Cop goes to wrong house, shoots owners dog. Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT | |
This is seriously disturbing. A police officer should not be able to barge into my home and shoot someone I love. Yes, some"one", not some"thing". I'm pretty sure that in this scenario if you switch the dog to a kid with a toy gun or something, the officer's response (and justification) would be the same. A "domestic violence" is a "potentially lethal" scenario, that is true, but it's also a very "she said, he said" kind of situation. The officer's duty is to investigate these kinds of distress calls, not barge in gun's drawn.That's what you do when you have confirmed information about an armed and dangerous individual, when looking at the bare facts presented you can do nothing but say "Yep, he's a bad guy alright. Let's git 'im boys". Oh sure, maybe the perp will be given a warning and a head start. Maybe the bad guy will get a weapon to attack the officer with. Or maybe there was a misunderstanding which will be resolved with a knock on the door. And sometimes kids call the police when their parents take away their Xbox. Or a man will make the domestic violence call because, believe it or not, women are capable of violence against men (did you know that when a "domestic violence" call occurs, the police - always - have to book the guy?). The thing is, I respect police officers. It's a tough job, and you're risking your life constantly. But you have to accept those risks. It is unacceptable that an innocent man is harmed, even if thousands of guilty go free, even if thousands of police officers die. This is basic ideals of democracy we're talking about, and they cannot be compromised unless on a very, very, very exceptional and important occasion. Otherwise, we're steering right into the territory of totalitarianism and shitty franchise ruining ending villains that want to destroy us all in order to prevent us from destroying ourselves. Maybe the above is unreasonable and idealistic, but guess what? So is the concept of "justice" or "love for humankind", so is the notion behind any piece of art, and so is every great man or woman that did something that truly matters. Also, I'm pretty sure there are enough anti-government clauses in the Constitution that the victim would have been justified (at least, in the eyes of the founding fathers) in defending himself. A stranger bursts in my home, pointing a weapon at me? I haven't done anything wrong, for all I know he's impersonating a police officer. TL:DR - Terrorists win. CAPTCHA: "love you". I agree captcha, I think we all need to show a lot more love to fellow man. That being said, I love you Escapist :D EDIT: captcha: love is automatic. umm, what?! | |
I already explained why it's irrelevant. | |
I didn't forget. I guess I keep my expectations a little too high. | |
How about you watch the video first? He was at the reported adress, he did not make the mistake, he assumed the reported situation and thought that the dog would attack him. The big thing is: He was at the REPORTED adress = they got the wrong adress. | |
...Meh, shit happens. You can't honestly expect everyone everywhere to make the right decisions under pressure. Sure the cop should be held accountable for his actions, but it isn't as black and white as "evil officer shoots innocent dog". That officer didn't go in their planning to shoot whatever he saw, he reacted in a way that, if the dog had actually been attacking him, would have been a good thing. The world isn't always "good versus evil" like so many people seem to think. Crap happens. --
Yeah yeah. The Unites States is an evil, corrupt nation with horrible trigger-happy bastards who will shoot randomly and get away with it. Now that we've gotten your ignorant statement based on the actions of a few people out of the way, can we please get on topic? | |
Remember kids, you should always wait for someone to shoot you before you can shoot them, because if movies have taught us anything, the bad guy will ALWAYS miss their first shot, and then you'll be perfectly justified. And for goodness sakes, NEVER shoot more than ONCE, because you only EVER need to hit someone once to put them down. Oh, and aim to shoot the gun from their hand. Sure, you'll miss 99% of the time, but if you manage to do it, they'll be so impressed that they'll stop their murderous rage and go peacefully. | |
No I am afraid we are going to have to stay on this topic until it stops coming up for at least two days straight. | |
He went into the house with his weapon drawn even though there was no signs of disturbance at the house. And as someone said earlier, there was a report that said the man told the officer that the dog would not harm him and yet he shot it anyway. Without even giving the owner a chance to restrain it. So he went into the home of an innocent man with his weapon drawn, for something as simple as an argument between a couple, he had his weapon drawn. The man was unarmed yet he still held him at gunpoint. The man told the officer that the dog would not harm him and then the officer shot the dog without letting the owner restrain it. A stranger just walked into the dogs home, of course the dog is going to bark, it's what dogs do. Reported address or not, what the officer did was wrong and he shouldn't be defended for it. It's the officers responsibility to make sure that they are definitely going to the right house. I'm wondering if they got the caller to actually confirm that it was definitely the correct address he'd mentioned before they acted. Or if they just got the call and went "Yep we'll take care of that". Let's also not forget that the officer just simply walked into the house. He didn't knock, he just walked right in. He should have knocked first, especially since there were no signs of disturbance. If there was no answer only then he should have let himself in | |
But he should not be held account for things he had no control over. Like the fact that the information he got was false. On the rest I shall let the investigation people judge and no one who has only the news and tape as information. | |
You're right, the fact that he was given the wrong address was not his fault, however that does not excuse his actions once he arrived at the property. It is also why I would like to know whether they got the caller to confirm the given address or if they just went without giving it any more thought. If they didn't get the caller to confirm that he/she gave the correct address then they are simply idiots, and so is the man/woman that called it in for giving the wrong address in the first place. | |
Wow, thanks for contributing to the discussion El Luck, that comment was really enlightening. ... Oh you edited it out, what a shame. You do know I could still report that to the mods right, since I've got a helpful copy in my inbox? It's your lucky day however I'm too lazy to bother, so instead I'll expand on my earlier point, so that you may understand my reasoning. Yes, I'd do exactly same thing as the police officer. As a university biology student I'm very familiar with the fact that a dog is no more intelligent or special than many of the animals we consume for food every day and thus I'd have no qualms about dropping some hot lead into Fido if he so much as gave me or any of my family a funny look. If you want to keep a domesticated wolf then go ahead but don't blame me for not giving it the benefit of the doubt if it looks like it wants to make my eight year old sister its next meal, from my point of view it's worth sacrificing any number of dogs to protect one human life. | |
I got rid of it because I can't be arsed with this topic any more and I also realised how much of a dickish comment it was so I removed it, so do what you want with it, whatever floats your boat. Anyway, I can see your point but looking at this entire mess...nope fuck it, I can't be bothered with this anymore | |
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you... MORALITY, as seen by science. Anyway, the scenario you're giving is a bad one, because the situation we're talking about is completely different from what you're describing.
See the words I've bolded? That's what's wrong with the picture. It's not about shooting a dog. It's about the things the police officer did which shouldn't be happening. | |
That dog was just 3 days away from retirement... that's what we call retirony xDDD Captcha: Describe this in any words "Nasa" - dead and buried | |
Speaking from the viewpoint of somebody with a phobia of dogs, it's kind of understandable assuming he had a similar phobia. When I see a dog, especially an intimidating one like the one in question, running about and barking, my immediate reaction is just to get the hell away from that dog and, in the cops situation, the easiest way to do that was to shoot. Of course, this only applies if he did have a phobia, and I'm just saying that it's understandable, not justified. | |
Your comment about morality as seen by science is quite succinct, you may or may not be aware that morality is generally considered to have originally evolved via "kin selection", i.e. it's advantageous to help family members as they carry the same genes as yourself. This example case I gave of me defending closely related family from a distantly related predator is a classic example of that. Anyway, I'm from UK and so I don't have enough experience with gun politics to know whether it was right or wrong for the police officer to be holding a gun out when he entered the man's home. What I do know is that once he had entered that home, the dog was a threat and so he had to act fast for his own safety. I feel bad for the dog's owner but it isn't worth risking human life just to give an animal the benefit of the doubt. | |
It's no fun playing a game when you think of it as a bunch of transistors that either get an electric charge or not. Only when the pixels become dear friends and bitter enemies, when the controls become the extension of the thought do we find pleasure in that silly past time of ours.
Forget gun politics for a second. Think about what happened.
Does that seem right to you? That in a supposedly advanced country, an agent of the government enters someone's house uninvited, for no good reason, no evidence to support the report so far, threatens the home-owner with his gun and uses it. America invades guys on the premise that their government is the kind of government to allow this kind of thing to happen. This is the issue. Not the dog - it's sad, but sometimes the good guys have to shoot bad guys, and sometimes bad guys use dogs. | |
When I cross the road, cars are a threat. If I'm walking home at night and hear someone behind me, that is a threat. If a dog barks at me, that is a threat. If a kid shouts at me, that is a threat. If I stay out in the sun too long, that is a threat. If I eat too much ice cream, the resulting headache is a threat. Life is full of threats and dangers. Policemen intentionally put themselves in threatening situations as part of their work, and should be trained to respond correctly to them. Over-reaction can cost innocents their liberty or lives, as can under-reaction. It was his decision to barge into someone's house, gun drawn and looking for trouble, and he should have to deal with the consequences of those actions. If he'd knocked, or even troubled to look through a window before storming the front, perhaps a man wouldn't be without his loyal pet, the misunderstanding and confusion could have been resolved amicably, and perhaps the reported case of domestic violence going on next door could have actually been dealt with. On reflection though, perhaps it's a good thing that that officer went to the wrong place, otherwise with his attitude perhaps we'd be dealing with a dead husband instead... | |
Exactly my point ^^ I was thinking about it though... what did happen to the domestic abuse household? | |
Yeah, methinks a simple "Whoops, my bad!" won't suffice in this situation. | |
Meh, The problem with that theory is that when there is a will there's a way. Legally we can't have anything that's not semi-automatic, for private use, unless we go through some major fuckin hoops, to the point if anything bad happens wit the gun, there is major consequences. Criminals aren't just walking in to gun shops, buying guns legally, I.E. getting them registered to their name with the federal and local Law enforcement agencies. Before you get a gun, the place you get it from calls in to the sheriffs dept. for a background check. Criminals go to the Black Market which has guns from wherever that got smuggled here or stolen and get the serial number filed off and they can just buy them. Banning guns wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns, it'd just stop the law-abiding people who use them for self-defense, hunting, or, in my case, I collect them for their historical value, of which I have a British Lee-Enfield mk. III, one of my favorites. Or who just think they are really fun to shoot, which I strongly agree. | |
Benefit? Really? You may hate dogs, but people who keep pets form emotional attachments to them. This isn't like the officer knocked his TV off it's stand, and they can just buy him a new one. That dog is dead, and there is no way to replace him. I've grown up around dogs, and when one dies it is heart wrenching, it is like losing a member of the family. No, this is not an exaggeration. I have fond memories of those dogs, and I miss them. I really feel for the man that he had to witness his pet, his friend, get killed in front of him like that. I am honestly stunned by the fact that I have to explain emotional attachments to you.
So I'm guessing you're not familiar with this train of thought then? I'm also stunned by the 'buy a better dog' comment. | |
I'm quite aware of dog owners attachment to their pets but while it's regrettable that the dog had to be killed, policeman's life > emotional attachment. I have an emotional attachment to my laptop but if a policeman ran up to me and said there was a chance that an assassin had placed a bomb inside it, I sure as hell wouldn't object to him shooting it to pieces. I am honestly stunned that you would risk a human's life who very likely has close family and friends, maybe even his own children, for the sake of someone's emotional attachment to a pet. I never said I hated dogs either, I just don't consider them any different from other mammals (except humans).
You mean co-evolution? Dogs are hardly unique in that respect, every domesticated animal including cows, pigs and chickens have co-evolved to become reliant on humans to some degree and I don't see any objections to their deaths. | |
The issue isn't that the police officer shot the dog. It's the circumstances. See my above comments. And my issue with you isn't that you'd rather have a living policeman and a dead dog. It's that you're suggesting that giving the man a "better" dog is sufficient compensation for the loss of a loyal friend.
Meet Hinduism, Hippies and Moral Vegetarians and Vegans. They do, in fact, object. People do object to unethical treatment and use of animals. | |
I never said I wanted the officer to risk his life. In fact earlier in the thread I said this
I'm not part of the 'OMG HE SHOT A DOG HE MUST DIE!' brigade, I just think he could have handled the situation better. I'll repeat, if he had handled the situation in a less aggressive, more professional manner, this whole mess could have been avoided. You can have your gun ready in case a suspect is armed, and still avoid yelling at people like a howler monkey.
Right, except we co-evolved with dogs to keep them as companions, whereas we co-evolved with livestock to eat them. Finally, regarding this point.
It isn't the same thing. | |
Two people at once? Hope this layout isn't too confusing:
I'm not really sure I'd refer to a dog as a "loyal friend", I don't think a dog has the capacity to really be a friend. On the other part of your post, I'm not really sure why you're quoting me in particular since I haven't really said anything about the situation of coming in with a gun and I'll be honest, I don't know what the answer is to that. Partly that's due to living in the UK where police aren't armed and nor is most of the populace, over here we don't need guns barging in except for terrorists but in the U.S. where many more criminals are armed it may be needed for the police officer's safety.
To clarify, the vast majority of both the public and people on this thread have no objection to the killing of farm animals, but many do to pets of similar intellect. I don't mind people who object to all animal slaughter so much (though I don't agree with their views) as at-least they are consistent rather than following the rule "animals which I like should get to live!", not that either of you necessarily are saying that, just certain people on this thread.
Come on now, he might not have done it perfectly but yelling at people shouldn't be enough to condemn a police officer to be held accountable for some sort of punishment, start enforcing that sort of rule and you'll end up with a situation where the police will be over-cautious like many places are now with "health and safety" because they know they'll be sued into oblivion if someone so much as gets a paper cut.
Surely you must know people eat dogs in East Asia and used to in Ancient Rome and Mexico, only in the modern-day West is it a cultural faux pas to use them in that way. Not that it matters what we bred them for, having been designed to live with humans doesn't make them any-more valuable or worth more than animals who remain free in the wild.
I don't see why not. They're both possessions you spend a lot of time with and get enjoyment out of, they even each have their own (quite different) forms of limited intelligence. The only difference is that one is alive and one isn't. | |
I'll only tackle the issues me and you are discussing, JoJo, I'll leave out your discussion with Dasick so that it doesn't get too confusing. He has his own points that I am sure he can put across well enough.
Of course he should be held accountable. He fucked up.
Yes, and in India the cow is held sacred, but we aren't talking about East Asia, Ancient Rome or Mexico. We are talking about the modern-day west. And in our culture dogs (and other pets) are considered more special than other animals. Whether this is fair or logical isn't the issue. Generally, our society cares far more for dogs than it does for other animals.
I suppose the best way for me to illustrate this point would be bringing up a group such as the RSPCA. | |
I'll be honest, I myself have a very deep-running fear of dogs. Little ones are O.K, buy I still avoid them when they're eating. I was jumped by a huge husky when I was about eight (Walking past a garage in a small town, going to a friends). The dog was chained, but it reached me, and tore a hole in my chest. I had to run back home, screaming in pain and bleeding everywhere. Story-time over, I don't think that the officer did the wrong thing here (At least, involving the dog). The mutt rushed him, and if you're not careful, one chomp on the neck can mean death. Still, I wonder how they got the house wrong...? An apology and a tongue-lashing would suffice for the officer. | |
Totally not surprised to see a bunch of worthless authoritarian bootlickers here making excuses for the cop. | |
He didn't screw up in my eyes though because he acted in the correct way on the information he had, if it was his fault that he picked the wrong house then yes he should be held accountable for that but not for shooting the dog. We can't condemn him for not having our hindsight of knowing that the dog was safe.
It's frankly a cop-out though to say "in our culture things are done X and thus it's right", there should always be a justifiable reason without having to resort to popular opinion and/or tradition. That dogs are considered special by many in our culture is meaningless on it's own without an objective reason why they should be given such a status.
Mainly because people tend to project their own thoughts and feelings onto animals, this does happen with inanimate objects too but to a lesser extent. You must have surely observed how dog owners tend to believe their pet has a far higher intelligence than studies have found, projecting onto them complex emotions and thoughts which only humans are capable of. This means that people often emphasise with animals and so make groups in an attempt to protect the ones they find cute. I do find it rather sad and telling though that supposedly the RSPCA was founded before any anti-child cruelty groups existed. | |
I'm suddenly reminded of what happened to two of the puppies I was raising (one of which, sadly, became a casualty, as will be explained in a bit.) There was this large dog (I believe it was a pit bull dog) that was owned by an MHMR patient from across the alleyway that kept getting into our backyard by jumping over the fence. The first time this happened, we simply warned the owner that we Would call Animal Control Services if she doesn't control her dog. The second time it entered our backyard, it was on a leash (of sorts. Really, it was a really long nylon rope). My mother-in-law went out there to try to scare the dog away, but the puppies were following really close behind her, and the dog suddenly attacked one of the puppies. The mother-in-law quickly grabbed the rope, yanked the dog back (thankfully, there was a table between her and the intruder, so she didn't get attacked as well), and the puppy that was attacked immediately made a sprint into the house and underneath the couch. While I was dragging her out, patching her up, and keeping her awake (she had 1 deep wound and was in severe shock), my husband and my mother-in-law were contacting the ACS. However, the dog's owner had put her inside and hid her from them when they arrived. That, for me, was very aggravating. There was relative peace for 2 weeks after that incident, then the dog attacked again. That time, the owner was present (she was walking it, apparently), it was morning, and we were asleep. However, the puppies were barking like mad (which woke me up, and I vaguely took as a warning sign, but was too tired to get up even though I should have) and the mother-in-law went to investigate. When she looked out there, the smallest of the puppies was in that monster's maw, still struggling against it. She then grabbed the BB gun (which was ready to fire), and shot at it. The entire time that this happened, the pup died, and the monster's owner was *softly* screaming "could you please help me get my dog?". When my mother-in-law fired the BB gun, it made a noise so loud that it sounded like an actual gun blast, and because of that, the law was called, and the woman immediately started screaming "Oh no! My poor dog!". As you can imagine, that last line damn near threw all of us into a fit of rage. I mean, come on! "My poor dog!"? What about my poor puppy, who I had taught to sit on command the previous night, that's now lying dead in our backyard!? We had raised her since she was born, and that's time that we're never going to get back, thanks to that woman's incompetence, her inability to keep her monster under control! >=( Once again, the ACS was called, and the owner tried to chase her dog away so as to save it (which was in vain, as they found it inside of her home.) The law was there, as well, but they weren't interested in the dog, rather the gunshot that the neighborhood heard (kind of surprised me that it made that loud of a noise as well.) There would've been a hearing on the 30th of this month, but the dog had to be put down anyways because it fell ill while at the pound. I've pretty much gotten over the death of the pup, but if I see that woman again, I don't think I'll be able to keep myself under control and fly into a rage, just to make sure that she remember's exactly what her incompetence brought onto not just my family, but our neighborhood as well. Now, to get to the topic at hand: If an officer had shot any of the remaining puppies simply because s/he feared for his/her life/well being, we would have been just as upset, maybe a bit more as s/he is generally seen as a fully competent and capable person, and would have a nice, long discussion with the police department and, if at all possible, filed a law suit. | |
I can't give links, but I can say that I looked over this story since it first jumped onto facebook, and I've spent hours looking over multiple sources and (rather horrific) videos. There were other circumstances that most news websites aren't saying. Two are big ones that may have led to why the officer drew the gun in the first place. The first is that the caller (who gave the wrong address to 911) reported a couple in dispute on their front lawn. The male in the dispute took a gun and aimed it towards his wife, screaming at her to go inside the house. The second is that a police officer in the department was shot and killed earlier that month. So the cops were all on edge in the first place and told not to take any unnecessary risks. Was shooting and killing Cisco a terrible thing? Yes. Should the officer get off free from the matter? No. Should something be done to train police how to better handle barking dogs? Yes. Cisco is not the only dog out there that has been shot by a cop, it happens all the time all over the place. One incident I freshly remember is a bunch of cops chasing down a guy who was fence-jumping, and the cops came into a yard with two dogs. The dogs moved to protect their territory and were both killed on sight. The only difference between those incidents and Cisco is that Cisco was killed right in front of his owner out of nowhere, traumatizing many people involved, including the officer to a degree. | |
This is disgusting!!! Here in the UK our police don't carry firearms, you know why? Because our cops aren't cowards. If a cop ever shot someone's dog like that over here, they would be straight in the lock up! Why did the officer walk in with his weapon drawn? Why did he open fire within seconds of entering the house? Had he never seen a dog before? Dog are friendly animals, they like to bark and often jump up at visitors, its very common behaviour, and no reason to open fire. The officer involved should be prosecuted and spend a few months in prison, when he's released he should never be allowed to serve in a position of power again, he is clearly not the right kind of individual for the job. He should be disgusted with himself, what he did, is plain wrong there is no way to defend his actions. | |
Dogs are as varied as their owners. Some dogs are mean, nasty creatures. Others are intensely loyal and protective of their families. Both of these can pose potentially lethal risks to police offers. 35% of Texas residents own a gun.[1] If your police were facing the same rate of gun ownership, you could bet the stab-proof vests they wear that they'd be armed, too. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT | |
Your forgetting that this happened in the US. Their training is shoot first and ignore the questions later.