<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>The dog got shot cause the officer wanted to be a prick, thanuk. Plain and simple.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Says you, and says the press, who is continually on the side of the wrongfully accused and hardly ever takes the side of police officers.
Remember the little kid who got shot in harlem who pulled a toy gun on a cop in a dark alley? That was the cops fault too right, because he possesses the psychic powers neccessary to know that it was a toy gun, not a real gun, and to know that the dog, although running directly toward him at full speed, was going to jump up and lick his face instead of biting his neck. the cop made a mistake. It may have been avoidable, but he only shot a dog. When he shoots a human, it should make the news. but this is just yellow journalism, and you all look at your dog at home, and how cute he is, and say "that bastard should lose his job". Seriously, he shot a friggin dog.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
This Could be You
"The dog got shot cause the officer wanted to be a prick"
You actually belive that the officer wanted to shoot the dog? out of spite or something? that he was walking around the arrest scene thinking: "I'm goina shoot me some dog tonight."?
Watch the video again. the officer is rapidly back-peddling away from the dog before he shoots. He dosen't look malicious to me, he looks afraid.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
You actually belive that the officer wanted to shoot the dog? out of spite or something? that he was walking around the arrest scene thinking: "I'm goina shoot me some dog tonight."?
Watch the video again. the officer is rapidly back-peddling away from the dog before he shoots. He dosen't look malicious to me, he looks afraid.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ormiss:
Thanuk, if you head to some countries, you can buy kidnapped children to do with as you please. Does that make them replaceable property?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is it legal to buy kidnapped children in that country? Because its legal to buy and sell dogs and almost every other animal here, which is why they are considered property. It doesn't matter if its a pet, a food source, or a beast of burden, an animal is most definately a peice of property and can be replaced. Your feelings for your dog do not change that fact, and they never will. Im sorry the guy's dog got shot, its too bad. But it was just a dog, it was not a kidnapped child or a little baby. What if it was a cow? Would you still care? Or perhaps if it was a chicken or a fish, would it matter so much? What if the cop ate it after he shot it? Does that make it okay? Its a friggin animal moron, get back in touch with reality.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
Thanuk, if you head to some countries, you can buy kidnapped children to do with as you please. Does that make them replaceable property?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is it legal to buy kidnapped children in that country? Because its legal to buy and sell dogs and almost every other animal here, which is why they are considered property. It doesn't matter if its a pet, a food source, or a beast of burden, an animal is most definately a peice of property and can be replaced. Your feelings for your dog do not change that fact, and they never will. Im sorry the guy's dog got shot, its too bad. But it was just a dog, it was not a kidnapped child or a little baby. What if it was a cow? Would you still care? Or perhaps if it was a chicken or a fish, would it matter so much? What if the cop ate it after he shot it? Does that make it okay? Its a friggin animal moron, get back in touch with reality.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
<B>it sucks to have your dog shot.
but a dog's life and a human life is not the same. a 100 year-old oak tree's life isn't worth a human life. i'm not saying there isn't value in those things but that human life have greater value.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We're yeast...it's harder to find a 100 year-old oak tree than it is to find a human being. I'd much prefer the company of the oak than a large portion of the population of the US.
A person tends to form a closer bond with a pet than they do with co-workers, and definitely closer than joe-schmoe - guy on the street.
The officer blew it. Is this news? nope.
Kuurg hits you with his opinion stick and runs away!
------------------
·•Kuurg•·
<B>it sucks to have your dog shot.
but a dog's life and a human life is not the same. a 100 year-old oak tree's life isn't worth a human life. i'm not saying there isn't value in those things but that human life have greater value.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We're yeast...it's harder to find a 100 year-old oak tree than it is to find a human being. I'd much prefer the company of the oak than a large portion of the population of the US.
A person tends to form a closer bond with a pet than they do with co-workers, and definitely closer than joe-schmoe - guy on the street.
The officer blew it. Is this news? nope.
Kuurg hits you with his opinion stick and runs away!
------------------
·•Kuurg•·
you know shooting a police dog is murder, its too bad cops dont have to live by the same rules as the rest of us, not only do i think they should i think the consiquenses for them breaking the rules should be WORSE, they should be setting an example. but the fact is most cops are bullies on a power trip with a free pass to do as they please.
the system is so twisted and corrupt it makes me sick
[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 01-14-2003).]
the system is so twisted and corrupt it makes me sick
[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 01-14-2003).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Drakkoth:
Thanuk, it's clear that you simply aren't capable of understanding. It's a shame, but I guess it's nothing new.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, its quite obvious that you really have no idea what you are talking about. Its nice that you think your pet is this wonderful creature and that it means the world to you, its sentimentally touching in a childlike way, but you need to grow up and accept the reality of the situation. A dog is an animal, it is a possession. Although it might mean more to you, the value placed on it by society and the laws that govern our country is what it would go for at a local pet store, maybe a bit more dependant on the breeding of the animal, or if you had the will to bring a civil case to trial and cry your eyes out in front of a jury, you might squeeze out a little extra cash for your pathetic sob story in emotional damages. But the fact remains, that it was a dog. The officer perceived the dog as a threat, and neutralized it. One last time, since you obviously dont get it: A DOG IS A POSSESSION, IT IS NOT A HUMAN BEING. Once you accept this fact, everything else falls into place.
Be careful where you step, the 3rd blade of grass to the right over there is my pet and i love it dearly! It means more to me than your life! Get real man.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
Thanuk, it's clear that you simply aren't capable of understanding. It's a shame, but I guess it's nothing new.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, its quite obvious that you really have no idea what you are talking about. Its nice that you think your pet is this wonderful creature and that it means the world to you, its sentimentally touching in a childlike way, but you need to grow up and accept the reality of the situation. A dog is an animal, it is a possession. Although it might mean more to you, the value placed on it by society and the laws that govern our country is what it would go for at a local pet store, maybe a bit more dependant on the breeding of the animal, or if you had the will to bring a civil case to trial and cry your eyes out in front of a jury, you might squeeze out a little extra cash for your pathetic sob story in emotional damages. But the fact remains, that it was a dog. The officer perceived the dog as a threat, and neutralized it. One last time, since you obviously dont get it: A DOG IS A POSSESSION, IT IS NOT A HUMAN BEING. Once you accept this fact, everything else falls into place.
Be careful where you step, the 3rd blade of grass to the right over there is my pet and i love it dearly! It means more to me than your life! Get real man.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Turxx:
<B>you know shooting a police dog is murder, its too bad cops dont have to live by the same rules as the rest of us, not only do i think they should i think the consiquenses for them breaking the rules should be WORSE, they should be setting an example. but the fact is most cops are bullies on a power trip with a free pass to do as they please.
the system is so twisted and corrupt it makes me sick
[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 01-14-2003).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have seen the movie Half Baked way too many times:
California
Penal Code 600
(a) Any person who willfully and maliciously and with no legal justification strikes beats, kicks, cuts, stabs, shoots with a firearm, administers any poison or other harmful or stupefying substance to, or throws, hurls, or projects at, or places any rock, object, or other substance which is used in a manner as to be capable of producing injury and likely to produce injury, on or in the path of, any horse being used by, or any dog under the supervision of, any peace officer in the discharge or attempted discharge of his or her duties, is guilty of a public offense. If the injury inflicted is a serious injury, as defined in subdivision (c), the person shall be punished by impreisonment in the state prison for 16 months, two or three years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2000.00), or by both a fine and imprisonment. If the injury inflicted is not a serious injury, the person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand $(1000.00), or by both a fine and imprisonment.
(b) Any person who wilfully and maliciously and with no legal justification interferes with or obstructs any horse or dog being used by any peace officer in the discharge or attempted discharge of his or her duties by frightening, teasing, agitating, harassing, or hindering the horse or dog shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand ($1000.00), or by both a fine and imprisonment.
(c) Any person who, in violation of this section, and with intent to inflict such injury or death, personally causes the death, destruction, or serious physical injury including bone fracture, loss or impairment of function of any bodily member, wounds requiring extensive suturing, or serious crippling, of any horse or dog, shall, upon conviction of a felony under this section, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony, be punished by an additional term of imprisonment in the state prison for one year.
(d) Any person who, in violation of this section, and with the intent to inflict such injury, personally causes great bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, to any person not an accomplice, shall upon conviction of a felony under this section, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony, be punished by an additional term of imprisonment in the state prison for two years unless the conduct described in this subdivision is an element of any other offense of which the person is convicted or receives an enhancement under Section 12002.7.
(e) In any case in which a defendant is convicted of a violation of this section, the defendant shall be ordered to make restitution to the agency owning the animal and employing the peace officer for any veterinary bills, replacement costs of the animal if it is disabled or killed, and the salary of the peace officer for the period of time his or her services are lost to the agency.
Its just a dog. The cops know it. The laws say it.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B>you know shooting a police dog is murder, its too bad cops dont have to live by the same rules as the rest of us, not only do i think they should i think the consiquenses for them breaking the rules should be WORSE, they should be setting an example. but the fact is most cops are bullies on a power trip with a free pass to do as they please.
the system is so twisted and corrupt it makes me sick
[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 01-14-2003).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have seen the movie Half Baked way too many times:
California
Penal Code 600
(a) Any person who willfully and maliciously and with no legal justification strikes beats, kicks, cuts, stabs, shoots with a firearm, administers any poison or other harmful or stupefying substance to, or throws, hurls, or projects at, or places any rock, object, or other substance which is used in a manner as to be capable of producing injury and likely to produce injury, on or in the path of, any horse being used by, or any dog under the supervision of, any peace officer in the discharge or attempted discharge of his or her duties, is guilty of a public offense. If the injury inflicted is a serious injury, as defined in subdivision (c), the person shall be punished by impreisonment in the state prison for 16 months, two or three years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2000.00), or by both a fine and imprisonment. If the injury inflicted is not a serious injury, the person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand $(1000.00), or by both a fine and imprisonment.
(b) Any person who wilfully and maliciously and with no legal justification interferes with or obstructs any horse or dog being used by any peace officer in the discharge or attempted discharge of his or her duties by frightening, teasing, agitating, harassing, or hindering the horse or dog shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand ($1000.00), or by both a fine and imprisonment.
(c) Any person who, in violation of this section, and with intent to inflict such injury or death, personally causes the death, destruction, or serious physical injury including bone fracture, loss or impairment of function of any bodily member, wounds requiring extensive suturing, or serious crippling, of any horse or dog, shall, upon conviction of a felony under this section, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony, be punished by an additional term of imprisonment in the state prison for one year.
(d) Any person who, in violation of this section, and with the intent to inflict such injury, personally causes great bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, to any person not an accomplice, shall upon conviction of a felony under this section, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony, be punished by an additional term of imprisonment in the state prison for two years unless the conduct described in this subdivision is an element of any other offense of which the person is convicted or receives an enhancement under Section 12002.7.
(e) In any case in which a defendant is convicted of a violation of this section, the defendant shall be ordered to make restitution to the agency owning the animal and employing the peace officer for any veterinary bills, replacement costs of the animal if it is disabled or killed, and the salary of the peace officer for the period of time his or her services are lost to the agency.
Its just a dog. The cops know it. The laws say it.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
a 100 year-old oak tree's life isn't worth a human life. i'm not saying there isn't value in those things but that human life have greater value.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
why?
The oak have lived longer, and is rarer, and a much more important to the planet than an average human.
------------------
/Jegzed - Sorcere Master - Crimson Coalition
a 100 year-old oak tree's life isn't worth a human life. i'm not saying there isn't value in those things but that human life have greater value.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
why?
The oak have lived longer, and is rarer, and a much more important to the planet than an average human.
------------------
/Jegzed - Sorcere Master - Crimson Coalition
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mikayla:
<B>nukie you ever had a pet dog?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually my mother breeds shelties (shetland sheepdogs) as a hobby. I have usually 2-4 dogs in my house as pets, along with any litters of puppies. We also have a kennel out back that has somewhere between 12 and 20 dogs in it. I also live on a main road. The two dont mix well, i often end up scraping little doggie bits off the road in the morning, and digging a hole in the back yard in the afternoon. Its sad when the dog dies, you bury it, you feel crappy for a few hours, and you get on with your life. Its just a dog. I cried about it when i was 8 years old. But this magical thing called growing up happened, and i manage to hold back the tears with the realization that the dog is an animal, and not a member of my family.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B>nukie you ever had a pet dog?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually my mother breeds shelties (shetland sheepdogs) as a hobby. I have usually 2-4 dogs in my house as pets, along with any litters of puppies. We also have a kennel out back that has somewhere between 12 and 20 dogs in it. I also live on a main road. The two dont mix well, i often end up scraping little doggie bits off the road in the morning, and digging a hole in the back yard in the afternoon. Its sad when the dog dies, you bury it, you feel crappy for a few hours, and you get on with your life. Its just a dog. I cried about it when i was 8 years old. But this magical thing called growing up happened, and i manage to hold back the tears with the realization that the dog is an animal, and not a member of my family.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
"The oak have lived longer, and is rarer, and a much more important to the planet than an average human."
That may be, but my cats litter box is far more important to him than the oak is. He likes the oak and all, but it's just not that important. I think Sok was comparing their value to our society rather than their environmental impact.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
That may be, but my cats litter box is far more important to him than the oak is. He likes the oak and all, but it's just not that important. I think Sok was comparing their value to our society rather than their environmental impact.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
I don't really understand why someone would spend so much time trying to convince other people that everything but "human being" life is irrelevant.
Not all human beings are great, my friend. The world as a whole would be a better place if certain people were replaced with any other kind of animal.
But all that is off topic, because your arguments range all over the place. Especially that "car impounding" analogy which was completely assinine (ie, impounding something is not the same as destroying it, and it also implies wrongdoign on the part of the owner, which was not present with the family at hand), and your repeated assertion that you can go buy pets at the store (which is faulty because animals act, react, learn, and adapt differently. You cannot replace a longtime pet by simply purchasing a different one.)
My position, however, is the same as it has been all along, but I'll reiterate it one last time just for you:
Don't indiscrimately destroy things people care about, simply because you don't think they should have been attached to it in the first place. It's a pretty basic tenant of kindness.
If I'm just out there minding my own business, don't fuck with my shit. Alright?
If I put a lot of value on my car, don't torch it. If I put a lot of value on a tree, don't chop it down. If I put a lot of value on my dog, don't shoot it with a shotgun.
If you do one of these things by accident, don't be glib about it and try to put the blame on me for having cared about these things in the first place.
Work with me here, Thanster.
Not all human beings are great, my friend. The world as a whole would be a better place if certain people were replaced with any other kind of animal.
But all that is off topic, because your arguments range all over the place. Especially that "car impounding" analogy which was completely assinine (ie, impounding something is not the same as destroying it, and it also implies wrongdoign on the part of the owner, which was not present with the family at hand), and your repeated assertion that you can go buy pets at the store (which is faulty because animals act, react, learn, and adapt differently. You cannot replace a longtime pet by simply purchasing a different one.)
My position, however, is the same as it has been all along, but I'll reiterate it one last time just for you:
Don't indiscrimately destroy things people care about, simply because you don't think they should have been attached to it in the first place. It's a pretty basic tenant of kindness.
If I'm just out there minding my own business, don't fuck with my shit. Alright?
If I put a lot of value on my car, don't torch it. If I put a lot of value on a tree, don't chop it down. If I put a lot of value on my dog, don't shoot it with a shotgun.
If you do one of these things by accident, don't be glib about it and try to put the blame on me for having cared about these things in the first place.
Work with me here, Thanster.
You'll find there's a difference between the way breeders feel about their pets compared to other people. It's kind of the same way people who have to deal with a lot of people every day eventually just want them to all go away. After all, you get accustomed to raising the animals as items, and selling them as items, and you have to learn to detach yourself from them. Farmers don't exactly develop an attachment to the chickens they're going to eat for dinner. Doctors have to learn to detach from their patients to a point, or losing one can drive them out of the profession. No, an animal and a human are not the same, but that will not change the emotional bond developed between a human and a pet they've had for 15 years, no matter how stupid you might think it is.
So you just think it's wrong that anybody could learn to care deeply for a pet, is that it?
By the way, I grew up in a family full of people who have service careers. My family are mostly firefighters, three uncles, one a captain, my ex-husband's are police officers, my father-in-law is a chief, and they all have about the same opinion. I'm also a trained and licensed EMT, even though I no longer work in the field. The officer refused to secure his environment when he knew about a valid threat, period. He would not have had to take those steps if he had done what he was trained to do. As unpredictable as a human can be, a dog is even moreso. No public servant is supposed to enter a yard or domicile where there is a known animal without assurance that animals have been secured, because a dog trained to attack can do so on either word or motion commands. If there is an unsecured animal present then the threat that animal offers is to be neutralized as early as possible, and NOT by shooting it if at all possible. These officers were called on a tip, and without evidence of foul play the proper procedure would have been to remove the family from the vehicle and close the vehicle while animal control was called. Actually I think proper procedure would have called for requesting identification and car registration first, then asking the family members to step out of the car and closing the doors behind them once backup had arrived. I might be mistaken on actual procedural steps, but at no time should an officer allow an animal to escape from a car on a busy road where it might become a hazard to other motorists, or a valid threat to the officer.
Not much of a point there when it seems you'd rather just tear people down because they happen to love their pets though, hmmm?
So you just think it's wrong that anybody could learn to care deeply for a pet, is that it?
By the way, I grew up in a family full of people who have service careers. My family are mostly firefighters, three uncles, one a captain, my ex-husband's are police officers, my father-in-law is a chief, and they all have about the same opinion. I'm also a trained and licensed EMT, even though I no longer work in the field. The officer refused to secure his environment when he knew about a valid threat, period. He would not have had to take those steps if he had done what he was trained to do. As unpredictable as a human can be, a dog is even moreso. No public servant is supposed to enter a yard or domicile where there is a known animal without assurance that animals have been secured, because a dog trained to attack can do so on either word or motion commands. If there is an unsecured animal present then the threat that animal offers is to be neutralized as early as possible, and NOT by shooting it if at all possible. These officers were called on a tip, and without evidence of foul play the proper procedure would have been to remove the family from the vehicle and close the vehicle while animal control was called. Actually I think proper procedure would have called for requesting identification and car registration first, then asking the family members to step out of the car and closing the doors behind them once backup had arrived. I might be mistaken on actual procedural steps, but at no time should an officer allow an animal to escape from a car on a busy road where it might become a hazard to other motorists, or a valid threat to the officer.
Not much of a point there when it seems you'd rather just tear people down because they happen to love their pets though, hmmm?
You care about your car and your animals? Great. You think you care more about your dog than i do about mine? Great. That has nothing to do with the fact that the police officer killed an animal who posed a threat to him. He will not be found guilty of anything, what he did was to protect himself against an animal not a person. To compare the death of your pet to the death of a family member is asinine, when it comes down to it. A pet is a possession. This police officer killed the pet of a suspected car jacker, and i assure you ashiwi, the procedure for pulling over a suspected bank robber/car jacker does not, at any point, include knocking quietly on the window and asking for license and identification.
Maybe he shouldn't have let the dog out of the car, but he did, his mistake. But he was most definately justified in shooting the animal after it had escaped and began to advance toward him. As you watch the case play out you will see that the justice system is in agreement. Dogs are animals, they are in no way as or near the importance of humans, and an officer killing a dog who was charging at him is not a big deal at all. Those of you who condemn the officer for doing this should really take a gut check, and try to honestly consider what you would do in the situation. Does it suck for the guy who's dog it was? Yes. But he'll get over it, and it won't be at the cost of this police officer's job, regardless of what you people may think. If thats not on topic enough for you Drakkoth, be sure and let me know, ill send tommy back there to hit you on the head with a tack hammer, because you are a retard.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
Maybe he shouldn't have let the dog out of the car, but he did, his mistake. But he was most definately justified in shooting the animal after it had escaped and began to advance toward him. As you watch the case play out you will see that the justice system is in agreement. Dogs are animals, they are in no way as or near the importance of humans, and an officer killing a dog who was charging at him is not a big deal at all. Those of you who condemn the officer for doing this should really take a gut check, and try to honestly consider what you would do in the situation. Does it suck for the guy who's dog it was? Yes. But he'll get over it, and it won't be at the cost of this police officer's job, regardless of what you people may think. If thats not on topic enough for you Drakkoth, be sure and let me know, ill send tommy back there to hit you on the head with a tack hammer, because you are a retard.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B>If thats not on topic enough for you Drakkoth, be sure and let me know, ill send tommy back there to hit you on the head with a tack hammer, because you are a retard.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now, now, Thannie, no reason to get hostile just because I give you constructive pointers. I'm just trying to help you spread your ignorance in a more relevant, cohesive fashion.
And because I hold no grudges, bravo on that last post, which was, in fact, uncharacteristically on topic. I appreciate it.
It does make me wonder, though, if we watched the same video.
That dog wasn't rabid. It wasn't a raging pitbull about to take someone down. We empower police to make those kind of distinctions. None of your justifications hold water.
But for the record, I never did condemn the cop involced. Only your indifferent attitude and disregard for those of us here who don't share your highly narrow scope of compassion.
<B>If thats not on topic enough for you Drakkoth, be sure and let me know, ill send tommy back there to hit you on the head with a tack hammer, because you are a retard.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now, now, Thannie, no reason to get hostile just because I give you constructive pointers. I'm just trying to help you spread your ignorance in a more relevant, cohesive fashion.
And because I hold no grudges, bravo on that last post, which was, in fact, uncharacteristically on topic. I appreciate it.
It does make me wonder, though, if we watched the same video.
That dog wasn't rabid. It wasn't a raging pitbull about to take someone down. We empower police to make those kind of distinctions. None of your justifications hold water.
But for the record, I never did condemn the cop involced. Only your indifferent attitude and disregard for those of us here who don't share your highly narrow scope of compassion.
Oh, and however the police handled the family it doesn't really matter. They failed to contain a valid threat, a threat which is covered in their basic training. Shooting the dog was totally unnecessary. You can argue compassion all you like, but the destruction of this property was done by an officer because he failed to do something he was supposed to do. There's the whole issue, and it's the one issue you keep skating around with your tackhammer, Thanuk.
Also, to be fair, the officers were called on a felony suspicion, which calls for high methods of security (which means they still would have taken precautions against possible vicious animals in the car). Backups did arrive before the shooting. The family was already handcuffed before the dog jumped from the car. Oddly enough, the first two cars to arrive (one of which held the officer who fired the shot) seem to have turned off their cameras at the scene. It was the camera in one of the following cars to arrive which caught the footage.
I'm fully in support of officers who have to shoot for their own protection, as long as they followed proper procedures and took all precautions.
I'm fully in support of officers who have to shoot for their own protection, as long as they followed proper procedures and took all precautions.
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
Thanuk, is your position that the police in that video performed their duties flawlessly and are to be held blameless?
Because from what I see, they are open to censure for failing to close the door, for firing the gun and for shooting the dog. Even here, in Lau Lee's Dictatorial Paradise where I live, police aren't allowed free destruction of property on grounds of suspicion.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
Because from what I see, they are open to censure for failing to close the door, for firing the gun and for shooting the dog. Even here, in Lau Lee's Dictatorial Paradise where I live, police aren't allowed free destruction of property on grounds of suspicion.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
Ok --
The cop did make a split second descision yes...but also, the family told him that there is a dog in the car, and to shut the door of the car so the dog could NOT get out. the whole thing could have been avoided, and the family would have gone on thier merry way. Cop = Pig.
------------------
--Dr Head Shrinker--
The cop did make a split second descision yes...but also, the family told him that there is a dog in the car, and to shut the door of the car so the dog could NOT get out. the whole thing could have been avoided, and the family would have gone on thier merry way. Cop = Pig.
------------------
--Dr Head Shrinker--
OK when all is said and done, The pelice shouldnt have shot the dog. But the media does have a tendency to exagerate things. I really doute that the officers would have shot the dog if it wasnt threatening. I myself do not tend to like dogs that seem threatening and that have been the case. In anycase. it is wrong for the peloce to do it. But dont trust everything that the report says 
Read some very interestin points of view.. Though it is the police at fault here.
As said before they didnt close the car doors after being repeadetly told that there was a dog in there. By not reachin over and simply closing the door they lost control of the situation. The dog got out, the family pleads to get the dogs, officers are distracted, and dog gets shot.. They coulda just shut the door and if it was found that these were really the criminals, or that they just needed to search the vehicle then how come they just cant through the 3 member family in the back of the police cars and Call animal control to get the dogs out of the car?
Second off why does it take 2-3 cops holding the handcuffed family against the car with guns? They are handcuffed on their knees facing the side of their car? What are they goin to come out with some bruce lee movie shit and just kick some serious officer ass? I Dont think so.. The officers seem a little gung ho.. and if the family that dangerous then again stuff um in the back of the police car.
Third off... Pepper spray, A.S.P, PR-24, kick punch chop.
Last I checked there are three things that allows an officer to use deadly force. Oppuritunity, Jeapordy, Ability.
A dog waggin its tell doing a frolicing motion towards the officer looks like he just goin to rip the man to shreds.. If you have been attacked by a dog before then you know they dont do this when they bout to attack.
As said before they didnt close the car doors after being repeadetly told that there was a dog in there. By not reachin over and simply closing the door they lost control of the situation. The dog got out, the family pleads to get the dogs, officers are distracted, and dog gets shot.. They coulda just shut the door and if it was found that these were really the criminals, or that they just needed to search the vehicle then how come they just cant through the 3 member family in the back of the police cars and Call animal control to get the dogs out of the car?
Second off why does it take 2-3 cops holding the handcuffed family against the car with guns? They are handcuffed on their knees facing the side of their car? What are they goin to come out with some bruce lee movie shit and just kick some serious officer ass? I Dont think so.. The officers seem a little gung ho.. and if the family that dangerous then again stuff um in the back of the police car.
Third off... Pepper spray, A.S.P, PR-24, kick punch chop.
Last I checked there are three things that allows an officer to use deadly force. Oppuritunity, Jeapordy, Ability.
A dog waggin its tell doing a frolicing motion towards the officer looks like he just goin to rip the man to shreds.. If you have been attacked by a dog before then you know they dont do this when they bout to attack.
Here's a link to an article about how the dispatchers screwed the pooch (ha ha). Also at the bottom of the page are many links to individual officers reports, dispatcher transcripts etc.
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/03/01/27642451.shtml?Element_ID=27642451
"Second off why does it take 2-3 cops holding the handcuffed family against the car with guns?"
The officers holding the shotguns on the family are backup. They arrived after the initial stop and are doing exactly what they are supposed to. Did you expect the officers to ignore them just because they are handcuffed?
"What are they goin to come out with some bruce lee movie shit and just kick some serious officer ass?"
No because they have shotguns pointed at their heads. Thats the idea.
"Third off... Pepper spray, A.S.P, PR-24, kick punch chop."
You expect the officer, in the few seconds he had, to secure his shotgun, unsnap and take out his pepper spray aim and spray the dog before it had the chance to attack him?
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/03/01/27642451.shtml?Element_ID=27642451
"Second off why does it take 2-3 cops holding the handcuffed family against the car with guns?"
The officers holding the shotguns on the family are backup. They arrived after the initial stop and are doing exactly what they are supposed to. Did you expect the officers to ignore them just because they are handcuffed?
"What are they goin to come out with some bruce lee movie shit and just kick some serious officer ass?"
No because they have shotguns pointed at their heads. Thats the idea.
"Third off... Pepper spray, A.S.P, PR-24, kick punch chop."
You expect the officer, in the few seconds he had, to secure his shotgun, unsnap and take out his pepper spray aim and spray the dog before it had the chance to attack him?
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
Thanuk, perhaps you should settle down. I was merely making a logical argument (very much in touch with reality) towards what you said. If you can't handle arguments then perhaps you should do something else than talk. As a helpful rule, don't say anything online that would get you beaten up offline. 
I never said anything about legality or possessions. You say that anything that can be bought is replaceable. If you want to revise your statement by saying that anything that can be bought legally in the united states of America is replaceable, that's fine.
I never said anything about legality or possessions. You say that anything that can be bought is replaceable. If you want to revise your statement by saying that anything that can be bought legally in the united states of America is replaceable, that's fine.
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ormiss:
I never said anything about legality or possessions. You say that anything that can be bought is replaceable. If you want to revise your statement by saying that anything that can be bought legally in the united states of America is replaceable, that's fine.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ZING!
Semantic repudiations = best
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
I never said anything about legality or possessions. You say that anything that can be bought is replaceable. If you want to revise your statement by saying that anything that can be bought legally in the united states of America is replaceable, that's fine.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ZING!
Semantic repudiations = best
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B> Is it legal to buy kidnapped children in that country?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've done Ormiss' research for him! As usual, Secret Hidden Knowledge HERE. (Note that there are difficulties with the definition of 'legal' in many of these countries, as there is no clear mandate of rule, and hence, no clear law)
Also note that according to a 15th century edict of the Catholic church, as yet unrepealed, all human females are considered chattel, and are thus also property. (I'll dig up the exact reference if anyone really cares)
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
<B> Is it legal to buy kidnapped children in that country?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've done Ormiss' research for him! As usual, Secret Hidden Knowledge HERE. (Note that there are difficulties with the definition of 'legal' in many of these countries, as there is no clear mandate of rule, and hence, no clear law)
Also note that according to a 15th century edict of the Catholic church, as yet unrepealed, all human females are considered chattel, and are thus also property. (I'll dig up the exact reference if anyone really cares)
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ormiss:
<B>Thanuk, perhaps you should settle down. I was merely making a logical argument (very much in touch with reality) towards what you said. If you can't handle arguments then perhaps you should do something else than talk. As a helpful rule, don't say anything online that would get you beaten up offline.
I never said anything about legality or possessions. You say that anything that can be bought is replaceable. If you want to revise your statement by saying that anything that can be bought legally in the united states of America is replaceable, that's fine.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you aren't talking about legality or possessions, then you aren't talking about the topic, so it doesn't really matter. I don't need to revise my statement, as we are talking about the legitimacy of the officer's actions, in shooting the dog. When talking about the actions of a police officer on duty, it is implied that we are talking about legality, because those are the standards to which a police officer's actions will be held to.
As for my comments and getting me beat up, if your going to take a swing at someone over a comment they make towards you, then you will probably end up much like the dog in the scenario we are discussing. Also note that just because you would like to beat me up for something i said, doesn't mean that you actually would be able to, and that fact allows me to make the comments that i do. I will reiterate that comparing the death of a dog to the death of a human is a stupid thing to do, and that is my opinion, regardless of whether it makes you angry or not.
Drakkoth - My views on compassion may not be the same as yours, however, society and the legal system tend to reflect views a great deal closer to my point of view than yours, as you can see by the Penal code i posted earlier. As those are the only views that really count for anything, its a moot point what you or I think.
As for the rest of you, i feel no need to further argue with anything you say, as the results of the investigation will inevitably turn out in favor of the officer, and so my point is proven by the system itself. Continue to argue, but the legal system will find that the cop did nothing wrong, so that is what will go down in the books. If you want a legitimate problem with a police officer to discuss, instead of this piece of fluff, there was a car thief who was shot in the back in the bronx on monday, after crashing into a fed ex truck. The man was unarmed, and the car was totalled, so he had no chance of escape. Perhaps you could make a valid case for THAT cop being in the wrong, but the guy who shot the dog was not, and like it or not, you will all have to accept it. Ill post the link later, it was on ABC news last nite, but it may have been local.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B>Thanuk, perhaps you should settle down. I was merely making a logical argument (very much in touch with reality) towards what you said. If you can't handle arguments then perhaps you should do something else than talk. As a helpful rule, don't say anything online that would get you beaten up offline.
I never said anything about legality or possessions. You say that anything that can be bought is replaceable. If you want to revise your statement by saying that anything that can be bought legally in the united states of America is replaceable, that's fine.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you aren't talking about legality or possessions, then you aren't talking about the topic, so it doesn't really matter. I don't need to revise my statement, as we are talking about the legitimacy of the officer's actions, in shooting the dog. When talking about the actions of a police officer on duty, it is implied that we are talking about legality, because those are the standards to which a police officer's actions will be held to.
As for my comments and getting me beat up, if your going to take a swing at someone over a comment they make towards you, then you will probably end up much like the dog in the scenario we are discussing. Also note that just because you would like to beat me up for something i said, doesn't mean that you actually would be able to, and that fact allows me to make the comments that i do. I will reiterate that comparing the death of a dog to the death of a human is a stupid thing to do, and that is my opinion, regardless of whether it makes you angry or not.
Drakkoth - My views on compassion may not be the same as yours, however, society and the legal system tend to reflect views a great deal closer to my point of view than yours, as you can see by the Penal code i posted earlier. As those are the only views that really count for anything, its a moot point what you or I think.
As for the rest of you, i feel no need to further argue with anything you say, as the results of the investigation will inevitably turn out in favor of the officer, and so my point is proven by the system itself. Continue to argue, but the legal system will find that the cop did nothing wrong, so that is what will go down in the books. If you want a legitimate problem with a police officer to discuss, instead of this piece of fluff, there was a car thief who was shot in the back in the bronx on monday, after crashing into a fed ex truck. The man was unarmed, and the car was totalled, so he had no chance of escape. Perhaps you could make a valid case for THAT cop being in the wrong, but the guy who shot the dog was not, and like it or not, you will all have to accept it. Ill post the link later, it was on ABC news last nite, but it may have been local.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xisiqomelir:
<B>
Also note that according to a 15th century edict of the Catholic church, as yet unrepealed, all human females are considered chattel, and are thus also property. (I'll dig up the exact reference if anyone really cares)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
do it and die :P
you're not in kansas anymore, Dorothy
and Ambar pwns YOU! (yes admit it Xisi .. giggle)
------------------
Ambar -= Beloved Matron =- Crimson Coalition
<B>
Also note that according to a 15th century edict of the Catholic church, as yet unrepealed, all human females are considered chattel, and are thus also property. (I'll dig up the exact reference if anyone really cares)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
do it and die :P
you're not in kansas anymore, Dorothy
and Ambar pwns YOU! (yes admit it Xisi .. giggle)
------------------
Ambar -= Beloved Matron =- Crimson Coalition
Heres the link to the only story on CNN or ABC news that even talks about this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/04/nyc.police.shootings.ap/index.html
Just on a side note, if a dog gets shot in tennessee it has a link on the top of every news page on the internet for a week, but when a man gets shot in brooklyn, it gets a small blurb in a tiny article about accidental police murders. This is what is wrong with the media today.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/04/nyc.police.shootings.ap/index.html
Just on a side note, if a dog gets shot in tennessee it has a link on the top of every news page on the internet for a week, but when a man gets shot in brooklyn, it gets a small blurb in a tiny article about accidental police murders. This is what is wrong with the media today.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
The reason I posted about this incident in the first place was because it was something that could happen to any of us. It's one of those instances where all of a sudden your life is turned upside down for no reason whatsoever than somebody you didn't even know got a little melodramatic and the cops seemed to think they were buff enough they needed to turn off their video cameras as they pulled up for the bust.
In other words, I can run out to a payphone and call the local police, telling them that a car with your tags and description was just involved in a potential robbery... you had money flying off the car, what else could it be? That way I could get the police to force you from your vehicle at gunpoint and there's a good chance that a member of your family or your pet might get shot. There have already been incidents where people went to pull out their wallets and were killed, as touchy as this officer seemed to be, this family was in very real danger for doing nothing. They were not car thieves with a valid report, smashed into another vehicle, they were innocent people doing things that innocent people do all the time. It would be that easy to put you through this kind of hell. Is that right? No.
I don't know how true it was, but there was mention in an article about this that the officer involved was involved in a previous incident much like this which reported him shooting an animal unnecessarily. If there is truth to that, and to the reports that their cameras were both turned off at the scene, then there's good reason to suspect that there's more to this story than just an officer protecting himself from a threat and it deserves an investigation.
As protective as you are of the officers in question, if you were pulled over, threatened at gunpoint and your dog was shot, there's good odds you'd be pretty frightened and pissed, especially if you did nothing that would merit that kind of treatment. Then imagine getting handed the corpse of your dog afterwards and being informed that "a mistake had been made," because you had to dispose of your own property. Sorry Thanuk, I just don't see you shaking hands and saying "that's alright man, you did what you had to do" after something like that.
As for people threatening you... who brought up the reference to the tackhammer?
In other words, I can run out to a payphone and call the local police, telling them that a car with your tags and description was just involved in a potential robbery... you had money flying off the car, what else could it be? That way I could get the police to force you from your vehicle at gunpoint and there's a good chance that a member of your family or your pet might get shot. There have already been incidents where people went to pull out their wallets and were killed, as touchy as this officer seemed to be, this family was in very real danger for doing nothing. They were not car thieves with a valid report, smashed into another vehicle, they were innocent people doing things that innocent people do all the time. It would be that easy to put you through this kind of hell. Is that right? No.
I don't know how true it was, but there was mention in an article about this that the officer involved was involved in a previous incident much like this which reported him shooting an animal unnecessarily. If there is truth to that, and to the reports that their cameras were both turned off at the scene, then there's good reason to suspect that there's more to this story than just an officer protecting himself from a threat and it deserves an investigation.
As protective as you are of the officers in question, if you were pulled over, threatened at gunpoint and your dog was shot, there's good odds you'd be pretty frightened and pissed, especially if you did nothing that would merit that kind of treatment. Then imagine getting handed the corpse of your dog afterwards and being informed that "a mistake had been made," because you had to dispose of your own property. Sorry Thanuk, I just don't see you shaking hands and saying "that's alright man, you did what you had to do" after something like that.
As for people threatening you... who brought up the reference to the tackhammer?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
<B>
As protective as you are of the officers in question, if you were pulled over, threatened at gunpoint and your dog was shot, there's good odds you'd be pretty frightened and pissed, especially if you did nothing that would merit that kind of treatment. Then imagine getting handed the corpse of your dog afterwards and being informed that "a mistake had been made," because you had to dispose of your own property. Sorry Thanuk, I just don't see you shaking hands and saying "that's alright man, you did what you had to do" after something like that.
As for people threatening you... who brought up the reference to the tackhammer?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the tackhammer reference is a direct quote from the movie "Tommy Boy", in the scene where they are posing as flight attendants and describing how to buckle a seat belt. I guess you guys didn't see that movie, its a joke.
If this happened to me, yes, i would be frightened, i would be pissed. I would make a big stink about it in the media if they let me, which they obviously would, even though they shouldn't. But it doesn't go much further than that.
I would also most likely consult a lawyer, who would explain to me that i have no legal recourse after an internal investigation by the police comes up negative. At which point i would accept the fact that i can't do a damn thing about it, and that the man made a mistake. I would also demand an apology from the officer, and inquire about the police force replacing my dog.
What i would not do is attempt to get the police officer fired, suspended, or otherwise destroy this man's life and career because he mistakenly shot my dog. But that is what this man, as well as the media covering this story, is doing, and the tone of most of the posts in this thread falls along those lines. The man shot a dog, an animal, a piece of property. This should not permanently effect his livelihood, or the livelihood of his family. Im glad the police force realizes it, even if the general public does not.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B>
As protective as you are of the officers in question, if you were pulled over, threatened at gunpoint and your dog was shot, there's good odds you'd be pretty frightened and pissed, especially if you did nothing that would merit that kind of treatment. Then imagine getting handed the corpse of your dog afterwards and being informed that "a mistake had been made," because you had to dispose of your own property. Sorry Thanuk, I just don't see you shaking hands and saying "that's alright man, you did what you had to do" after something like that.
As for people threatening you... who brought up the reference to the tackhammer?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the tackhammer reference is a direct quote from the movie "Tommy Boy", in the scene where they are posing as flight attendants and describing how to buckle a seat belt. I guess you guys didn't see that movie, its a joke.
If this happened to me, yes, i would be frightened, i would be pissed. I would make a big stink about it in the media if they let me, which they obviously would, even though they shouldn't. But it doesn't go much further than that.
I would also most likely consult a lawyer, who would explain to me that i have no legal recourse after an internal investigation by the police comes up negative. At which point i would accept the fact that i can't do a damn thing about it, and that the man made a mistake. I would also demand an apology from the officer, and inquire about the police force replacing my dog.
What i would not do is attempt to get the police officer fired, suspended, or otherwise destroy this man's life and career because he mistakenly shot my dog. But that is what this man, as well as the media covering this story, is doing, and the tone of most of the posts in this thread falls along those lines. The man shot a dog, an animal, a piece of property. This should not permanently effect his livelihood, or the livelihood of his family. Im glad the police force realizes it, even if the general public does not.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>In many parts of the world women are considered property. Does this mean it's ok to shoot women, Thanuk?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you saying that women aren't any more important than dogs, Sarvis? Thats a pretty sexist attitude.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
[This message has been edited by thanuk (edited 01-15-2003).]
<B>In many parts of the world women are considered property. Does this mean it's ok to shoot women, Thanuk?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you saying that women aren't any more important than dogs, Sarvis? Thats a pretty sexist attitude.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
[This message has been edited by thanuk (edited 01-15-2003).]
Ashiwi,
Where are you getting this bit about the camera being turned off? I didn't read anything about that on any site. I've watched a 3.5 min realplayer video of one of the officers pulling up to the scene all the way to after the dog was shot. If I remember correctly it was the camera of the officer who initialy pulled them over and the officer that shot the dog arrived later.
It does not matter if you consider the dog to be properity or not. The officer felt the dog was a threat to himself and other officers. A dog, a woman with a knife, a man with a gun; If they are threatening an officer, they run the risk of being shot.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
Where are you getting this bit about the camera being turned off? I didn't read anything about that on any site. I've watched a 3.5 min realplayer video of one of the officers pulling up to the scene all the way to after the dog was shot. If I remember correctly it was the camera of the officer who initialy pulled them over and the officer that shot the dog arrived later.
It does not matter if you consider the dog to be properity or not. The officer felt the dog was a threat to himself and other officers. A dog, a woman with a knife, a man with a gun; If they are threatening an officer, they run the risk of being shot.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B> Are you saying that women aren't any more important than dogs, Sarvis? Thats a pretty sexist attitude.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's the prevailing attitude in some parts of the world. China for example. I'm not saying I agree with it.
However, you are making the argument that it is ok for a cop to just shoot someone's property. So, logically that extends to it being ok to shoot someones woman doesn't it? Still think it's ok to shoot something _just_ because it is property?
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
<B> Are you saying that women aren't any more important than dogs, Sarvis? Thats a pretty sexist attitude.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's the prevailing attitude in some parts of the world. China for example. I'm not saying I agree with it.
However, you are making the argument that it is ok for a cop to just shoot someone's property. So, logically that extends to it being ok to shoot someones woman doesn't it? Still think it's ok to shoot something _just_ because it is property?
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B> That's the prevailing attitude in some parts of the world. China for example. I'm not saying I agree with it.
However, you are making the argument that it is ok for a cop to just shoot someone's property. So, logically that extends to it being ok to shoot someones woman doesn't it? Still think it's ok to shoot something _just_ because it is property?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The cop didnt _just_ shoot someone's property. He shot a dog, who was running toward him in an aggressive manner, during the stopping of people who were suspected of felony bank robbery and car jacking. And it didn't happen in china, or any other part of the world, it happened in tennessee, in the united states. Here in the U.S., it is okay for a cop to shoot someone's dog, which is their property, when that dog presents a possible threat, and/or if the officer feels threatened by it. Its not okay because i think it is okay, or for some high moral reason, it is okay because the laws that govern our country say that it is okay.
You are greatly over-simplifying the situation, and you are failing to distinguish between man and beast as well.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B> That's the prevailing attitude in some parts of the world. China for example. I'm not saying I agree with it.
However, you are making the argument that it is ok for a cop to just shoot someone's property. So, logically that extends to it being ok to shoot someones woman doesn't it? Still think it's ok to shoot something _just_ because it is property?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The cop didnt _just_ shoot someone's property. He shot a dog, who was running toward him in an aggressive manner, during the stopping of people who were suspected of felony bank robbery and car jacking. And it didn't happen in china, or any other part of the world, it happened in tennessee, in the united states. Here in the U.S., it is okay for a cop to shoot someone's dog, which is their property, when that dog presents a possible threat, and/or if the officer feels threatened by it. Its not okay because i think it is okay, or for some high moral reason, it is okay because the laws that govern our country say that it is okay.
You are greatly over-simplifying the situation, and you are failing to distinguish between man and beast as well.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
Thanuk, just to clarify: I think the "distinction" between man and beast is arrogant bullshit. There's nothing that makes us any better, nor more deserving of life than any other organism on this planet.
Second, I'm not oversimplifying. You're argument was that it was ok for the cop to shoot the dog because it was "a piece of property." I'm opposing that statement.
If we want to be more general about this, the officer in question still made mistakes which contributed to the "necessity" of shooting the dog. Leaving the car doors open for instance. There are also other options he had for dealing with the dog once it had gotten out of the car. Pulling a gun is supposed to be a cops _last_ resort, not his first.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Second, I'm not oversimplifying. You're argument was that it was ok for the cop to shoot the dog because it was "a piece of property." I'm opposing that statement.
If we want to be more general about this, the officer in question still made mistakes which contributed to the "necessity" of shooting the dog. Leaving the car doors open for instance. There are also other options he had for dealing with the dog once it had gotten out of the car. Pulling a gun is supposed to be a cops _last_ resort, not his first.
------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B> The cop didnt _just_ shoot someone's property. He shot a dog, who was running toward him in an aggressive manner, during the stopping of people who were suspected of felony bank robbery and car jacking. And it didn't happen in china, or any other part of the world, it happened in tennessee, in the united states. Here in the U.S., it is okay for a cop to shoot someone's dog, which is their property, when that dog presents a possible threat, and/or if the officer feels threatened by it. Its not okay because i think it is okay, or for some high moral reason, it is okay because the laws that govern our country say that it is okay.
You are greatly over-simplifying the situation, and you are failing to distinguish between man and beast as well.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In this particular case, there really isn't a distinction to be made per say between man and beast. Police men are allowed to shoot women with guns and men with knives as well as dogs with teeth if they are attacked.
In this country, tenessee or otherwise, there are limitations both on citizens and police as to what they can and cannot do. So while we are all glad that they officers didn't shoot any of the family members instead of the dog, that really isn't the question. The question is if, given the entire chain of events, the police conducted themselves properly. I think the overwhelming response of the reasonable people here is that they did not. Of course that counts for zip, ziltch, nadda and nothing, but it's still slightly more than Thanuk. So until someone tells me that the police shot Thanuk for frolicking on the road side and wagging his tail during a traffic stop, it seems prudent to ask questions any time the police shoot ANYTHING.
For myself, I expect and hope that the judge will award an attrocious sum to the family. Even if the officers badge protects them from criminal charges, what they did is still very wrong. The fact that these people where 100% the victims of a misunderstanding is the most disturbing of all.
-Zen
------------------
The Lord of the Iron Wastes holds his hammer high in the air, shouting a torment... 'Weak fools!'
<B> The cop didnt _just_ shoot someone's property. He shot a dog, who was running toward him in an aggressive manner, during the stopping of people who were suspected of felony bank robbery and car jacking. And it didn't happen in china, or any other part of the world, it happened in tennessee, in the united states. Here in the U.S., it is okay for a cop to shoot someone's dog, which is their property, when that dog presents a possible threat, and/or if the officer feels threatened by it. Its not okay because i think it is okay, or for some high moral reason, it is okay because the laws that govern our country say that it is okay.
You are greatly over-simplifying the situation, and you are failing to distinguish between man and beast as well.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In this particular case, there really isn't a distinction to be made per say between man and beast. Police men are allowed to shoot women with guns and men with knives as well as dogs with teeth if they are attacked.
In this country, tenessee or otherwise, there are limitations both on citizens and police as to what they can and cannot do. So while we are all glad that they officers didn't shoot any of the family members instead of the dog, that really isn't the question. The question is if, given the entire chain of events, the police conducted themselves properly. I think the overwhelming response of the reasonable people here is that they did not. Of course that counts for zip, ziltch, nadda and nothing, but it's still slightly more than Thanuk. So until someone tells me that the police shot Thanuk for frolicking on the road side and wagging his tail during a traffic stop, it seems prudent to ask questions any time the police shoot ANYTHING.
For myself, I expect and hope that the judge will award an attrocious sum to the family. Even if the officers badge protects them from criminal charges, what they did is still very wrong. The fact that these people where 100% the victims of a misunderstanding is the most disturbing of all.
-Zen
------------------
The Lord of the Iron Wastes holds his hammer high in the air, shouting a torment... 'Weak fools!'
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jegzed:
<B> why?
The oak have lived longer, and is rarer, and a much more important to the planet than an average human.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Raursh pretty much explained what i meant. it would be idiotic of me to say there is no value in the dog or the 100 year old tree. what i'm saying is that their value is not greater than the life of a human being.
ex. if your house is on fire and u can only save your child/spouse/friend or your dog/cat/100yr old oak tree which one would u save. i believe most people will save their child/spouse/friend. if a person saves their pet over the child/friend/spouse, i believe that person would be villianized.
<B> why?
The oak have lived longer, and is rarer, and a much more important to the planet than an average human.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Raursh pretty much explained what i meant. it would be idiotic of me to say there is no value in the dog or the 100 year old tree. what i'm saying is that their value is not greater than the life of a human being.
ex. if your house is on fire and u can only save your child/spouse/friend or your dog/cat/100yr old oak tree which one would u save. i believe most people will save their child/spouse/friend. if a person saves their pet over the child/friend/spouse, i believe that person would be villianized.
Okay, did some digging because I couldn't find the site that mentioned the cameras being off again. I'll be the first to say that Officer Hall (the officer who shot the dog) is not the one responsible for leaving the door open, that was the Highway Patrol. Apparently Hall was one of two Cookeville officers who arrived after the initial stop, the family was subdued and the car doors were still open. Officer Hall did not know there were dogs in the car, supposedly. The entire time the family was being subdued the dogs remained in the vehicle without leaving, but Officer Hall was using a flashlight, which the son of Mr. and Mrs. Smoaks frequently used to play with the dog which was shot, letting him chase the beam across the ground.
Found this:
http://www.putnampit.com/pithome.htm
Don't know how much I would trust the resource, as they seem quite hostile towards Cookeville law enforcement, but that's supposed to be the incident report.
Officer Hall arrived after the Highway Patrol, turned off his camera, and took up a spot in the perimeter of the officers who had their guns trained on the family. Surely with that many officers pointing guns somebody could have shut a car door? There are several aspects about this case that are truly frightening, and before you go off on it again Thanuk, it's NOT just because it was a dog that was shot.
Innocent until proven guilty meant nothing because a total stranger made a hot tip, even though they had no real proof and weren't sure themselves what was happening.
With that many officers available the scene was still not secured.
The dogs posed a hazard to cars traveling the highway, but were not secured.
The dog could have easily been neutralized without the use of deadly force (seriously here, a kick would have sufficed).
The officer discharged a firearm near a busy road against an unarmed victim without attempting other means of neutralization when the "assailant" clearly did not pose a critical danger to the officer, posing a hazard to all around.
And then there's this:
www.tennessean.com
"Hall was described by Terry as a veteran cop who was usually assigned to the department's Family Protection Unit, which deals with domestic violence and child sex abuse cases. He had recently been temporarily reassigned to a patrol car because of a shortage of help in the department."
How long had the officer been out of duty which required him to routinely handle a weapon in a dangerous situation? Typically patrol cars are dispatched to domestic violence cases because of the potential for explosive situations. Secondary domestic intervention units very rarely have to draw their weapons.
Several aspects of this case need to be investigated so that scenarios such as this don't become a common occurrence. Think they won't if people just sit down and don't raise an alarm about it? Think again.
Found this:
http://www.putnampit.com/pithome.htm
Don't know how much I would trust the resource, as they seem quite hostile towards Cookeville law enforcement, but that's supposed to be the incident report.
Officer Hall arrived after the Highway Patrol, turned off his camera, and took up a spot in the perimeter of the officers who had their guns trained on the family. Surely with that many officers pointing guns somebody could have shut a car door? There are several aspects about this case that are truly frightening, and before you go off on it again Thanuk, it's NOT just because it was a dog that was shot.
Innocent until proven guilty meant nothing because a total stranger made a hot tip, even though they had no real proof and weren't sure themselves what was happening.
With that many officers available the scene was still not secured.
The dogs posed a hazard to cars traveling the highway, but were not secured.
The dog could have easily been neutralized without the use of deadly force (seriously here, a kick would have sufficed).
The officer discharged a firearm near a busy road against an unarmed victim without attempting other means of neutralization when the "assailant" clearly did not pose a critical danger to the officer, posing a hazard to all around.
And then there's this:
www.tennessean.com
"Hall was described by Terry as a veteran cop who was usually assigned to the department's Family Protection Unit, which deals with domestic violence and child sex abuse cases. He had recently been temporarily reassigned to a patrol car because of a shortage of help in the department."
How long had the officer been out of duty which required him to routinely handle a weapon in a dangerous situation? Typically patrol cars are dispatched to domestic violence cases because of the potential for explosive situations. Secondary domestic intervention units very rarely have to draw their weapons.
Several aspects of this case need to be investigated so that scenarios such as this don't become a common occurrence. Think they won't if people just sit down and don't raise an alarm about it? Think again.
Disregard all you know about this case, read the following situation, and then answer the question:
Situation:
Two individuals rob a bank. Upon leaving the bank they jump in a car and take the three children and one dog hostage. They take off down the road. A police man sees the car and pulls them over with one supporting officer. The police order the individuals out of the car and the three innocent hostages are so shocked by their current situation and the guns pointing at them they remain quiet [note: it wouldn't have mattered if they did speak up, because the police must ensure that those who claim to be innocent are and they can only do that once the scene is under control]. The dog jumps out of the car and sees his owners distraught and individuals pointing guns at them. The dog gets pissed and runs towards the officers.
Decision time. Should the officer put down his gun, hold out his hand, and love the animal? Or should the officer shoot the dog?
If the choice is A "could" the officer then lose his life? The situation is easy enough to think about. When the robber, who committed a robbery and then kidnapped two individuals, suddenly decides “hell now is my chance”, jumps the officer, manages to wrestle away the shotgun, and kills the officer.
Is this what happened? Hell no. Is it a damn shame what happened to that family? Hell yes. Would we all want heads to roll if it happened to us, let alone our families? Hell YES!!! Did the officer do anything wrong? “Maybe” he should have closed the door, but it is only a maybe. Securing the scene means make sure the suspects are under control first and the dog under control second. If the officer felt that lowering his guard to close the door would put his life in danger as well as his partner then he made the right choice. Could the officer have reacted to the dog differently? Yes. Should he have? I do not know. The simple truth is that one must assume the officer felt the dog was acting aggressively. Remember he still did not know the family was not criminals. If the dog was aggressive and attacked the officer both officers lives would have been in danger. Imagine the dog latched onto one arm. The other officers going to the aid would mean the felons are not being secured. It is messy, but to make ensure the scene did not go from bad to worse shooting the dog was necessary.
[note: If he had known the real situation and the dog was shot then I think we all would feel that the career of the police officer should be at an end]
------------------
Marforp / Sasdor / Kaf / Pofas
Situation:
Two individuals rob a bank. Upon leaving the bank they jump in a car and take the three children and one dog hostage. They take off down the road. A police man sees the car and pulls them over with one supporting officer. The police order the individuals out of the car and the three innocent hostages are so shocked by their current situation and the guns pointing at them they remain quiet [note: it wouldn't have mattered if they did speak up, because the police must ensure that those who claim to be innocent are and they can only do that once the scene is under control]. The dog jumps out of the car and sees his owners distraught and individuals pointing guns at them. The dog gets pissed and runs towards the officers.
Decision time. Should the officer put down his gun, hold out his hand, and love the animal? Or should the officer shoot the dog?
If the choice is A "could" the officer then lose his life? The situation is easy enough to think about. When the robber, who committed a robbery and then kidnapped two individuals, suddenly decides “hell now is my chance”, jumps the officer, manages to wrestle away the shotgun, and kills the officer.
Is this what happened? Hell no. Is it a damn shame what happened to that family? Hell yes. Would we all want heads to roll if it happened to us, let alone our families? Hell YES!!! Did the officer do anything wrong? “Maybe” he should have closed the door, but it is only a maybe. Securing the scene means make sure the suspects are under control first and the dog under control second. If the officer felt that lowering his guard to close the door would put his life in danger as well as his partner then he made the right choice. Could the officer have reacted to the dog differently? Yes. Should he have? I do not know. The simple truth is that one must assume the officer felt the dog was acting aggressively. Remember he still did not know the family was not criminals. If the dog was aggressive and attacked the officer both officers lives would have been in danger. Imagine the dog latched onto one arm. The other officers going to the aid would mean the felons are not being secured. It is messy, but to make ensure the scene did not go from bad to worse shooting the dog was necessary.
[note: If he had known the real situation and the dog was shot then I think we all would feel that the career of the police officer should be at an end]
------------------
Marforp / Sasdor / Kaf / Pofas
Ashiwi-
Although this discussion has taken on a life of it's own and several people have gone off on various paths I'm fairly sure that Thanuk isn't saying that their weren't other issues with the stop. I know I support the decision of the officer to shot the dog, but would approve of reprimanding the dispatcher who passed on the felony information and supervisors of Officer Hall "if" it is found he was reassigned without some additional training after being off the street for a period of time.
------------------
Marforp / Sasdor / Kaf / Pofas
Although this discussion has taken on a life of it's own and several people have gone off on various paths I'm fairly sure that Thanuk isn't saying that their weren't other issues with the stop. I know I support the decision of the officer to shot the dog, but would approve of reprimanding the dispatcher who passed on the felony information and supervisors of Officer Hall "if" it is found he was reassigned without some additional training after being off the street for a period of time.
------------------
Marforp / Sasdor / Kaf / Pofas
I'm gonna add more thing. I realize the officer thought there was some danger, and it's not the intended outcome of the stop he wanted. Bottom line, dog or no dog, property or no property, someone screwed up. Shocking news flash, it was the police department in this case! The dispatcher? Office Hall? The first officers on the location? Does the answer really matter? The family should be taken care of (financially,new dog... whatever). Officer Hall, in my opinion, shouldn't be fired, but he has got to take some responibility in this case. He was the one who fired the shotgun...
Also, I think it is sad this has gotten SO much press, when cases like Thanuk's get none.
I can sit and say "I'd never do something like that if I was a cop" but that is easy for me to say. Probably because in Canada, cops generally aren't as "forceful" as American police. However, American cops tend to have much greater risk, so I feel their steps are justified. I just think this was one shitty thing to happen to that family, but sadly, they aren't the only people to have a bad sitution with the police. Police officer is a tough job, I respect most who do it, but human nature is to make mistakes. Now let's see some justice be served to the family now....hopefully they can get past this horrible night they had.
------------------
Meatshield
[This message has been edited by Vahok (edited 01-15-2003).]
Also, I think it is sad this has gotten SO much press, when cases like Thanuk's get none.
I can sit and say "I'd never do something like that if I was a cop" but that is easy for me to say. Probably because in Canada, cops generally aren't as "forceful" as American police. However, American cops tend to have much greater risk, so I feel their steps are justified. I just think this was one shitty thing to happen to that family, but sadly, they aren't the only people to have a bad sitution with the police. Police officer is a tough job, I respect most who do it, but human nature is to make mistakes. Now let's see some justice be served to the family now....hopefully they can get past this horrible night they had.
------------------
Meatshield
[This message has been edited by Vahok (edited 01-15-2003).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>Thanuk, just to clarify: I think the "distinction" between man and beast is arrogant bullshit. There's nothing that makes us any better, nor more deserving of life than any other organism on this planet.
Second, I'm not oversimplifying. You're argument was that it was ok for the cop to shoot the dog because it was "a piece of property." I'm opposing that statement.
If we want to be more general about this, the officer in question still made mistakes which contributed to the "necessity" of shooting the dog. Leaving the car doors open for instance. There are also other options he had for dealing with the dog once it had gotten out of the car. Pulling a gun is supposed to be a cops _last_ resort, not his first.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok well the thing that separates us from animals is our ability to communicate. The reason we are more deserving to life than other animals is because we can kill them better than they can kill us. If you dont like it, tough shit, cuz thats the way it is.
Second, my argument was, and is, that the cop is allowed to shoot the dog to defend himself. The fact that it was a dog, rather than a person, is my argument as to why this is being blown completely out of proportion, because it really isn't a big deal at all.
Pulling a gun is a cop's last resort on ANOTHER PERSON. Shooting an animal is different from shooting a person. When that bear ate that baby last summer, they didn't go and capture the bear and bring it to the zoo, they fucking shot it. Why? Because its a god damn bear!
I think Mplor explained perfectly why the cop was not so much at fault for leaving the car door open, so I won't bother reiterating. I'm sorry you put the life of an animal on the same level as your own, but society as a whole does not, and that consensus is what makes the rules. The cop shot a dog. Who cares. When the cop shoots a person, then there's a problem. But its only a dog.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
<B>Thanuk, just to clarify: I think the "distinction" between man and beast is arrogant bullshit. There's nothing that makes us any better, nor more deserving of life than any other organism on this planet.
Second, I'm not oversimplifying. You're argument was that it was ok for the cop to shoot the dog because it was "a piece of property." I'm opposing that statement.
If we want to be more general about this, the officer in question still made mistakes which contributed to the "necessity" of shooting the dog. Leaving the car doors open for instance. There are also other options he had for dealing with the dog once it had gotten out of the car. Pulling a gun is supposed to be a cops _last_ resort, not his first.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok well the thing that separates us from animals is our ability to communicate. The reason we are more deserving to life than other animals is because we can kill them better than they can kill us. If you dont like it, tough shit, cuz thats the way it is.
Second, my argument was, and is, that the cop is allowed to shoot the dog to defend himself. The fact that it was a dog, rather than a person, is my argument as to why this is being blown completely out of proportion, because it really isn't a big deal at all.
Pulling a gun is a cop's last resort on ANOTHER PERSON. Shooting an animal is different from shooting a person. When that bear ate that baby last summer, they didn't go and capture the bear and bring it to the zoo, they fucking shot it. Why? Because its a god damn bear!
I think Mplor explained perfectly why the cop was not so much at fault for leaving the car door open, so I won't bother reiterating. I'm sorry you put the life of an animal on the same level as your own, but society as a whole does not, and that consensus is what makes the rules. The cop shot a dog. Who cares. When the cop shoots a person, then there's a problem. But its only a dog.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Gargauth responds to your petition with 'whats your point, we hate you'
Ruarsh,
"The officers holding the shotguns on the family are backup. They arrived after the initial stop and are doing exactly what they are supposed to. Did you expect the officers to ignore them just because they are handcuffed?"
Ok so your sayin it takes one rent-a-cop with a shotgun to watch 10-15 convicts on the side of the road with picks to nail trash, but it takes 3 cops with shotguns to watch a family thats handcuffed and basically immobile?
My bruce lee comment supports this.. There basically immobile I think one officer standin behind them with a shotgun should be enough support, while one of the other two can simply reach out and smack the door shut.
"You expect the officer, in the few seconds he had, to secure his shotgun, unsnap and take out his pepper spray aim and spray the dog before it had the chance to attack him?"
Officer comes into your house suspected robbery at your home, your kid comes out acting like an airplane, your saying it ok for the officer to pop 3 off into your kids head? Oh shit there is your wife she is watchin ricky lake, he doesnt like that show she has to go to.. So yes thats where the "Deadly Force" rules come in. watch the video, the dog is waggin its tail and frolicing, that a real fierce dog. And yes I expect the officer to do that, because he should know his duty belt enough since he setup the way he wants it to pull out the asp or pr-24 to wake the dog in like 2 seconds.. He had enough time to turn all the way around aim at the dogs head, think about it and then boom..
"The officers holding the shotguns on the family are backup. They arrived after the initial stop and are doing exactly what they are supposed to. Did you expect the officers to ignore them just because they are handcuffed?"
Ok so your sayin it takes one rent-a-cop with a shotgun to watch 10-15 convicts on the side of the road with picks to nail trash, but it takes 3 cops with shotguns to watch a family thats handcuffed and basically immobile?
My bruce lee comment supports this.. There basically immobile I think one officer standin behind them with a shotgun should be enough support, while one of the other two can simply reach out and smack the door shut.
"You expect the officer, in the few seconds he had, to secure his shotgun, unsnap and take out his pepper spray aim and spray the dog before it had the chance to attack him?"
Officer comes into your house suspected robbery at your home, your kid comes out acting like an airplane, your saying it ok for the officer to pop 3 off into your kids head? Oh shit there is your wife she is watchin ricky lake, he doesnt like that show she has to go to.. So yes thats where the "Deadly Force" rules come in. watch the video, the dog is waggin its tail and frolicing, that a real fierce dog. And yes I expect the officer to do that, because he should know his duty belt enough since he setup the way he wants it to pull out the asp or pr-24 to wake the dog in like 2 seconds.. He had enough time to turn all the way around aim at the dogs head, think about it and then boom..
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests