Then the dog’s handler should be charged for his negligence here.
Seriously? Have the dog shot, the dog’s cop locked away for a few years for assault with a deadly weapon, and the rest of the cops fired for failing to do their duty when they did not stop the cop with the dog.
As far as the father throwing himself at the dog goes, he was too far away to do so, so your silly little question is irrelevant.
The police are not responsible for the policies they’re ordered to enforce. If I’m overweight, it’s not my hand’s fault for shoving more food into my mouth, and it isn’t my mouth’s fault for refusing to close.
The anarchists are the petty criminals who want a weakened police department. Stop playing dumb.
The dog’s handler was police, you anarchist!
Then we’re in agreement that the scenario you proposed was silly;
Are you saying that a police officer can’t commit a crime?
I always figured that police are people. Most are good. Some are bad. All have the responsibility and ability to act ethically.
Sicking a dog on a toddler goes under the heading “bad” in my books, and the bad cop being a cop – or as you put it, being a tool – is no excuse what so ever for what he did.
Right, the ‘just following orders’ defense, like I said.
See, you’re not following the conspiracy properly. BLM was formed as a cover to weaken the police. But BLM only got traction because the police were actually abusing people. But the police were ‘just following orders’, so it was the local governments who forced the police to abuse people who are at the heart of this conspiracy, so *they *are the anarchists, right? Your *they *is the government, right?
We don’t disagree on that. The difference is there are people out there for whom “the cop screwed up” isn’t a good enough explanation and want to spin elaborate tales about “the cop knew there was a baby in there and unleashed the dog on purpose because cops like hurting people for no reason”.
You sicken me, you anarchist.
Calling a police officer a tool? you anarchist!!!
“The government are anarchists” is, of course, an oxymoron, and you will note that the BLM people didn’t start out chanting about excessive issuance of speeding tickets or moving violations - it was lies about “Hands up, don’t shoot”.
“Tool” isn’t an insult. It’s a statement of fact. The police don’t decide policy. They enforce the policies they’re ordered to.
That’s what *they *want you to think.
Yeah, the BLM movement didn’t get traction until the police started killing people. But the police would have known that if they started killing people then people would start protesting, right? So clearly the police were complicit. But the police ‘just follow orders’, so it was someone above them who came up with this plan, right?
KEEP DIGGING, SMAPTI!
Hands up, don’t bite the baby!
OK, non-humorous response.
The police do not create laws but they do create policy in both what laws they enforce and how they enforce them.
There are no laws that require police to aggressively approach a suspect yelling commands in a way that escalates the situation and invokes a fight or flight response from a civilian. This is purely a choice of the police department and their self defined policy.
If your claim was true there would be no reason for DOJ consent decrees and poor and or brown citizen would not be harassed and or arrested in a way that white middle class citizens avoid. There would be no reason for the black lives matter movement to exist if your claim was true as the police would be forced to not violate citizens rights.
Bullshit. This defense did not work in the Nuremburg tribunals, it does not work in the military (See US v. Keenan among others), and it will not work with the police either. If the policy that the police are ordered to follow is illegal, the police are liable even thought they are just following orders.
Warning Smapti!!!
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!!
We’re kinda saying that they commit crimes all. the. fucking. time.