If a police officer would enter my property in the USA and my attack dog with bulletproof vest would eat his face, would I or the dog be in trouble?
If a police officer would enter my property in the USA and my attack dog with bulletproof vest would eat his face, would I or the dog be in trouble?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Quite the miss!
Poetic justice.
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
Your dog would most definitely be killed.Originally Posted by Aquagraph
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
If it wasn't killed on the spot would they come to end it's life for protecting my property like attack dogs should?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Yes, they would most likely declare it dangerous.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
They'd declare an attack dog dangerous? Can they go around and just kill attack dogs just how they want to?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
I know that they like shooting helpless animals but I was just wondering whether I could get a pair of police officers killed on my future lawn in the States by a pack attack dogs without them killed afterwards.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
great decision shooting the dog, you think you'd try to maybe to use another method first before going balls out and shooting it, maybe the dog just wanted to say hey lol
I think most police shouldn't carry firearms, and most police should start their jobs out without firearms so that it trains them to use more diplomatic methods to deal with conflict first, only specifically trained police should carry firearms to deal with conflict that escalates to that point, and they should be trained very effectively. Armed cops should spend like 90% of their time training and only 10% dealing with actual conflicts. They should be trained at how to use their force minimally and effectively and trained with how to deal with difficult situations with civilians, it should be baked into their training and it should be competitive where one group plays the role of the "enemy" and the other plays the role of the police -- that way they understand the mentality of the enemy and they are constantly one upping each other tactically/strategically. Armed cops playing the role of the enemy should purposefully try to get their fellow cops to accidentally shoot a "civilian" or something in their training, to test their abilities to mitigate civilian loss. Besides armed cops (which should only make up an extremely small percentage) there could also be detectives to investigate issues, supervisors/coordinators to direct activities, analysts and leaders to strategically direct, and then a large body of patrol cops which focus on diplomatically resolving conflicts and bettering the welfare of people without violence. The primary focus of the patrolman should be shifted from enforcing the laws to maintaining peace/harmony and bettering the welfare of the society -- strategic initiatives would be undertaken to act in service of the community to resolve problems non-violently. Every cop should also be forced to place the role of a simple patrol cop from time to time to refresh their skills and focus without weapons or violence. Also every armed cop should first learn martial arts without weapons before learning to shoot.
I think that would be a better system of doing things, than present.
Something like this just happened where I live, except it was late at night and there were no dogs. Lakewood PD was investigating a prowler complaint, and apparently lead to some mistaken identity that resulted in an officer firing upon and killing a fellow officer.
Local news claims it's the first Lakewood cop killed in the line of duty since the dept was established in 1969 or so.
Ugh. I hate that video. I'm a tough bitch, but I can't stand watching that.
It is *beyond * dangerous to fire a gun with so many people around. Those cops are several times more lethal than that dog.
She lived, by the way, but she lost an eye and is almost deaf.
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
wow, shot the dog. What a fuckface. Boot it if you have to, but seriously why not mace or just wrestle it. I can't imagine being in his situation and thinking a gun was necessary. I'd risk injury. I mean, maybe I'm wrong and the dog would fly through the air and kill me instantly like a badass jet with razor fangs but generally I'd take that bet.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
@HaveLucidDreamz
Setting aside my personal opinions of "justice" under statism, and any debate over market alternatives to law enforcement, do you really believe all of that stuff you said is practical for even the largest departments to fund and implement? Or that all of that special training will actually have an impact over how the police conduct themselves, and mitigate the potential for events such as these?
How does martial arts and a talent for oracular manipulation (diplomacy as you called it) prevent dogs from being shot for appearing menacing? Or cops accidentally shooting eachother or innocent people? Martial arts may teach a philosophy or an attitude that is useful to the student, but law enforcement already has it's own curriculum and unwritten rules. There are tons of variables that can factor in to how any one officer or agency performs their respective duties.
When your department oversees a jurisdiction that may be, for instance, expanding in terms of development and population, while your agency suffers from being undermanned and underfunded thanks to the same politicians who are pressuring your chief to put a lid on the rising crime rates, that stress will resonate throughout the entire organization. That pressure trickles down to the Captains, down to the Lieutenants, and right on through the shift Supervisors and/or Sergeants. Sometimes the pressure comes from the prosecutor's office, which may or may not be an extension of the political agenda of your own executive attorney as well. It sets the tone for that agency's entire operation.
You, as a lowly beat cop with a 10-hour shift and designated patrol sector, are unaware of most of this. You see the shit, because it lands on your shoulders. You don't always see where it comes from. Point is, you have your own problems. You're tired, overworked, you're senior enough to be trusted riding solo. Your sector is overworked, however, and you can't always count on having back up handy. This puts you on edge, you fall back on academy training; using your command voice, taking charge of each situation as soon as you arrive on scene. You get impatient with people who just don't seem to understand you, or that you've got better shit you can be doing than dealing with their bullshit stories of how they're not guilty of whatever petty crap you're investigating them for. Can you say with absolute certainty you will play Mother Theresa every single day you go to work and deal with the same shit (and even many of the same scumbags you might've arrested in the past) day after day?
"Oh, thats why my idealistic, complex, and expensive training will condition cops better for this sort of thing!"
Bullshit. It doesn't matter how much Zen philosophy and Rambo commando tricks you teach a LEO. Accidents will still happen, highly preventable deaths will continue, dogs will still get shot, and innocent people will still fall victim to the occasional ill-tempered cop and an overzealous prosecution. Will your method mitigate these unfortunate events? Maybe, but difficult to quantify. Plenty of stupid people graduated through all 12 years, and terrible drivers can still pass a road test.
Also, intensive training is well and fine. Tactical response teams, such as SWAT teams, often spend much of their time training in role play type scenarios like you describe. In schools, warehouses, specially constructed "kill house" type structures. The LAPD SWAT, the national model for tactical police units the world over, will even employ citizens as actors -- hostages, witnesses, victims, etc -- with instructors acting as the bad guys in an effort to simulate a real call as closely as possible.
SWAT is chiefly recruited from the Patrol Division, and SWAT officers maintain patrol duties alongside their additional responsibilities, as well as being on call anytime they may be needed to deploy. Why? Because training, no matter how realistic, doesn't prepare them for the reality of the streets. There is no substitute for cold, hard experience dealing with the public and dregs of society. 90% training, 10% "dealing with actual conflicts" would rob your special "armed officers" of a critical edge you just can't earn or maintain with lectures and drills.
With regards to the original story, I heard it was a cane corso charging. If that is true, and assuming an owner was in the house (which seems to be the case) then it is absolutely their responsibility to be in full command of the dog. They aren't dogs to fuck around with and need proper training and socialising. Unfortunately too many owners are feckless and the poor animal gets punished before they do.
If the house is empty then an animal control unit should be responsible for safely containing the dogs without harm whilst the house is searched according to the warrant. I am not fan of endemic police fucktardism but these officers should simply not have been put in that position.
Yes it seems practical, essentially I'm just saying two things. First it's to keep typical patrolmen unarmed, second it's to have SWAT like teams heavily trained to deal with armed conflicts that get escalated that far. I'll admit they aren't infallible ideas -- but I think they could be practically implemented. For funding you'd be spending less money because only a small portion of income would go to the SWAT based teams, while you'd save resources having to train/arm every cop. You are just moving the resources to focus more effort on specialized roles. The entire idea is this, it's really not all that impractical. I'll also admit it's not perfect it isn't going to create utopia but I think it would improve things on the basis that people who deal with armed conflict would be heavily trained and focused on that single role, while the typical patrolman would be forced to think how to resolve disputes without the use of violent force-- there would also be a conscious effort of paying attention to a conflict and knowing when it's escalated to the point of armed conflict and having to call in the SWAT based units, instead of immediately and instinctively always reaching for violent force as an option to resolve a conflict. It's just this basic idea -- I think its a good one, and while not perfect, I'm just coming from the mentality of how to improve things and brainstorming ideas -- and not from the mentality of creating a utopia or having the "best" idea.
Well maybe I'm not entirely familiar with how the law enforcement world works -- but from what I've observed training does have an impact on reality if you do it right. For example, a musician that trains and practices over and over or an athlete -- there is a real sense of progression towards competency. Military based training, such as that used in the roman legions historically had a massive impact on the quality and effectiveness of their soldiers and legions. I think training is productive if you do it right.
It's not going to absolutely prevent things... but the idea of teaching martial arts is that if a cop is threatened in a situation with a dog or an unarmed person they won't immediately go to using a gun or some excessive type of force. I guess you could call diplomacy oracular manipulation -- but this is overly cynical imo. Of course throughout the process of utilizing diplomacy there is inevitably some level of manipulation or coersion but people catch on to such exploitation and the problems are never really solved and just reappear in other forms-- is someone is good at diplomacy then both parties walk away feeling like they've gained something. It's better to have people forcibly focusing on implementing these kinds of solutions and dealing with the backlash of poor diplomacy rather than to just immediately resort to violent methods. It wouldn't be perfect but it's at least an idea towards reducing violent force.
Yea once again martial arts isn't there to teach a philosophy -- you make it sound like I'm saying that from the perspective of wanting to make them Zen or something -- that's not the philosophy. It's actually incredibly practical, if they know martial arts, then say when armed police have to deal with a suspect wielding a knife -- they could utilize martial arts to deal with the situation rather than a gun. It gives them a tools to deal with a situation so they don't immediately have to go to using a gun. I'll agree though that the police already have their own philosophy and ethos and that their is a political impetus driving the police -- this is really the only criticism I agree with you on. I think my idea is impractical because in reality it would never be adopted because of politics and culture, or if adopted it would be implemented improperly and poorly -- so I do agree it would be a failure, but not on the basis of it being a "dumb" idea but on the basis of it's not close enough to the culture or mentality of the typical political mentality people have towards police.
Yes essentially that is a problem as well. Funding and manpower... that's why it's important that law enforcement in it's goal are practical. Say to prevent major crime and problems such as rape, murder, and theft... while say staying out of petty crimes such as busting neighborhood kids with a dime bag of weed. Strategically it would be nice to see some kind of prioritization and planning centered around what people in the community actually want, identifying problem areas, and allocating realistic resources to correct these problems. Your comment about politicians pressuring DA's pressuring chiefs pressuring supervisors pressuring patrolmen is right on as well -- their is little transparency into this, and mostly people are apathetic. A politician or DA gets voted in on the basis of party pandering or some superficial comments like "we are arresting pedos and keeping the community safe, tough on crime"... very little is being looked at and investigated critically. This is where I would agree that things would change rapidly but the step forward would be to promote transparency and investigation into these issues -- right now typical people are either crazed conspiracy theorists and overly negative or completely complacent skeptics that think everything works perfectly. Until their is a culture of issue-based investigation, intellect, and concientiousness the political atmosphere won't improve.
Once again if you had a good chain from the top supervisors would be able to keep morale high, keep people productive, and keep resources implemented successfully. Largely this doesn't work because of political based issues
I don't think it's overly idealistic, complex, or expensive. Even if you were to say abolish the government and rely on an anarcho-capitalist system, then you'd see security forces take root centered around corporate entities which would have to address the same problems you've mentioned here. Will security members in such a unit be armed or unarmed, will they be trained in martial arts? will they be trained in nothing? will they have guns? how much training will they receive? These are still questions that would have to be addressed in any scenario. I think I'm looking at it, less from the standpoint of pro-government or that it's going to create a perfect utopia but a sensible and progressive progression of steps to move long term towards a better way of doing things.
I'd personally advocate for domestic security to be centered around the government, but really a corporate based security force wouldn't be that much of a difference. Their still would be political impetus from the top of the corporate ladder. The potential downside of a corporate based security force would be conflict between corporate entities when security forces overlap -- you'd either have inter-security force conflicts or you'd have to have some body to resolve disputes. Either way that's not going to magically cure any problems.
Yea once again it's not about Zen philosophy or Rambo tricks. The goal isn't for a police man to become a Zen buddhist or a Rambo killing machine commando. It's to just utilize resources more intelligently and practically -- every patrolman doesn't need a gun and if someone has a gun or weapon they should be heavily trained on how to use it, because not every conflict is escalated to the point of violence, but if it is, it should be dealt with surgically and not sloppy and carelessly. Accidents will still happen, yes, but this is a strawman you've imposed onto my idea... I never claimed it would be the final nail that once driven in would cure all the problems of society and usher in utopia. The point is I think its a stepping stone towards a more long term process of steady improvement towards a more humane way of life. Problems aren't going to change overnight but slowly shifting the focus in police department on how they use force can have an effect -- I've heard very little ideas on your end of how to improve the problem, and while your criticism is valuable to point out errors and problems -- it leaves me wondering what kind of solution would you propose or should everyone just walk around angry and cynical about society and the police... and wait in anticipation for the one day when anarcho-capitalism will magically catch on in the political mainstream and corporations will free-willingly create utopia overnight for all of society!!!!
dumbass cop
Firstly, I don't entertain any pipe dreams of anarcho-capitalistic utopia. I hesitate to even classify myself as an anarchist. My enemy is not governance, but the methods by which modern society is organized and the distribution of power throughout.
Secondly, I don't have any solutions to offer you on what would be a better way to implement law and order that doesn't involve the heavy hand of a coercive monopoly on violence. My complaint is simply that the way it is implemented now is not only immoral in its enforcement, but also overbearing in its application. Laws have extended far beyond the protection of property rights, into a realm where they are downright invasive and even violate some of those very rights of ownership that holding title to property would naturally confer, and are supposed to be protected under law. Laws have become the tool of governments to stampede civil rights, and extort or enslave it's own citizens. Even murder, in some of the more extreme cases of totalitarianism seen worldwide.
Third, apologies if I've misunderstood or belittled your viewpoint a little more harshly than necessary. I do believe, within the context of modern policing, that some of those ideas do make sense depending on how they are implemented. A very basic start to it all could be enforcing physical fitness standards and annual qualifications, similar to the military, which many departments do not have or enforce across the board. But I fear this only further aligns the far left's perception of the police becoming more akin to a paramilitary force, rather than a civilian body of peace keepers enforcing a basic civil code as lawmakers may have initially set out to accomplish at the dawn of American civilization. My question is, are police officers even necessary at all in a "truly" free justice system? Would there be as huge of a market for lawyers and litigators if the criminal justice industry (which it most certainly is) were totally privatized? I don't pretend to know the finer details of my "vision," it's hardly my vision anyway. Unlike maniacal despots, prosaic defenders of utopia, and contemporary central planners, I do not have any mapped out solutions for the world's ills as promised by anarcho-capitalism, market anarchy, agorism, voluntaryism, or LeFevreian autarchy as I prefer to label it; all I propose is the abolition of coercion and compulsory statism. The rest is up to us, the shakers-and-movers with the capital to fund our ventures, and the entrepreneurs who drive the market process from the ground floor.
Maybe people are right to accuse me of being dogmatic, and of having a "blind faith" in capitalism by taking the position I have here. "Abolish the state, and let the market sort it out" certainly must sound like the battle cry of a religious fanatic when taken from the perspective of the layman. But really, the logic behind it is quite simple. All it takes to understand is some rudimentary economics.
agreed
agreed
I don't really care, even if you weren't trying to belittle-- this is the internet, people will belittle and troll so it's entirely irrelevant. At least you have something of substance to contribute.
It's possible they aren't necessary but I would argue that if the transition were to occur from the current state to a "freer" state there would still be a need to keep things familiar so it wouldn't upset people's sense of social expectations. Overtime though it's possible these sorts of things would be phased out. I could be wrong though maybe if a rapid transition occurred to a "freer" society the markets wouldn't require any kind of police officers, security, or entities resembling police. However I find this a little idealistic and would expect people to slowly adapt to social change... even most revolutions historically have been the result of a slow build-up that has been resisted by some type of authority until a critical point is reached. I don't really see large elements of society simply accepting the lack of police officers or security --- unfortunately enough, and if there is a market for it, people will sell the product.
This is an interesting question, I don't know.
Fair enough.
everything really happens at such an emotional/subjective level that people like to ignore, certain groups of people are more of a scapegoat for society's ills than others.. that there really isn't a good solution to anything. that's what like the narcissists in hollywood realize and they're kinda right, you can really only kinda work with people on the individual level or something. ironically you have to appeal to their narcissism even when it's the very thing that's annoying others.
if you try to be mr. perfect inevitably you really irritate somebody, even if it's just one person, that other person tries to find like-minded people to rally against you and do anything possible to bring you down, usually this just involves having a political war with you as you both try to like steal people's empathy as a tug of war.
and well if you try to stay out if , you're down by default anyway- you're depressed. not in obvious power anyway so nobody is really caring what you are thinking on any higher level.... but it's like aimee man sung 'when you're weak it's a holy grail, two for one and it's a fire sale' interesting lyrics
okay i realize im such a debbie downer with this people wanna feel inspired but the truth is your inspiration is going to hurt somebody else's feelings (which causes conflict because they're naturally going to try and get revenge somehow), and i have this dark mentality ppl should feel guilt about that... and i don't know. god im so dark sometimes. im so carrie =p
*telekeintically stabs all the popular ppl that made fun of me in high school*
Last edited by Hot Scalding Gayser; 11-18-2012 at 02:26 AM.
Am I missing something? All I see when I follow that link is a short blurb about how the policeman shot his partner while trying to shoot a dog. There is absolutely nothing said about the context of the situation, like why he felt the need to shoot in the first place. Without that background, this thread largely just looks like a bunch of people freaking out because "ZOMG that sorry bastard tried to shoot a dog.".
Also: "poetic justice"? Really??? I can see someone saying that if the guy shot himself, but someone who may have been completely innocent was harmed by his actions. Would you tell him that his injury at the hands of someone else was "just"?
Last edited by Cuddly McFluffles; 11-18-2012 at 03:30 AM.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
Hey guys
is that going to be the best contribution you have to the site?Hey guys
You suck. And no, it's not likely
i don't get it, is the Grandpa Bob gimmick supposed to be a reference to some elusive running gag that i'm unaware of?
It's some incognito douche who arrived expecting to be hated for some reason or another. Don't disappoint.
i'm just wondering if the play on Grandpa Rob is some coincidence or something deeper
If it really is Rob behind that account then he's doing a piss-poor job of hiding his cover, since he still posts on his main account every now and then.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote