The Glade 4.0

You've already admitted in this thread that you've make assumptions on this topic based on your bias, you don't need to keep re-establishing that. I believed you the first time.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

If only you understood that fallacy, this thread would have been over 4 pages ago.

_________________

But that would mean we never would have received the Midgen Hypothesis, and the board would be a lesser place because of that.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

What do you think I don't understand about someone continually modifying the subject of an assertion to continue an unreasonable claim? And, if you think I've done so, I'd like you to point it out, please.

And, just to do some background on the subject, for all those thinking the public opinion of the police is in the crapper, let's look at the percentages of folks thinking the honesty and ethics of the police are "very high/high"...



And, just for grins, let's look at how College teachers are rated, shall we?



SO, people in general have a higher opinion of cops than they do college teachers. I'm OK with that.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124628/clerg ... tings.aspx

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Yay, Gallup polls supporting a preconceived notion that may or may not be accurate based on a sampling of 1017 people to accurately represent the opinions of 350 million means exactly what to me?

_________________

That also shows improvement over previous years. That isn't necessarily a basis for praise or condemnation. If you're at rock bottom, you can only improve.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Oh, I'm not basing my opinion on it, it just seemed that folks were wanting to support their biased arguments using popular opinion and nothing much else.

My opinion is based on my experience. The cops I've had dealings with have always acted professionally.

Seems this thread places anecdotal evidence highest on the list of allowable criteria, so I just know my opinion will be respected, 'cause, you know, we don't have too many **** heads just wanting to start making the thread about me instead of the original topic.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

/chuckle

Taskiss:

Actually, you're assuming the officer in question is above board based on your own preconceived notion, when all available evidence (dismissed for falsifying time sheets, sanctioned by his employer, employer settling the law suit, video evidence) indicates that THIS cop did not behave professionally.

More to the point, the only evidence you've provided to defend your position (Gallup poll) indicates that the reputation of police officers as scum bags is rooted in public opinion respite responses to that poll. Since the valuation for officer ethics was negative for longer than it has been positive (23 of the 30 years covered), if one accepts the poll as valid then the stereotype emerges from the continued behavior that supported such negative valuations for the longer period of time.

_________________

The only evidence I used is the few seconds of video used by the original post to present the argument in the first place. The things that happened after that are irrelevant for this topic as far as I'm concerned, as is the results of any suit.

And, where do you get the evidence that there was any negative valuations for cops? The only measurement category on the poll are for "very high/high".

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

When discussing public servants, is any value other than the highest possible option given valid for ethics/ethical behavior? I'm going to go with no ...

_________________

I'm OK with that, but it still leaves us with 5 or 6 seconds of evidence for this particular set of circumstances that resulted in the cop shooting the dog, and after watching the video, I don't see any reason to think the cop acted unreasonably. There are always other choices that the cop could have made, but to insist that another should have been taken seems unreasonable. I'm absolutely sure the dog was attacking the cop, and none have suggested otherwise.

That leaves their opinion based on the cop's response to that attack.

When someone is threatened and they believe that the antagonist would do them bodily harm, seems reasonable to me that they be given leeway in their choice of methods at self preservation.

Folks can advocate that people should not be allowed to carry guns, and I can understand those folks arguing that the cop shouldn't have shot the dog. It's consistent with their beliefs. I don't agree, but that doesn't take away from their argument.

Folks that think others SHOULD be allowed to carry guns to defend themselves though, well, it seems less consistent with their beliefs that they would criticize the cop. What rules about what you can and can't do when you're threatened with an imminent physical attack do you want to legislate, Khross?

The dog was attacking, there was little time, etc. There was only one other option that I would believe could have prevented the attack - the cop would have had to take his eyes off the dog, turn his back to the animal and locate the door handle, open the door, get inside, and then successfully close the door, all in just a very few seconds. That's something I'd personally never consider doing, so I can't fault the cop for not doing it.

No, the best choice to defend myself against an attack when I'm carrying a gun is to use the gun. Why allow folks to carry a gun if you don't want them using it for defense?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

One of the last things I think I would EVER do is turn my back on a menacing/attacking dog. Best way to make sure the dog does attack or get more violent is to turn and flee.

Ask yourselves that question. If a dog were threatening or charging you, is the first instinct to turn and run from it?

Copied from Wikihow on how to handle a dog attack:

I am sure there are numerous other sources that would say the same thing. Put aside all of your anti-cop, anti-authority bias and ask yourself if you are advocating that a person who is being attacked by a dog do the very thing that will definitely incite the dog to go into predator mode instead of ensuring his safety using the only other option he has currently at his disposal (unless he had been trained in handling a dog attack unarmed)

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

You don't think getting up on the hood or just plain booting the dog in the head were reasonable options in this case? Higher risk of a bite, I suppose, but I just don't see the danger here being sufficient to justify lethal force. It's pretty rare for a dog to be so vicious that it'll keep attacking a grown man after a swift kick or two. Usually they don't even get that far - they charge, snap at you a couple of times, and then back off and stand there barking and growling. I guess that's what it comes down to for me. If the cop had chosen a different course of action here, the worst he was likely looking at was a few stitches and a tetanus shot, and maybe not even that. I just don't think that's serious enough to justify shooting the dog, particularly since he was on the dog owner's land.

What training? Seriously, just boot him in the head or ribs. Very, very few dogs are such vicious killing machines that a grown person can't fend them off pretty easily.

Facts:

1. The police officer was not on the land in any official capacity.

2. The officer in question made no attempt to use non-lethal force to address the situation.

3. The video does not show sufficient evidence of danger.

That's pretty much all there is to it, guys.

By the way, most terriers don't hold their heads up to attack.

_________________

He wasn't being attacked, he was being charged. The difference is massive. That dog showed the wrong body language for an attacking dog. No one is advocating turning and running. What is being advocated is that the level of force used was in excess of what many believe was necessary.

RD, I don't think the officer should have gotten on the hood of his cruiser, that would have only led to the dog becoming more focused on the officer, inciting aggressive behavior.

Khross, you left out the fact that there was ample time to respond differently with no increase of threat to bodily harm to the officer.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Well, he had time to turn and say something to the passenger and then turn back to the dog, approach it, back up, approach it, back up, and then shoot it.

_________________

Exactly.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Agreed; I'm just saying there were options other than fumbling for a door handle if it came to that. Generally speaking, I would say your best bet is to just stand your ground for the initial charge and then move slowly and calmly toward a secure spot. Only twice in my life has that not been sufficient to calm an aggressive (or more likely just riled up) dog, and both of the times it failed and I was bitten (once by a rottie and once by a boxer), it was just a quick bite and then they backed off, though admittedly I did have to give the rottie an open-handed cuff to the head to get him to let go of my pants.

Aside from Khross, I don't specifically know of anyone else here who has been attacked, threatened, or charged by a dog, which incidentally, ended up with use of lethal force. (If I remember correctly) Perhaps Khross, you could have retreated or gotten on a car hood or some other non-lethal way of handling the situation.

Actually, it doesn't matter to me, Khross. I don't specifically remember the exact circumstances, but I am sure you did what you felt necessary to defend yourself from said animal in the best way available to you at that time.

I don't think any of you could possibly have any idea of what you would do in such a situation. The officer responded to a threat to his person in the way that his training likely programmed him to do.

He had seconds to decide what to do. In those few seconds where you all suggested he back off (as he did), the dog was upon him and his options were few at that point. His training likely kicked in and he responded as such.

Whether or not he was in any danger is known best by him and likely him alone. No one here can look at that video and surmise what could or should have been his best course of action. Only he was in that situation, no one else here was. Stop making up what you think he should have done in that time when he felt threatened.

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

I agree; which is why I think there's a systemic problem with law enforcement these days. It's not that there are thousands of power-trippy assholes running around with badges; it's that the training and culture of law enforcement favors an aggressive, never-back-down, quick-to-violence response to situations where an officer's safety is threatened or his authority is challenged. The problem is the culture/training, not the cops themselves.

I guess I just can't see how the officer would have "fumbled" for the door handle, RD. He's used that vehicle's door thousands of times it would really take no thought; it's muscle memory at that point - but, yeah, there were other alternatives.

Foamy, I know exactly what I would do in that situation. I've been bitten numerous times, only once did I use put the dog down. It was biting my daughter's leg, and as I was about 30 yards away, I told my dog to end it. Every other instance, I did not feel that it was necessary to use a level of force that would end the dog's life, even to the point of advocating (to no avail) for the dog that bit me in the face.

Edit: RD, heheh that's part of why the thought of the officer jumping on the hood of his cruiser struck me as "never gonna happen".

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Ok the new smilies are getting retarded

_________________

So what? Do you think folks that stop to ask directions at someone's house should be fair game for the owners dog to attack? He wasn't there illegally as far as the facts that have been presented suggest.

When attacked, how many seconds do you feel should elapse before lethal attempts at self-preservation be attempted?

Subjective, I suppose. I saw how quickly the dog was moving when it entered the camera's frame, and I'd personally assume a high degree of danger were I the target of that attack. Then again, something like that doesn't really allow for do-overs if you're wrong, now does it?

The business end... the one with the teeth? They were front and center. Pretty much all that's necessary to inflict whatever damage the animal might feel like inflicting.

Your still going to have to convince me that not using my best choice for self-preservation in a situation where self-preservation seems to be called for is a mistake. All this other stuff is dross.

"I'm being attacked out of nowhere!?!... Hmm... what's my best way to address that? OK, don't want to do that, it would be letha..."...

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.