Shodan, since you apparently haven’t seen the video yet I urge you to watch the actual video before sullying your name further by defending the indefensible.
Don’t be silly. That isn’t what I was suggesting. I do not understand where your hints of racism come from. Racial profiling had nothing to do with the topic at hand.
If the police get a 911 call from a third party who saw a house being broken in to and are told that every window is broken and the front door is busted down they should access the truthfulness when they arrive at the scene. If they get there and the door and windows are fine then should they bust down the door and throw in tear gas? Or should they take a less extreme approach?
In your scenario above of course they shouldn’t leave with out bothering the home owners. But should they bust into the house pull the owners out of bed at gun point and shoot their dog?
That may be, but I think yours is as well. Take some of these examples on the opposite ends of the spectrum- did the police have the correct address? No. But the police did not know that at the time. And in at least one instance, a police officer died because of it (and I’ll leave out snarky comments about “attending funerals”). As one officer is quoted "“Our problem is that a lot of times we’re dealing with drug dealers, and their thought processes are not always right from the start. That’s when things get real dangerous for us.” Minus the “drug dealer” part I believe that’s the mentality here.
From the video - it looked more like the dog was making for the owners. I know if my family were forced out of our car by strangers, our dog would not sit idley by. He would most likely do his best to defend us.
He’s a 15lbs poodle BTW.
So, Shodan, while three seconds isn’t enough to issue a command OR reach for pepper spray, it is apparently long enough to determine that a dog is vicious and planning on attacking you.
Count to three once. Wanna rethink your position?
J
They should have known it already. It’s called “Closing the car door.” Duh.
I guess you haven’t see the video, but anyone who thought this dog was attacking could not possibly have ever seen a dog before in his life.
-
What threat?
-
As has been explained, patiently, they screwed up BEFORE they ever pulled the trigger by not locking the dog in the car. Surely to God anyone with an IQ above shoelace-tying levels realizes the best way to control a dog in a car is to keep it in the car?
No matter how you twist and turn, the fact of the matter is that the police used deadly force in a situation that, even AT THE TIME, presented no reasonable person with a reason to use deadly force.
I would like to think that people entrusted to carry and use firearms in these situations are trained to, and are smart enough, to control situations so that they don’t have to use them whenever possible. If they can’t do that, then why the hell do we have a civilian police force, anyway? This was pretty obviously a situation where an intelligent and less trigger-happy approach would have resulted in no more than a few bruised egos. They took the stupid and aggressive approach instead.
I can’t believe I’m watching the same video that’s been described in this thread and by CNN. The officer that shoots the dog isn’t even in view until he is beck pedaling several steps into the video. The dog was charging the officer, not running toward his owner as has been described.
The dog is only in view for about 1.5 secs. in the video. I just can’t understand how any reasonable person can make a determination whether he was aggressive or not.
For those that say the officer was “trigger happy” and that he “murdered” the dog, why would he even bother to back up? He could have held his ground and shot the dog. Hell I’d feel better if he would have held his ground. But from the general tone in this thread and the 2 in the pit most posters would feel better if he had back pedaled into the traffic.
Its a tragedy that the family was stopped for what turned out to be a wildly exaggerated 911 call and the family pet didn’t make it through. But what is even more tragic is that many have turned this into a cyber lynching of all the police officers involved.
—The standard seems to be that police should never be wrong.—
And your standard seems to be that the police can never be wrong when it comes to what they feel like shooting at any given moment.
Well, since the police did in fact issue a command (see earlier in the thread), and since the officer would have to put away (drop?) his shotgun AND dig out his pepper spray, AND open it, AND aim it at the dog AND then hit the dog with enough of it, and since pepper spray is probably not going to stop a dog who is genuinely attacking, no, I don’t believe I care to change my position.
One telling quote came from the officer who shot the dog.
He said that once he thought the situation was really unfortionate, once he found out the family was innocent.
found out they were innocent??
Kill their dog if their guilty, 'cause they deserve it–trial not needed.
That dog could not have seriously injured anyone and EVERY one of the cops are armed with mace.
I saw the video (Inside Edition). The dog was not menacing in any way. The family told them to shut the car door.
This seems purely like cops trying to show who is in control.
RickJay is right about cops.
There are cops who can do this in a good way and cops who only know how to do this by bullying people.
“You talk back to me and I’ll show you something that’ll really make you cry!”
I’m stopping the quote right there, because this is utter nonsense.
The dog was not a person who could understand what the police said in context and obey the words for their inherent meaning without regard to the visual cues it was being given.
The police yelled words to the dog which are not a part of any standard training regimen.
The police were strangers, yelling words at a dog while the dog’s owners were there, either saying something different or not able to say anything at all. This greatly lessened the likelyhood of the dog obeying the police, even if they had given a command which the dog was trained to understand and obey.
The police yelled words to a dog in a situation that the dog had never experienced before, while engaging in behavior – shining flashlights and moving in a provocative fashion – which was likely to confuse and/or encourage the dog to do just the opposite of what he was being told to do.
The officer was moving away from the dog while talking to it, which every dog I have ever seen takes as encouragement to give chase. The officer said “Get Back.” He did not say “Sit” or “Down” or even the very understandable and (I’d think) far more appropriate “Stop.”
If this dog had been a hearing, mentally competent human, it would be fair to say that “get back” was an “order” that it should have followed. Since he wasn’t, it isn’t.
But all of this is moot because the police failure was not in shooting the animal, it was in failing to properly secure the vehicle – not only when they were told that there was an animal inside, but when they observed themselves that there was an animal inside.
The police created this entire horrific situation themselves through their own misdeeds. The only people at fault are the officer who said “ooh, a doggie” and didn’t close the door and the officer who thought that random words shouted at a strange dog that were ignored justified killing the animal.
And if you want to talk torts, given the fact that stop was predicated on third hand utter malarkey (which ought to bubble up a charge of filing a false report, if the caller is known) I’d say it’s a fair bet that the Smoak family has a pretty strong one against the officers involved for unlawful destruction of personal property and intentional infliction of emotional harm, and I will be laughing and dancing a dance of glee when the city or village or whatever of Cookesville has to cancel its 4th of July picnic because they’ve gone broke paying out a hefty judgment to this family.
And, in a civil suit, you only have to be 51% right to win.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t police officers trained to hand these types of situations?
Aren’t they supposed to have better judgment than the average citizen?
If the police pull a car over, without it trying to evade them, and the family gets out after being ordered without resistance, why would the cops promptly handcuff and push them to the ground?
And if the family repeatedly asks them to close the doors so that the dogs don’t get out, what logical reason is there not to?
In short, police officers are supposed to be trained professionals. None of this seemed professional, and if it were me that it happened to, you’d can bet that I’d sue both police departments for as much as I could. I’d do everything I could to make the lives of those police officers a living hell and get them fired.
And I hope that they release the call to the police that started this in the first place. “Hello police, I’d like to report that I saw a car driving out of a gas station. A wallet fell off of the car and I think that…”
How the hell do you get
Wallet falling off of car = Felony committed?
Because the police were conducting a felony stop. When you get people into custody, you handcuff and secure them untill you can be sure there’s no more danger; Pat them down for weapons, check the vehicle, etc. You don’t skip all that because the suspects are well-behaved. Plenty of people have been well-behaved up to the point they pull a gun or try to drive off. That’s what a felony stop is for.
You havn’t been paying any attention, have you? They did release that tape. Try listening to it some time. The person that called in said the car was doing 110mph, and was spilling money all over the highway. The police on the scene got the information third-hand.
Shodan, MGibson, CLedet
Have any of you ever had a pet dog? Did it live outside (alone) or inside (with you)? Did you train it? Do you spend any time with dogs? Do you know anything about reading a dog’s actions to tell if its aggressive or friendly?
Shodan, have you seen the video yet?
(a)Does the dog in the video LOOK like he’s attacking anyone?
(b)Do you know anything about reading a dog’s actions to tell if its aggressive or friendly?
If that was my dog, I would sue everyone involved. For everything I could get. If all I could get was the price of the puppy, I would be tempted to hire someone to break Eric Hall’s legs. I’m not saying I would do it, I’m saying I would be tempted to if I lost my lawsuit.
Since the only crime committed was littering, you really should put ‘felony stop’ in quotes. (Note that speeding is not generally a crime, but an infraction). From all of the evidence, it appears that they were looking for an excuse for a little power-tripping, since there wasn’t a felony or any evidence of a felony.
You mean, check the vehicle for dogs and close the door if there’s an unsecured dog in the vehicle, which these two neglected to do? If they were facing a threat that actually warranted the ‘felony stop’ procedures, they would have been in serious trouble. That’s the problem with abuse of power, marching innocent people around at gunpoint tends to dull the skills needed to deal with real danger.
So, it’s fine to threaten someone’s life by shoving a gun in their face on the basis of third-hand information? What, exactly, did the officers see at the scene that warranted taking the family out of their car at gunpoint and handcuffing them? Looks to me like a clear-cut abuse of power.
While officer safety is one consideration, all of the apologists are ignoring citizen safety in their zeal to defend the perpetrators of this crime. I don’t think that forcing people to kneel on the side of the road at gunpoint is an appropriate way to conduct a traffic stop for ‘littering, possibly unintentional, and alleged speeding’, and it’s quite dangerous for the victims, as this case shows.
No, I didn’t hear the tape. Ok, guess I’d sue the guy who made the call for telling the lie that started this in the first place.
And as for the police, I didn’t read anywhere where they said that they were chasing the family at high speeds, unless I missed that somewhere too.
And maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought that the cops didn’t treat someone as a felon without probable cause. One person calling the police doesn’t sound like much probable cause to me.
And I’m not saying that the cops shouldn’t have investigated, it just sounds like they used excessive force.
20/20 hindsight is commodity that the officers on the scene did not have at the time, obviously.
It is disingenuous to say that ‘the only crime commited was littering’, when you know that the 911 call was not for littering; It was for a car hauling ass down the road at night, with money flying out the window. Hardly what a sensible person would instantly construe as simple littering and speeding.
The car was not “hauling ass” when the police showed up. The suspects did not resist arrest in any way, shape, or form. The family tried to get the police to shut the car door, and were ignored. One particularly dense officer looked in the car, said “There’s a dog,” and left the fucking door open.
There is no excuse for what happened.
**
Every dog my family ever owned lived inside the house. We trained them and we loved them. I knew how my dogs and cats behaved but that doesn’t mean I knew how everyone elses animals would behave. I have been bitten by a dog who didn’t bark or growl and was wagging his tail at the time.
The last dog I had was a Golden Retriever that must have weighed about 50-60 pounds. One day while walking him in the park a huge black dog broke loose from his master and rushed us. It scared the hell out of me because I had no idea what this dog wanted with us. Luckily for us all he was friendly and all he did was walk up to my dog and drool on him. The point of my little story is that you can’t always know what the intentions of a dog is with just a few seconds of observation.
Marc