Serious Topic: Swat Team Kills Man's Dogs in Front of Children

[Tdc2182]

snip

Negative on that, I tricked myself into thinking that I had because I read a youtube comment.

What surprises me is the fact that not one legitimate news source has covered this. All we have to go on is one site that basically quoted the description box, and has a picture of the police chief and Major. Say what you want, but this should be on at least one newsite.

As for the camera, he never once looks at any dog which was "supposedly" in the kitchen, and for the brief second he does, I could not make out any cage or dog. Only one dog was barking, and there was supposed to be two dogs.

You hear one shot, a dog squeals. Now unless the SWAT officer went for a two kills with one bullet sort of thing, no other dog make a sound. Next three shots, the dog is silent. After that, You view the man in the hallway. Now this may be a stretch, but why would everyone be in there rooms while a TV is on? The mother walked from the room with a child, and the man was in the hallway, which looked like he came form bed, or was running away. So unless the man was taking a crap or something, its strange the TV was on.

Call me crazy, but Im not convinced.

 

[Kinguendo]

To all the people saying that you don't have to cooperate with the cops, the more accurate thing to say would be "You do not have to answer their questions". In a situation with SWAT breaking down your door, that is not the time to be making their lives more interesting/harder, or else you could get pepper-sprayed at the least, or shot at the worst. If they have a warrant, which they did, they have the right to go into your house and search it. It sounds like they gave the guy fair warning, and he didn't let them in, so they had to expect the worst, that there could be booby-traps or armed resistance. As such, I don't blame them for neutralizing any possible threats or surprises. Bottom line, all you internet tough guy cop-haters need to realize that there are times and places to be uncooperative, and none of them involve police with assault rifles breaking down your door and you giving them shit.

Yeah, its really evident that they were expecting traps when they bust that door down... and how they dropped the shield, that totally shows they were expecting to be fired upon... T_T

Fact of the matter is they were inside that guys house in 40 seconds, after knocking on his door in the middle of the night. I dont know about you but it takes me way longer than 40 seconds to answer the door in the middle of the night.

And with that philosophy you would have been a welcomed citizen of Nazi Germany, staying in line and never questioning their authority... whats that? They just dragged the family next door out into the street in the middle of the night and killed them... well at least it isnt you right.

He wasnt being uncooperative at all, they came in shot his dog and then pointed their guns at him and he got on the floor... clearly confused by the situation he didnt even realise his dogs had been shot for quite some time after it happened, and in case you couldnt tell that caused him quite a lot of distress.

 

[Baconmonster723]

I understand people saying that they could have used pepper spray or a taser, keep in mind this. From the intel they recieved and the situation laid before them they have to make split second decisions. The 4-5 seconds it would take to get these items out and use them could result in the situation turning sour while the owner shoots the officer of the law. Was their reaction extreme, yes. But when you believe your life is on the line you don't take chances. You don't chance anything in these situations, you slip up and you could die. After the fact we can see the details, but given the circumstances created by the intel provided I am saddened by the outcome but understand the decision.

The saddest thing is that this could have been avoided. If the owner had simply cooperated with the SWAT officers all of this could have been avoided. However, the fact that SWAT officers were involved leads me to believe that this situation was believed to be extremely dangerous.

 

[MortisLegio]

Big Dog + Drug Bust = Bad situation

The SWAT team had a warrent and (probably) felt threatened by the dog. I think the cops did the right thing by decreasing the chance of someone being injured

 

[Akalistos]

2) The dog might be an innocent victim, but why blame the police? If that dog was murdered, it was murdered by its scumbag owner, not the cops.

I find this hard to believe when the dog was barking and dogs generally bark when scared. Dogs also don't bark when they attack in my experience. Aside from that its not like the owner shot the dog, so I don't see how the owner could have murdered him. What, can drug dealers not have pets too now?

Nope. Crime brings danger and violence, always does and always will. If you live that lifestyle, then you endanger everything around you. That dog couldn't just "leave" and get rid of a bad situation the way a person could. That dog was stuck in a powder keg. Also, in my humble opinion, drug dealers have no rights. The police and law disagree, and maybe that's best, but drug dealers are disgusting scum. My brother stole my grandmothers' engagement ring to support his coke habit and some of his friends are in even worse shape. Drug use is stupid and the people who profit off it are evil.

While i understand that drug dealer hurt you and your family pretty hard. Can you really hate an animal that doesn't understand what is master is doing. As a matter of fact, can you be mad at his newborn children or his children. Don't get me wrong, i agree that the punishment is but a fraction of the pain the criminal cost, but the decision is always made by the criminal, not the one around him. Those who knew and don't turn him in is a criminal just like the dealer, but not the one that was oblivious.

 

[OhSnap]

Cops are definately in the wrong here, they shouldn`t have shot the dogs like they did. It`s quite obvious that they were not attack dogs, as it`s already been said, they would not have been barking like that. They had absolutely no reason to go in as they did. Saying the man they were arresting was being unco-operative isn`t a reason seeing as you only saw what he was like AFTER they shot the family dogs in front of the kids. It`s just a gung-ho, trigger happy leader :/

And I`m not interested in getting into another argument over this, but pit bulls aren`t aggresive. Not to people at least, dogs and small animals sometimes, they were bred for dog fighting. Maybe if the dog had attacked one of his men first, it would be justifiable. However from the sounds of it, it was just a couple of scared family pets being shot for no reason. Also I doubt it was a pit bull, they were bred to fight and die quietly, so a pit bull wouldn`t start yelping even if it was shot.

Just my two cents.

 

[Regiment]

I don't think the police need to read you your rights unless they're interrogating you. If they don't read you your rights, they just can't use what you've said in court.

They always read you your miranda rights or anything you say cant be used in court and they dont want to run that risk, if they dont read you your miranda rights you can admit to whatever crime you want and they couldnt arrest you on your confession.

Also, apparently the pit bull was in a cage and the other dog was a corgi... in case you dont know corgis are SO docile the Queen of England has many of them. So do you think a caged dog and a small dog fit for a queen is dangerous?

They don't need to read you your rights. If they don't, nothing you say while being arrested can be used as evidence. If the police arrest someone for, say, being drunk and disorderly, they don't need to read him his rights because he's not being interrogated. Anything he says will just be inadmissible as evidence.

I didn't say the dogs were dangerous. I said I don't know what happened, and I don't have the full story. A caged dog is not dangerous, and randomly shooting a caged dog for no reason is reprehensible. Whether or not the SWAT blokes shot the dog for no reason is not up to me.

 

[Kinguendo]

They don't need to read you your rights. If they don't, nothing you say while being arrested can be used as evidence. If the police arrest someone for, say, being drunk and disorderly, they don't need to read him his rights because he's not being interrogated. Anything he says will just be inadmissible as evidence.

I didn't say the dogs were dangerous. I said I don't know what happened, and I don't have the full story. A caged dog is not dangerous, and randomly shooting a caged dog for no reason is reprehensible. Whether or not the SWAT blokes shot the dog for no reason is not up to me.

I dont understand how repeating what I said back to me is a good tactic but okay. Anyway, in case you havent seen shows like cops and crap they always read them their rights (when you can hear the audio of the arresting officer anyway). It was ruled by the supreme court that it was a constitutional right after all, even though some lawyers dont agree with that decision.

We can only work on the visual, audio and written information that was given to us... and going by that the dogs were barking and got shot within 10 seconds of the police entering the house... one of these dogs was in a cage and one was a corgi. Thats the information we have to go on.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

I'm not going to yell at you, but rather instead, politely inform you that the kind of unquestioning obedience in the face of violence and simpering to authority that you espouse is exactly how dictatorships arise. The Government should fear its people, not the other way around.

That being said, I don't know the full details of the case and he may well of deserved it; but the dog and the children didn't.

I believe that the people should respect the government. And I may be slightly Communist myself...

 

[Kagim]

Let's clarify a few items first though: 1) Blaming this on "Americanism" is stupid. If anything, Americans are the most paranoid and distrusting citizens of a country that ever lived. They literally don't trust their government or law enforcement. In comparison to my country, Canada, police are held to a very transparent process in the States.

What part of Canada are you from? I'm in BC and it seems most people here don't trust there government and take any chance they can to bad mouth cops. It gets kinda disgusting listening to them.

Then again the town i live in has a group that thanks the best way to save the economy is to give people more money.... We all know how that worked for every other country that tried to save the economy by printing more money.

Why did they shot the dogs that is just wrong they could just use pepper spray on them

My experience involving dogs and pepper spray is that it just pisses them off. Was taking my sweet little Sheltie mutt for a walk along the back roads by my house back a few years ago. Some asshole didn't have his dog leashed and it attacked my pup so i kicked it in the head. When the other dog owner should up he used bear mace on me and my dog. While i was on the ground in blinding pain my pup mauled the guy who maced us. My pup barely went up to my knees and was the sweetest little thing in the world. The guy fucked off and i called my dad when i could see again.

Long story short, when my pup was bear maced she mauled a guy bad enough to make him scream and run off while i could barely get to my feet. I know it got her to because she went blind in her left eye after that.

OT: Pretty much what everyone else has said. While shooting them at all may seem excessive they might have felt a reason. If not they will get reprimanded. That's how it works. They were SWAT. Yeah, i don't trust the YouTube comments. I'd like a news report please.

edit: Christ my grammar sucks tonight...

 

[Enkidu88]

Well, to start with you should always cooperate with the police, especially if it's a damn SWAT-team.

It's a fundamental right to NOT have to cooperate with police and the idea that the police are always correct and should be given extensive latitude, is what leads to abuse of power. ... Was he even read his Miranda rights?

I'll admit I didn't watch the video because I don't handle scenes like that particularly well...

I think we're all arguing over half-information.

Yeah I agree, we just don't have enough information right now to make a call, anyone succeeded in finding a news report or any corroborating info?

 

[Regiment]

They don't need to read you your rights. If they don't, nothing you say while being arrested can be used as evidence. If the police arrest someone for, say, being drunk and disorderly, they don't need to read him his rights because he's not being interrogated. Anything he says will just be inadmissible as evidence.

I didn't say the dogs were dangerous. I said I don't know what happened, and I don't have the full story. A caged dog is not dangerous, and randomly shooting a caged dog for no reason is reprehensible. Whether or not the SWAT blokes shot the dog for no reason is not up to me.

I dont understand how repeating what I said back to me is a good tactic but okay. Anyway, in case you havent seen shows like cops and crap they always read them their rights (when you can hear the audio of the arresting officer anyway). It was ruled by the supreme court that it was a constitutional right after all, even though some lawyers dont agree with that decision.

We can only work on the visual, audio and written information that was given to us... and going by that the dogs were barking and got shot within 10 seconds of the police entering the house... one of these dogs was in a cage and one was a corgi. Thats the information we have to go on.

I didn't repeat what you said. I actually argued both of your points- you said they have to read you your rights, I said they didn't. You said that I had said the dogs were dangerous, I explained that I hadn't taken sides.

First of all: I'll just clarify that shooting a caged dog is wrong and should not be done.

It's a constitutional right to be told what the charges are against you. The Miranda warning only applies to interrogations. Now, it's always a good idea to read someone his rights, because that allows you to use his statements in court, and naturally most cops will read you your rights, but they don't have to. The Supreme Court ruled only that the rights must be read in order to make the suspect's statements admissible. There is no law against arresting someone without reading him his rights, nor is it unconstitutional, provided you don't use his statements as evidence.

 

[CD-R]

snip

Negative on that, I tricked myself into thinking that I had because I read a youtube comment.

What surprises me is the fact that not one legitimate news source has covered this. All we have to go on is one site that basically quoted the description box, and has a picture of the police chief and Major. Say what you want, but this should be on at least one newsite.

As for the camera, he never once looks at any dog which was "supposedly" in the kitchen, and for the brief second he does, I could not make out any cage or dog. Only one dog was barking, and there was supposed to be two dogs.

You hear one shot, a dog squeals. Now unless the SWAT officer went for a two kills with one bullet sort of thing, no other dog make a sound. Next three shots, the dog is silent. After that, You view the man in the hallway. Now this may be a stretch, but why would everyone be in there rooms while a TV is on? The mother walked from the room with a child, and the man was in the hallway, which looked like he came form bed, or was running away. So unless the man was taking a crap or something, its strange the TV was on.

Call me crazy, but Im not convinced.

Edit: Never mind I did find a news article about it. It's where the video is originally from.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/feb/23/family-questions-swat-drug-search-that-led-to/

They weren't trying to bust him for cocaine they were trying to bust him for marijuana.

Edit: Edit: There's more articles that were just recently written hence why the vid just appeared on YouTube.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/03/drug-raid-inquiry-is-ongoing/

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/06/procedure-for-swat-changing/

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/06/chief-details-swat-incident/

 

[Tdc2182]

Edit: Never mind I did find a news article about it. It's where the video is originally from.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/feb/23/family-questions-swat-drug-search-that-led-to/

They weren't trying to bust him for cocaine they were trying to bust him for marijuana.

Edit: Edit: There's more articles that were just recently written hence why the vid just appeared on YouTube.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/03/drug-raid-inquiry-is-ongoing/

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/06/procedure-for-swat-changing/

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/06/chief-details-swat-incident/

Yeah, I saw these recently too. Maybe I am just being paranoid because I dont like it when people whine about our police force. We'll see what goes down

 

[manaman]

...I'm reporting it and giving my opinion. I believe if a person doesn't cooperate when a person in authority gives them a direct command, action should be taken no matter how drastic the measures.

Wow am I glad you are not in a position of direct power like that. Nor in a position to affect the policies of those people who are.

That is a horrible, horrible stance. People in authority need to held accountable for their actions and held to the same standards as everyone else.

No I am not objecting to a dog being shot if the officers feel it is necessary to protect themselves. I am not objecting to a person shooting a dog because it is necessary to protect themselves. However you cannot, and should not be punished by officers for anything. They are police, they are there to prevent crime and capture suspected criminals. Juries (or a judge if trial by peers is declined) determine guilt, and a judge handles sentencing.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Wow am I glad you are not in a position of direct power like that. Nor in a position to affect the policies of those people who are.

That is a horrible, horrible stance. People in authority need to held accountable for their actions and held to the same standards as everyone else.

It is, but I'm for order over chaos. And I mean complete order.

 

[IceStar100]

This is as bad as a kid who holds a toy gun and won't drop it when order to by the police.

He was a kid bla bla bla. Do what the police say and this kinda shit does not happen. If you feel the over stepped get a lawyer later. Hell some of them make a career out of it.

Yes, and no... There were a story here about a kid shot by a police officer. The kid tried to step up to the police officer, but he and is partner knew better. Every kid want a bullet in their body to feel like Fifty cent. The cop didn't encourage him to do anything but wasn't about to let it out of control. They tried to talk the kid down, but the kid who wanted to show off to is friend tried to grab one of the officer gun. His partner, seeing him fighting the kid for the firearm, pull is own and fire. The kid fall down, the friends vanish, the cop are on a adrenaline high, they call a ambulance, the kid finally died. That a case, the cop was still judged because it was a kid and they would be a backlash anyways. In that case, i agree 100% but there the other side of the medal.

A kid that play robber in a park and is suddenly hear "drop the gun down!" doesn't necessary assume that it addressed to him. Hell, i'll be in shock.
Me: "Wait WHAT? It just a game, it not real. It a toy!"
Just saying, there a place and time for everything.

Well I can see where your coming from but how does the cop know it's not real even if it neow pink. I could be painted. Even if it is a kid gang now recuit from as young as they can get. The simple fact is. It's not England over here. Everyone has a gun and a badge is a target. In the end it's a screwed up world and a split second choice. Sadly if you say you won't and your wrong. Your in a box being cried over. If you say you will and your wrong you on the news.

 

[JLML]

Well, to start with you should always cooperate with the police, especially if it's a damn SWAT-team.

It's a fundamental right to NOT have to cooperate with police and the idea that the police are always correct and should be given extensive latitude, is what leads to abuse of power. Without legal representation all you're required to do is give your name and address, he didn't have to say anything to the SWAT team. I don't even understand why they'd be talking to him, their objective is to secure the suspect not to interrogate him. Was he even read his Miranda rights?

I'll admit I didn't watch the video because I don't handle scenes like that particularly well, but if what others state is true and the extent of his lack of cooperation was a sarcastic tone of voice, than shooting the dogs was way over the line. If on the other hand he was becoming violent or the dogs were making threatening moves, I'll be siding with the police. I'd need more info.

The whole rights stuff varies from country to country, but my opinion is that you should always cooperate with the police, since being a dick/fight them/whatever is only going to make the situation much worse. If the police comes with a search warrant, doesn't that mean you HAVE to cooperate? at least that's how it works here.

I never said that the police is always correct, but it's not they who decide who's guilty or not, it's the court (judge, jury, whatever you have for that). The police only do the arrests after all..

Just wonder, isn't it punishable to resist arrest? I think you can go to prison for it here (if you're violent that is).

I watched the video and you actually don't see the dogs in it, the guy with the camera enters a bit after the rest of the team, but from my knowledge of this stuff (then again, I'm not sure how it is in other countries) they never shoot unless they deem it necessary. From what I saw he also resisted arrest.

 

[Akalistos]

This is as bad as a kid who holds a toy gun and won't drop it when order to by the police.

He was a kid bla bla bla. Do what the police say and this kinda shit does not happen. If you feel the over stepped get a lawyer later. Hell some of them make a career out of it.

Yes, and no... There were a story here about a kid shot by a police officer. The kid tried to step up to the police officer, but he and is partner knew better. Every kid want a bullet in their body to feel like Fifty cent. The cop didn't encourage him to do anything but wasn't about to let it out of control. They tried to talk the kid down, but the kid who wanted to show off to is friend tried to grab one of the officer gun. His partner, seeing him fighting the kid for the firearm, pull is own and fire. The kid fall down, the friends vanish, the cop are on a adrenaline high, they call a ambulance, the kid finally died. That a case, the cop was still judged because it was a kid and they would be a backlash anyways. In that case, i agree 100% but there the other side of the medal.

A kid that play robber in a park and is suddenly hear "drop the gun down!" doesn't necessary assume that it addressed to him. Hell, i'll be in shock.
Me: "Wait WHAT? It just a game, it not real. It a toy!"
Just saying, there a place and time for everything.

Well I can see where your coming from but how does the cop know it's not real even if it neow pink. I could be painted. Even if it is a kid gang now recuit from as young as they can get. The simple fact is. It's not England over here. Everyone has a gun and a badge is a target. In the end it's a screwed up world and a split second choice. Sadly if you say you won't and your wrong. Your in a box being cried over. If you say you will and your wrong you on the news.

Here, cop are like gas station employees, they get yell at for anything. In the U.S. cop would drag your ass downtown just for raising your voice at them.

Today, toy gun doesn't even come close to look like real life firearm. They are bright yellow and red, Oversize, with overly fake pieces attach to it. Just look all the new Nerf guns and tell me in a rush, you would take that as a 45. caliber. Beside that, even if gang member recruits kids which sadly is common in the world (more on that later)yelling "Drop the gun" isn't the best approach. Like i said, if a cop jump on you, you wouldn't freak out? It would shock anyone. Thing is, if your a criminal you would be jumpy, and earing that, immediately open fire. You start by assessing the situation, calling back-up and everything. You can be certain that one of the older gang member is around, just in case. That how they do it around the world.

Sadly, children soldier is still extremely popular. The point of it is that the gang member use the naivety of children to make them do dangerous stuff. Why? Because know that a round in the chest as a good chance of killing you. You would be nervous and may fu**** up everything. Kid? You just give them a small object that you said have a anti-bullet property and the child will believe you. You are older than him, so he think to himself:"Wow, it worked on him! He wasn't shot! It will work on me too." The difference between those country and here is School. Everyone must go to one. Start educating them about it. Bullet = Bad.

 

[Akalistos]

Well, to start with you should always cooperate with the police, especially if it's a damn SWAT-team.

It's a fundamental right to NOT have to cooperate with police and the idea that the police are always correct and should be given extensive latitude, is what leads to abuse of power. Without legal representation all you're required to do is give your name and address, he didn't have to say anything to the SWAT team. I don't even understand why they'd be talking to him, their objective is to secure the suspect not to interrogate him. Was he even read his Miranda rights?

I'll admit I didn't watch the video because I don't handle scenes like that particularly well, but if what others state is true and the extent of his lack of cooperation was a sarcastic tone of voice, than shooting the dogs was way over the line. If on the other hand he was becoming violent or the dogs were making threatening moves, I'll be siding with the police. I'd need more info.

The whole rights stuff varies from country to country, but my opinion is that you should always cooperate with the police, since being a dick/fight them/whatever is only going to make the situation much worse. If the police comes with a search warrant, doesn't that mean you HAVE to cooperate? at least that's how it works here.

I never said that the police is always correct, but it's not they who decide who's guilty or not, it's the court (judge, jury, whatever you have for that). The police only do the arrests after all..

Just wonder, isn't it punishable to resist arrest? I think you can go to prison for it here (if you're violent that is).

I watched the video and you actually don't see the dogs in it, the guy with the camera enters a bit after the rest of the team, but from my knowledge of this stuff (then again, I'm not sure how it is in other countries) they never shoot unless they deem it necessary. From what I saw he also resisted arrest.

Man... You mean that the dog refuse to put on cuff? Damn it to Hell! OPEN FIRE!
Basic behavioral study of dog suggest that before he attack, he growl at the target to tell him to back off. The dog was barking, meaning he didn't even think of defending his owner. If he was human, it would have being a shrieking man.