Caught on Video: Furious Man Confronts Police Officers After a Cop Entered His Private Property and

a reply to: g146541

It's not the money for the dogs' life. It's money because that's what the world seems to believe in. If the bubs were seen as something with value, the Walking Scum with Guns should think twice before they go off shooting our fur-babies.

It's sad that it's a viable option, though. It's about all we can do though, since we sure as sherpas won't get 'human rights' for 'dogmanity'. Heh. Petmanity? lol.

Wow. Twice. SORRY!!!!

Can some one delete these two mistakes? =(

this mouse.....sorry

originally posted by: gladtobehere
Was anyone else expecting the storm troopers to attack the home/dog owner?

NOPE!
The guy had a camera and they knew it, they also probably believed that the footage was going to a cloud server as well.
This is why none of them got an attitude, all the sergeant could do was stand there with his head down and hope the guy did something.
Cameras to cops are like flashlights to cockroaches, turn one on and watch them cower and scramble.
I wish the thug who murdered the dog had one on at the time of the shooting, it might have made it easier to prove his guilt.
Anything with a badge needs a tamper proof camera as well, full recording from check out to check in.
The equipment should be more important than their gun and radio.

originally posted by: sirhumperdink
the pay outs will always be less than the pay ins so no thats a horrible idea
all you would be doing is dumping tons of money into insurance companies
if anything they would lobby for more dog shootings so more people would fear enough to buy the insurance

NO, I don't think you understood the overall legal strategy that I have laid out. The purpose is not to get a large payout from the insurance company after the dogs death by cop. The purpose if to make the insurance company get involved on the legal side, once a dog is killed, especially in large numbers among policy holders. The legal effect against Law Enforcement would be even greater, if all dogs shot by police happened to be covered by the same insurer, as well. They would likely draw up real data, about police shooting dogs, to strengthen their cases.

Remember the insurance company would have to pay out the claim, for a dogs death by cop. Do they want to pay it or would they rather the negligent police department pay it instead? If there was an insured horse and a cop shot it for feeling threatened you better believe the insurance companies would spend the money in court fees to get the department to pay up. Once the case is settled I also guarantee the department, on the losing end, would make a long standing public policy against shooting insured horses (some horses can be insured for MILLIONS of dollars BTW). You never know what kind of precedents are out there on the legal books for animals covered under Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance. Which the insurance companies have certainly fought and paid for through legal expenses over many decades. Law Enforcement certainly doesn't know ANY of them and could end up unpleasantly surprised in a court room after a wrongful dog shooting.

Here is an example scenario, but on a much larger scale I admit:

www.winnipegfreepress.com...

In this case the local government ordered a dairy farm to evacuate their cows, due to possible flooding, despite their having built up temporary dams around the farm. In the end 13 cows died from the mandatory evacuation and upon return the remaining cows had production problems, so in turn, the dairy farm filed a claim with their livestock insurer. The insurer doesn't want to pay them, so they have taken the case to court. SO, if the court rules that the insurer MUST pay out to the farm, you can guarantee that the insurer is going to get that money back from the local government which issued the mandatory evacuation.

originally posted by: Hushabye
It's not the money for the dogs' life. It's money because that's what the world seems to believe in. If the bubs were seen as something with value, the Walking Scum with Guns should think twice before they go off shooting our fur-babies.

It's sad that it's a viable option, though. It's about all we can do though, since we sure as sherpas won't get 'human rights' for 'dogmanity'. Heh. Petmanity? lol.

Correct, as I stated, if the number of dog owners carrying Animal & Livestock Mortality increases, the chances of a dog being shot by police that is carrying such insurance also increases. Since we know the individual police officers will not be prosecuted and that the laws will not change, the only solution is to make insurance companies take up the fight for us, based SOLELY on the fact that the insurance company doesn't want to be paying out money every time a scared cop shots a non threatening dog. Just like my horse example above, if cops shoot enough insured dogs in a negligent manner, the insurance companies are going to be make it a big headache for any department that does so willy-nilly. To my knowledge, there have been no dogs shot that were carrying Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance. However, there have been more than a few breeding show dogs shot by law enforcement and in those cases the Police departments settled for much more then the standard $300 plus medical expenses. Imagine if those dogs had been insured as well, the pay out amount in damages would likely have been much higher. Also remember, the insurance covering the individual officer and the departments insurers will also be involved in the legal discussion about payout. Three insurance companies talking about a claim, involving a negligent cop whom shot a dog due to irrational fear, can't be good for institutional public policies that encourage officers to shoot civilian owned dogs on a whim.

Example of Law Enforcement coverage exclusion suit:

www.insurerereport.com...

So another question to those in the Animal & Livestock Insurance industry, is it possible to have a custom policy written up, that only covers accidental death by Law Enforcement personnel? How would an underwriter respond to such a request? My guess is that such an event would be considered very rare, with low risk to the insurer. So, would that mean a person could get low premium coverage on a dog with an established insured value, based on Animal & Livestock Mortality Insurance standards? The AKC already works with Hartford providing Dog Club insurance, I'd imagine they would be interested in expanding their markets that increase their overall revenue.

It's an absolute disgrace.... no excuse whatsoever.
They should be made to carry a small tranq gun at all times, in case of a "dog encounter" or I dunno.... just not shoot dogs?
Like the guy said, a dog was barking, DON'T go in there.... it's really simple.

Honestly, I give taht guy a lot of credit for how he handled the situation. I likely would have ended up in jail.

Takes a lot of guts to confront officers like that.

My dog is family. Any attack on her is an attack on me. These scumbag cops should be sent to prison and never be allowed in any positions of power ever again. Too many stupid people becoming cops.

The cops have murdered my pet before and there was little I could do in the moment since they flashbanged me, had me disoriented, and then handcuffed face down. Never even saw the face of the cop who did it so I can't get revenge.

If I was up and conscious in the moment when a cop killed my dog though one of us would be leaving the scene in a body bag... I don't really care which of us.

a reply to: boohoo

i think you dont get it
its not like a large percentage of dogs are being shot so if people took out policies for that then the insurance companies would be receiving far more money than they would be paying out in claims
meaning it is not in their best interest to lobby for tighter regulations on the police force
if the shootings stopped so would all the profit they received from the policies
they will not insure you if they think they can lose money on it in the first place so its not like youre going to be able to insure your dog for millions of dollars or something (maybe you can but your premiums will be higher than the vast majority could pay and again they would be making money hand over fist because for every claim made there will be hundreds more that pay premiums for the natural life of the dog with no incident)

Our world is upside down and backwards. I hope the miserable coward spends the rest of his tiny little life miserable, alone and afraid of his own shadow.

a reply to: gladtobehere

This is Not what this is supposed to be Police should not be killing innocent animals and that's what they are innocent.

nothing will justify this NO REASON for this. Cops Can walk up on a property Slow As the would if there was a PERP . AND

No Sighn of th PERP You walk out SLOW Leaving Behind any animal That Might have done Bad. And Any Animal will let yo Go.

Nice and Slow. No Shots, and NO Agression.

More evidence the Pigs are completely out of control and its only a matter of time before they do this to the wrong person. Police get zero respect from me and I honestly think they are being told to do stuff like this to suit some nefarious agenda.

Perhaps the attitude of the LEOs is based on their experience with dogs. Dogs aren't pets to them, they are either drug sniffing dogs or attack dogs and a part of their "team". Your dog is a tool or a weapon, not a beloved pet.

Of course, their dogs are considered an "officer", the same as a cop, and they will not tolerate any "criminal" injuring or killing their fellow K9 officers. That cop dog probably has more rights than the average common citizen, esp. in a beat-down confrontation with the cops.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Perhaps the attitude of the LEOs is based on their experience with dogs. Dogs aren't pets to them, they are either drug sniffing dogs or attack dogs and a part of their "team". Your dog is a tool or a weapon, not a beloved pet.

Of course, their dogs are considered an "officer", the same as a cop, and they will not tolerate any "criminal" injuring or killing their fellow K9 officers. That cop dog probably has more rights than the average common citizen, esp. in a beat-down confrontation with the cops.

Their dogs are considered on par with humans. If they see their dogs on the same level as people, you have to conclude they see our dogs on par with people too. Then again, considering how wanton police brutality is these days I would say they don't distinguish much between us and our pets when using force. Maybe dogs really do equal people. The real divide is just cops vs civilians.

a reply to: Aazadan

Good points. I understand that the human LEO that partners with the cop-dog can get attached to it like a pet, but the dogs are trained to attack the perp. They are dogs of war, a weapon for the cops, so why wouldn't your dog be a weapon? They would shoot you if you brandished a gun, so why wouldn't they shoot a dog baring its teeth? This type of attitude is the only way I can see how they could justify killing someone's pet dog.

I do wonder if they are shooting any little yappy ankle-biting dogs or just larger breeds that could actually pose a threat.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Perhaps the attitude of the LEOs is based on their experience with dogs. Dogs aren't pets to them, they are either drug sniffing dogs or attack dogs and a part of their "team". Your dog is a tool or a weapon, not a beloved pet.

Of course, their dogs are considered an "officer", the same as a cop, and they will not tolerate any "criminal" injuring or killing their fellow K9 officers. That cop dog probably has more rights than the average common citizen, esp. in a beat-down confrontation with the cops.

Their dogs are considered on par with humans. If they see their dogs on the same level as people, you have to conclude they see our dogs on par with people too. Then again, considering how wanton police brutality is these days I would say they don't distinguish much between us and our pets when using force. Maybe dogs really do equal people. The real divide is just cops vs civilians.

I agree. If their K-9 dogs are considered an officer, then civilian dogs are civilians...PERIOD. They should have the same investigation as if they killed a civilian human. I think that even without the "their dogs are officers" stipulation, but it lends ALOT to the argument.
I believe ANYTIME they discharge a weapon, it should be investigated from a life or death perspective, and not as a whimpy 'perceived' threat. They are frickin' cops for Christ's sake..they know there are some risks, and if a dog in his own backyard cannot be overcome without killing it, then go into perfume sales at the mall or something you can handle without a dead (IMO) family member being the way you handle your business.

ETA: I know their jobs ARE hard, but I have also worked in a similar manner where I went onto peoples property with dogs, unannounced, and never...in about 6-7 dozen times have I ever "perceived" a threat from any of them. Do they not receive ANY training on this??
I did.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Yes they are shooting yappy ankle biters too.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

My dog is my best friend and I might very well be in jail if a cop did that. Could not watch the video, why did they break in his yard in first place. Did he have a warrant. Every cop carries mace and that is all needed against a dog.

He could learn something from mailman, think if they shot every dog that bit them lol.

Look at albq police, have you seen the video where they just shoot down the homeless man who is just trying to get away. Not even near them, no gestures, just shot down. The first time they bring these guys up on murder charges this crap would stop.

The dog killer needs to be used as training bait for protection dogs without any protection and let em chew him up.

The Bot

originally posted by: dlbott
a reply to: nighthawk1954

My dog is my best friend and I might very well be in jail if a cop did that. Could not watch the video, why did they break in his yard in first place. Did he have a warrant. Every cop carries mace and that is all needed against a dog.

He could learn something from mailman, think if they shot every dog that bit them lol.

Look at albq police, have you seen the video where they just shoot down the homeless man who is just trying to get away. Not even near them, no gestures, just shot down. The first time they bring these guys up on murder charges this crap would stop.

The dog killer needs to be used as training bait for protection dogs without any protection and let em chew him up.

The Bot

@ The Bot,

I agree... they start charging these officers, as they should be applying the APPROPRIATE law to the officers as well, then these things would stop in a rather quick manner. If I kill a dog on someone's property...or anywhere if it was not a life or death measure, then I would be criminally and/or civilly responsible. I did a 90 minute training on how to deal with hostile dogs and never was bitten, attacked or even scared (granted there were a few hostile approaches, but the training worked) just by the 90 minute (computer administered) course that just made you AWARE of how the dog scenarios worked....I'd say close to 100 encounters.....I am not a cop with a gun, and never had to kill an animal, or even leave a premises as a result. Never even had to use the spray we were given. I wonder....would I be dead now if I applied these solutions as a cop on the job. A massive 99.999999999999% of me thinks not.

Sorry - heavy on the edit today for qualifying my thoughts.

I have two thoughts on the matter to add:

1. If police cannot handle a dog, in it's own yard, without killing it, then how likely are they to gun down an accused, perhaps innocent, person?

2. If the answer is to shoot first, and ask questions later, than is a potential perp (let's say innocent, for the sake of argument) suddenly finding it in their best interest to shoot first too, knowing that they are in a life or death scenario from the get go?

I always thought there was a "give yourself up" clause, but I think it is all shoot and stammer for justifications (which does not need to be much...they know that).
I know I would hate to be confronted by a cop in some (proverbial) dark alley and have to grovel for my life (as a non-criminally inclined civilian) and then wonder if my belt buckle shines wrong or I actually have the gall to challenge the cop as to my detainment would be a life ending move.