Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/12/2003 10:27:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 11:08:40 AM EDT
I saw the video of the incident in TN. The family dog came out of the car like, "Hey! New people! You wanna play?" and the idiot cop blasted it with a shotgun. I'm generally a big supporter of LEOs. This guy is a disgrace to the badge. I hope the LEO community can do something about people like him. This was a truly sad event that didn't have to happen.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 11:35:58 AM EDT
Well, they gotta keep up the facade of being in a higher caste then us lowley peons somehow. Double standards must be maintained at all times.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 4:44:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/12/2003 4:45:21 PM EDT by bobbyjack]
Yes that indeed sucks,although I wasn't there at the time the dog on vidios did look more friendly than meanacing! They are tearing up our street so I have to sometimes park on the next street and walk through back gates to my house. The neighbor behind me has a huge blue-mearle dane,I have learned from my neighbors that his name is BOO. When I cook on the grill I always toss him a steak bone,so when I walk between the fences he sees me GROWLS really deep stands up way above the fence top. I just say whats the matter BOO,and don't make long eye contact and walk on,By me knowing his name I quess he fiqures I might be allright! I just boggie on and don't try anything cute,I'm carring a .45 acp but he is just doing his job! I wish the police in that vidio could have been dog owners and maybe it would have turned out differently! Bob [:D]
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 4:55:47 PM EDT
It's all about "spin", ain't it.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 5:00:18 PM EDT
Their atty. needs to get this article, it would help his arguments, friggen rouge cops I hate them, the good ones are ok.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 5:04:23 PM EDT
You hate LE so much that you want to help a 35 year old man with a "20-year criminal history"? Damn "rouge" cops! [:I] [;D]
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 5:07:15 PM EDT
From the article... A man with a 20-year criminal history... A jury convicted Henry Sailes, 35, of Bradenton of the felony crime of injuring a police dog in February [red]along with[/red] a charge of obstructing an officer... Sailes was wanted on a series of warrants in May 2002 when he ran from police... a habitual offender...
View Quote
Hmmmm...methinks there is less to this case than meets the eye.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 5:19:16 PM EDT
words fail me thats fu&%$d. TXL
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 5:58:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 5:19:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 6:11:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By Nimrod1193: Hmmmm...methinks there is less to this case than meets the eye.
View Quote
At no time did I say or suggest that this guy should have been given a ticker tape parade and a key to the city instead of being cuffed and stuffed. He had a warrant and he ran from the popo. But he got [b]8 years for kicking the dog[/b], although his kick failed to injure said dog. Thank God he didn't actually hurt the dog; he'd be on death row now.
View Quote
If he did the same thing to a (human) officer he'd be charged with the same crime, presumably. And we wouldn't be talking about it. IIRC, LE treats their dogs as the equivalent of officers, some even have badges on their collars. I'm OK with that. It's kinda interesting actually, because while they are still "tools", they are not in the same category as cruisers or nightsticks (or that MARPAT stuff for Marines [;)]). How would you classify the dogs, and what should the penalties be for assaulting them?
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 6:32:13 AM EDT
i disagree. cop dogs should not be treated any differnt than any other dog from a legal standpoint (if cops want to have lavish funerals or whatever, for thier dogs, i'm fine with it as long as they pay for it not the taxpayer.) cops should not have any extra legal rights that do not extend to the regular people either. after all, our forefathers did not establish any "special" class of men to keep the peace. in fact they warned of having a standing army, which a police state certainly is. certainly, it's understandable that you'd want to kick a dog that was going for your face. i wouldve killed it if the opportunity arose. less lethal my ass! if a dog goes for anything other than the arm or leg, i suggest it be retired from police duty. even if the guy is a career shitbag, he should be tried for the crimes he's guilty of, and not bullshit Politically correct "crimes".
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 6:42:21 AM EDT
and on a related note, a local guy was recently arrested for barking at a police dog in a car. evidently in the state of california, its against the law to tease a police dog. this guy, no career scumbag, walked over to say hello (which was admittedly not the best idea) and was arrested on the spot. i dont remember the penalty but it was something pretty ridiculous. here's another thing to ponder: what's the differnce between the special status given to a police dog, and the special status given to the victim of a "hate crime"? to me, its bullshit that a crime is somehow greater if the person assaulting you throws in a few ethnic slurs, rather than beating you up for some other reason. it's equally bullshit that a police dog is somehow accorded special priveledges that the average mutt doesn't have.
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 6:55:04 AM EDT
I agree. The whole dog is an officer bit is a bunch of bull**it. Giving an animal equal billing or more so than a human is a joke and a sign of the decay of our government and individual rights. Their dog should be treated like my dog, in regards to the law. Good Post. The hypocrisy is palpable.
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 7:18:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BlackAdder: I agree. The whole dog is an officer bit is a bunch of bull**it. Giving an animal equal billing or more so than a human is a joke and a sign of the decay of our government and individual rights. Their dog should be treated like my dog, in regards to the law. Good Post. The hypocrisy is palpable.
View Quote
Exactly! If a cop dog is treated as an equal (basically) to a human cop, then my dog should be treated as a member of my family and an equal (in the eyes of the law). Therefore the dipshit cop that shot that dog should've been charged with umm, murder?
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 8:04:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By velocity:
Originally Posted By BlackAdder: I agree. The whole dog is an officer bit is a bunch of bull**it. Giving an animal equal billing or more so than a human is a joke and a sign of the decay of our government and individual rights. Their dog should be treated like my dog, in regards to the law. Good Post. The hypocrisy is palpable.
View Quote
Exactly! If a cop dog is treated as an equal (basically) to a human cop, then my dog should be treated as a member of my family and an equal (in the eyes of the law). Therefore the dipshit cop that shot that dog should've been charged with umm, murder?
View Quote
If kicking one goets you 8, Hmmmmm Eating a regular donut is ok. Eating a COPS donut.....
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 8:25:10 AM EDT
Those of you who hold that police canines are expendable tools of force obviously did not see the Tom Hanks' movie "Turner and Hooch" at the EXTREMELY IMPRESSIONABLE age of eight years old, as I did. I cried myself to sleep that night, and have not been able to shake the end of that movie from my conscience since then (15 years).
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 8:04:03 PM EDT
I don't mean to say that cop dogs are *the same* in all ways as real human cops, just that they function as part of an officer that is a real human cop. They're doing a job they were trained to do, under the direction of a sworn officer. They're doing LE work, and are authorized to do it in the way they're trained. If you injure, or try to injure one, that's obviously *similar* to an attempt to injure a real human cop. The law has penalties for that. It's a working dog, and if your dog was working as it was trained to do and got nailed, I imagine there might be recourse available to you to. So get your dogs to go to work for you and come home with a paycheck, and they might get equal treatment! If my dog bites the mail carrier (again! [:(]) I'd think it was in her rights to OC spray the little bugger into oblivion, even if "all he wanted to do was play!". If I was in a felony stop and he got shot doing the same thing, I'd hate it, but I'd understand. Now all these tangents flying around her aren't addressing the issue. Is this cop dog a tool of law enforcement, with different protections, or not?
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 5:01:18 AM EDT
I agree the dog is a tool. Much like handcuffs, cruisers, traffic cones, and a baton. If you kill or injure a dog I think you should have to pay for the animal and the total cost of its training. In no way should an animal be afforded the rights of a human being. Don't get me wrong I have 2 dogs and 2 cats and love them all as surrogate children. In treating a dog as an officer you elevate the dog to a status that is not warranted and also lower the general public to a level below that of law enforcement. We are civilians and cops are civilians. Both should be equal under the law (including property).
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 7:20:51 AM EDT
I think dogs are a different kind of tool- not hte same as a stick of wood, because they are expected to act on their own according to their training. A baton can't do that... I don't get where if you have penalties for injuring a dog that, then, makes them equivalent to an officer or "lower the general public to a level below that of law enforcement." Forget about the cost of the dog or it's training- if you injure a cop dog, it's because you're defying a lawful order or interfering with the lawful actions of a police officer. That's where the sanctions should come in.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 8:06:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AvengeR15: Those of you who hold that police canines are expendable tools of force obviously did not see the Tom Hanks' movie "Turner and Hooch" at the EXTREMELY IMPRESSIONABLE age of eight years old, as I did. I cried myself to sleep that night, and have not been able to shake the end of that movie from my conscience since then (15 years).
View Quote
[hanging chad check] Turner and Hooch was a movie. The death of the dog was in the script. The dog was just acting the part. The dog lived a long and happy life after the movie was over. Rin Tin Tin, Lassie, and Old Yeller lived well after their shows were over too. [/hanging chad check] Welcome to the real world. A world with doublespeak and double standards. A world where one shit bag defends his face from attack by large and powerful animal and goes to prison for 8 years even though he did not harm the animal, while another shit bag shoots and kills a submissive puppy in front of the entire family, including children, and is exonerated of any wrong doing.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 8:14:00 AM EDT
Want to treat them the same as a cop, fine. However, if anything or anyone comes at my face I will defend myself, badge or no badge. That being said, there is probably more to this story. In my old home time the dog was let loose only as a last resort. One, a good LEO normally has control of the situation. Two, they are extremely expensive dogs once you figure in training. Back then I was told it was double the price tag between human and canine.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 10:12:24 AM EDT
OK, a police dog should be considered equal to an officer. If I get pulled over and the cop walks up to the window and bites my face, how should I view the situation? I'm just an uninformed citizen, I don't really know these things. [sarcasm] I guess it would be ok, as long as the officer goes home safely [/sarcasm]
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 11:26:22 AM EDT
That a dog is considered an officer is the problem. It is an animal. If said animal is treated as a human officer does that not bring the animal to the human level and vice versa. I would like to hear some of the LEO's thoughts on this topic. I'm having a very hard time seeing how someone can defend this issue.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 11:44:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 1:06:55 PM EDT
What Jarhead said. That pretty much raps up this thread. Too much common sense.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 2:14:04 PM EDT
If a "rouge" cop goes out and attacks using lethal force in a situation not allowing it then the victim can sue the police force. But what if a cop dog bites someone under the same circumstances? Can the victim still sue? Can the dog be tried for assault or attempted homicide? How will the dog testify in court on the situation as it happened? Is a cop dogs word more believable than a scumba.... oops, citizens? Does a cop dog have to read you your rights when arresting you? Are cop dogs subjugated by "The Man" since he is expected to work without compensation? (See Slavery) Do cop dogs have to swear an oath to uphold the law? Do cop dogs get free doughnuts and meals? I really wonder these things, after all as a mere scumba..... oops, I mean citizen I really look up to these UberMensch who hold a so much higher social status than I ever will. Waiting for the blue wall to come screaming in.... GaryM
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 4:58:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2003 5:01:20 PM EDT by DScott]
My dog said to say, "Woof, woof!". State Statutes that protect Police Service Dogs
Texas Pending Legislation A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the efficient use of police service animals. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Chapter 38, Penal Code, is amended by adding Section 38.151 to read as follows: Sec. 38.151. INTERFERENCE WITH POLICE SERVICE ANIMALS. (a) In this section: (1) "Area of control" includes a vehicle, trailer, kennel, pen, or yard. (2) "Handler or rider" means a peace officer, corrections officer, or jailer who is specially trained to use a police service animal for law enforcement, corrections, prison or jail security, or investigative purposes. (3) "Police service animal" means a dog, horse, or other domesticated animal that is specially trained for use by a handler or rider. (b) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly: (1) taunts, torments, or strikes a police service animal; (2) throws an object or substance at a police service animal; (3) interferes with or obstructs a police service animal or interferes with or obstructs the handler or rider of a police service animal in a manner that: (A) inhibits or restricts the handler's or rider's control of the animal; or (B) deprives the handler or rider of control of the animal; (4) releases a police service animal from its area of control; (5) enters the area of control of a police service animal without the effective consent of the handler or rider, including placing food or any other object or substance into that area; (6) injures or kills a police service animal; or (7) engages in conduct likely to injure or kill a police service animal, including administering or setting a poison, trap, or any other object or substance. (c) An offense under this section is: (1) a Class C misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(1); (2) a Class B misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(2); (3) a Class A misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(3), (4), or (5); [red](4) a state jail felony if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(6) or (7) by injuring a police service animal or by engaging in conduct likely to injure the animal; or (5) a felony of the third degree if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(6) or (7) by killing a police service animal or by engaging in conduct likely to kill the animal. [/red] SECTION 2. Subchapter E, Chapter 826, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Section 826.048 to read as follows: Sec. 826.048. EXEMPTION FROM QUARANTINE REQUIREMENT FOR POLICE SERVICE ANIMALS. (a) In this section, "handler or rider" and "police service animal" have the meanings assigned by Section 38.151, Penal Code. (b) A police service animal is exempt from the quarantine requirement of this subchapter if the animal bites a person while the animal is under routine veterinary care or while the animal is being used for law enforcement, corrections, prison or jail security, or investigative purposes. If after biting the person the animal exhibits any abnormal behavior, the law enforcement agency and the animal's handler or rider shall make the animal available within a reasonable time for testing by the local health authority. SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 1999. SECTION 4. The importance of this legislation and the crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an emergency and an imperative public necessity that the constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three several days in each house be suspended, and this rule is hereby suspended.
View Quote
[url]http://www.policek9.com/Case_Law/Statutes_Protecting_PSD/statutes_protecting_psd.html[/url]
To summarize the reasonable conclusions drawn by these case decisions, eight key guidelines governing the use of Police Service Dogs are presented in brief: 1): [red]Canines are a locating tool. Upon the location of the suspect, a use of force by either the handler or the dog may or may not be necessary. The suspect controls this decision. [/red] The handler and the dog merely react and respond to what the suspect dictates. Law enforcement is simply a reactive business. The suspect dictates and controls his own destiny. One court concluded the criminals can largely control the circumstances of their crimes and can thus minimize the risk that force will be necessary. 2): The use of Police Service Dogs is governed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Graham v Connor. Excessive force must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness test. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, using the information available to the officer(s) at the time of the incident, a three-part test should be used to satisfy and justify a canine deployment: A) The severity of the crime at issue; B) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the law enforcement officers or others; C) And whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
View Quote
[url]http://www.k9fleck.org/k9sum.htm[/url] [red]emphasis added[/red] edited to correct links.
Top Top