Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[Valisk]

Mailmen have better training and proven success at handling aggressive dogs in an effective and non-violent manner. Give mailmen the badges and guns and start giving these shitty cops actual work to do.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1446841.html

Which is all fine and dandy when all you have to deal with is a dog and a mailbox. Not the dog plus a suspect. But hey Pepper Spray Champ, I'm no cop.

[Dimmauk]

Hey, it's just like going on a date.

Don't forget the zip ties!

[jmc]

Which is all fine and dandy when all you have to deal with is a dog and a mailbox. Not the dog plus a suspect. But hey Pepper Spray Champ, I'm no cop.

Did they mention how the mailman can just refuse to deliver mail due to a aggressive dog at the house?

[Dimmauk]

Crocodile dundee needs to train cops and mailmen his water buffalo trick

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Which is all fine and dandy when all you have to deal with is a dog and a mailbox. Not the dog plus a suspect. But hey Pepper Spray Champ, I'm no cop.

Why would you need pepper spray to write parking tickets? I think Hirokei covered this for everyone in the other thread.

Not sure how the military and mailmen have better training than police. And doubly vexed on why a "cop" that writes parking tickets is so concerned about dogs or even using a gun.

[zoobernut]

Which is all fine and dandy when all you have to deal with is a dog and a mailbox. Not the dog plus a suspect. But hey Pepper Spray Champ, I'm no cop.

If you read the article he posted it talks about other cases where cops shot dogs that were already restrained/tied up or not acting aggressively. Why are you so scared to admit that it would be a good thing for cops to have better training on how to handle pets?

Why is it ok for officers to use deadly force on any living creature when they are not 100% sure that it is necessary? This is the whole south park "its coming right for us" syndrome. If we are ok with cops shooting anything with no more justification than "they felt threatened" by it then cops can shoot anything they want all over the place. It is not a bad thing to scrutinize a police officer that uses deadly force to make sure they are using it in the correct situation.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

If you read the article he posted it talks about other cases where cops shot dogs that were already restrained/tied up or not acting aggressively. Why are you so scared to admit that it would be a good thing for cops to have better training on how to handle pets?

Why is it ok for officers to use deadly force on any living creature when they are not 100% sure that it is necessary? This is the whole south park "its coming right for us" syndrome. If we are ok with cops shooting anything with no more justification than "they felt threatened" by it then cops can shoot anything they want all over the place. It is not a bad thing to scrutinize a police officer that uses deadly force to make sure they are using it in the correct situation.

Thank you.

[Ksandra]

If you read the article he posted it talks about other cases where cops shot dogs that were already restrained/tied up or not acting aggressively. Why are you so scared to admit that it would be a good thing for cops to have better training on how to handle pets?

Why is it ok for officers to use deadly force on any living creature when they are not 100% sure that it is necessary? This is the whole south park "its coming right for us" syndrome. If we are ok with cops shooting anything with no more justification than "they felt threatened" by it then cops can shoot anything they want all over the place. It is not a bad thing to scrutinize a police officer that uses deadly force to make sure they are using it in the correct situation.

This is my issue with all this. I don't consider myself "anti-cop" and in some way I think the cop-dog issue is not the cop's fault in the sense that I feel like proper training isn't being done in the first place. It just seems like it's a no-brainer that training in this area should be done. If it was a situation where the cop was properly trained, and even with him doing the right things the dog was still on him so he shot the dog, I'd feel better about the whole thing, rather than how apparent it is that the cop didn't know wtf to do.

[Celeste]

Man, from the perspective of a police officer, I would have tased the man, requested back-up, and restrained the fucking dog.

I can get robbed at gunpoint, possibly stabbed, shot, or beaten to death. I don't get to carry a gun at work. Do I get to shoot or assault an aggressive customer? No. Some of the situations that cops are put in suck, but I for the life of me cannot fathom why that would make it okay to considerably escalate the situation upon arrival at the scene of a 911 call? Why draw a fucking gun on anyone unless your life or another's was in danger? The situation, upon arrival at the scene of the purported DV, did not call for the gun to be drawn.

Being a police officer isn't for everyone. If the first idea in your head is to draw your gun at a DV call, find another job. It's bullshit to do or say otherwise. The job is dangerous. The dog's death is regrettable, but it isn't even my concern right now. You should not be so relaxed about drawing a gun. It's reckless.

I understand that such departmental policies are put in place to protect the lives of officers, but their actions haven't been scrutinized enough.

[Gregorio]

That was one of the most ridiculous posts I've read in a while. Bravo.

[Celeste]

That was one of the most ridiculous posts I've read in a while. Bravo.

I edited a bit of the half-awake bullshit out of it, but the general message is still there. I've been the sole operator of convenience stores on the night shift, and in some seriously bad areas for about a year. I've had guns drawn on me. I've had drunken pricks try to beat the crap out of me. I had a crazy person walk into my store with a knife in hand, telling me that he has to kill me because Satan told him so. I've had to coo these people, make them feel secure. The fucking bastards threatening my life.

It's scary as fuck, and the only source of security I had were police visits and patrols. No taser, no pepper spray, no gun. I am all for lethal force by police officers. But, let's say the crazy man is on the other side of the counter, as though he were a regular customer, would I say shoot him? No. Tase him. If the man has a knife at my throat, blow the fucker's brains out, please.

Oh, I do believe I just ranted whereas, "I wish they would use better judgement" would have sufficed..

[Nephlite]

I edited a bit of the half-awake bullshit out of it, but the general message is still there. I've been the sole operator of convenience stores on the night shift, and in some seriously bad areas for about a year. I've had guns drawn on me. I've had drunken pricks try to beat the crap out of me. I had a crazy person walk into my store with a knife in hand, telling me that he has to kill me because Satan told him so. I've had to coo these people, make them feel secure. The fucking bastards threatening my life.

It's scary as fuck, and the only source of security I had were police visits and patrols. No taser, no pepper spray, no gun. I am all for lethal force by police officers. But, let's say the crazy man is on the other side of the counter, as though he were a regular customer, would I say shoot him? No. Tase him. If the man has a knife at my throat, blow the fucker's brains out, please.

Oh, I do believe I just ranted whereas, "I wish they would use better judgement" would have sufficed..

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever to blow a guys brains out who deserves it. But remember, the primary goal of any police officer is to go home at the end of the night. That's why we get trained to do things the way we do. It's always better to be judged by 12 than to be carried out by 4. Regardless of what happens, you need to look at the bigger picture. If at any time a priority call comes out, there's a response to it and then there's a problem with discretion. Discretion gets people killed. Uniformity saves lives.

But then you also have to look at people in general. Some people just don't have discretion. Some people just aren't confident. And then, some people just suck. I agree: killing an animal sucks. But in the end, an animal is not a person. Therefore, they are placed at a lower hierarchy on the scale of priorities.

You respond to a DV. You have a potential suspect ready to flee who possibly just killed his girlfriend and you need to apprehend him. You don't know if he has a weapon, you have no backup, and a dog is charging you. Where is the priority? Obviously the perp as he is the most dangerous person in proximity to you. What do you do with the dog? Spray and hope you hit the thing and hopefully incapacitate the dog or taze it. OR you shoot it, and KNOW you don't have to worry about it while you keep your eyes on the subject to make sure he doesn't kill you. Cops perspective? No brainer here.

[Churchill]

That's about exactly the response I'd expect.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever to blow a guys brains out who deserves it. But remember, the primary goal of any police officer is to go home at the end of the night. That's why we get trained to do things the way we do. It's always better to be judged by 12 than to be carried out by 4. Regardless of what happens, you need to look at the bigger picture. If at any time a priority call comes out, there's a response to it and then there's a problem with discretion. Discretion gets people killed. Uniformity saves lives.

But then you also have to look at people in general. Some people just don't have discretion. Some people just aren't confident. And then, some people just suck. I agree: killing an animal sucks. But in the end, an animal is not a person. Therefore, they are placed at a lower hierarchy on the scale of priorities.

You respond to a DV. You have a potential suspect ready to flee who possibly just killed his girlfriend and you need to apprehend him. You don't know if he has a weapon, you have no backup, and a dog is charging you. Where is the priority? Obviously the perp as he is the most dangerous person in proximity to you. What do you do with the dog? Spray and hope you hit the thing and hopefully incapacitate the dog or taze it. OR you shoot it, and KNOW you don't have to worry about it while you keep your eyes on the subject to make sure he doesn't kill you. Cops perspective? No brainer here.

That's a nice textbook representation of the ideal scenario neatly packaged to explain a general scenario. What it does not account for is preparedness and tactical execution or accountability. As the article pointed out, and specific to this situation. The officer went to a DV call, got the address wrong, the suspect wrong, and in his version of events the dog was charging while the other witness said the dog was just barking.

Why was he going into a potentially life threatening situation by himself? Why didn't he wait for another officer to arrive? Sorry, your excuses here don't cut it. The way this officer Rambo'd his way into the situation is what potentially threatened his life. This officer endangered himself and others on so many levels, the only reason it's being examined is the end result of him using deadly force on an innocent and non-aggressive animal. The police chief of that dept. even acknowledges this and apologized for it several times. This isn't about burning cops at the stake and demonizing them, it's about maintaining uniform training and accountability.

[Salodin]

the primary goal of any police officer is to go home at the end of the night.

I thought it was to protect and serve =(. Sure, he thought he had the right address, but the way he handled the situation was all types of fucked up. A police officer wouldn't go in alone to a myriad of similar situations, why did he decide to go in alone in this one? That's the problem here, and it cost an innocent animal it's life, and it's owner a lot of pain and suffering. Oh, also, the taxpayers a lot of money.

More training could have prevented this, and a lot of other similar situations. I don't know why people view that as a bad or unnecessary thing.

[Gregorio]

By textbook, should the officer have waited for backup? Yes. But now imagine the scenario if it happened a different way. An innocent woman is being strangled by her boyfriend while the officer sits outside in the car for 5 minutes waiting for backup. Don't even try to tell me you guys would be alright with that. I can practically hear the snide 'protect and serve only yourself' type comments already.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Except in this case she'd still be dead because he got the wrong address.

[ronin sparthos]

Except in this case she'd still be dead because he got the wrong address.

Except the patrolman didn't know that so to hurl blame on him would be undue.

[jmc]

Why was he going into a potentially life threatening situation by himself? Why didn't he wait for another officer to arrive? Sorry, your excuses here don't cut it. The way this officer Rambo'd his way into the situation is what potentially threatened his life. This officer endangered himself and others on so many levels, the only reason it's being examined is the end result of him using deadly force on an innocent and non-aggressive animal. The police chief of that dept. even acknowledges this and apologized for it several times. This isn't about burning cops at the stake and demonizing them, it's about maintaining uniform training and accountability.

Did the officer get the address wrong, or did the dispatcher? I can't find the original article right now on my phone.

As for the rambo response. Officer more than likely arrived on scene, to stage outside while awaiting the secondary unit. Saw who he thought was the suspect outside, in plain site near a motor vehicle in which he could attempt to flee. In that case you need to take action by yourself.

[hey]

The dispatcher got it wrong.