A conspiracy theory involves a cover up with widespread implications. My original claim was that rights were infringed upon. Apples and oranges.
Check your definitions before you try to discredit someone. Just because I disagreed with you about what went down, does not mean I'm fabricating anything that isn't be inferred from watching the video.
If he was arrested for video taping, and not charged with that statute (which he wasn't) then its a cover up is it not?
Just like the numbers I gave also include children killed by firearms.
There was never a cover up.A conspiracy theory involves a cover up with widespread implications. My original claim was that rights were infringed upon. Apples and oranges.
Check your definitions before you try to discredit someone. Just because I disagreed with you about what went down, does not mean I'm fabricating anything that isn't be inferred from watching the video.
:rofl
Grown men have a distinct advantage over children when facing a dog attack. The advantage is much smaller when it comes to firearms.
why do you keep putting this idea forward that people have an obligation to be attacked by dogs before responding to obviously aggressive behavior and that dog attacks may be ok because there is a chance they might not be fatal?
Does this seriously strike you as a well thought out argument?
And if a cop had actually been bitten, not only would the other cops have shot the dog anyway but the owner would be facing jail and heavy fines.I'm thinking that if the cop hesitated and allowed himself (an others) to be bitten by the Rotty, he'd be in trouble. Procedure, I am sure, demanded that he shoot.
None. It not really that common...... but more common than shooting a person.
Sure. Avoid them if you can. But in some situations you can't avoid the dog. If a dog becomes a threat, you don't taze, you don't pepper spray, you shoot. If they are aggressive but staying back, you warn the owner that they need to control their dog (if the situation permits) and let them know that if the dog attacks you, you will be forced to shoot it.
Other than that... no.... we don't deal with anything other than that.
I think lunging at people and charging them would account for aggression. In fact, even the owner of the dog, a person much more familier than you, commented on his aggressive behavior.
no one has a need to get bitten because of an irresponsible owner.
The dog died needlessly. The owner was irresponsible by not securing the dog properly in the car. The police saw a big dog and it wasn't being docile and immediately got their hackles up so to speak. The officers could have handled it differently without having to kill the dog and still not getting hurt.
The dog wouldn't have tried defending its owner if the police weren't abusing their power. Their detainment of the dog owner was unjustified and uncalled for... but in present day America, police can arrest you for next to anything, and ask questions later. Sad.
Note that the dog owner was recording the police with his phone, something that the police no longer allow. Funny that there was a second person recording the recorder from across the street.
This is why citizens should always have the right to record police action. If the police aren't abusing power then they have nothing to worry about.
They did give him the chance. They waited for him to put his dog in his car, which he did. That was his chance.In this situation, don't you think a little common sense could have been exercised on both sides? Of course the owner shouldn't have ran his mouth. He should have secured the dog properly. But couldn't the police have given the owner a chance to control his dog? It's not like he was being detained for a felony.
On what exactly?Again, why not just educate yourself
On what exactly?
why do you keep putting this idea forward that people have an obligation to be attacked by dogs before responding to obviously aggressive behavior and that dog attacks may be ok because there is a chance they might not be fatal?
Does this seriously strike you as a well thought out argument?
The way I see the video the dog was being aggressive with the officer and lunging at him. I think what the cop did was fine. I would have probably done the same thing.
He was warning the officer. I am sure you would have shot the dog too.
Yes they were, twice, as evidenced.These officers weren't attacked by the dog.
It's an animal, I'm not putting my safety at risk by trusting in dog psychology. Human life > animal life. He was within his rights to defend himself. Personally I would have probably waited until it was snapping at me or trying to bite me, but either way it was justified self defense.
Any dog would behave like that. Barking at close range is not aggression, at least not violent aggression.
The dog died needlessly. The owner was irresponsible by not securing the dog properly in the car. The police saw a big dog and it wasn't being docile and immediately got their hackles up so to speak. The officers could have handled it differently without having to kill the dog and still not getting hurt.
Nor ignorance about dog behavior.
On what exactly?
I didn't say that people are obliged to be attacked by dogs. These officers weren't attacked by the dog. None of the officers were injured by the dog. They were justified because they were scared. Are regular civilians allowed to shoot any unrestrained dog they come across because they are scared?
My argument is solid
because I understand dog behavior.
If that dog was so aggressive that he would kill a grown man, he would have immediately jumped on them a bit and shook.
He was warning the police and telling them that he didn't like the situation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?