Serious Topic: Swat Team Kills Man's Dogs in Front of Children
- Thread starter ProfessorLayton
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think that if the SWAT team was certain that the person being raided is guilty, they would have been right to shoot the dogs. Because a guilty individual, one possibly dangerous enough to require 6 SWAT officers, could easily have trained attack dogs.
If they got the wrong house, though, this is a huge violation of the man's rights and an affront to justice. This is the same reason I'm against the death penalty; if the homeowner was innocent, even on the slight chance that he was innocent, then a massive injustice has been committed by the police.
There have been worse cases of police injustice caused by following protocol. In 2008, Tracy Ingle [http://reason.com/blog/2008/05/07/tracy-ingle-another-drug-war-o] was shot by SWAT officers who had entered on a no-knock warrant. In 1999, SWAT officers acting on a no-knock warrant shot and killed Ismael Mena [http://www.westword.com/2000-02-24/news/unlawful-entry/1]. It later turned out that the both Ingle and Mena were completely innocent of the drug charges that prompted the warrant.
In both of these cases, no officers were injured, but the victims had been threatening police with handguns. This in understandable, considering the nature of a no-knock raid; police break into your house like burglars, which could make anyone pull a weapon in self-defense. Someone state of mind could be similar to the dog's; someone breaks in, you don't know why, so you threaten them.
Bang.
If they got the wrong house, though, this is a huge violation of the man's rights and an affront to justice. This is the same reason I'm against the death penalty; if the homeowner was innocent, even on the slight chance that he was innocent, then a massive injustice has been committed by the police.
There have been worse cases of police injustice caused by following protocol. In 2008, Tracy Ingle [http://reason.com/blog/2008/05/07/tracy-ingle-another-drug-war-o] was shot by SWAT officers who had entered on a no-knock warrant. In 1999, SWAT officers acting on a no-knock warrant shot and killed Ismael Mena [http://www.westword.com/2000-02-24/news/unlawful-entry/1]. It later turned out that the both Ingle and Mena were completely innocent of the drug charges that prompted the warrant.
In both of these cases, no officers were injured, but the victims had been threatening police with handguns. This in understandable, considering the nature of a no-knock raid; police break into your house like burglars, which could make anyone pull a weapon in self-defense. Someone state of mind could be similar to the dog's; someone breaks in, you don't know why, so you threaten them.
Bang.
Stop making stuff up!AccursedTheory said:
You have no clue over the size of the bust, or whether drugs were located on the premises or not.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Just because other police forces do it doesn't make it acceptable.
Judges do not fully represent the very best of society, but you're correct, it is a step above the random pulling over just because the policeman is bored.
In response to the guy above:
And how. The shoot first mentality may save the lives of some coppers but innocent lives are lost - this can't just be looked at as acceptable losses.
How would you feel if, policemen raided your parents home, damaging property, opened fire on a family pet, just because they got the wrong address?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Days_in_May - this is a documentary showing the death sentence being carried out on an innocent man, after his execution it was found that American police had told an important witness (a black women incidentally) - capable of freeing the man in question - to "mind her own business and go home'.
I know that dogs can be very dangerous animals, and when they decide to attack you they don't mess around. I know that pit bulls are especially dangerous and have a reputation for violence. I know that they can charge across a room very quickly, and if they knock you down and go for your throat you are a fucking dead man. I know that a lot of people like to criticize the police in situations like this because they don't know anything about extreme violence, and the lives of the police officers who have to survive those situations are apparently not that important to them.Grand_Pamplemousse said:
Actually, I find that video kind of funny. I mean, the guy was being a prick to the cops and then suddenly he is like "What the fuck? You shot my dog!" Granted, a bullet might have been a bit much to use on a dog, but I seriously don't trust those things. I probably would have done the same thing.
Also, I hate the old excuse people use for a dog charging someone "Oh he/she was probably just wanted to play with you"
Also, I hate the old excuse people use for a dog charging someone "Oh he/she was probably just wanted to play with you"
Y'know, there's an actual argument to be had here: How much slack does risking their own personal safety afford police officers during tense situations? How much force is "excessive" force, and is there a general rule of thumb or is it a case by case basis.
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.
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.
3)Once you have a warrant, you're allowed to break into someone's home. You aren't afforded a warrant over a closet-based grow-op. If the police did break into that guys home, then the case was looked over by a judge and that official deemed a breach necessary. That's the best system we have, and its the best we've ever had.
Now, I personally believe that police should be able to do anything necessary to guarantee the safety of people and that humans come first. Also, the suspect is the one who should be charged if anyone. If you take a hostage and the hostage dies during the police apprehending you, that death is one your hands, not the police. The suspect is the one who put the dog in this position.
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.
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.
3)Once you have a warrant, you're allowed to break into someone's home. You aren't afforded a warrant over a closet-based grow-op. If the police did break into that guys home, then the case was looked over by a judge and that official deemed a breach necessary. That's the best system we have, and its the best we've ever had.
Now, I personally believe that police should be able to do anything necessary to guarantee the safety of people and that humans come first. Also, the suspect is the one who should be charged if anyone. If you take a hostage and the hostage dies during the police apprehending you, that death is one your hands, not the police. The suspect is the one who put the dog in this position.
The SWAT officer said it was a narcotics bust. We can deduce two things from this.Grand_Pamplemousse said:
1. They are looking for drugs.
2. They are SWAT members, and therefor they are looking for a dealer, who typically has a shit load of drugs.
And he WAS (And for all I know, still is) innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean the police have to play nice, it just means they can't hurt him or kill him.
On a side note, your idealism, where we live in a world, were everyone should be trusted and criminals must wear special hats so police know who they should be nice to or mean to, amuses me.
EDIT: Damn it, my spelling and grammar are horrendous.
If someone shot my dog things would have gotten a whole lot worse.
I think they call it uncontrollable rage.
I think they call it uncontrollable rage.
Your arguments would be more compelling if you didn't make stuff up.AccursedTheory said:
When did I ever incite anything written on your side note?
Also, I don't think you mean to condone the state of society when every man is a suspect and must be treated meanly and badly. Nor do I mean to condone the society where criminals are not made to face the reality of the damage caused by their crimes, but not be senseless brutality.
Do you? It was a very justified tactical decision. Those dogs were uncontrolled variables in a dangerous situation. The SWAT officer made the decision to eliminate that variable.Grand_Pamplemousse said:
This clearly wasn't a trained attack dog. Attack dogs don't bark. Well, they do, but not when they're on the attack, if you know what I mean. Had they actually been attack dogs, they'd have rushed the SWAT men without a sound. What that sounded like to me was a frightened animal not even trying to defend itself. I heard barking, not growling. Sounds to me more like the SWAT man was just being irritated by the constant barking.Chamale said:
Yes, I have a fair understanding of it, as I was explaining in the rest of that post, which you seem to have not noticed.Grand_Pamplemousse said:
Scolar Visari made some very good points that you may want to take a look at, as well.
Scolar Visari said:
I made nothing up (Other than the idealism thing, that was a guess at your mindset, fulled by my anger at my damn pizza which went cold while I fell asleep in the shower).Grand_Pamplemousse said:
And honestly, I think you may not be paying attention. All those things your talking about are bad, BUT THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN in this situation.
For once in my life, I am blaming the cops. This is usually strange for me because I fucking hate cop haters with a passion, but I love dogs. A dog will jump at people if they believe their owner is being attacked. So I dont understand why they didnt just taze them or something.
Trust me when I say I hate it when dogs die. No movie has ever made me feel more sorry for the man's death when there is a dog in the mix.
Trust me when I say I hate it when dogs die. No movie has ever made me feel more sorry for the man's death when there is a dog in the mix.
If the police busted in and shot my dog without the dog even doing anything I would've been uncooperative too. Probably MUCH more uncooperative than that guy, especially if my kids were in the house to see the dog get shot and hear it make horrible noises as it dies.
I feel bad for the dogs and the kids, but if you're going to be a dick to a SWAT team with loaded weapons, I suppose you run the risk of them doing their jobs...
Being uncooperative with a group of fully-armed SWAT officers is extremely inadvisable in pretty much any circumstances. And that's not me defending the police, that's self-preservation.lykopis783 said: