Jump to content

Police Shoot Dog


Recommended Posts

Just read the police involved have now been relocated and there families are also under protection. A community about to explode? The straw that broke the camels back?

Isnt that just lovely. So the people employed to protect the community are now being protected from the community? And their families are as well? Fabulous. Gotta love vigilantes.

Shooting dogs which were well behaved, and had owners on hand is hardly "protecting the community" Hopefully the polie and their families are moved somewhere with few people and no dogs.

It appears that there was no reason for arresting the dog's owner.

I just want to point out that the police were in the process of dealing with a potentially dangerous situation and don't need a douchebag bystander making the situation worse by playing loud music and strutting around like a complete and utter toss-pot. He deserved being cuffed and arrested, but no the dog didn't need to die that way.

Having said that, the dog did appear to jump up at one of the officers seconds before he was shot.

This guy deserves what he got -- he had no reason to interfere with the police in the manner that he did. The way he was strutting around was like he was deliberately trying to antagonise them -- he has no one to blame but himself for his stupidity. And sadly, his dog had to pay the price.

RIP Max. I'm sorry you had such a moron for an owner. May you find peace over the bridge. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What I saw was the dog only lunged when the officer himself appeared to lunge at it as if to scare it off.

Bad. Plan.

More than anything what infuriates me is that, in four shots at close range, this officer was unable to put the poor thing out of its misery. If his aim, when uninjured, is that terrible and his conduct even after it was totally disabled that cruel, then he should not have a gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hardly "protecting the community" Hopefully the polie and their families are moved somewhere with few people and no dogs.

Ahh OK, my bad. I always thought the motto for police 'To Protect and Serve' was a description of their duty to the community. I guess several squad cars and a TRU were just there on the day for giggles. Sure explains why police and their families have been relocated for their own protection due to lunatic vigilantes.

It's horrible what happened to the dog but I'm not going to condemn police for an incident that not one of us has any inside knowledge about.

Edited by raz
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I saw was the dog only lunged when the officer himself appeared to lunge at it as if to scare it off.

Bad. Plan.

More than anything what infuriates me is that, in four shots at close range, this officer was unable to put the poor thing out of its misery. If his aim, when uninjured, is that terrible and his conduct even after it was totally disabled that cruel, then he should not have a gun.

Yep. Not safe to be armed. Not really safe to be on the street at all if he is that incompetent and callous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor loyal dog, just protecting his person. Did they have to shoot him again to put him out of his suffering or did he just die shortly after that thrashing around? :cry:

I can understand the policemens stress with so many sniggering onlookers, like it was a party atmosphere, not just the twit with the dog, in a potentially dangerous situation. So sad that lovely dog had to pay for his owners stupid actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hardly "protecting the community" Hopefully the polie and their families are moved somewhere with few people and no dogs.

Ahh OK, my bad. I always thought the motto for police 'To Protect and Serve' was a description of their duty to the community. I guess several squad cars and a TRU were just there on the day for giggles. Sure explains why police and their families have been relocated for their own protection due to lunatic vigilantes.

It's horrible what happened to the dog but I'm not going to condemn police for an incident that not one of us has any inside knowledge about.

We had knowledge via the video. The owner was in police custody, he should have been told to order the dog down. And the dog did not bite anyone - yet they still shot him.

"Undue force" Lack of care for the public's possessions.

And the police are supposedly trained to deal with "crowd" situations or difficult situations, and this particularlar situation looked didn't look too bad.

You are entitled to your opinion, Raz. I just don't agree with it. It seems to have become all too easy for the police to shoot people's animals ... this is not the first and will not be the last. It is time the public showed their disdain (as they have done).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the owner of the dog can take it higher, jed. I'm pretty sure the USA has a watchdog organisation that deals with allegations of Incorrect Conduct, the same as we do. Still does not make it right that the officer performing his duty on the day AND his family have been relocated for their safety from civilians taking matters into their own hands, which is the post of mine you chose to respond to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More than anything what infuriates me is that, in four shots at close range, this officer was unable to put the poor thing out of its misery. If his aim, when uninjured, is that terrible and his conduct even after it was totally disabled that cruel, then he should not have a gun.

Can depend on the ammunition. Most police ammunition is designed for stopping power/ impact and not penetration power. So even a well aimed shot can fail to kill an animal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He has every right to film them, and every right to make it as obvious as he wishes that he's doing so. He wasn't interfering with them, they just didn't like it so they came over to throw their weight around. The fact he had a dog with him didn't deter them from being arseholes because they knew that if it interferes they'd just shoot it.

This sort of thing only makes things worse for the police, it damages public relations and builds contempt; the public at large is not going to be intimidated as they hope, they are going to be angry. I'll bet there's wide support for them from other police too; they are only hurting themselves; the message is 'we support our own irrespective of the injustice'; 'we serve (what we think is in) our own interests first and foremost, not the publics'.

Edited by KungLao
Link to post
Share on other sites
Still does not make it right that the officer performing his duty on the day AND his family have been relocated for their safety from civilians taking matters into their own hands, which is the post of mine you chose to respond to.

Nor is it wrong. If old mate were such a great husband and father he may have thought about how the consequences of his injustices might effect them. One can't just go around 'poking the bear', the bear in this case being the public, as they please with no repercussion. People are angry and want justice, they know from a long list of insults that have resulted time after time after police bullying and brutality allegations that they're not likely to get it unless they take it for themselves.

Edited by KungLao
Link to post
Share on other sites

People are angry and want justice, they know from a long list of insults that have resulted time after time after police bullying and brutality allegations that they're not likely to get it unless they take it for themselves.

So you approve of vigilantism? OK that's good to know. Pretty pointless having watchdog organisations then, isnt it. Just give everyone a pitchfork and let them seek their own justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I support people's militia, whether it be established or ad hoc, with the purpose of demanding their civil rights and keeping the cockroaches honest--everything from the mass demonstrations we have seen in Egypt, Turkey and Greece through micro rebellions as seen here, the purpose is to keep them honest and take justice if the authorities have made it obvious it won't be forthcoming from them.

Edited by KungLao
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't support 'revenge' in itself, or punitive measures for their own sake, I only support them as a means if the end is corrective; I think there's a major difference there and wanted to make that distinction clear.

Edited by KungLao
Link to post
Share on other sites
Still does not make it right that the officer performing his duty on the day AND his family have been relocated for their safety from civilians taking matters into their own hands, which is the post of mine you chose to respond to.

Nor is it wrong. If old mate were such a great husband and father he may have thought about how the consequences of his injustices might effect them. One can't just go around 'poking the bear', the bear in this case being the public, as they please with no repercussion. People are angry and want justice, they know from a long list of insults that have resulted time after time after police bullying and brutality allegations that they're not likely to get it unless they take it for themselves.

What a load of crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What did the stupid cop think was going to happen? Maybe thought he could get away with it but luck wasn't on his side when someone filmed it.

I feel very sorry for his family, if he was my other half the relationship would be over, even my husband agrees.

I'm glad there are plenty of people out there standing up for the general publics rights, it's the only way things get changed and progress is made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have read a bunch of comments on some US sites, and vast majority of people seem to support police action in this case. They don't seem to think that police did anything wrong. They do feel sorry for the dog, but they blame the owner.

I thought it is very interesting comparison to sentiment here on this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I support people's militia, whether it be established or ad hoc, with the purpose of demanding their civil rights and keeping the cockroaches honest--everything from the mass demonstrations we have seen in Egypt, Turkey and Greece through micro rebellions as seen here, the purpose is to keep them honest and take justice if the authorities have made it obvious it won't be forthcoming from them.

Mass demonstrations in Egypt and Turkey were anything but spontaneous people rebellions. They were organised abroad and had an only purpose to destabilise governments in those countries. Didn't work in Turkey though. Greece was entirely different thing.

As for people's militia keep government honest and all that crap, why is that first thing they all always do to loot and destroy public property?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and by the way that man was officially arrested for obstruction of the justice at the crime scene. And no, he didn't have right to film anything at the crime scene.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't support 'revenge' in itself, or punitive measures for their own sake, I only support them as a means if the end is corrective; I think there's a major difference there and wanted to make that distinction clear.

Let's guess, you are very young. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only public property the Greeks have damaged, isolated incidents aside, is a means or a result of clashing with police. The bullets in Greece, as in Australia only fly one way so they resort to chipping stones off public buildings to fight back--in the US they fly both ways, and that has been and will continue to be the result of police injustice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...