The Glade 4.0

Preface: I have not watched the video.

Removing all parts of the argument other than a person being attacked by someone else's dog.

Why shouldn't the one being attacked be able to defend themselves by any means they have currently available to them?

As far as I am concerned, Human > Dog. If a dog were ever attacking me, my family, or any one close to me and I had the means available, there would be one dead dog.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

Switch it around a little bit, still a cop but a little kid running at the cop with a sharp stick, maybe the kid has a mental disorder like the kid that was pepper sprayed at school. Would he have shot the kid? Lethal force should always be a last resort but he seemed to go for it as a first resort.

_________________
I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil

That's too oversimplified, though, Foamy. If you watch the video, there's a crucial additional element - he had time to just get back in his car. Moreover, it's not clear he was actually being attacked; the dog was just running towards him. So, the issue isn't whether it's ok to shoot a dog that's attacking you; the issue is whether it's ok to shoot a dog that's running towards you when you have an alternative means of protecting yourself available.

My question wasn't passive aggressive, it was an honest inquiry after seeing that statement. It appeared you were taking this subject personally as you have in the past with law enforcement related topics. Perhaps I was reading more into your statements than was there. If so, I apologize.

Yes. An on-duty cop has a different set of circumstances they operate in than an ordinary citizen.

The have a duty to perform while working. Ordinary citizens have the luxury of fleeing aggressive people or animals, I don't see that cops do. If I saw a video of a cop fleeing an attack of equal or lesser force than they themselves can bring to the table, I'd not believe the cop was performing his or her duty.

They need to condition themselves to run towards danger and overcome it, not away. It's what their jobs are, after all.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Taskiss, cops are law enforcement officers, not gladiators. Their job is to enforce the law, not terminate all perceived threats with extreme violence.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Rynar, cops are first-responders. They should attempt to overcome any instinct of self preservation as best they can in protecting and serving their duty. I don't see how running away from threats would accomplish much.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but the way I'm reading this, you feel "shoot first, ask questions later" is the appropriate response for police officers in the execution of their job?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Yeah, well, then don't put words into my mouth. Don't put straw there, either.

The word "threat" (or words to that effect) figures prominently in all my responses. Your characterization lacks that imperative.

When threatened with force they should respond instead of running away. If they decide to use their weapon, they should expect to be reviewed by their superiors, but second guessing them in an internet forum seems cowardly to me.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

A police officer should only resort to force if there are no other avenues of action. They are public servants. Any police officer who discharges their weapon, wounds, or kills a citizen in the performance of their duty, should be suspended without pay until a full investigation by an impartial body is performed.

_________________

You see, I have the opposite view. I think it's a cop's duty to use the least amount of force necessary to resolve a situation without undue risk to themselves or others and to weigh the consequences of using a given amount of force against the consequences of not using it. In this case, the cop could have resolved the situation by just getting back in his car for a minute, which is a virtually consequence free action, instead of shooting the dog, which obviously has huge consequences for all concerned.


Here again, why the imperative to respond with force? If a less aggressive response can defuse the threat and resolve the situation, shouldn't they choose that course instead? Contain the situation and calm it down, rather than just shoot? Maybe I'm misreading, but it seems like you're suggesting a violent, aggressive response in the face of danger/threat is actually preferable, even if other avenues are available.

Taskiss, it was a legitimate question, which I wanted to afford you the chance to answer before I made any assumptions.

As to the word "threat", I then suppose that when selecting our police officers we should be careful to grade them on what they feel to be "threatening". The very nature of their job exposes them to situations which the regular citizen would find threatening on a day to day basis. The purpose of their position is to defuse and deescalate situations from the necessity of violence. Not to carry out violence as a first option. If an officer can't downgrade threats and seek other solutions other than violence, he really isn't doing a very good job, and this should be addressed.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

"We" shouldn't be doing any such thing. "We" should elect officials to head police operations (or elect executives that perform these duties for us) and "They" should ensure proper training is provided and guidelines are observed.

At that point, if we have a problem, it should be expressed to those in charge of these things and we should hold them accountable for their leadership.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Are you saying that police officers should be insulated from, rather than responsible to, the citizens they are intended to serve?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Just generally speaking to this kind of situation, it doesn't really matter whether you're the police, a meter reader, the UPS guy, an HVAC repair man, or what. When you're on other people's property -- especially uninvited and unannounced -- you show some restraint. If you can't do that, you're in the wrong line of business.

But, yes, there is a sense in which this goes double for police. In addition to being a public servant, it's specifically their job to protect and preserve the life and property of the citizenery. It is appropriate that they should stick to a minimum-force approach. That doesn't mean that deadly force is never justified, but it should only be used when all other options have been exhausted.

As to the idea of expediency, I'm going to echo Rynar's sentiments here. The use of force shouldn't be justified simply because it's more expedient than non-deadly (or better yet non-violent) options. Regardless, I've yet to find any account of this incident that disputes that the officer was just stopping to ask for directions. Was that really so urgent that he couldn't have taken the time to get back in his car until the woman had gotten her dog back under control? If there's some applicable local leash laws, fine -- he can issue citation for it afterwards.

I just really don't understand this whole thing. I think just about anyone who has owned a dog ever has had this exact thing happen at least once. And who hasn't rung someone's doorbell and had a dog come running out the front door to them? It happens. Reacting to that by *shooting* their dog is just so ...

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I'd like all threats against the police to be resolved with the least amount of force necessary. I'm not going to go second guessing a situation after the fact though. I wasn't there, I didn't experience the threat.

"force" covers a multitude of options, the defining factor in my opinion is that the cop should exercise whatever actions are needed to take charge of the situation, rather than allow a person or an animal to take charge, when an issue arises.

There could have been other options, I wasn't there and I didn't experience the threat. Had I been, and had I decided that shooting was the best option in order to take charge of the situation, I'd expect careful review from my supervisors. If I failed to gain their support for my acts, I'd expect to suffer appropriate consequences. I think that's appropriate for the cop in question.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Seems a bit naive to me.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

The way I see it, it's the only way. One must hold the leadership responsible or there will be issues that, if not brought to the attention of the public, would go unchecked.

In other words, we can watch every cop, or we can watch one. Ensuring that there is good leadership is much more effective than micromanaging the situation.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Nonsense. Let me ask you a question. What would your reaction be if a 3-year old ran up to a cop with a knife in his hand, and was shot to death?

I'd want that cop's head. There's an appropriate level of response. A cop can easily stay out of the kid's reach while he figures out what the hell is going on (as was the case with the dog).

I'd offer the cop wide leeway in using non-lethal non-permanent injury force in dealing with either situation. Hell, if the cop put his boot in the kid's face, I'd deal with it.

But, to suggest that the cop should expend no effort to try to avoid using lethal force is just ridiculous.

Dogs are like toddlers. You can't expect them to have reasonable behavior at all times (like to not run at strangers).

You categorize what I wrote as nonsense then compare a 3 year old to what appears to be an Airedale Terrier?

Do you have any experience with Airedales? I'd say it's your comparison that's nonsense. Read the rest of my posts in this thread then come back to the discussion, please.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The same people who are offering hush money to keep it quiet and instructing the owner to not disclose her video or story? Or did you just not watch 1:40-1:57?

I could agree with you if they were acting in a responsible manner that acknowledged the officer was in the wrong. But they made themselves complicit, instead, so this does exactly the opposite of making me content to trust them to discipline their officers, hold them accountable, and foster an attitude amongst the force that is deserving of my trust.



And again. The distrust of the police forces around the country are due to this process breaking down in favor of police protecting their own. The stereotype is indicative of an endemic that can't be ignored, and won't be solved by trusting the same people who have broken the trust to fix it.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

If the shooting was found to be justified, isn't it a little unfair for them to lose several weeks' worth of salary?

You can always back pay them for that if the shooting was found to be justified.

_________________

That characterization has a ton of bias, Kaffis. Attempting to settle out of court is, unfortunately, a pragmatic approach to many legal situations and doesn't reflect guilt or innocence.

Your bias is the only determining factor that the officer was in the wrong.


I've looked up polls on the trust and confidence of the police in the US and what I've seen is contrary to what you're asserting.... the "copsareoutofcontrol" YouTube channel hardly reflects the average opinion of the public on this.


Other than the "without pay" part, I wouldn't disagree with this.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.