Using logic and reason sure to thrill the nation, [the shooting of a 12 year old boy who had a pellet gun is reported to be “A-OK, nothing to see here, everything is fine”:
If a large dog which is strange to me charges at me in a place with which I am unfamiliar, and I’m armed, I’m not waiting until after it tears open my femoral artery to defend myself.
Anyone who thinks that’s “cowardly” either has no fear of death or is not familiar with the damage a large dog can do.
So, whether referring to a stun gun or not (which could be the Blue Wall backing up a fellow officer), this cop got recorded saying he was going to shoot this guy two hours prior to doing it.
He turned towards the police, and then his body fell in their direction. If he had moved in the other direction, you would claim he was running away-a sure sign of guilt! You are one fucked up bastard, aren’t you?
Cute. He can clearly be seen taking several steps in the direction of the car before and as it enters the frame, stopping only when he is shot.
I do not consider that appropriate. I also do not consider it to be in any way relevant to the people who are demanding the blood of innocent police defending themselves against a person armed with what they had every reason to believe was a lethal weapon.
So fucking what? He was a child, and a police car was rushing up to him-what kind of reaction did you expect him to take? He didn’t know that his life was in danger from a trigger-happy yahoo looking for an excuse to blow him away.
“Not walk towards the cops while reaching for the fake gun in his waistband” would have been a good choice.
I’m sorry, I believe you misspelled “public servant who has been informed that a male has been seen brandishing a firearm in a public park and who now observes that male approaching him while reaching for said firearm”.
It must be terrifying to live in your world where all cops are bloodthirsty monsters who get out of bed in the morning and say to themselves “I hope I get a chance to murder some children today!”. I’m sure glad I don’t live there.
Did you even click the video? True, it’s not a Chihuahua but if you consider it a “large dog” then you are cowardly.
But that’s almost beside the point because:
(a) In residential areas owners are responsible for training and controlling their dogs. To assume the dog would attack viciously is to assume its owners are criminals.
Answer this hypothetical please. You’re a door-to-door salesman (rather than a uniformed officer responding to a medical emergency) and, after owner responds to your door knock, a dog approaches threateningly. Do you have the right to shoot the dog?
(b) Should anyone so unskilled as to hit an innocent bystander be allowed to fire a gun at all?
But thanks for sharing; it gives insight into your “thinking”:
Cop: “She was walking down the street minding her own business, but I noticed her purse was large enough to hold a hand-grenade. Naturally I had to assume the worst, so I emptied my magazine into her.”
Judge Smapti: “Case dismissed.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In another thread I argue for the protection of voter rights, but I sure hope you don’t get voter ID when you turn 18. (How old are you now, about 12?)
He actually said “completely unacceptable.” The murderer is now on “paid administrative leave pending federal probe.”
I know English evolves, but how could “completely unacceptable” behavior not result in dismissal? Are cops fired only for “exponentially completely unacceptable” behavior?
I don’t know how many door-to-door salesmen are still out there, but the USPS, UPS, FedEx, and others manage to make daily deliveries without shooting dogs, which I’m sure may all not be on a leash or confined–especially in more rural areas.
Why, they may even get training for dealing with dogs.
The dog in question was an adult boxer-terrier mix, an animal which can weigh up to 50 lbs. That’s large enough to pose a threat. If you disagree, I challenge you to goad one into attacking you on camera and post the results on YouTube.
Yes. I have just as much right to defend myself from a dangerous animal as an LEO does in the same scenario.
(Incidentally, one of you might want to tell the people in this thread that they’re all a bunch of cowards.)
In that thread, the animal is actually attacking them with intent to kill.
That’s rather different to this scenario, in which the officer claims that that dog charged him, but that is just his claim. And pepper spray certainly could have worked just as well - wouldn’t you, Smapti, use pepper spray first, with a dog? It’s hardly going to reach into its pockets for a gun, is it?
And I can just imagine a load of posties going round shooting dogs on their route. That they don’t says something of a policeman who did, especially when invited onto a property rather than searching for bad guys.
Dogs pack deadly weapons ! You have literally ZERO SECONDS from the time they see you before they slice up your femoral artery ! You know, as dogs routinely do…
I’m conflicted. How should I be teaching my children to act around police officers?
Should I be teaching them that police officers are people they can trust so if they’re in a situation where something has happened to mom and dad the police will take care of them?
Or should I be teaching them that if a police car drives up to them they should turn and run away, or put their hands up?
My son is a pretty curious and friendly kid. I imagine if a fancy police car pulled into the park he was playing in he would walk over to say hi.
That they don’t says something of a policeman who did, especially when invited onto a property rather than searching for bad guys.