Even when they kill a dog, the cops use the magic word "lunge." The only problem is it doesn't make sense. When a pit bull "lunges" at you it's already too late. Immediately after the "lunge," some part of your body is in the vice-grip jaws of the dog.Authorities say Christopher Wilson fired three shots into a 48-pound pit bull named Bear on Saturday afternoon. Wilson was called to the Cape Coral neighborhood after a fight broke out between several people.
Witnesses told police the dog was barking and jumping at the officer as tried to control the scene. Police say that Wilson initially ignored the dog but fired when the dog began lunging at him.
So I figure what we've got here is the same thing we have in many of those cases of police shooting criminals, pre-emptive excessive force.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I have seen many stories detailing the unnecessary killing of family dogs by police officers, and it occurs far too often, with no recourse by the families who just had their family pet killed.
ReplyDeleteWe simply have too many police officers on the streets, in some places (like DC), FAR too many. They have become the standing army amongst the people that the founding fathers understood was a grave threat to liberty.
...Orygunner...
It's just the opposite in Southern California. We can't put enough officers on the beat to enforce ordinary traffic laws. People have basically gone completely nuts in my home town, routinely driving 30-40 mph above the posted limited, aggressively running stop signs at 20-25 mph. It would be a great time to be a burglar or thief. Chances of being collared seem pretty slim.
ReplyDeleteI love my police department. They protect and serve my community. Standing army??? You can't be serious. I don't have the stories/statistics in front of me right now, but I am hoping that the SDPD is prudent in their use of tasers. I know that in other cities it has become the first line of defense, replacing the old-fashioned choke hold or the even more quaint baton. It might actually be safer for some people just to get shot.
This article from a local news service describes an out-of-control scene with one man down, another S.O.B. wielding a baseball bat and some miscreant by the name of James St. Charles standing at the window of his house, shouting expletives at the officer and refusing to comply with the lawful order of a police officer. The only thing that is unclear is exactly who the dog, Bear, belonged to. If it belonged to St. James, it's his own fault the dog died. The officer is supposed to take the time to mollify some dog when he has multiple men on the ground and one in the window of his house possibly with a gun?
ReplyDeleteDon't think so! Nice doggie!
Officer Christopher Wilson arrived moments later and observed multiple subjects outside of the house, one of which was indeed armed with a baseball bat. The Officer got out of his patrol car and drew his weapon while shouting verbal commands at the subjects to get on the ground. All of the subjects complied with the exception of James St. Charles who was inside the residence, standing at the open front window, yelling expletives back to Officer Wilson.
At this time, the officer was alone on the scene (waiting for backup), having to contend with multiple subjects and St. Charles refusing to comply with the officer’s orders to show his hands. Remember, this was a disturbance call involving weapons and injuries and all weapons and injuries had not yet been accounted for.
At this moment, the officer felt something strike the back of his leg. He looked behind him and saw a black dog moving around him, circling to his left. The dog was a 50lb Pit Bull. Officer Wilson then refocused on the multiple subjects and the non-compliant St. Charles. Officer Wilson looked back at the direction of the dog and saw that he was in a crouched position and was not secured by a leash.
He then had to refocus on the subjects from the disturbance ensuring that they were still compliant. The officer then looked back at the direction of the dog and saw that it was now lunging at him in an aggressive manner. The officer then shot the dog, believing it was going to attack him.
Orygunner, I'm afraid you're losing your libertarian mind to call the police a standing army.
ReplyDeleteOr, was that a joke?
@Flying Junior, the problem is that we have been led to believe that it is ONLY the job of law enforcement to enforce the law, and that we are all sheep to be protected with no powers of our own.
ReplyDeleteProfessional police departments didn't even exist until the 1840's, and then they were tasked with public safety, not law enforcement as they have grown to be.
Consider that when the US Constitution and many state Constitutions were written, there WAS no professional police force. The PEOPLE were expected to enforce the law and get help from a local Sheriff or Constable if necessary.
If you don't like what's going on in Southern California, maybe you and your other fellow citizens need to find some way to do something about it instead of relying on the police.
As far as the dog story, sounds like the officer may have made the right decision in that case. I have seen many dog shootings that don't seem justified whatsoever.
...Orygunner...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Something happened to the links in my previous comment... I'll get this figured out eventually.)
ReplyDeleteOK, so what's the difference between a standing army tasked with upholding civil law, and police officers upholding civil law?
They are BOTH a threat to individual liberties and rights, as we know they can each easily overstep their boundaries, can't they?
http://m.ajc.com/news/atlanta/report-apd-officers-unfamliar-828327.html
http://www.herald-citizen.com/view/full_story/11200864/article-Wrong-person-arrested
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014031804_settlement26m.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting
...Orygunner...
Orygunner, I post stories about police abuse almost every day, but I find your likening them to a standing army as it was understood in the late 18th century, unconvincing to say the least.
ReplyDeleteSimple. A standing army amongst the people enforcing civil law infringes on the rights and freedom of the people. Abuses are guaranteed to occur, because some people either abuse their power or make mistakes. The more military you have amongst the people, the more abuses there will be.
ReplyDeleteThe same problem occurs with police officers. The more police you have amongst the people, the more examples like the ones I posted (I can't seem to get the links to work, looked fine in preview) occur for exactly the same reasons.
Am I that far off base?
...Orygunner...
Yes, very far off base. It's because you suffer from that common malady among gun folks, grandiose victimism.
ReplyDelete