again...you must be some kind of stupid. Never did I say it's okay for cops to get hurt. he asked what about possible losses of pay, benefits, pension, w/e in the event the cop gets hurt. I said there is a workmans comp program in place to prevent those kinds of losses in the event of the injury. I didn't say the cop should go out and get injured before doing his job, which is what you're implying

saying "LMFAO at you" and "watching you stutter over your own bull****" does not make it true, as much as you'd like it to be.

seriously its like talking to a 5 year old, you have no concept of the laws or legal system. Just stop you look foolish

and yet, i see no one agreeing with you...

do you even know what the word justify means?

show or prove to be right or reasonable.
"the person appointed has fully justified our confidence"
synonyms: give grounds for, give reasons for, give a justification for, explain, give an explanation for, account for; More

anyone can believe and prove something reasonable in their own mind, that doesn't make it so. To you, this shooting is justified, to the rest of us, its the result of one terribly unworthy police officer needlessly killing an animal. if you don't understand that, there's really no hope for you

no one but you is interpreting you own bullchit like that, you clearly are implying from this post and others that youve made that its okay for cops to risk their lives and to not shoot aggressive dogs otherwise "they shouldnt be cops" according to you. Again proving you have no clue what you are talking about

mhm k,
eitherway as said above justified doesn't equal right.
hitlers deathcamps were a 100% legal, but it wasn't really right was it?

dog didn't need to be shot.

theres a difference between someones mind and the legal system. See how ive shown it was legal, legal is literally all that matters. You have not shown 1 single shred of anything to show it wasnt reasonable or legal. Your rational is simply been the cop was scared so he shouldnt be a cop. Legit retarded.

Actually several have agreed with me...

lol @ you trying to tell me what I meant about something I said...just lol. props to you for cherrypicking and twisting arguments to fit your needs best

lol are you saying cops shouldn't risk their lives? then wtf is their job exactly? i fail to see how they can efficiently protect and serve others when they are focusing on themselves first.

I said they shouldn't be cops if they don't want to ever be in danger.Which is not an unreasonable thing to say, seeing as being a cop is dangerous. Or would you deny that? because if you do deny it, then there is no reason the cop should have shot. and if you agree with it, then you should also agree that cops should be able to assess danger on a case-by-case basis, and not just assume they should always be ready to shoot something...

finally you're starting to get it. Now if only you could develop your own mind that hasn't been typed up for you by the police department.

just lmfao at your pathetic attempts to compare it to hitlers death camps. Its legit retarded how far you guys are stretching.

you say this shooting is legal

hitlers deathcamp was legal

according to you, both were justified at the time, as stated in your own words many times previously

see how fuking stupid you look?

GJDM keeping your bullcht straight *******

i'm not comparing hitlers death camps to a mistake an officer made by shooting a dog.

i'm just pointing out that you're saying its OKAY to shoot the dog because in your eyes its justified

jeeez bro can you let go of your ego and just accept that the dog was shot by mistake. its not a crime, its a tragedy. **** like this happens and better cop training and less ego's would prevent **** like this from happening.

lmfao serious you just look stupid at this point, I have shown how it was both reasonable and legal to justify shooting the dog you have shown nothing. Ive posted proof showing the dog charging the officer, the officer was forced to retreat over 10 feet with the dog charging him.... Its clear cut there is no possible way you can say this was a bad shooting

The dog was not shot by mistake, the only mistake that happened was by the owner for not securing her dog, Nothing the cop did places either of them at fault for the owners actions. The cops had a legal right to be there, they had a legal right to open the door and they had a legal right to shoot the dog based on the dogs agressive actions. Its on fuqing video for christ sake

either you are really stupid or really deluded. the officer was retreated before the dog chased after him.

lmao @ your last sentence. If it was so clear cut, this thread would never have been made.

One day you'll be humbled by how fkn blind you are, and you'll realize. I just hope you haven't justified too many killings by then

its like you are not even watching the video...

its like you're determined to defend your fellow cop buddies no matter what they've done...

oh wait

im,still waiting for you to actual post any valid explanation for why its not justified

if the cop hadn't pushed the door open further, the dog may not have come to the door
if they had called the owner to the door, they may have stopped it from happening altogether
had the first cop been more effective with his nightstick, it may not have happened.
they could have used pepper spray, tasers, a stick off the ground, their legs to keep the dog away
they should have resorted to shooting the dog only once they exhausted all those options. considering the dog was not latched on, they had time to make a decision, instead of reacting on instinct and killing the dog
but most importantlythe dog was not exhibiting aggressive behavior. I wouldn't expect a potato like you to get that though

but I don't expect you to read any of that, just like you didn't read any of the previous posts saying the same thing

Negged not only for stupidity but also bc u have literally been nonstop in this thread since mid morning and it is now evening. At least I checked back when I had time. Basement dweller at mom's house detected.

Fuk negged on rc

Here is where I am going to take issue. I think what the cop did was morally reprehensible. I have twice been charged by a dogs with collars while hunting. I never felt the urge to turn my rifle on the dog and end it's life because it was barking and running at me. It would be immoral of me to do so. That is someones pet, while I hold a humans life above a pets I am not going to end it's life because it MIGHT bite me. Then again I am good with dogs and have never been bitten even by dogs who have been labeled as aggressive. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral. That's where my problem with this lies.

Awaiting the return of our savior Harambe to save the lives of all aminals

In the meantime, I'm pulling my dick out

legal for them to open the door as it pertained to officer safety.
wasnt time for the owner to get the dog, dog should have been secured before the door was opened.
dog was past the first cop and charging the 2nd cop before he could react
when a dog is charging you your adrenaline kicks in and so does your muscle memory. His muscle memory would resort to him pulling his gun and shooting. there was also not enough time for him to deploy other methods that would have severly increased his likelyhood of injury

So again how do you classify this as not a justified shooting

lmao this

inb4 you try and say "lmfao @ you, you're doing the same thing" I'm at work, being a contributing member to society, not sitting at home rubbing one out to all the ways I can to terrible things within the scope of the law

sorry that i wont let retards like you make up bullchit excuses why it wasnt a justified shooting. Dont worry imma neg you too crybaby

nice to see you anticops jerkin each other off

thats fine you can morally be against shooting a dog, as ive said i went over a decade never shooting a dog, and the only time i came close was off duty when one charged at my kid in her stroller. But that doesnt make this unjustified

Valid explanations have been presented numerous times in this thread and the only response you've given is your subjective opinion on the situation.

It's very clear that subjectivity is a tool employed by LEOs to excuse their lazy and violent behavior on the job. It's also very clear as previously stated that you are unwilling to even admit the slightest bit of error, that other options WERE available and that the cops had the opportunity to handle the situation differently. The blind, dogged, disgustingly determined way in which you are willing to overlook any possible misjudgment simply because he's a brother in blue is quite scary. You literally believe that you are infallible and don't deserve in any way to answer to the people you are sworn to protect. You police the world as if everything other than a cop is an enemy, a threat, and you have an incredibly dangerous mindset regarding the justification to use deadly force.

It doesn't matter how many people present their arguments for what the cops could have done better, because you won't listen to it. You'll hide behind the same rhetoric, "you don't know anything about police work" "blah blah my subjective opinion on the situation" "you're an idiot" and won't actually address anyone's points, no matter how logical or well constructed.

It's also sad to note that you'd rather engage in public warfare regarding the opinion on cops and actively hurt police reputation just to stubbornly defend cops who could have acted better in that situation.

Caldwell is like the Detroit of Idaho but with more hispanics.

I'll say it once more, you must be some kind of stupid

justification is individual, and subjective. So as much as you believe the shooting was justified, I can just as much believe it was unjustified.

#2 counterpoint is a terrible counterpoint. So any dog's that loose that hasn't been secured by it's owner should just be shot, just because it could be a danger and the owner didn't secure it?
#3 is just wrong, the first cop obviously had time to react since he was able to take a step back and pull out his stick
#4 i wouldn't say is incorrect, but I'd like to know that the people who are protecting me are capable of responding to situations off something more than pure base instinct.
#5 isn't really incorrect, so I won't debate it, but deploying other methods may also have eliminated the need to kill a dog and given him the time to see the dog wasn't aggressive. We don't know whether the dog actually would have attacked or not, so you can't say for sure either way.the only reason we seem anti-cop is because of how stubborn and ignorant you are. If anything, you are a perfect example of cops jerking off each other...dumbass

I personally have no problem with smart, sensible, reasonable cops who are fair people. I do have a problem with cops who think they are above everyone else and are infallible in what they do, simply because the law backs them up

IE YOU

Careful bro looks like there's at least one LEO mod. Proof: my reps vs that retards reps.