sadistic cop kills family golden retriever

[mvbighead]

I've heard stories where dogs that were perfectly behaved with family and friends suddenly snap and bite strangers. Not just playful nips, deep cut bites.

That is why any time anyone deals with a new dog, they should approach with caution. Family dogs are often very high on their family. If they sense a threat to their family, it is certainly possible they will bite.

Case in point, my wife had a greyhound before we were together (a dog we still have by the way), and often times during our playful fights, he would sense that I was a threat to her. He would then try to get between us and bark (which he seldom ever barks unless commanded to do so) at me to get me to stop. He'd come right out of defense mode when we would both laugh at him because of the oddness of the situation.

There was also a night where our greyhound had gone to sleep before I had, and I needed to take him outside for a restroom break at the end of the night. Like an idiot, I tried to sneak in so as not to wake the wife, and tug on his hind leg to quietly get him to leave the room. I startled him big time and he lunged and bit me in the eyebrow. Drew blood, scared the shit out of my wife, etc. etc. Problem was, I startled him. It wasn't his normal course of action to lunge and bite. It was my fault for that incident.

In the case of the officer and the dog, the officer was likely dressed as such, which alarmed the dog. He was likely in family defense mode. Given that it was a retriever, his most likely course of aggressive action was to bark at the officer. Problem is, that scared the officer enough to shoot the dog. Seems extreme to me... but then, I actually have a family pet and know how I would feel if the same happened to my dog.

 

[mvbighead]

more dogs go to belgian ring that you might think

but its funny that as some suggest alternate realities that someof you go NO THE DOG WAS JUST BEING NICE PERIOD NOTHING ELSE IS POSSIBLE. seriously. also dogs dont need to be 'trained to fight', its instictive, you should see my lab go after his play buddy in the back yard.

also, for about the millionth time that I have posted this in ATOT. Not all cops have tasers. Its department by department.

I also said before, yes the gun shouldnt be the first option. they are also trained to draw and shoot if a thread broaches the 20ft mark.

what I really think happened? tragic accident, dog startled the shit out of him from behind as he was watching the suspect truck and he shot the dog

but thats all just crap because we have no real info on it.

I've never said the dog was being nice. He simply was barking and running at the officer, which 90% of dogs would do in the same same situation.

As for the taser, it was simply suggested as an option in addition to the baton, with the gun being the last resort.

As for the 20 ft rule, most dogs will get about 5 ft from you and bark at you if they believe you are a threat. And where I live, most people don't have much more than a 20 ft long front yard (IE - from the sidewalk to the house).

As for the startled suggestion, being startled is no excuse for discharging your firearm.

 

[Zargon]

I've never said the dog was being nice. He simply was barking and running at the officer, which 90% of dogs would do in the same same situation.

As for the taser, it was simply suggested as an option in addition to the baton, with the gun being the last resort.

As for the 20 ft rule, most dogs will get about 5 ft from you and bark at you if they believe you are a threat. And where I live, most people don't have much more than a 20 ft long front yard (IE - from the sidewalk to the house).

As for the startled suggestion, being startled is no excuse for discharging your firearm.

yeah most dogs would

which is why you should have something visible in your front yard showing hes restrained

the taser stuff wasnt really aimed at you per so, just figured I would reiterate it.

yup about hte 5ft thing......which is why the invisfence in a front yard is really really dumb. and being startled is no 'excuse' but its certainly a valid reason that a harsh decision can be made. doesnt make it the right or wrong thing, just tryin to lay some logic on why something tragic could happen that doesnt involve malice

 

[AMDZen]

You're a downright racist cop hater, that much is clear. You somehow feel that you would rather a cop risk life and limb for a family pet. Your view of reality is simply skewed beyond recognition.

Now I'm racist? LOL. I'm just calling you by the name you gave yourself on this forum. Besides, it wouldn't be racism it would be prejudice. Judaism isn't a race, its an ethnic culture and religion. But again, that is probably over your head because you are too retarded to understand that.

On a side note, my girlfriend is jewish so I am hardly prejudice.

And if you believe that the cops life was "at risk" then there is no hope for you, or your skewed version of reality. Your life is at risk everyday as a cop, as a HUMAN BEING even everytime you get in a vehicle and drive to work - but you weigh the odds and you drive to work.

Lets have a statistician do the odds on a 55-70 lb golden retriever attacking a fully sized male law enforcement officer and see what the odds are that it would be fatal. I guarantee that the odds would be 100x < everytime you step in a vehicle.

Just go look at dog attacks by serious dogs, pits, rotts and others that are known for fatal attacks. 90&#37; of those that died were children, 9% were small women and probably one dude in a wheelchair.

Again, I understand if all of this flies over your head.

 

[dabuddha]

Now I'm racist? LOL. I'm just calling you by the name you gave yourself on this forum. Besides, it wouldn't be racism it would be prejudice. Judaism isn't a race, its an ethnic culture and religion. But again, that is probably over your head because you are too retarded to understand that.

On a side note, my girlfriend is jewish so I am hardly prejudice.

And if you believe that the cops life was "at risk" then there is no hope for you, or your skewed version of reality. Your life is at risk everyday as a cop, as a HUMAN BEING even everytime you get in a vehicle and drive to work - but you weigh the odds and you drive to work.

Lets have a statistician do the odds on a 55-70 lb golden retriever attacking a fully sized male law enforcement officer and see what the odds are that it would be fatal. I guarantee that the odds would be 100x < everytime you step in a vehicle.

Just go look at dog attacks by serious dogs, pits, rotts and others that are known for fatal attacks. 90% of those that died were children, 9% were small women and probably one dude in a wheelchair.

Again, I understand if all of this flies over your head.

Who said anything about fatal? Bottom line, if your dog comes running at me snarling, it's going to get shot if I have a gun. Like it or not, I (and the cop in this case) go home in one piece and you go home crying like a little girl because you refuse to be a responsible citizen by restraining your dog like you're supposed to by law. It was boggling my mind that you can't seem to grasp simple concepts but then I realized, you're probably just trolling for the sake of trolling.

Juddog: It's best not to feed the trolls. They seem to have a voracious appetite!

 

[mvbighead]

yeah most dogs would

which is why you should have something visible in your front yard showing hes restrained

the taser stuff wasnt really aimed at you per so, just figured I would reiterate it.

yup about hte 5ft thing......which is why the invisfence in a front yard is really really dumb. and being startled is no 'excuse' but its certainly a valid reason that a harsh decision can be made. doesnt make it the right or wrong thing, just tryin to lay some logic on why something tragic could happen that doesnt involve malice

And I don't really believe it was malice... simply a poor choice with better alternatives. IMO, a cut on the hand/ankle is worth the life of a family friend that happens to be a pet.

As for the invisible fence, I think they're a great idea. And I don't really believe a sign would've changed the course of action the officer took, likely wouldn't see it soon enough to react accordingly, IMO. But, I do believe he had time to reach for an alternate weapon that was not lethal (or less lethal if you prefer). Personally, my aunt and uncle have an invisible fence and their dog has a worn path on the border as he knows the boundary of the fence. I would have a hard time imagining an officer needing to shoot their dog because it was out in the front lawn taking care of business.

 

[Juddog]

Now I'm racist? LOL. I'm just calling you by the name you gave yourself on this forum. Besides, it wouldn't be racism it would be prejudice. Judaism isn't a race, its an ethnic culture and religion. But again, that is probably over your head because you are too retarded to understand that.

On a side note, my girlfriend is jewish so I am hardly prejudice.

Lay off the drugs, son. Nowhere in the forum have I proclaimed myself a person of Jewish descent, or of the Jewish religion. You perceive somehow that I place myself as being jewish so decided to come up with some antisemite insults but they have utterly no effect on me and instead only paint you as the fool.

And if you believe that the cops life was "at risk" then there is no hope for you, or your skewed version of reality. Your life is at risk everyday as a cop, as a HUMAN BEING even everytime you get in a vehicle and drive to work - but you weigh the odds and you drive to work.

When you have an animal charging at you, capable of inflicting wounds, that is "at risk". That is a distinctly different scenario then getting in a vehicle and driving to work.

Lets have a statistician do the odds on a 55-70 lb golden retriever attacking a fully sized male law enforcement officer and see what the odds are that it would be fatal. I guarantee that the odds would be 100x < everytime you step in a vehicle.

It's not fatal because the officer is well within his or her rights to put the animal down rather than wrestle with it and attempt to subdue it. If you want to wrestle with wild animals in your spare time, then by all means go for it, but in no way does that mean officers should feel obligated to wrestle with a dog.

Just go look at dog attacks by serious dogs, pits, rotts and others that are known for fatal attacks. 90&#37; of those that died were children, 9% were small women and probably one dude in a wheelchair.

Again, I understand if all of this flies over your head.

None of what you said flies over my head - you're just immersed in an ideal fantasy world and don't look at the side of the men and women who risk their lives every day to protect your freedom. I have already pointed out the fallacies in your logic several times, but you refuse to accept the reality of things, instead choosing to play the classic "internet tough guy".

If the cop has a choice between getting bitten on the arm, and risk severing an artery, versus shooting a dog, then the choice is obvious - shoot the dog. You have yet to even attempt to put any blame on the owners of the dog for letting it run loose without any signs that there is an invisible fence. Dogs do not have the same rights as human beings; thus their health and wellbeing falls squarely into the lap of the owner, and part of that responsibility is to keep the dog on a leash or contained within a visible fence of some sort.

 

[BudAshes]

Lay off the drugs, son. Nowhere in the forum have I proclaimed myself a person of Jewish descent, or of the Jewish religion. You perceive somehow that I place myself as being jewish so decided to come up with some antisemite insults but they have utterly no effect on me and instead only paint you as the fool.



When you have an animal charging at you, capable of inflicting wounds, that is "at risk". That is a distinctly different scenario then getting in a vehicle and driving to work.



It's not fatal because the officer is well within his or her rights to put the animal down rather than wrestle with it and attempt to subdue it. If you want to wrestle with wild animals in your spare time, then by all means go for it, but in no way does that mean officers should feel obligated to wrestle with a dog.



None of what you said flies over my head - you're just immersed in an ideal fantasy world and don't look at the side of the men and women who risk their lives every day to protect your freedom. I have already pointed out the fallacies in your logic several times, but you refuse to accept the reality of things, instead choosing to play the classic "internet tough guy".

If the cop has a choice between getting bitten on the arm, and risk severing an artery, versus shooting a dog, then the choice is obvious - shoot the dog. You have yet to even attempt to put any blame on the owners of the dog for letting it run loose without any signs that there is an invisible fence. Dogs do not have the same rights as human beings; thus their health and wellbeing falls squarely into the lap of the owner, and part of that responsibility is to keep the dog on a leash or contained within a visible fence of some sort.

Why can't you admit that there are bad cops that shouldn't be aloud to have a gun? Or work the streets?

 

[dabuddha]

Why can't you admit that there are bad cops that shouldn't be aloud to have a gun? Or work the streets?

No one in this thread has ever claimed that there aren't bad cops (AFAIK) that shouldn't have guns or work the streets. This thread is about this cop and how he was justified in shooting the dog because the owner was an irresponsible twat.

 

[Juddog]

Why can't you admit that there are bad cops that shouldn't be aloud to have a gun? Or work the streets?

I never said there aren't bad cops. I full admit that there are some cops which shouldn't be cops and should have their badges taken away. There are plenty of bad cops, in fact in my home town there was an incident where the cops broke this guy's neck and drove him to the hospital way on the other side of town, during which time he died in the car ride to the hospital.

The guy didn't commit any crime whatsoever, got pulled over because he was driving back from the "wrong side of town" (he owned a Deli there), the cops put nylon straps to wrist bind him, beat the crap out of him, and let him die on the way to the hospital. Those same cops just got a slap on the wrist; to me they should have been thrown in jail. I have also heard of bad cops in my area arresting people for drugs, and then checking in a different amount than what they confiscated, clearly keeping narcotics for themselves.

My point is that in this case, when an animal is charging you, the cop has the right to put that animal down. The owners have responsibility to make sure the animal isn't loose and even the appearance of being threatening is a no-no when someone can't tell whether it's properly restrained or not.

A cop doesn't have to stand there and wait to see if the animal bites him or not and shouldn't be forced to wrestle with an aggressive dog. My argument is entirely based upon the fact that had the owners acted responsibility, the cop in question would have never been put in this position. My dad was a post office carrier and got attacked several times by dogs that you would think would be harmless. It didn't kill him but he did get bit and had to get stitches and the experience isn't exactly pleasant.

 

[mvbighead]

It's not fatal because the officer is well within his or her rights to put the animal down rather than wrestle with it and attempt to subdue it. If you want to wrestle with wild animals in your spare time, then by all means go for it, but in no way does that mean officers should feel obligated to wrestle with a dog.

Now it's a wild dog? I thought it was a Golden Retriever. Ya know, behind an invisible fence where it must also have had a collar (which has the device that communicates with the invisible fence). Strange for the family to have collared a wild Golden Retriever and restrict it to their yard, very strange indeed.

 

[Juddog]

Now it's a wild dog? I thought it was a Golden Retriever. Ya know, behind an invisible fence where it must also have had a collar (which has the device that communicates with the invisible fence). Strange for the family to have collared a wild Golden Retriever and restrict it to their yard, very strange indeed.

Way to miss the point, but at this stage you're just trolling anyways.

 

[mvbighead]

Way to miss the point, but at this stage you're just trolling anyways.

Yeah, I'm the one that's trolling. My point is that people like you are likening this dog to some sort of savage beast. People like me are likening this dog to the breed which it belongs. A common family dog breed, who typically have something of a familial bond with its owners and likely aims to protect them from any suspicious characters that may threaten its territory or its owners/handlers.

Sorry bub, not trolling. I just don't appreciate the shoot first mentality with regard to any living being. If they're putting an injured animal out of its misery, so be it. But gunning down a dog that likely felt threatened by a peculiarly dressed man. Sounds like the dog was doing what most dogs do. And for that, it needs to be shot? Why does this point of view paint me as a troll in your book?

 

[dabuddha]

Yeah, I'm the one that's trolling. My point is that people like you are likening this dog to some sort of savage beast. People like me are likening this dog to the breed which it belongs. A common family dog breed, who typically have something of a familial bond with its owners and likely aims to protect them from any suspicious characters that may threaten its territory or its owners/handlers.

Sorry bub, not trolling. I just don't appreciate the shoot first mentality with regard to any living being. If they're putting an injured animal out of its misery, so be it. But gunning down a dog that likely felt threatened by a peculiarly dressed man. Sounds like the dog was doing what most dogs do. And for that, it needs to be shot? Why does this point of view paint me as a troll in your book?

No it ended up needing to be shot because the irresponsible owner didn't bother restraining the dog in any visible way. Again you and other folks keep on ignoring that simple fact. Sucks the cop had to shoot the dog and it's best to put the anger/blame squarely on the owner's shoulders.

 

[69Mach1]

MY bottom line, if my animal never left my property, no one has the right to shoot it. If they were serving a warrant or other legal business and got attacked, then so be it. But when you're not on my property and shoot my dog in my front yard, you better be ready, because I'm going to be pissed. I will come at you with every legal thing I can think of, and maybe a few illegal ones.

 

[CLite]

The dog was fine and obviously if they had a fully installed electric fence that means all the neighbors got along OK with the dog, unless past complaints show up, which they haven't. The difference is that the neighbors probably weren't little girls that peed their pants when a dog barks at them, whereas this baby with a gun got nervous and shot a family pet. I imagine if this little infantile cop walked around every American neighborhood he would rack of thousands of family pet kills.

There is something called the human brain, it can help in assessing a situation. I have had dogs run at me barking plenty of times over the course of my life and even as a child I never thought to myself "I wish I had a gun to shoot this". Apparently this grown adult has less balls than children.

 

[mvbighead]

No it ended up needing to be shot because the irresponsible owner didn't bother restraining the dog in any visible way. Again you and other folks keep on ignoring that simple fact. Sucks the cop had to shoot the dog and it's best to put the anger/blame squarely on the owner's shoulders.

Ignore... not exactly. I just don't think it's an issue. We're not talking about a stray dog that approached the officer. We're talking about a dog in someone's front yard. If an invisible fence was used, one can safely assume a collar was present on the dog. To me, a collar is the first indicator that a dog should be safe.

Here's the thing... I would be willing to be that dozens, if not hundreds, of people walked by this dog without issue. But for whatever reason, this officer feels threatened because the dog was barking and running at him. I'm sorry, but that is exactly what dogs do. They're inquisitive creatures. My dog sniffs me when I get home and investigates who I've been around. And he usually runs up to me in the process. So why is it that when a dog approaches an officer in this (or a similar) fashion it is fair game to be shot? To be, this goes back to innocent until proven guilty. The officer assumed he'd be bitten, and pulled the trigger. And because it's a dog, that makes it okay?

Had he been bitten, no problem, shoot the dog. Had the dog been on public property, not as big of an issue for me. But he shot a dog on someone else's property when he had no business being there. He wasn't serving a warrant, he had no reason to feel threatened by anyone on that property because that was not his location of focus. But instead, he's sees a curious dog run at him barking and he decides to shoot it.

And there are countless people with invisible fences. Why should someone have to be concerned with letting their dog roam in the front yard when secured by that type of product? Furthermore, if the kid saw the whole thing as he claims, it sounds to me as if the dog was supervised. But apparently your animal in your front yard isn't safe even if you're keeping an eye on him.

 

[dabuddha]

Ignore... not exactly. I just don't think it's an issue. We're not talking about a stray dog that approached the officer. We're talking about a dog in someone's front yard. If an invisible fence was used, one can safely assume a collar was present on the dog. To me, a collar is the first indicator that a dog should be safe.

Here's the thing... I would be willing to be that dozens, if not hundreds, of people walked by this dog without issue. But for whatever reason, this officer feels threatened because the dog was barking and running at him. I'm sorry, but that is exactly what dogs do. They're inquisitive creatures. My dog sniffs me when I get home and investigates who I've been around. And he usually runs up to me in the process. So why is it that when a dog approaches an officer in this (or a similar) fashion it is fair game to be shot? To be, this goes back to innocent until proven guilty. The officer assumed he'd be bitten, and pulled the trigger. And because it's a dog, that makes it okay?

Had he been bitten, no problem, shoot the dog. Had the dog been on public property, not as big of an issue for me. But he shot a dog on someone else's property when he had no business being there. He wasn't serving a warrant, he had no reason to feel threatened by anyone on that property because that was not his location of focus. But instead, he's sees a curious dog run at him barking and he decides to shoot it.

And there are countless people with invisible fences. Why should someone have to be concerned with letting their dog roam in the front yard when secured by that type of product? Furthermore, if the kid saw the whole thing as he claims, it sounds to me as if the dog was supervised. But apparently your animal in your front yard isn't safe even if you're keeping an eye on him.

I suppose thats where we'll continously differ in our opinions. I personally don't feel that a police officer should wait till he's being mauled by an animal before shooting it. If the officer felt threatened by the dog because it was running at him snarling/barking and there was no fence nor leash holding the dog back, then the officer was justified in putting it down. BTW, innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to animals.

You do realize that electric fences are in no way fool proof nor secure. A dog can and will easily cross that "fence" if it wants to. Once a dog is pumped up with adrenaline, the "buzzing" won't do anything to it. "Supervised" doesn't mean shit if it's not restrained by a leash.

I've owned many cats and dogs throughout my life and I have never ever let my dog roam free in my front yard. They stay free in my fenced in back yard or they're on a leash when I would take them for walks. Hell, this owner can't even be bothered with putting up a simple sign stating that there is an invisible fence.

 

[mvbighead]

I suppose thats where we'll continously differ in our opinions. I personally don't feel that a police officer should wait till he's being mauled by an animal before shooting it. If the officer felt threatened by the dog because it was running at him snarling/barking and there was no fence nor leash holding the dog back, then the officer was justified in putting it down. BTW, innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to animals.

You do realize that electric fences are in no way fool proof nor secure. A dog can and will easily cross that "fence" if it wants to. Once a dog is pumped up with adrenaline, the "buzzing" won't do anything to it. "Supervised" doesn't mean shit if it's not restrained by a leash.

I've owned many cats and dogs throughout my life and I have never ever let my dog roam free in my front yard. They stay free in my fenced in back yard or they're on a leash when I would take them for walks. Hell, this owner can't even be bothered with putting up a simple sign stating that there is an invisible fence.

And I've owned a dog that was capable of leaping a 5-6 foot fence. No method of restraining a dog is fool proof.

And I am fully aware that innocent until proven guilty does not apply to dogs, but in this case, it is simply an excessive reaction to a running, barking dog that was on someone else's property.

And may I ask, why is it that this officer is the only person that has ever been threatened enough by this dog to take some sort of action? You don't think a mail man or other passer by would've reported it?

Look, I value the services of officers, I really do. But their authority must have limitations. Who is to say that this officer doesn't live near by and has become annoyed with this dog's barking. So one day, he needs to visit a neighboring house and figures he can walk by this house, the dog will likely run at him, and he'll just go ahead and execute it claiming self defense. Probably a bit far-fetched, but it is a possibility. And, since he's an officer, he can likely get away with it because animals are not afforded the same rights as people.

I know the above scenario is ludicrous, but it simply stands to reason that every officer's power should have limitation. Killing someone's dog on their property is not something I find remotely excusable, especially not when others have been getting by the animal without issue.

 

[CLite]

I suppose thats where we'll continously differ in our opinions. I personally don't feel that a police officer should wait till he's being mauled by an animal before shooting it. If the officer felt threatened by the dog because it was running at him snarling/barking and there was no fence nor leash holding the dog back, then the officer was justified in putting it down. BTW, innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to animals.

You do realize that electric fences are in no way fool proof nor secure. A dog can and will easily cross that "fence" if it wants to. Once a dog is pumped up with adrenaline, the "buzzing" won't do anything to it. "Supervised" doesn't mean shit if it's not restrained by a leash.

I've owned many cats and dogs throughout my life and I have never ever let my dog roam free in my front yard. They stay free in my fenced in back yard or they're on a leash when I would take them for walks. Hell, this owner can't even be bothered with putting up a simple sign stating that there is an invisible fence.

A dog ran up and was barking and didn't even cross the property boundary. NEWS FLASH! Tens of thousands of adults and children experience this every day without fucking shooting the dog.

How the hell can you honestly keep defending this?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going. It's like this and the Win7/OSX are both caught in separate infinite loops. Same arguments over and over and over.

 

[preslove]

I suppose thats where we'll continously differ in our opinions. I personally don't feel that a police officer should wait till he's being mauled by an animal before shooting it. If the officer felt threatened by the dog because it was running at him snarling/barking and there was no fence nor leash holding the dog back, then the officer was justified in putting it down. BTW, innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to animals.

Not shooting the dog |= "waiting to get mauled"

The fact that you and so many others here see NO alternative to the cop shooting a dog in its yard, in a freaking residential neighborhood is srsly disturbing.

 

[Ns1]

A dog ran up and was barking and didn't even cross the property boundary. NEWS FLASH! Tens of thousands of adults and children experience this every day without fucking shooting the dog.

How the hell can you honestly keep defending this?

this.

officer should never be allowed at a dog park.

 

[coreyb]

the dog didnt need to be shot! holy fuck, you guys are retarded. its a fucking golden retreiver!

 

[alkemyst]

http://www.petsdo.com/blog/top-ten-10-most-dangerous-dog-breeds