The "war on police" in America

[TenEightyOne]

Houston PD officer was followed, targeted for a robbery by four men. The officer acted first...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...as-being-followed-his-instincts-were-spot-on/

What uniform was he in if he hadn't been working as a police officer? There's nothing in that story that suggests that the robbers knew he was PD?

 

[Johnnypenso]

What uniform was he in if he hadn't been working as a police officer? There's nothing in that story that suggests that the robbers knew he was PD?

It says right in the article:

That’s when the officer, who happened to be in uniform...

And...

The officer then identified himself and ordered the man to stop, but the suspect reportedly continued to approach, pointing his gun at the officer.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It says right in the article:

That says "who happened to be in uniform", it doesn't say which uniform he was in. He hadn't been working as a police officer, so what was the uniform?

 

[Sanji Himura]

That says "who happened to be in uniform", it doesn't say which uniform he was in. He hadn't been working as a police officer, so what was the uniform?

The KHOU article also mentioned that he was in uniform.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The KHOU article also mentioned that he was in uniform.

Yes, but so far it seems that only presumption suggests a police uniform. Both articles mention that he was returning home, in a uniform, from a second job. Not necessarily a police job.

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/11/us/tennessee-officer-killed/index.html

Details are still skimpy, but it appears Officer Olridge was shot in uniform, while sitting in his car.

Olridge's uncle said the officer was on his way to work in his uniform when he was shot while in his car, CNN affiliate WREG reported. Olridge was able to crawl to a house to get help, the uncle told the station.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes, but so far it seems that only presumption suggests a police uniform. Both articles mention that he was returning home, in a uniform, from a second job. Not necessarily a police job.

Perhaps it is just an Americanism, but when you say a police officer was in uniform you mean he was wearing his police uniform.

This is not unreasonable coming from a second job, as police often take on second jobs moonlighting as security for businesses while in their uniform. They do it at nearly all the banks and movie theaters around here.

 

[FoolKiller]

Apparently the cops have a war on dogs and little girls in America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/cop-shoots-girl-dog_n_7637456.html

A police officer in Whitehall, Ohio, accidentally shot and wounded a 4-year-old girl Friday while attempting to shoot her family's dog instead.

Columbus, Ohio, police Officer Jonathan Thomas was investigating a hit-and-run in Whitehall on Friday when a woman came up to him asking for help, according to The Columbus Dispatch.
The woman told Thomas that her sister -- later identified as Andrea Ellis -- had cut herself and needed medical attention.

When Thomas arrived at the doorway of the residence, one of the family dogs ran at him, according to Columbus police spokeswoman Denise Alex-Bouzounis. Thomas pulled out his gun and fired, inadvertently hitting the young girl in the leg. The 4-year-old, who is reportedly Ellis' daughter, is in stable condition and expected to make a full recovery.

Gary Parsley, who said he was the hit-and-run victim Thomas was speaking with shortly before the shooting, told WBNS that the officer had other options besides firing at the dog.

"[Thomas] was a big guy and they have Tasers and clubs and stuff,” Parsley said. “I don’t know why you would raise a gun. I really don’t agree with him just pulling his gun out and trying to shoot the dog.”

Authorities questioned Thomas after the shooting, WBNS reports. It's unclear if he will be disciplined.

Police opening fire on dogs is surprisingly common, to the point where in 2011 the Justice Department released a report on cop-canine encounters that, in the words of Time's Charlotte Alter and Justin Worland, "included advice on how to handle dogs without killing them."

The Columbus Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

If this happened to my daughter I would likely be dead or in jail for assaulting an officer. At a minimum, the story from the department is that he purposely discharged his firearm within close proximity to civilians, and struck one of them on accident.

Dear Police,

You claim that when an unarmed suspect is shot that it is unreasonable to be expected to shoot them in a nonlethal manner to stop them. If you can't aim well enough in those circumstances do not shoot at small dogs within close quarters when innocents are involved. It is not reasonable to expect you to aim well enough to not hit a bystander.



I look at this case, and many others involving police shooting dogs, and it scares me. My dog, a Chihuahua, will run up, barking and growling at anyone who comes into the house, but has never once bitten someone that didn't antagonize him first. However, an officer with the mentality we saw far too often would be likely to see a threat and use lethal action. My daughter, who is five, is very likely to be running behind the dog, telling him to be quiet. This story could very easily happen in my home. It is unacceptable.


Anyone ever notice that mailmen deal with dogs on a daily basis but don't carry guns to deal with them?

 

[Encyclopedia]

You claim that when an unarmed suspect is shot that it is unreasonable to be expected to shoot them in a nonlethal manner to stop them. If you can't aim well enough in those circumstances do not shoot at small dogs within close quarters when innocents are involved. It is not reasonable to expect you to aim well enough to not hit a bystander.

I find it interesting how different the Swedish and American police are with this. Nonlethal shooting is encouraged in the Swedish police and I don' think it would be if it didn't work well enough.

Awful story btw. Makes me angry.

 

[BobK]

Anyone ever notice that mailmen deal with dogs on a daily basis but don't carry guns to deal with them?

This is a question that really needs to be asked.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This is a question that really needs to be asked.

I can answer this. Mailmen deal with dogs by being bitten 6000 times a year in the U.S.

 

[huskeR32]

I can answer this. Mailmen deal with dogs by being bitten 6000 times a year in the U.S.

And that justifies cops running around shooting dogs (and little kids!) first, then asking questions later?

 

[Formula1269]

The problem with cops in America is cops lack education and training. They are far from America's best and brightest.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And that justifies cops running around shooting dogs (and little kids!) first, then asking questions later?

You didn't even read the question I was responding to. Try again then get back to me. If you were leaping to any bigger conclusions you'd need a parachute.

 

[Parker]

The problem with cops in America is cops lack education and training. They are far from America's best and brightest.

Source? Many Officers, Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains in my department (as well as other local departments that I know of) have multiple masters degrees. Though as anyone with any degree of Law Enforcement experience will tell you, "formal" education doesn't really mean anything, there are plenty of well educated Officers who are turds and many more who aren't "America's best and brightest" who make absolutely wonderful Officers. You really shouldn't paint everyone with a badge with the same brush, it makes you look ignorant.

We could always use more training though, I don't think there is an Officer out there who will disagree with that. My department went from one week mandated in service every year, which had been in place for at least the twenty years my parents worked for them, to three days. Why? Money, the government doesn't want to pay us for a full week of training so instead we get three days formal training and are expected to complete BS online classes that don't teach anything as a supplement for the extra two days.

As for this latest incident, without knowing any details other than this one side of the story, the Officer should be in a lot of trouble, depending on his side of the story and other evidence possibly even fired. Officers have to deal with dogs more than you'd expect and I, along with many others, have found that they don't take to kindly to OC spray. I've had to OC an aggressive dog a few times and generally the next time I see that dog all I have to do is take my can of OC out and he backs down and is no longer a threat. The only time I'd personally shoot a dog is if it is already biting me, I'll hit it with my OC and baton before I ever take my duty weapon out of its holster.

The mailman analogy is kind of silly as well. Generally when an LEO is called to a residence there is already a disturbance taking place so an average dog is going to be in a lot more distress than when a mailman comes.

 

[huskeR32]

You didn't even read the question I was responding to.

I surely did.

Try again then get back to me. If you were leaping to any bigger conclusions you'd need a parachute.

Let's be realistic here. The question you were responding to was quite clearly a suggestion that police are a little too eager to use force in situations where force is unnecessary.

Given your stance throughout this entire thread, it's only natural to interpret your dog bite statistic as a rebuttal of that idea, and a justification for using force against dogs.

If I drew the incorrect conclusion from your post, then what conclusion was I supposed to draw?

 

[BobK]

The question you were responding to was quite clearly a suggestion that police are a little too eager to use force in situations where force is unnecessary.

I don't know what @FoolKiller's intent was in asking the question, but it certainly was mine.

Given your stance throughout this entire thread, it's only natural to interpret your dog bite statistic as a rebuttal of that idea, and a justification for using force against dogs.

If I drew the incorrect conclusion from your post, then what conclusion was I supposed to draw?

I too would like to know.

 

[Sanji Himura]

It is the fact that mail men are not armed at all (not even with pepper spray) that is the issue here. Those 6000 bites a year would drastically be reduced if the US postal service allowed its carriers some form of non-lethal protection.

I am related to one police officer, and know a second. They will tell you that incidents where police shooting pets willy nilly is actually uncommon. It is the why police took such an action that should be looked at here.

That said, should the officer in this case put his gun back in the holster as soon as he saw that his shot was blocked, or even better used a taser or some other non-lethal mode of subduing the dog? Absolutely.

 

[FoolKiller]

It is the fact that mail men are not armed at all (not even with pepper spray) that is the issue here. Those 6000 bites a year would drastically be reduced if the US postal service allowed its carriers some form of non-lethal protection.

Postal carriers that I know (and I know an unusually large number for some reason) carry either pepper spray or something that makes an extremely loud, high-pitched noise.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Let's be realistic here. The question you were responding to was quite clearly a suggestion that police are a little too eager to use force in situations where force is unnecessary.

Given your stance throughout this entire thread, it's only natural to interpret your dog bite statistic as a rebuttal of that idea, and a justification for using force against dogs.

If I drew the incorrect conclusion from your post, then what conclusion was I supposed to draw?

Make all the incorrect assumptions you like, I responded to a question with a direct answer. If I had intended to relate it to something else I would have said so. I'm not exactly know for avoiding being direct

 

[huskeR32]

I responded to a question with a direct answer. If I had intended to relate it to something else I would have said so.

So it was just a pointless answer to a question that nobody even asked? Okay then.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So it was just a pointless answer to a question that nobody even asked? Okay then.

You really are trying trying to spin up a "gotcha" moment aren't you?

Anyone ever notice that mailmen deal with dogs on a daily basis but don't carry guns to deal with them?

This is a question that really needs to be asked.

I can answer this. Mailmen deal with dogs by being bitten 6000 times a year in the U.S.

 

[huskeR32]

You really are trying trying to spin up a "gotcha" moment aren't you?

No, I'm not. I'm trying to have a constructive conversation, and to decipher what is starting to appear like a completley meaningless post on your part.

The point of FoolKiller's original question was, quite clearly, to illustrate that mailmen somehow find a way to deal with dogs without carrying guns and running around with an itchy trigger finger.

Now, if your reply of the 6,000 bites statistic was meant to justify cops shooting dogs, then it would make sense. I wouldn't agree with it, but it would make sense in the context of the conversation.

But if, as you are insisting, you weren't trying to imply anything, then your answer adds nothing at all to the conversation. Nobody asked how many mailmen get bitten by dogs. So what was the point?

 

[Johnnypenso]

No, I'm not. I'm trying to have a constructive conversation, and to decipher what is starting to appear like a completley meaningless post on your part.

The point of FoolKiller's original question was, quite clearly, to illustrate that mailmen somehow find a way to deal with dogs without carrying guns and running around with an itchy trigger finger.

Now, if your reply of the 6,000 bites statistic was meant to justify cops shooting dogs, then it would make sense. I wouldn't agree with it, but it would make sense in the context of the conversation.

But if, as you are insisting, you weren't trying to imply anything, then your answer adds nothing at all to the conversation. Nobody asked how many mailmen get bitten by dogs. So what was the point?

If you were trying to have a constructive conversation, your inquiries would have ended when I said, "If I had intended to relate it to something else I would have said so". You're on a crusade.

 

[huskeR32]

If you were trying to have a constructive conversation, your inquiries would have ended when I said, "If I had intended to relate it to something else I would have said so". You're on a crusade.

This post was me being done with that line of inquiry. Your post that came back at me with accusations of trying to "spin a gotcha," and quotes of your original statement is what kept it alive longer than it needed to be.

 

[LeMansAid]

Wouldn't the issue be not so much about having to contend with dogs, but having to contend with dogs while there's a high likelihood of one or more criminals being around? The criminals possibly ready to take advantage of any dog-created distraction.

Dealing with a dog in a "nice" way is a luxury a cop will not always be afforded. A postie, by contrast, much more so.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Wouldn't the issue be not so much about having to contend with dogs, but having to contend with dogs while there's a high likelihood of one or more criminals being around? The criminals possibly ready to take advantage of any dog-created distraction.

Dealing with a dog in a "nice" way is a luxury a cop will not always be afforded. A postie, much more so.

Officers shoot and kill dogs on a regular basis nationwide, including dogs attacking other people and dogs attacking officers themselves. I don't think it's hard to imagine that hardened criminals aren't keeping Shih Tzus and Chihuahuas as pets and may be more likely to have a highly aggressive, larger dog on hand for protection. An officer has a split second to decide what to do when a dog is rushing towards him and sometimes mistakes will be made but I'm confident most of the time they make the right decision for the situation.

I deal with the public and go into strangers homes on a daily basis. I know where the criminal element tends to congregate and I know where I'm most likely to run into a dog that is big enough and mean enough to actually hurt me. When I go into that area of the city the first thing I ask before going in is if they have a dog and can they please lock it in a room because inevitably it's a pit bull or rotty or some other massive dog with jaws of steel that I don't want to turn my back on while I'm working. I very rarely see those types of dogs at homes in the 'burbs, where you mostly run into the smaller dogs, lots of lab/collie/shepherd mutts, pure labs, australian shepherds and the like. I don't ask those people to put their dogs away because they are always trained as a family pet and aren't usually over protective or sheltered like dogs are in some other areas of the city.

 

[Wolfe]

Breed or size are no justification for anything. Those highly aggressive dogs are trained to be aggressive, while family pitbulls can play with small children. Some larger breeds aren't even territorial when it comes to the boundaries of the household, welcoming all strangers excitedly by nature.

...the first thing I ask before going in is if they have a dog and can they please lock it in a room...

Common sense advice for the Columbus Police Department (and others), particularly for an instance such as this.

 

[Swagger897]

while family pitbulls can play with small children.

you forgot to finish the sentence...

...while family pitbulls can play with small children... they can still harm, or kill them as well.

A few weeks ago a co-worker of my mom's had an incident with her pitbull and a horse or a neighbor. The neighbor walked over to her fence-line, and the horse followed suit. The horse bent over the fence (to look at the dog I presume... I don't know, I'm not the horse) and the dog ripped half of the nose off, along with skin all the way to its eyes.

A horse....


I don't understand also why people go up-in-arms about people who dogfight, when this dog was specifically bred to be a dogfighter. Essentially, hypocrisy living in your house.

 

[nobuffalo]

Any dog can harm or kill if it attacks. Some more than others but if you're going to draw a line as to what dogs are dangerous to own and what dogs aren't it's gotta be that all dogs are dangerous. All it takes is one chomp into the eye from the world's smallest dog and you can lose sight in that eye. A lab could easily eat the face off of and kill a child if it wanted to. Yes pits may be more dangerous when they attack but that's just it, more dangerous. All animals are more dangerous when compared to something less dangerous.

Also it is not hypocritical to be against dog fighting while owning a dog that was once bread to dog fight. That's a bit like saying its hypocritical to be against slavery while living in a country that slavey was once a big part of. Or maybe the slavery example isn't the best but I think you can get my point. Another example may be a medical discovery that was found by wrongdoing, the initial finding may have been done in the wrong way but that doesn't mean you would be wrong anytime you use the information that was found. You're being irrational.