Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[Dimmauk]

The police officer's name was Michael vick! WTF!?

[hey]

Two seconds is an ETERNITY

Again, it was more like 1/4 of a second. Definitely no more than 1/2 a second. From the time he started to say it was still only about 1 second.

Also, tazer.

[Corrderio]

I can understand the gun and all, but telling the owner to restrain the dog then shooting it within about a second of each other seems kind of odd to me.

Either way, cop was a total asshole with how he acted afterwards. Totally unprofessional.

[Greatguardian]

Again, it was more like 1/4 of a second. Definitely no more than 1/2 a second. From the time he started to say it was still only about 1 second.

Also, tazer.

This ain't skyrim, son. You don't dual wield. If a cop has his gun out, he doesn't have time to holster it and pull out his tazer - assuming he had time to pull out his tazer to begin with when a dog's running at him.

[Nephlite]

I can understand the gun and all, but telling the owner to restrain his dog then shooting him within about 1 second of each other seems kind of odd to me.

Either way, cop was a total asshole with how he acted afterwards.

Agreed. I would be heartbroken. But I also don't have any faith whatsoever in humanity and believe there are assholes, scumbags, and fucking worse idiots out there than I have met, and will continue to believe that humanity cannot be saved and they exist within my own line of work.

That being said, he could have said "get your dog" right when it began to charge. Then one second or two seconds later it closed the distance (which isn't an impossible thought) and he had no choice as it would have been too late for the owner to grab the dog once it got a mouthful of meat.

This is why i'm trying not to pass judgment before the CIC report can be reviewed. Usually it gets a bit more detailed such as approximate distances of the shooters and the forensics findings to give you a better understanding of what kind of view he was seeing when the dog charged.

Also Tazers are nice (I would love to have one for undercover use) but they suck at moving targets and if only one electrode goes in, it won't have the same impact as a full on shot. They're really unreliable unless the target is stationary and can kill something that small (Not from the electrocution but a dogs body chemistry is different from humans, so the impact of the sudden muscle constriction could very well cause involuntary spasms that constrict the heart and lungs or cause an organ to rupture). Me personally i'd use the spray. Fast acting, fast drawing, great distance (about 4-6 feet to a maximum of about 10 feet) and doesn't hurt the target. I've used it a few times on dogs and it worked every time. Even if you miss, the mere discharge of spray going in to the lungs can easily disrupt breathing patterns in an animal and cause that dysfunction of the nervous system from that blast of pain you want.

[zoobernut]

The biggest problem here is too many people are taking sides instead of looking at this objectively. I love threads like this where a cop shows one iota of a mistake and it's time to hang him out to dry/get fired and loose pension/have his baby killed to stop the white man from populating the earth, etc. Me and Jmc are cops and we didn't agree with the cop's decision to kill the dog, but his actions in terms of response and tactics were money.

I agree wholeheartedly with the victim that he should get an apology from the officer. However, we all know this is going to turn in to a civil violation and it's going to settle out of court. The truth is there is no "Homicide" statute for killing a dog anywhere in the United States. Animal cruelty, perhaps. But then you have to discredit the cops story of him being threatened by a perceived threat. At the least, he'll get suspended pending investigation for discharging a firearm and a review committee will determine weather or not it was justified.

I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded portions. I think the cop acted the way that he FELT was the best course of action at the time. I think the cop acted like a jackass after the situation. The cop should have apologized. The cop deserves a suspension at least during the investigation to make sure he did not break any rules. The guy whose dog was shot deserves every penny he gets from the department for the death of his dog in the civil suit.

As for the rest of what you posted Neph I can see that and I can see how in the heat of the moment the cop felt justified in his actions. But don't you think he could have approached the situation differently to start with that might have prevented the problem in the first place? Maybe not but it is an important question to ask at the very least.

[hey]

That being said, he could have said "get your dog" right when it began to charge. Then one second or two seconds later it closed the distance (which isn't an impossible thought) and he had no choice as it would have been too late for the owner to grab the dog once it got a mouthful of meat.

Again, it was around 1/4 of a second. He told him to get the dog, and immediately shot.

[Corrderio]

That being said, he could have said "get your dog" right when it began to charge. Then one second or two seconds later it closed the distance (which isn't an impossible thought) and he had no choice as it would have been too late for the owner to grab the dog once it got a mouthful of meat.

Wouldn't surprise me. Those dogs look pretty damn fast.

[Dimmauk]

Wouldn't surprise me. Those dogs look pretty damn fast.

They are! Have you seen them run around cattle? Poor dog probably thought the cop was a cow a was trying to herd him.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Something tells me he couldn't get his pepper spray out in time while already holding a gun and keeping an eye on who he thought was the suspect, but I could just be spiff balling. I wish all officers were from Krypton and possessed lightning quick reflexes. Hell, then he could have just frozen the dog in a block of ice instead! (Ugh, now I'm stooping down to some of you guys' level. Thanks a lot Leroy/Dummy/hey!)

As he approached his truck, he said he saw something from the corner of his eye and looked up to see a police officer who immediately drew his weapon and told Paxton to put his hands up.

"He had a Taser. He had pepper spray. I don't understand why, in broad daylight, he pulled a gun on me. I wasn't running. I wasn't hiding," Paxton told ABCNews.com today. "I was just saying, 'I live here.' I was panicking. I was afraid for my life."

Pulled from the OP. You're reaching for the retard stars son, one terrible post at a time.

http://www.hantak.com/images/animated/backfire.gif

[Valisk]

Pulled from the OP. You're reaching for the retard stars son, one terrible post at a time.

And two active duty police officers have posted in this thread that it's procedure to have your weapon drawn when responding to a domestic viloence call. The Austin police department has also confirm that his actions were justified but are still investigating to make sure no rules were broken. But please, post more pictures. Preferably of someone shooting themselves in the foot or removing one from their mouth.

[Dimmauk]

APD: USE OF DEADLY FORCE
"Nothing shall prohibit an officer from resorting to deadly force to control a DANGEROUS animal, if circumstances reasonably dictate that a contingency plan has failed or becomes unreasonable"

Now watch the video and tell me the when the contingency plan was a option.

Show me your hands, get your dog, bam!

[Nephlite]

As for the rest of what you posted Neph I can see that and I can see how in the heat of the moment the cop felt justified in his actions. But don't you think he could have approached the situation differently to start with that might have prevented the problem in the first place? Maybe not but it is an important question to ask at the very least.

I think he could have. In my opinion he could have, anyway. But I can see things a bit differently because I've dealt with the issue before and have a personal reason why I wouldn't do something like that. Maybe he doesn't have a problem hurting animals? Maybe he was a rookie who didn't know how to handle something like that and went textbook? Or maybe he was thinking too hard about the subject and didn't want to deal with the dog? Can't say for sure. Perception is key here and unless we have a machine that can place us in his shoes at that exact moment thinking the exact same things he was thinking at that time, we can only speculate.

Hell I know guys who said they have absolutely no problem whatsoever with killing another person and won't loose sleep over it and are some of the best people I know. Family men, love their kids, never done anything in the forms of corruption or police misconduct (well, maybe some hazing or laziness but you know what I mean), but won't even blink if it came down to taking another persons life. Can you imagine what that does to you? I've seen shit at this job that has forever made me a cold, dark, and fucked up person. But I don't do it for the millions who hate my guts for killing someone. I do it for that one person's life I made a difference to. That one life I saved. That one person who someday will raise our next President of the United States who will forever end war across the planet and take our race in to the forever (can't tell i'm a nerd, eh?).

And yes I've made mistakes and no I will never forget them. Same with this officer. He'll have to live the rest of his life knowing he took the life of a sweet innocent little dog and for what? A bad choice in tactics? A bit gunhoishness? But it's what you do after the fact which makes you who you are. I believe in reprisal and repentance. If he does try to repent for what he did, chances are he'll be ok. If not? Well that's why I hate 90% of humanity hahaha. And eventually it'll come back and get him.

@Dimmauk: Ok for this instance, do the 21 foot drill with the gun out and have a second prop (say a tube of chapstick or another remote or phone) in your pocket. When the person charges you, put the object in your hand away (as if holstering it), then draw out the other item before the person reaches you (maximum withdraw space is 10 feet). Or conversely, hold the first object resembling the "gun" in your dominant hand, then draw the second item out with your support or weak hand and try to spray/taze your runner before they reach you.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

And two active duty police officers have posted in this thread that it's procedure to have your weapon drawn when responding to a domestic viloence call. The Austin police department has also confirm that his actions were justified but are still investigating to make sure no rules were broken. But please, post more pictures. Preferably of someone shooting themselves in the foot or removing one from their mouth.

Trying to backpedal your way out of the ignorant post you made I see. Let's go back and try reading the post instead of more kneejerk terrible, you might not look so bad in the end if you try that route.

[Dimmauk]

I dual wield all day, so I can change the channels and chap stick at the same time. Being in martial arts for years has taught me to be ambidextrous.

[Valisk]

Trying to backpedal your way out of the ignorant post you made I see. Let's go back and try reading the post instead of more kneejerk terrible, you might not look so bad in the end if you try that route.

What am I backpedaling from? My stance has not changed. What was ignorant about my post besides the obvious Superman sarcasm? Let's recap shall we.

1) Cop has gun drawn. Protocol.
2) Cop sees potential suspect.
3) Cop instructs potential suspect to get down.
4) Dog runs from the backyard barking.
5) Cop yells for potential suspect to get the dog.
6) Dog is faster and/or more aggressive than the officer anticipated.
7) Officer shoots dog.

I'm ok with #7. Others, like yourself, wanted the cop to holster his gun and use pepper spray or a taser instead.

I'll reiterate. I'm ok with #7. So what have I backpedaled from? Nice try. Let the big boys discuss this. We'll retrieve you from the kiddie table when we feel you're ready.

[Dantrag]

Hell I know guys who said they have absolutely no problem whatsoever with killing another person and won't loose sleep over it and are some of the best people I know. Family men, love their kids, never done anything in the forms of corruption or police misconduct (well, maybe some hazing or laziness but you know what I mean), but won't even blink if it came down to taking another persons life.

This is nothing but a personal opinion. But I REALLY don't want my officers to be people that would be willing to kill another person without blinking an eye or losing sleep over it. I personally feel like cops like these are the ones that are most likely to jump to using their guns first.

Also, I think it was Valisk that kept saying it was "procedure" to come to domestic violence calls with weapon drawn, is that actual procedure or personal preference due to experience? If I get stopped I expect for an officer to have his hand on his weapon at all times when approaching, but I do not expect the weapon to be drawn.

[Valisk]

Also, I think it was Valisk that kept saying it was "procedure" to come to domestic violence calls with weapon drawn, is that actual procedure or personal preference due to experience? If I get stopped I expect for an officer to have his hand on his weapon at all times when approaching, but I do not expect the weapon to be drawn.

From a police standpoint, every time I go to a domestic I have my gun out (especially if it's weapons involved).

It's probably personal preference based on one of Neph's previous post.^

It certainly isn't against procedure to have your weapon drawn. Especially if you are responding to the call alone (which is suppose to be a no-no). It's most likely a discretionary call but all the cops in my family have their guns drawn in DV incidents because they can go south very very quickly.

[Gregorio]

Unfortunate for the guy and his dog. This is why I hate going to calls with dogs. Especially since half the houses in the hood have pitbulls.

[Jeryhn]

My question for the cops in this thread: Its understandable how dangerous a DV sitch can be, so I have no qualms about an officer responding with his weapon drawn, but why does protocol specifically advise the lethal weapon to be drawn as opposed to tazers or rubber bullets? Seems to me that the cop should've drawn a less lethal weapon in responding to the call in order to minimize casualties. Isn't that pretty much the goal of responding to a DV incident in the first place?

Also, reading the article and the thread, I agree the cop used his proper training as bad justification to simply get a shot off, as Perm said earlier. I understand dogs are fast and whatnot, but the cop responded to a scene of DV to find a man and his animal playing around outside. How many men beat their wives then go out in the yard for a game with their animal afterwards? Was the frisbee covered in fresh blood or something?