What does happyheathen’s alleged friend’s alleged story have to do with these cops shooting this dog?
Nothing.
Excuse us, we’re hijacking this thread young missy. Find another one to hijack…
But point taken. HH, I withdraw any opinion on you/your in-law. Sounds a bit too much like one of the myriad 'Back when I was in The ‘Nam’ stories I hear, but hey. War is hell.
If I recall correctly, there was more than one instance of local children running up as a human grenade kamikaze attack in vietnam.
Regardless.
In this case, I think the officers showed a severe lack in judgment. No, I don’t think they were “pigs”, nor were they out to get people. Rather, they approached the situation in such a manner unbecoming. Granted, they did not know what was going on. I understand that. However, they had overwhelming force, and the report itself clearly says at no time did the suspects (Soak family) resist at all.
Granted, dog bites can be painful. Nevertheless, the animal was merely attempting to protect its family.
One part of being an officer is learning to control the situation, and learning HOW TO RESPOND. The officers of the law evidently did not pay attention. They assumed or were told they were probably facing an armed robbery. They went in gung-ho, and wound up doing some very stupid things.
Since there were four of them, and the primary suspect [Mr. Soak] was handcuffed, one would think they might have had the foresight to close the doors.
All in all, I’m not going to ascribe evil motives. However, they displayed a lack of adequate planning, a bellugerent attitude toward the situation unwarranted by the circumstances, and poor judgement.
“Pigs”?
Sheesh.
Anyway, at law, of course, murder is the unlawing killing of a human being.
In the heart of a loving family, it is not out of bounds to apply the word to the killing of a beloved pet.
The officers in the case did not act recklessly - they were told the car’s occupants were felony suspects. They had no reason to doubt the claim. Whether shooting the dog was reckless or not depends on how the dog acted – and since there is video evidence from the camera, I’m sure that will be settled in due course.
Whichever police official made the logical leap from missing wallet to felony investigation did act recklessly, however, and it was that foolish action that led to this nightmare.
- Rick
Let me clarify: I am not calling all cops pigs, I’m calling these cops pigs. Anybody who grins in self-satisfaction after murdering an innocent family’s pet is a pig in my book.
But even if you completely credit the witness, he only claimed one police officer grinned. If that’s the criteria for being a “pig” – why did you use a plural and refer to “pigs”?
- Rick
It seems to me that it started with the police listening to a citizen making assumptions and insinuations. Aren’t the police trained better that that? Scary. Give them life and death authority and then don’t give them adequate enough training to differentiate between fact and interpretation?
Yes, we need law enforcement.
No, we don’t need ametuers in the police department.
I wondered, too. But, the news would’ve been all over any race issue, right? So, I guess it’s a non issue in this story.
Once the dog got out of the car, there was really no other action the officers could have taken if the dog started attacking them. None.
However, the damn dog should never have been able to get out of the car. Could the cops not see the two big scary dogs in the car? I really don’t give a damn what suspects might say, but you should at least consider the words coming out of their freakin mouths. I mean “hey, there are dogs in the car, close the door” should lead the cops to looking at the damn car and seeing that, yes, there are big dogs in it. Why is this so unreasonable a course of action?
It all goes back to the decision to make a felony stop on a group of tourists for losing a wallet. I really wish more information was available on exactly what the “concerned citizen” said to the 911 dispatcher to make the Highway Patrol conduct a felony stop. I can’t begin to imagine the thought process that went into this decision. Oh well, you know what happens when you “assume”. You make an “ass” out of “u” and a dead dog.
I wonder how often this kind of thing happens? The only thing that probably makes this event notable was the tragic ending of a family pet. Maybe we should be glad that the police are doing such a bang up job reuniting people with their lost wallets. Or maybe we should be glad that only a dog died instead of a less replaceable member of the family.
Here is the response of the Police Chief of Cookeville. Also, here is another article on the story. It shows a picture of James Smoak, who is clearly caucasian, so race was not an issue.
White as the driven snow. Disappointed?
Moderator’s Note: Happyheathen, you will not call other posters “morons” in this forum. Got it?
Diogenes the Cynic–and in fact everyone, of course–if you can’t discuss this issue in a reasonably calm fashion, open a Pit thread already.
—and since there is video evidence from the camera, I’m sure that will be settled in due course.—
There is video evidence that we can look at. Unfortunately, I can’t afford it: CNN now charges for the use of their video servers: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/08/police.kill.dog/index.html
This article also notes that the dog was wagging it’s tail. If true, then it’s pretty likely that, in reality, it wasn’t about to attack anyone, whatever the officer conjectured in the moment. My dogs rush at people all the time… because they love people.
We also have, on tape, Pamela Smoak telling the officers: “That dog is not mean. He won’t hurt you.”"
This description of the event is thus:
“The tape then shows the Smoak’s medium-size brown dog romping on the shoulder of the Interstate, its tail wagging. As the family yells, the dog, named Patton, first heads away from the road, then quickly circles back toward the family.
An officer in a blue uniform aims his shotgun at the dog and fires at its head, killing it immediately.”
Unless the tape (and the description of the tape, being all I have to go on) is leaving out some visible signs from the dog, I don’t see what reasonable inference the officer had that he was being attacked. Indeed, it doesn’t even sound like the officer was what the dog was actually running towards.
The reality is, police are armed. They are used to hearing stories about their fellow officers being gunned down in traffic stops, mauled by dogs at domestic disputes, and so on. They are usually fairly nervous. They are going to shoot things they don’t understand sometimes, in the heat of the moment. This is a reality. It isn’t a good reality… but I’d like to see someone come up with a good way to solve it.
“It’s a fair cop, aye… but society is to blame!”
“Right: We’ll be charging them too!” -Monthy Python
Got it. What terms are acceptable for one who calls me a liar without knowing anything about which he/she is talking?
Terms which don’t involve direct personal insults, or a link to a Pit thread started for the purpose of replying.
Um, as an noun, I have always considered “liar” equivalent to “moron”- use of one is equivalent to the use of the other.
See Brutus’s line;
Or, stated another way, his calling me a liar is acceptable, but my calling him a moron is not?
But, in the future, I will direct such unindicted co-conspirators to a Pit thread dedicated to them.
I always understood that calling someone a liar, especially without cause to back up the assertion, was verboten in this forum as well.
Hola!
This is another example that police are stupid beings. Especially small town redneck Cookeville Police (Yee Haw!)
SENOR
Moderator’s Note: Discussion of moderator actions should be done by e-mail or in the Pit, not in the middle of the thread where the warning was given.
I just watched the entire video and… wow.
What an unfortunate turn of events. I usually give the cops the benefit of the doubt in situations like this, but I think they screwed up big time with this one. And the mistake wasn’t necessarily the point at which the officer fired his weapon. It was when they failed to close the freaking car door.
The occupants warned them there was a dog inside. They asked the officers to just close the door. Now let’s look at the two possibilities here: A) the dog is just a gentle, harmless pet and the owners don’t want it to get out and run into traffic. Any harm in closing the door? No. B) the dog is a killer pit bull hellbent on killing police officers. Wouldn’t it be good to close the door and keep it contained? Yes.
Now, granted, the cops don’t know this dog and have to be careful. But by refusing to close the door they created a situation in which they practically had to assume the dog was dangerous and kill it. (I could argue that the cop didn’t have to fire his weapon at the dog, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt at that instant: tense situation with suspected criminals, dog comes running at you, you don’t have time to see if he’s wagging his tail or not.)
I’d round up every officer on the scene and send them back through training for felony stops with an emphasis on this question: If there’s a dangerous animal in the car and it could kill you if it comes out, should you leave the damn door wide open even after the occupants warn you that the animal will get out?
I realize that felony stops are highly choreographed routines and maybe they leave the door open until they can search for other occupants, weapons, etc., but clearly they should be able to improvise if they think there’s a dangerous animal in the car. That shouldn’t have taken a lot of brainpower to figure out.
I would challenge anyone who defends the actions of the cops in this case to watch the video. A group of people pulled out of their car for no good reason, forced to their knees, and then their dog shot down.
There are no mitigating factors here. The tape shows clearly that the dog was in no way threatening. It would have been far easier for the officer to knock it aside or just leave it be.
The only possible good side out of this is that the idiots involved will hopefully be kicked out of the force before they harm more people.