I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out how incredibly stupid you are. You jump into arguments not knowing what the fuck you're talking about and you end up using wiki articles and definitions in attempt to win an Internet argument on semantics
Oh, I see, giving up when you realize you're wrong and completely switching over to random unrelated insults isn't trolling on the internet, it's just being Rhinox.
Well if we're gonna go that route, you and church should get together and shit up some other threads crying about how right I am.
Oh boy
Edit
Nvm lol
Cops use a 9mm for its stopping power?
You're joking, right?
I'm not questioning the ability of a 9mm to stop somebody. I'm questioning your rationalizing its use based solely on its stopping power. I'm pretty sure it has more to do with price. Anyone can fire a gun. What matters is where you fire and what you hit.
Is plow a firearms expert now as well? Quite the resume
Isn't that price difference a recent thing, though? People bought up 9mm ammo like it was going out of style after the various mass killings involving 9mm handguns, driving the price up to over $1/round. I was under the impression 9mm used to be effectively as cheap as .22.
We weren't discussing use of .22 rounds versus 9mm rounds. We were discussing why they use 9mm rounds. Instead, you've circumvented the argument by talking about .22 versus 9mm. This wasn't about why they don't use .22, it was about why they use 9mm. It's called cost-effectiveness.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that the reason people steal televisions is because they would rather steal a television than a clock-radio.
Back on topic.....kinda
Ended up watching the video, too many friends and family sending me the link.
Don't see a lawsuit going anywhere from this, by the video with better quality it appears the officer was justified in the shooting. (Whole different story about the arrest, because no video shows the whole story) but with the shooting, it does appear that the dog tries to bite the officer, and a dog of that size could do some serious damage to someone.
Serious question, what is the protocol in what the guy should have done with the dog? Because technically, him leaving the dog in the car with the windows up (even with a crack) and then going downtown would also be illegal.
I completely disagree the cop was in the right. Because that ignores EVERYTHING that led up to it. Even let's say the guy was acting like a dick, that's all he was doing. He complied with the handcuffs. The cops could have easily let the dog go to the owner, and have the owner secure the dog properly. It was the officers that exacerbated the situation. I don't think it's fair to say that when cops don't know how to handle shit and then shit goes wrong because they're being ignorant retards, it's then in their right to kill an animal when the animal reacts to the situation that THEY created.
If they started poking the dog with a stick and the dog reacted and they shot it, would they still be in the right? They caused the dog to act that way.
Everything is situational, and every department policy on handling animals is different. So there is no set in stone policy on how law enforcement should handle situations involving animals.
Do I agree in the shooting? Fuck no
Will it grant lawsuit material? Maybe, depends on how charges against the owner turn out.
Should the officer be fired like some people (not on BG) are asking for? I don't think so
Normally I'd be against the police in situations like this. Remember that one cop that went to the wrong house and shot the guys dog as it ran to see what was happening? But this whole situation stinks. The guys behavior was suspect and especially suspect considering he had a lawsuit against the force already in court. He complied with the handcuffs and then proceeds to start shouting and being uncooperative once they're on him. Then the dog jumps out of the window.