Gil Dobie wrote:Guess we don't have any PETA members on the police force here.houndawg wrote:
Jesus, Gil, what planet do you live on? Anybody else would have been lucky to escape with their lives when the SWAT team showed up.
Who you tryin' to jive with this cosmic debris........
Note to self: when in MN, attach donut to both dog's collar for precaution....check..Gil Dobie wrote:Guess we don't have any PETA members on the police force here.houndawg wrote:
Who you tryin' to jive with this cosmic debris........
bulldog10jw wrote:Gotta love any Frank Zappa referencehoundawg wrote:
Who you tryin' to jive with this cosmic debris........
Not much detail, true.CID1990 wrote:I noticed something that wasn't really brought up in the original and subsequent articles.
Maybe I missed it, but does anyone know what Federal agency this officer was tied to? It jus says that he was a Fed. LE officer. My experience with these guys is that there is no real jurisdidction on the part of local agencies to make an arrest in cases like this. The original article indicates that it was the local county sherriff's office that initially investigated the case, but they would be at a loss as to whether or not they could do anything about it, even if the case was obviously a situation of malfeasance/negligence, etc.
Parts of this article sound to me like it was written in a way that would intentionally create outrage about LE in general (and some of the usual suspects bit on it, hook line and sinker).
I know that if this had happened on my watch, I would have had to consult with my boss as to whether or not I even had standing to do anything about it, especially since the shooting itself appears to be a 'color of law' question. I am fairly certain of two things:
1. County police don't give enough of a sh!t about fed. Barneys to consider protecting them.
2. It is certain that legal advisors to the local sheriff's office have been overtaxed over the last few days to determine if the sheriff's office has the ability to do anything about this.
For sure, there is a large lack of detail in the article, and I'm not talking about the actual circumstances of the shooting.
BlueHen86 wrote:I think the burden should be on the shooter to justify his use of force. I find it hard to believe that a man with a German Shepherd was in fear for his life because of a husky. I suppose that it's possible, but the guy would have to convince me. Just saying "I was in fear for my life" doesn't cut it.
This. 
You have to add to that the threat of serious bodily harm.blueballs wrote:There is no excuse for discharging a firearm in a public place unless human life was threatened. Period.
Local/state or fed? Also I wonder if some of that has to due with the state you live in.danefan wrote:Also - I know a lot of cops. They very very rarely carry their weapons when not on duty or working security on the side.
Why carry the liability and potential to lose your job?
(I know, I know.....there are some people that feel the need to carry all the time because they fear for their lives...blah blah blah...bullshit).
AgreeBDKJMU wrote:You have to add to that the threat of serious bodily harm.blueballs wrote:There is no excuse for discharging a firearm in a public place unless human life was threatened. Period.
Now say if you had say a pit bull or Rotweiller attacking your more docile breed of dog, and it came down to you shooting the pit/rott or your dog being mauled to death, then I think you would be justified in shooting it (even if their wasn't a threat to human life).
Under most circumstances the point would be moot because it would take too long to run all the way home, get the gun, and come back and shoot the dog.BDKJMU wrote:You have to add to that the threat of serious bodily harm.blueballs wrote:There is no excuse for discharging a firearm in a public place unless human life was threatened. Period.
Now say if you had say a pit bull or Rotweiller attacking your more docile breed of dog, and it came down to you shooting the pit/rott or your dog being mauled to death, then I think you would be justified in shooting it (even if their wasn't a threat to human life).
But this case doesn't sound like a justified shooting. Then again, I'm going to take whatever I hear in the Baltimore Sun with a grain of salt.
Sure there is....witnesses. And if that's not enough, I'd be surprised if the municipality (our even housing provider...believe it was multi-family apartments) didn't have a rule / law against discharing a weapon within city limits (or on apartment grounds). And while it's the court's burden to prove that he discharged a weapon unlawfully (witnesses could prove he fired the weapon), the burden is on the guy to prove that discharging the weapon was lawful & necessarry & that's why he broke the law / rule. But we do agree the guy is an ass for pulling this stunt.....mebison wrote:Soooo...at the end of the day no one really knows enough to say who was in the right. Which sounds to me like you can't charge anyone, cop or not, for a crime. Even discharge of a weapon in a public place, because there could be valid reason for doing that, and there's no way to prove that he didn't have a valid reason.
The guy might be an idiot, sure, but, unfortunately, that's not illegal.
FUCK NO!You just don't get it do you? The cop was dead fuckin' wrong - there is absolutely no valid reason for shooting a pet in a dog park. None. If the officer didn't know how to handle himself or his dog in the park then he had no business being there. Your average child/senior citizen, with proper training and experience, can handle a decent sized dog in a park without using lethal force.mebison wrote:Soooo...at the end of the day no one really knows enough to say who was in the right. Which sounds to me like you can't charge anyone, cop or not, for a crime. Even discharge of a weapon in a public place, because there could be valid reason for doing that, and there's no way to prove that he didn't have a valid reason.
The guy might be an idiot, sure, but, unfortunately, that's not illegal.
Based on what? There is a good chance that an investigation will say who was in the wrong here. I'm pretty sure that it is illegal to go around shooting dogs, especially in a dog walking park. The guy better have a strong argument that shooting the dog was a matter of life and death.mebison wrote:Soooo...at the end of the day no one really knows enough to say who was in the right. Which sounds to me like you can't charge anyone, cop or not, for a crime. Even discharge of a weapon in a public place, because there could be valid reason for doing that, and there's no way to prove that he didn't have a valid reason.
The guy might be an idiot, sure, but, unfortunately, that's not illegal.
I'm with you. I don't know the whole story so I ain't willing to say one way or the other til I do.mebison wrote:I legitimately don't have any idea what the standards are for reasonable grounds to discharge a weapon within city limits. If he can be charged with a crime, I'd think it would have to be for that, rather than shooting the dog, specifically, as that would put the burden on him to prove that he had reason to discharge the weapon, rather than on the city to prove that he didn't have reason to shoot the dog. If he's got a bite, I'd bet he's in the clear, but who knows.
Nor that the person was justified for fearing for his lifemebison wrote:Meh, whatever, maybe there will be some witnesses who actually saw what happened in the moments before he shot and if so, great, but right now I haven't seen anyone offer anything other than "oh, but spot was always such a nice dog". I know you all know everything there is to know about how dogs act and how to humanely disable them, but I'm not sure that saying huskies are not generally dangerous dogs is enough to convict a guy of a crime. Still no way to prove that this particular dog was not dangerous at that particular moment.
Actually, there is a difference. Cops are trained professionals who must (or should) display sound judgement before issuance of a service revolver & the badge & authority to use that weapon. Add in the fact that he wasn't arrested on the spot, not for shooting the dog, but for discharging a weapon in a park setting on provate property with other persons close by, and the case smacks of favoritism. 99.9% of the time, an average person doing the same thing is going downtown for a talk.mebison wrote:The fact that this was a cop doesn't really matter...he was a guy with a gun. If it was his service weapon, then his superiors certainly have a right to discipline him. There is lots of chest-beating around here about carrying a gun...then all of the sudden everyone wants to eviscerate this guy for using his.
Really? I'd like to think most people on this site would at least question the use of deadly force & not just accept it was justified because the guy firing a gun is an off-duty cop & the dead person is homeless. And I think most of the people on here have acknowledged that the outrage isn't so much about a dog being shot, but the fact a supposed "trained" federal law enforcement officer would use such a lack of judgment with regard to discharging a weapon in a park....shame on that "sanctimonious" dog....mebison wrote:In a way, it reminds me of a situation here a few years ago when an off-duty policeman interrupted a fight between a homeless guy with a knife and a drunk bar patron (who picked the fight). The cop ended up shooting the homeless guy when he made a threatening move, but there were no witnesses who could really say exactly what happened and there was some clamour about whether the shooting was justified. In that case, most people on here would be awarding the cop a medal, but because this case is a sanctimonious dog, then the cop is a psycho-path.
They could try, but if he's not criminally charged in any manner, it would be tough to convict. They might prove loss of property, but monetary damages would be limited to what they paid for the dog I think...and yes, there is a lower burden of proof with a civil case. Dane or JJ, can you elaborate?mebison wrote:A different thought though...if no criminal charges are pressed, could the dog owners bring a civil case of some sort? That's a lower standard of evidence, right?
"authorities won't be charging a federal police officer who shot and killed a Siberian husky Monday night at a community dog park"mebison wrote:As Ursus said, I'm just saying we don't know enough of the full story to say he should have been charged. You've got several assumptions in your post that may be true, but are not supported by anything in either article linked.
He shot the dog with "a handgun that was in his possession" which may or may not have been his service weapon, as you keep saying.Appaholic wrote: What assumptions? I'm stating the officer discharged his weapon in a dog park which is documented from multiple sources. You're stating he was probably justified in shooting the dog which is up for debate & being investigated. Who's making an assumption?
Go back & re-read...I'm not claiming it was a service weapon, just that he discharged a weapon..mebison wrote:He shot the dog with "a handgun that was in his possession" which may or may not have been his service weapon, as you keep saying.Appaholic wrote: What assumptions? I'm stating the officer discharged his weapon in a dog park which is documented from multiple sources. You're stating he was probably justified in shooting the dog which is up for debate & being investigated. Who's making an assumption?
Anne Arundel County (Maryland) Code 91-1-601 Possession or Discharge of Firearmsmebison wrote:He shot the dog on a community dog park and an "association manager was appalled that someone would fire a gun in the community dog park", which does not tell us anything about what the local laws for reasonable cause to discharge a weapon in city limits. A woman on my association board was appalled that someone kept his plants in coffee cans rather than planters.
Not if I witnessed him shooting MY dog. however, I fully recognize the courts inability to mete out justice/punishment in this manner.mebison wrote:I have also never said that he was justified in shooting the dog...I said I do not know enough to jump to the conclusion that he should be arrested. An investigation sounds reasonable, "rape his wife and skull-**** his lifeless corpse" sounds like a little overkill to me.
