Police shooting dogs

el con said:
It was offered that the kid volunteered to take a polygraph. The judge said it was not admissable in court. When asked why, he said it was only admissable in rape cases. What the ??????. I'm sorry the whole system stinks when the cops,judge, prosecutor have it all figured out and planned before the hearing or trial.
The new system when I become "king" will be the use of sodium pentathal for both plantiff and defendant.
"Did you do it" "Yes" ok your guilty.
" Did you do it" "No" ok your off the hook.
Simple , cost effective, fair, no more buddy buddy, good old boy, I'm running for re election ,etc,etc.etc. bull crap on either side.
I like good cop's, despise one's that make things up, or enhance what they determine to be needed for the prosecution. Worse yet are prosecutors that push things through to look good at election time. Judge's well, God will sort them out ,there will be a few that spend time in a very warm place in their eternal retirement years.
I do agree with a previous post that some out there are humanizing animals way to much, shooting a few dogs and cats? Where's all the b--ing
about all the dog's and cats eaten in the far east? HUh ?
I'm for PITA (people eating tasty animals):yesnod:
Click to expand...
Sorry for the mistake I meant PETA, quess it was getting to close to lunch:rofl:
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I wonder how many people posting in this thread go to court to fight traffic tickets.
Click to expand...

I gave up after I proved to the judge that it wasn't legitimate, he agreed, and then said "I'm going to ignore what you told me, and find you guilty anyway. You can pay at the counter." I kid you not.

Welcome to Crooklyn...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I gave up after I proved to the judge that it wasn't legitimate, he agreed, and then said "I'm going to ignore what you told me, and find you guilty anyway. You can pay at the counter." I kid you not.

Welcome to Crooklyn...
Click to expand...

That was my experience the last time I was in traffic court, which was...

lemme think...

November of 1985.

I even got an affidavit from the school crossing guard who was helping kids cross the street when I allegedly went through the intersection she was working. She wrote what happened: The guy who was in front of me (same color car) had gone through the intersection. The cop made a mistake and gave the ticket to me, she wrote "under penalty of perjury."

No joy. "Guilty," spake the judge. "Pay the fine and get outta' here."

Traffic court is a racket. Pure and simple.

At the risk of thread creep... in January, I got pulled over for going through a stop sign. I'm probably guilty, although it would be very unlike me to not see a stop sign. I'm exceedingly observant when I drive. But it's possible it was obscured behind a truck or something like that, and I have no reason to believe the cop lied. My intention was to pay the ticket and get it over with.

However, after the officer wrote the ticket, I showed him a PBA card from a detective friend of mine. The officer cursed me out in gloriously vivid terms for not showing him the card before he wrote the ticket, then took the ticket back, crumbled it up, and told me I could go.

So boy, was I surprised when I got a "failure to appear" summons in the mail a week and a half ago.

I called my detective buddy and told him what had happened, and asked how it should be handled so as not to get anyone in trouble. "Including me," I said. Apparently what's going to happen is that I will show up the day before the new hearing is scheduled, meet privately with the ADA assigned to traffic court, plead to some nonsense violation, pay a hefty fine, and get no points on my license.

In the old days, a senior detective could make a traffic ticket disappear. Not anymore. Municipalities are hungry for revenue, and traffic enforcement is an easy way to get it because most people just pay the tickets rather than deal with the useless rigmarole, which almost always results in conviction anyway. The municipalities couldn't care less what you plead to, as long as you plead to something and pay a fine.

-Rich
 
Last edited:
Had a magistrate tell me "yes we know radar guns are not always correct, but if I let you go I have to let everyone go." Re-appealed, and won. Of course this was the same traffic stop where the cop lied about what speed he clocked me at, (video camera and radar did not agree) and that he could haul me off to jail. So if a cop is going to lie about something as dumb as an alleged traffic violation, why is going to preclude them from lying about something more damaging to them if they were wrong.
 
tdager said:
EXCUSE me Nick? He, like anyone else, can stop and ask directions. Yes you (HUMAN) can ask him to leave but come on man....he is stopping to ask for directions and you pull this anti-authority, anti-government, "who the hell does he think he IS" crap.....for stopping to ASK DIRECTIONS?!
Click to expand...

He, like everyone else, can also get back into his car when he sees that there is a dog protecting my property (assuming that the dog was. It appears from the path of the dog that he was doing nothing more than playing the way dogs do, running around people that come near). His stop for directions doesn't give him a right to kill to get those directions.

By your statement...and the video, the dog DID charge him. You cannot tell a dog to stop and expect them to listen, you cannot warn them, you cannot REASON with them. If I, as a civilian, pull in front of your house and get out to ask directions and your dog charges me....I will shoot it Nick, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
And, if a stranger pulls up to my house and shoots my dog, he'll be shot as well, because that person is essentially pulling up and shooting at my house and my property, and I take that as a personal threat.


He was WRONG for doing that, period. He should have called dispatch and his supervisor and advised them of the situation. For that he should be reprimanded.
Click to expand...
Guess what didn't happen...


This is all conjecture based on the statements of a party deeply and emotionally involved. I am not saying she may not be telling the truth, but I also take her statements with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
True. But the video is pretty damning, and even with the evidence, the police officer skirted....why?
 
SkyHog said:
And, if a stranger pulls up to my house and shoots my dog, he'll be shot as well, because that person is essentially pulling up and shooting at my house and my property, and I take that as a personal threat.
Click to expand...

I sure hope you know the rules and case trend for your jurisdiction if you're going to be using a firearm in "self-defense."

Gun ownership is a right granted by the Consitution, but ask folks in Chicago, NY, and DC how that worked out.

We gun owners have the same duty incumbant on pilots -- avoid drawing negative attention by not being stupid.
 
dmccormack said:
I sure hope you know the rules and case trend for your jurisdiction if you're going to be using a firearm in "self-defense."

Gun ownership is a right granted by the Consitution, but ask folks in Chicago, NY, and DC how that worked out.

We gun owners have the same duty incumbant on pilots -- avoid drawing negative attention by not being stupid.
Click to expand...

Explain to me the difference between a drive by shooting, where I am the target, and a drive by shooting where my dog is the target.

Extra credit if you can explain why I should not feel threatened by a stranger walking onto my property and shooting at my house.
 
dmccormack said:
I sure hope you know the rules and case trend for your jurisdiction if you're going to be using a firearm in "self-defense."

Gun ownership is a right granted by the Consitution, but ask folks in Chicago, NY, and DC how that worked out.

We gun owners have the same duty incumbant on pilots -- avoid drawing negative attention by not being stupid.
Click to expand...

Entirely correct.
 
SkyHog said:
Explain to me the difference between a drive by shooting, where I am the target, and a drive by shooting where my dog is the target.

Extra credit if you can explain why I should not feel threatened by a stranger walking onto my property and shooting at my house.
Click to expand...

It seems the distinction lies in you being the target in one, and not being the target in the other.

There also seems to be something of a distinction in that the driveby presumably doesn't involve an officer of the law.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
It seems the distinction lies in you being the target in one, and not being the target in the other.

There also seems to be something of a distinction in that the driveby presumably doesn't involve an officer of the law.
Click to expand...

The scenario I was describing was one in which the person was saying that any person (police officer or not) would be just fine walking onto my property and shooting my dog if it approached him. I was referring to the "non officer" shooting at my house.

Although, honestly, if a police officer walked onto my property and started shooting at my house, I don't know how I'd react. I figure I'm already going to die if I don't do something, right?
 
SkyHog said:
Explain to me the difference between a drive by shooting, where I am the target, and a drive by shooting where my dog is the target.

Extra credit if you can explain why I should not feel threatened by a stranger walking onto my property and shooting at my house.
Click to expand...

Have you heard of a thing called "forensics?"

They do ballistic analysis -- works quite well.
 
dmccormack said:
Have you heard of a thing called "forensics?"

They do ballistic analysis -- works quite well.
Click to expand...

Ok - so a group drives up and opens fire on my property. I have to do forensics before I defend myself?
 
Yeah, Rich, the PBA cards get you off of every traffic violation I've seen so far in NYC. Major racket. I've used it in my favor a few times, but don't have one of my own.
 
dmccormack said:
No -- the local jurisdiction forensics results will either help convict or acquit you.
Click to expand...

I would wager, that in that case, if someone walked onto my property and shot my dog (not a police officer in this case), the next target is the owner of the home. So even if forensics showed the target was the dog, the forensics don't show what the next intention was.

Moreover, technically, a drive by gang shooting where they shoot up the house is not going to show the occupant as the target either, right? Best to take the shot to the chest so that they'll be found guilty of murder instead, right?
 
SkyHog said:
I would wager, that in that case, if someone walked onto my property and shot my dog (not a police officer in this case), the next target is the owner of the home. So even if forensics showed the target was the dog, the forensics don't show what the next intention was.

Moreover, technically, a drive by gang shooting where they shoot up the house is not going to show the occupant as the target either, right? Best to take the shot to the chest so that they'll be found guilty of murder instead, right?
Click to expand...


You're all over the map with your hypotheticals.

If I lived in a place where I had to be prepared to return fire at random large bands of people, I'd move outta Bahgdad.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah, Rich, the PBA cards get you off of every traffic violation I've seen so far in NYC. Major racket. I've used it in my favor a few times, but don't have one of my own.
Click to expand...

This was in Nassau County. I can't say how well it works in NYC because I don't think I've ever gotten pulled over in New York City. Like I said, the last time I had to go to traffic court anywhere was in 1985. I'm a pretty boring driver.

I do believe the ticket never would have been written had I showed the card before he wrote it. Why the cop submitted it after he crumbled up my copy is a mystery. He was a young guy, looked a little doofy... maybe he didn't know how hard it was to squash a ticket once it's been written. Or maybe he just forgot and turned in the whole batch of them at the end of his shift.

Whatever the case, it kind of annoyed me, as you might imagine, when I got the "failure to appear" notice.

-Rich
 
SkyHog said:
I would wager, that in that case, if someone walked onto my property and shot my dog (not a police officer in this case), the next target is the owner of the home.

....
Click to expand...

If that's all you're going to base your decision to open fire on, good luck avoiding a murder conviction. That's just handing something to a prosecutor: "the victim went to the house trying to sell Girl Scout cookies for his daughter, is attacked by aggressive dog to the point where he has no option but to kill the dog (he was carrying a gun because he was carrying large amounts of cash for the Girl Scouts), and the victim is then killed by the resident of the property who owned the dog that was so aggressive that there was no choice except killing it."
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
If that's all you're going to base your decision to open fire on, good luck avoiding a murder conviction. That's just handing something to a prosecutor: "the victim went to the house trying to sell Girl Scout cookies for his daughter, is attacked by aggressive dog to the point where he has no option but to kill the dog (he was carrying a gun because he was carrying large amounts of cash for the Girl Scouts), and the victim is then killed by the resident of the property who owned the dog that was so aggressive that there was no choice except killing it."
Click to expand...


Remind me not to knock over any piggly-wigglies in your AO.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
If that's all you're going to base your decision to open fire on, good luck avoiding a murder conviction. That's just handing something to a prosecutor: "the victim went to the house trying to sell Girl Scout cookies for his daughter, is attacked by aggressive dog to the point where he has no option but to kill the dog (he was carrying a gun because he was carrying large amounts of cash for the Girl Scouts), and the victim is then killed by the resident of the property who owned the dog that was so aggressive that there was no choice except killing it."
Click to expand...

Where did the aggressive part come in, or the attack? In the scenario (like the video posted), the dog was running around the person on the property.

Also, in this case, it is a car that pulls up, with a man with a gun walking onto my property. Dog runs up to the man, man kills dog.
 
dmccormack said:
You're all over the map with your hypotheticals.

If I lived in a place where I had to be prepared to return fire at random large bands of people, I'd move outta Bahgdad.
Click to expand...

The hypothetical was proffered by someone saying that they had the right to come onto my property to ask for directions, and in doing so could shoot my dog if it came near them.

It progressed from there into an explanation of why I would think that someone shooting a gun toward my house on my property would be considered a threat.

Try a visit to some city in the southwest sometime and see if its that far fetched of a threat.
 
SkyHog said:
Where did the aggressive part come in, or the attack? In the scenario (like the video posted), the dog was running around the person on the property.
Click to expand...

The fact that the dog had to be killed, and was owned by a killer, indicates aggresiveness. On the parts of both. Under the law, circumstantial evidence is just as competent as direct evidence.

Also, in this case, it is a car that pulls up, with a man with a gun walking onto my property. Dog runs up to the man, man kills dog.
Click to expand...

Unless it's legal to kill in defense of property, so what?
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
The fact that the dog had to be killed, and was owned by a killer, indicates aggresiveness. On the parts of both. Under the law, circumstantial evidence is just as competent as direct evidence.



Unless it's legal to kill in defense of property, so what?
Click to expand...

You're a lawyer, David, so you should understand this one more than anyone else. What will a jury think of the following scenario:

Unknown man with a gun comes onto property. Dog, protecting property runs up to man to either play with him or scare him away (unknown intent of dog). Man opens fire. Inside the house, I hear a gun shot. I walk to the window and see a man with a gun, standing on my property (presumably, he's shaken since he just shot a dog). He then continues toward my house.

Do you think any reasonable person would assume that the man had just acted in self defense, or do you think that most reasonable people would assume that the man just shot at your house and is coming to verify that the intended damage to the habitant has occurred?

Edit: Now, stop thinking as a lawyer for a moment, and place yourself in the situation. You are inside when you hear a gunshot. You walk to the window to see what happened, and see a man walking toward your house, disheveled (and probably covered in dog blood). He has a gun in his hand. What do you, personally think?

He's a nice man asking for directions, or this is the scene of a horrible movie where you're the victim to be?
 
When analyzing self defense shootings involving human beings on both sides of the gun, the law (nor, really, the court of opinion, mostly) does not consider the intention of the aggressor, just the actions. Are we proposing a stricter standard for situations involving dogs?

I'm not afraid of dogs, and I've had very few problems with them throughout my life, but I don't know your dog, or some random dog I might encounter, and I'm not interested in trading a nasty injury for your dog's life. Mine, or those dogs I work with? Maybe. Comes down to what was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, leaving aside the emotional attachments people have to them.

What is clear is that people who wear a uniform -not just law enforcement - have lousy decisions to make all the time, and people don't agree with them sometimes. Sounds like life.
 
SkyHog said:
Do you think any reasonable person would assume that the man had just acted in self defense, or do you think that most reasonable people would assume that the man just shot at your house and is coming to verify that the intended damage to the habitant has occurred?
Click to expand...
Not even close to enough information. I wouldn't be assuming anything, certainly not enough to think shooting the guy is justified.
 
SkyHog said:
You're a lawyer, David, so you should understand this one more than anyone else. What will a jury think of the following scenario:

Unknown man with a gun comes onto property. Dog, protecting property runs up to man to either play with him or scare him away (unknown intent of dog). Man opens fire. Inside the house, I hear a gun shot. I walk to the window and see a man with a gun, standing on my property (presumably, he's shaken since he just shot a dog). He then continues toward my house.

Do you think any reasonable person would assume that the man had just acted in self defense, or do you think that most reasonable people would assume that the man just shot at your house and is coming to verify that the intended damage to the habitant has occurred?

Edit: Now, stop thinking as a lawyer for a moment, and place yourself in the situation. You are inside when you hear a gunshot. You walk to the window to see what happened, and see a man walking toward your house, disheveled (and probably covered in dog blood). He has a gun in his hand. What do you, personally think?

He's a nice man asking for directions, or this is the scene of a horrible movie where you're the victim to be?
Click to expand...

That comes down to an issue of credibility in the eyes of the jury.
 
I'm trying to figure out what a bizarre world this is where (neglecting the dog even), seeing a man on your property shooting his gun does not throw up "threat flags" in most reasonable people.

"Aww, what a nice guy, he's shooting his gun on my property. Ain't no threat to me at least!"
 
dmccormack said:
There's been a move afoot in PA to add certain critters to a list of "Companion animals."

They would thus be protected somewhat -- but for now if you want to slaughter your horse and dog on your front lawn, so it is.
Click to expand...

Personally speaking, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think that we place a different value on killing a domestic animal than we do on a wild animal - I wouldn't mind seeing that reflected in the criminal law (we all know the crazy old guy next door who would kill your daughter's cat for walking on his property).

But would that, of itself, change the analysis in terms of killing someone? Again, unless killing in defense of property is ok, I don't think so.
 
SkyHog said:
Unknown man with a gun comes onto property. Dog, protecting property runs up to man to either play with him or scare him away (unknown intent of dog). Man opens fire. Inside the house, I hear a gun shot. I walk to the window and see a man with a gun, standing on my property (presumably, he's shaken since he just shot a dog). He then continues toward my house.
Click to expand...

Plenty of missing elements to this story.

Was it night?
Was the shooter 6'5" 280 male and you a 100 lb female living alone?
Was he "attacked" by your miniature Jack Russel?


and so on...
 
SkyHog said:
I'm trying to figure out what a bizarre world this is where (neglecting the dog even), seeing a man on your property shooting his gun does not throw up "threat flags" in most reasonable people.

"Aww, what a nice guy, he's shooting his gun on my property. Ain't no threat to me at least!"
Click to expand...

Concerns, absolutely.

Killing someone with no further observations? I don't think so.
 
SkyHog said:
You're a lawyer, David, so you should understand this one more than anyone else. What will a jury think of the following scenario:

Unknown man with a gun comes onto property. Dog, protecting property runs up to man to either play with him or scare him away (unknown intent of dog). Man opens fire. Inside the house, I hear a gun shot. I walk to the window and see a man with a gun, standing on my property (presumably, he's shaken since he just shot a dog). He then continues toward my house.

Do you think any reasonable person would assume that the man had just acted in self defense, or do you think that most reasonable people would assume that the man just shot at your house and is coming to verify that the intended damage to the habitant has occurred?

Edit: Now, stop thinking as a lawyer for a moment, and place yourself in the situation. You are inside when you hear a gunshot. You walk to the window to see what happened, and see a man walking toward your house, disheveled (and probably covered in dog blood). He has a gun in his hand. What do you, personally think?

He's a nice man asking for directions, or this is the scene of a horrible movie where you're the victim to be?
Click to expand...

The fact that there's even room for discussion does point to a different set of standards for police versus civilians.

In New York (and I imagine most other places), we're told to stay in our cars with our hands in plain site during any sort of traffic stop, lest the armed officer feel threatened and open fire.

But a person in his own home, having just witnessed his dog being shot by a stranger, who is now approaching him with a gun, could be prosecuted for murder if he kills the stranger in self-defense.

I understand that there is a certain possibility that a driver who has been stopped would be hostile, so I'm not arguing against the cops here. But why would a private citizen facing what could be a gun-toting maniac, for all he knows, who just shot his dog for no clear reason, not be in at least as much fear for his life?

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
The fact that there's even room for discussion does point to a different set of standards for police versus civilians.

In New York (and I imagine most other places), we're told to stay in our cars with our hands in plain site during any sort of traffic stop, lest the armed officer feel threatened and open fire.

But a person in his own home, having just witnessed his dog being shot by a stranger, who is now approaching him with a gun, could be prosecuted for murder if he kills the stranger in self-defense.

I understand that there is a certain possibility that a driver who has been stopped would be hostile, so I'm not arguing against the cops here. But why would a private citizen facing what could be a gun-toting maniac, for all he knows, who just shot his dog for no clear reason, not be in at least as much fear for his life?

-Rich
Click to expand...

Thank you.

And, FWIW, I don't think there should be a differentiation between a police officer and a citizen in that regard, unless you want to believe that there are NO police officers that kill in cold blood.

I would wager that percentage wise, there is the same amount of murdering officers as there are citizens. The difference is that citizens actually have to fear jail time for their discretions.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Concerns, absolutely.

Killing someone with no further observations? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Exactly. While I believe in the right to defend yourself with a gun I also think the burden is on the gun owner not to escalate the situation. Rather than shooting back at the person who shot your dog the better reaction would be to take your gun and try to escape. Reacting in anger is not the appropriate response.
 
RJM62 said:
But a person in his own home, having just witnessed his dog being shot by a stranger, who is now approaching him with a gun, could be prosecuted for murder if he kills the stranger in self-defense.
Click to expand...

This may be true in Nanny York, but is far from true in most other jurisdictions.

The old saw about "dragging the corpse into the house" is about as dumb as it sounds.

EVERYONE that owns a firearm with the intent to use it in a self defense situation should game through all possible scenarios and plan ahead when to draw and when to fire AFTER an analysis of the local LAWS and CASES.

Even then you may get screwed, but better tried by 12 than carried by 6, right?
 
Everskyward said:
Exactly. While I believe in the right to defend yourself with a gun I also think the burden is on the gun owner not to escalate the situation. Rather than shooting back at the person who shot your dog the better reaction would be to take your gun and try to escape. Reacting in anger is not the appropriate response.
Click to expand...


Depends on the Jurisdiction. Some states have enacted "Castle" laws, which remove the requirement to retreat.
 
RJM62 said:
The fact that there's even room for discussion does point to a different set of standards for police versus civilians.
Click to expand...

What I've written applies across the board.

But, for practical purposes, yeah, there's a difference - a lot folks' vision doesn't extend beyond a uniform.

In New York (and I imagine most other places), we're told to stay in our cars with our hands in plain site during any sort of traffic stop, lest the armed officer feel threatened and open fire.

But a person in his own home, having just witnessed his dog being shot by a stranger, who is now approaching him with a gun, could be prosecuted for murder if he kills the stranger in self-defense.
Click to expand...

If a cop shoots you merely for your hands going out of sight (not that they can be seen anyway from the cruiser), then he'll probably be prosecuted for murder. Unless you live in the most corrupt and cop-friendly place in the world.

I understand that there is a certain possibility that a driver who has been stopped would be hostile, so I'm not arguing against the cops here. But why would a private citizen facing what could be a gun-toting maniac, for all he knows, who just shot his dog for no clear reason, not be in at least as much fear for his life?

-Rich
Click to expand...

The same analysis applies to both. You have to actually be in fear for your life (or physical safety such that death of the other person is merited), and that fear also has to be objectively reasonable. Neither a traffic stop nor a dead dog, of themselves, meets the latter.

Police officers don't have a license to go around offing people because they blinked funny, and neither does anyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top