaired and armed people.

And you say the POLICE cause their own problems?

How by showing up?!

Again, I don't know WHAT you are studying as a student, (profile reference) but something you should know, if you find yourself in a situation with the police, do what they say to do...if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.

If you throw down, point a gun, become verbally abusive, EXPECT to be treated as someone with the intent of keeping that police officer...another human being... from being safe and going home.

~ "Pack Fast, Pull Low... and Date Your Riggers WIFE!" ~

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

As pollyanna as your response is... the suspect took aim and fired and you think he should be treated like a jaywalker?! Yes he does deserve the protection of the courts... but if he's shooting at the cops, they respond. That doesnt make them judge, juror or ececutioner... that makes them responding to a lethal situation. I think you missed the mark with that analogy.

I guess I'll have to go look up the definition of criminal. But, in my book, to be judged a criminal, you would have to be convicted of a crime in a court of law.