Caesar Milan and other dog trainers should start carrying .45s and 9mms for when dogs start barking LMAO


Same with dog wardens and pest control officers, better get them some AR15s for when they have to pick up those stray dogs, incase they growl or bite LMAO


How do those guys manage with just their hands and a stick?????????? Are they superhuman? Are they ex navy seals?

im,really starting to,question your level of intelligence

more like;

this holy sht

on one hand you are saying the first officer should lose his job for not helping his fellow officer

then on the other you are saying that the second officer likely reacted out of instinct and shot the dog before he even realized it was happening.

so who's at fault again? they can't both be if both your statements are true.your terrible grammar, spelling, and punctuation give me much more reason to question yours. and validly so.

[QUOTE=SippinDaTech post_id=1462594143]You're kidding right? We actually agree on the fact that the shooting was legally justified. Where we disagree is whether the officer made the correct decision and whether it was morally justified. The officer absolutely made the wrong decision, and the fact that the first officer simply pulled his baton out is nearly proof enough, coupled with the fact that the second officer unholstered his sidearm almost immediately. It indicates his monumental escalation of force when unnecessary.

It's funny you **** on the first officer for not reacting when the whole thing happened so fast he probably didn't have time anyway, and on top of that like other posters have said he most likely didn't see it as such a huge threat.

I see your position and empathize but at the end of the day both logically and morally it was the wrong decision UNLESS we are under the assumption deadly force should be used arbitrarily in any situation where any bodily harm is a possibility. Which of course is ludicrous. Why not just accept the fact the officer overreacted?[/QUOTE]
[URL=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force[/URL]

laws on deadly force

exerpt

In the United States, the use of deadly force by sworn law enforcement officers is lawful when the officer reasonably believes the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. The use of deadly force by law enforcement is also lawful when used to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon when the officer believes escape would pose a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to members of the public.

dog bites
[img]https://s3.amazonaws.com/lawsitespro/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2014/12/dog-bite-collage-740.jpg[/i

[img]http://scotcats.online.fr/abc/images/pitbiteII.jpg[/i

[img]http://leerburg.com/Photos/DogBite_February192012_B_01.jpg[/i

[img]http://i3.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article6754069.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/JS32978343.jpg[/i
sooooo yea its pretty much justified to shoot an attacking,dog

some of us with man hands and not little girl hands tend to miss the spacebar on phones and singe i dont really give a chit about my posts being grammar correct lmfao.

Also i never once said anything should happen to the first cop, are you seriously this retarded?

Strong this lol. Just goes to show there are other avenues rather than simply shooting.And strong this to the bolded part, I don't see how you can argue with the logic here.

[QUOTE=dhawkeye1980 post_id=1462595993][URL=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force[/URL]

laws on deadly force

exerpt

In the United States, the use of deadly force by sworn law enforcement officers is lawful when the officer reasonably believes the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. The use of deadly force by law enforcement is also lawful when used to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon when the officer believes escape would pose a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to members of the public.

dog bites
[img]https://s3.amazonaws.com/lawsitespro/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2014/12/dog-bite-collage-740.jpg/img]

[img]http://scotcats.online.fr/abc/images/pitbiteII.jpg[img]
[img]http://leerburg.com/Photos/DogBite_February192012_B_01.jpg/img]

[img]http://i3.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article6754069.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/JS32978343.jpg[img]

sooooo yea its pretty much justified to shoot an attacking,dog[/QUOTE]Is it too much to hope for a ban just on him posting uncensored gore pics?

LOL I could take photos of motorcycle accidents, and make a case for banning cars because of how much damage they do to drivers. That doesn't make it a valid argument.

Strong posting 5 pictures vs the 70-80million dogs in the USA, with absolutely no context or backstory. For all we know, each of those pictures is of a criminal trying to break into a home and the dog fought them off

The cops didn't have a clear view when they first approached the house, they walked up to the front door and casually and knock. They were okay when the door was closed on them when they got there, they would of been okay with the door closed on them again, but they probably stopped the door from shutting not because they suspected this polite woman to come back with a gun, but probably hoping to see some visible drugs laying out, and instead let the dog just walk right out and decided to shoot it.

Michael Brown, and some of the other police killings where kids are aiming bb guns at the cops, I'm on the cops side. But this was a dog that didn't attack, just barked, the cops let the dog out in the first place, and there is 2 police officers vs 1 dog, had to go straight to shooting it?

will rep off spread

strong logic, because the cops,cant open doors before they get there it should be okay for them after? lmfao

legit retard, the law is spelled out for you and why it is justified and you are still too stupid to realize it. im done you arr blocked

my bad, you're right you didn't say anything should happen to him. Instead, you just talked sht on him for not doing anything while also arguing that the second cop likely shot before he even realized what was happening. are you going to address that logical fallacy? or just call me stupid again and say how everything is going over my head?

also lol @ being retired, but at work, and on your phone

you really made it bro

lol right, I'm the retard. Yet you still can't seem to grasp that the concept of justification is subjective, and not synonymous with the definition of legal...

and I'm too stupid to realize it? lol.

gjdm keeping your bullsht straight. go back to 7th grade and relearn your vocabulary

lol @ blocking me.

I'm saying if you're going to be paranoid about what's on the other side of the door, why knock? Why not bust through with guns drawn? Probably because it would be crazy to assume every situation is a hostile one, so you claiming they needed to keep the door open for fear of their own safety because there might be a gun on the other side is BS.

The sad part is i think most of the Misc is on the police side most of the time and probably disagrees with the mass amount of negative publicity they are getting. This though is still the main problem that turns even more people against the police is when the other cops who didn't do sh*t wrong but still defend the ones who do with every tooth and nail.

i seriously dont get your logic, this doesnt even make any sense, brb loud party call need the battering ram. Jesus you guys come up with some retarded chit.

No it is not BS its actually called tactics... gawd damn stop watching so many stupid cop tv shows

that's too logical for him

to him, it makes more sense to slowly push the door open so any potential threats inside can get ready for the impending firefight

lol @ tactics. your tactics would get you killed in a truly dangerous situation