Police shooting caught on camera

[347Mike]

Oh shit! It's getting personal now! I'm not touching this with a 3 foot sledgehammer.

[SS Junk]

Oh shit! It's getting personal now! I'm not touching this with a 3 foot sledgehammer.

It was a 5' crowbar.

This thread is completely the fault of Mike, Alan and the Louisville Bat Company.

Meds wearing off?

[Mike]

Hey SS, what if the perp was holding a Louisville Slugger?


"Hurry someone call teh polica!!!"

[Cooter]

K9's cost the department a shitload of money. They're not going to just send one in to get killed after a tazer fails.

good kill, wish they could have killed him twice

[DON SVO]

And you're the village midget? When's our next show?
I get it, son, but the flip side is you blubbering about inaccuracies regarding how K9's are used in life threatening situations and then crying how I don't have any regard for police dogs...

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and... Dodge.

No one gives a fuck about the dog except you. You keep trying to drag in this bullshit about "shoulda used the dog first" and "he never swung", and you keep GloboGym'ing your ass around the dodgeball court avoiding the real topic.

So I'll ask again: if I point a gun at you, would you be cool with seeing if I shoot you in the face before you shoot me?

The question here is "was deadly force justified?". So answer it, White Goodman!

[SS Junk]

K9's cost the department a shitload of money. They're not going to just send one in to get killed after a tazer fails.

good kill, wish they could have killed him twice

How about sending one in when it is impossible to use a taser?
WW
Don't watch video if you don't want to see a person and dog die.
This video, as well as others prove what you say, what Don says and the LEO's who've responded to this thread as wrong.

Hey SS, what if the perp was holding a Louisville Slugger?


"Hurry someone call teh polica!!!"

You know what would really be bad? If the photos got out. Please, Hammer don't hurt me!

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and... Dodge.

No one gives a fuck about the dog except you. You keep trying to drag in this bullshit about "shoulda used the dog first" and "he never swung", and you keep GloboGym'ing your ass around the dodgeball court avoiding the real topic.

So I'll ask again: if I point a gun at you, would you be cool with seeing if I shoot you in the face before you shoot me?

The question here is "was deadly force justified?". So answer it, White Goodman!

It would appear you need two phone books on your chair instead of the one. I already answered that question a few times. Calm down, bro.

[Osiris]

Dude. You are seriously an idiot. A SINGLE video proves you're right, and all the folks trained in this are wrong? Anybody can google anything to reinforce their ideas.

[BradM]

Dude. You are seriously an idiot. A SINGLE video proves you're right, and all the folks trained in this are wrong? Anybody can google anything to reinforce their ideas.

I'd just give up man.

[DON SVO]

It would appear you need two phone books on your chair instead of the one. I already answered that question a few times. Calm down, bro.

No, you didn't. It's a Yes or No question and I have yet to see a Yes or No answer. Keep dodging, bro. No one really takes you serious anyways.

[Osiris]

I'm adding this idiot to my ignore list.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

How about sending one in when it is impossible to use a taser?
WW
Don't watch video if you don't want to see a person and dog die.
This video, as well as others prove what you say, what Don says and the LEO's who've responded to this thread as wrong.

According to the United States Police Canine Association website, police departments that maintain a Use of Force Continuum typically do not include canines as weapons. Their primary purpose has always been their keen olfactory sense and, as such, are classified as tools and not weapons.

It may be that the department that used the dog above has a policy that allows dogs to be used as force, but from what I gather, it is not typical police department policy. Not knowing for certain, I can guess that they sent the dog and the guy in this video reacted to the canine approaching, earning 20-something new cosmetic features. That said, The website goes on to say this:

At least one city, San Diego, California, researched this issue and agreed with the court: In 1990, officers in the San Diego Police Department shot 22 suspects, killing 12 of them. Public outcry denounced the department because many of the suspects were not armed with firearms, but instead wielded non-traditional weapons such as a trowel, baseball bats and assorted knives.

As a result, the Police Chief expanded the canine unit to increase the available number of teams. The handlers and dogs were specifically trained to be "…an alternative to use of deadly force…",thereby expanding the dogs' previous responsibilities, which included building and area searches, finding evidence, narcotics or explosives.

In the ensuing years people armed with all types of non-traditional weapons have been taken down by dogs, and... many incidents have been resolved without either the dog biting the suspect, or the officer having to resort to deadly force.

The San Diego Police Department has witnessed firsthand proof that… the use of Police Service Dogs does, in fact, reduce the likelihood of either the officer or suspect resorting to deadly force.

In the video above, that slipper may well have looked like a pistol, not a non-traditional weapon.

I withhold judgment on whether the dog should have been turned on the guy in the video from OP first, before the shooting started. The short breadth of time within which the officer had to react to a percieved assault, then react to it only being a feigned attack is the troubling thing to me. What I see is a deadly force situation beyond the timeframe in which a canine could be used to prevent it - it is already happening. Since canines are not weapons, I don't have a problem with the outcome.

http://www.uspcak9.com/caselaw/patrol.html

[SS Junk]

Dude. You are seriously an idiot. A SINGLE video proves you're right, and all the folks trained in this are wrong? Anybody can google anything to reinforce their ideas.

There's more than a "SINGLE" video to prove what I stated. There are two others that took me three seconds to pull up where dogs were used and tasers were not.

No, you didn't. It's a Yes or No question and I have yet to see a Yes or No answer. Keep dodging, bro. No one really takes you serious anyways.

I can't state what I said any clearer, dear sir. I apologize if it doesn't fit into your criteria, but it well explains my standpoint on when lethal force should have been used at least in this instance. That's all you need to know. You not mad no more, bro?

Their primary purpose has always been their keen olfactory sense and, as such, are classified as tools and not weapons.

Agreed and I believe I even said that. I think that is when Don went ape shit crazy too.
As far as the rest of your post, it is very informative, however I have also seen a shit ton squared of video where there is a stand off and police threaten using a K9.

In the video above, that slipper may well have looked like a pistol, not a non-traditional weapon.

The fact remains the police thought it was a deadly weapon and had a dog at the ready and sent the dog into harms way.

[DON SVO]

I can't state what I said any clearer, dear sir. I apologize if it doesn't fit into your criteria, but it well explains my standpoint on when lethal force should have been used at least in this instance. That's all you need to know. You not mad no more, bro?

LOL, you never answered the question. Again, I know you're trolling.

[racrguy]

Rick Modena, please ban SS Junk. He makes baby Jesus' head hurt.

[Cooter]

You guys want me to BAN his dumb ass?


Just say the word...

word?