Cops Kill Family’s Dog in Front of Kids, Force Dad to Cut Its Head Off Or Go To Jail

a reply to: Barcs

He was never taken to the ground, He was turned around and made to face the hood of his truck. It wasn't even enough force for him to drop his phone.

The law allows an officer to act on how he feels at the time. What we may see after the fact is not how an officer may have interpreted something at the time.

We are getting off topic here. Ultimately the premise of the OP was a lie. He was never forced to cut the head of his dog off. The discussion around fighting words and harassment only came up because some very ignorant individuals made the claim that you can say whatever you want to an officer without repercussion, and that if they wanted they could fly to another state to cuss someone out. The law is very explicit that you can't just do that.

a reply to: raymundoko

That part wasn't really shown in the video, so it's hard to say whether he was or wasn't taken to the ground. That's what he said to the officer afterwards and that's the main thing he was complaining about. The phone was obviously in his shirt pocket, not in his hand. Why else would it be facing away from the cop while he was talking to him?

The law allows an officer to act on how he feels at the time. What we may see after the fact is not how an officer may have interpreted something at the time.

Sorry, that is not the law. "How he feels at the time"? That could literally justify ANYTHING, no matter how wrong it is. I'm sorry, but you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill here. The guy was not threatening or aggressive to the cop AT ALL. No police officer should feel threatened by some guy complaining about how they treated him and cursing about it. Police don't get free reign to make arbitrary decisions like that based on nothing but somebody swearing. You can't arrest somebody for cursing and it really bothers me how people equate swearing to verbal assault, when that notion is completely ludicrous. Sorry the cop was wrong if he attempted to arrest somebody or push them up on the car violently, simply for walking away cursing. That is not violent, threatening or harassing in the least, and it could be argued that forcing the guy up against his truck was WAY more threatening than anything the guy said. It's double standards like this that annoy me. I could see that if he threatened them or walked toward them and got in their face acting belligerent, but that didn't happen.

The discussion around fighting words and harassment only came up because some very ignorant individuals made the claim that you can say whatever you want to an officer without repercussion, and that if they wanted they could fly to another state to cuss someone out.

No, it's because people are equating cursing to verbal assault and harassment when it's not the same thing. It sounds to me like the very ignorant individuals are the ones claiming the owner was making the officer fear for his safety when that's not even remotely close to the case here. Technically you CAN say almost anything to a police officer provided you are calm and don't threaten them. There is no law that says you can't curse or says you HAVE to respect a police officer and the owner even apologized at the end for being disrespectful. He didn't use fighting words.

There comes a time when you have to use common sense. In my state it is technically illegal to frown at a cop (yeah it's stupid), but I've never ever even heard of that being enforced. Laws like that are only made because police lobby for them so they can get away with treating people like crap and they can't even defend themselves. They aren't realistic in the least. I've frowned at and argued with cops while cursing many times, but I was well within my rights to do so, because I didn't do it in a threatening manner. That is what matters.

a reply to: Barcs

The term you are looking for is "passive resistance". A legal argument could also be made for obstruction against the guy for the way he was behaving.

With that said they tried to explain to the guy what needed to be done and the guy opted to not listen. At that point its on the guy for failing to listen or let the officers finish what they were saying. If the guy misinterpreted what the officers said because of his own action that is on him and not law enforcement.

We are each responsible for our own actions.

originally posted by: TamtammyMacx
a reply to: Barcs

When he said he was going into the house to get a knife, I thought this would have been a terribly wrong move. Coming out of the house wielding a knife, all irate. They probably could have shot him by law.

It would all depend on how he was acting with the knife. Contrary to what we see on tv possession of a knife, firearm or weapon in front of law enforcement is not in and of itself an illegal act. Its what the person is doing while in possession of the item.

a reply to: Barcs

I am not saying that's what happened, I am telling you what the law is.

Legally, what most matters in these shootings is whether police officers reasonably believed that their or others' lives were in danger, not whether the shooting victim actually posed a threat.

Article from Vox

That is just an example of when there is a police shooting involved, but it applies to many other things as well.

And someone can be arrested for swearing. For example: In Georgia you can be charged with a misdemeanor and arrested for cursing in front of children 14 and under. It all depends on how the children or the parents of the children feel about how it happened.

Nobody ever claimed the officers feared for their safety because of the homeowner. You are going to have to quote that. The video makes it quite clear the officers never once feared for their safety from the home owner. Just the dog that tried to attack the officer, twice. Cursing at someone in Georgia is harassment. Just like the MO law quoted above, GA protects people from being verbally attacked.

Concerning if he was taken down or not, it is at the beginning of the video. You can hear the officer telling him he will not address any deputies in such a manner. You can see the guy is against the hood of his truck and you can see he is standing. The dog owner says "really" and you can hear that he gets pushed against his truck. This all takes place between 10 and 19 seconds. He edits the video and at 20 it seems a few minutes has gone by. He was never taken to the ground. The officers showed restraint. They could have arrested him for obstruction at any point most likely.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not buying obstruction. All of the delays were seemingly caused because the officer decided to physically assault a person who was not a threat. This is why police need to be better trained in de-esclation. The officer could have given the guy a few minutes to let out his frustrations and cool off, but instead he went after him and made it worse. The owner was walking away from the officers, cursing loudly. Think about it. Why wouldn't anyone be upset at the death of a family member. It's understandable. I know many people that have lost pets or other loved ones and acted irrationally afterwards. It's human nature.

a reply to: Barcs

and people need to understand that just because they don't agree with a directive from a police officer doesn't mean they can ignore it.

Unlike civilians law enforcement is empowered to make an arrest / detain an individual during an official action. That authority comes with the ability of being able to escalate force to overcome the level of resistance being encountered. The person was not assaulted and simply making that claim based on non understanding of the law does not make it any more true.

I can understand being upset about a family dog being dispatched however given totality of circumstances it was justified in this case. The dog already bit a neighbor prior to law enforcement being called out. The dog charged the officers - twice.

GA for animal abuse exempts law enforcement during their duties. GA law also places all liability on the dogs owner. GA law allows for a review of the situation and allows for the consideration of the dog being provoked by a 3rd party before it attacks anyone / anything. In this case it already attacked and bit the neighbor. The type of dog under GA law is considered dangerous / vicious, meaning the owner is required y law to have the dog on a leash or in an enclosed area on the property. Allowing it to roam freely is a law violation.

The officers tried to explain the situation to the suspect and he refused to listen to what they were saying. Instead he opted to run his mouth while ignoring what the officers were telling him.

Leeway in situations is at the officers discretion however when it becomes clear a wall has been reached that leeway ends.

People really need to get out of this false mindset that it is ok to challenge law enforcement authority at the scene instead of using the legally established channels to do so. A prosecuting attorney / judge / jury are the ones who decide if law enforcement action is lawful or not - not the suspect and certainly not in the middle of the call.

Running around like a ranting loon can create a safety hazard for the officers involved, 3rd parties who are present / close and the suspect himself.

Whether you buy an obstruction argument or not is not my concern. I am explaining to you the side of the situation that you and others refuse to look at for whatever reasons.

Ignoring that side /dismissing that side does not mean it is a non factor and is not relevant.

Ask - tell - make.
Cool off time is at the officers discretion. There are occasions where temporarily detaining a person is whats needed to force a cool down. Allowing a person to rant / rave / get amped up can cause more serious issues than it could resolve.

a reply to: raymundoko

Legally, what most matters in these shootings is whether police officers reasonably believed that their or others' lives were in danger, not whether the shooting victim actually posed a threat.

Yes. I agree. There was nothing reasonable about believing they were in danger, as he was walking away from them when it happened. This is why I'm saying that people are more hung up on the cursing and insults, than the actual actions. I feel like the officer only went after him because he was upset with what the guy said, rather than actually thinking he was in danger.

Nobody ever claimed the officers feared for their safety because of the homeowner. You are going to have to quote that. The video makes it quite clear the officers never once feared for their safety from the home owner.

Then why were all the rules about verbal assault and harassment quoted, specifically referring to their safety being in danger? That was your argument against me saying that cursing and insulting somebody isn't the same as verbal assault.
Cursing around a minor is a different thing. I've been arguing that the owner didn't do anything to warrant being hurt by the officer and that cursing is not justification for that. I get that the owner misinterpreted what the officer was saying, but he could have just let him vent and cool off. It was poorly handled.

Cursing at someone in Georgia is harassment. Just like the MO law quoted above, GA protects people from being verbally attacked.

This is directly quoted from that source:

A person commits the offense of harassment in the first degree if he or she, without good cause, engages in any act with the purpose to cause emotional distress to another person, and such act does cause such person to suffer emotional distress.

Where does it mention swearing? The owner didn't intend to commit emotional stress to the officer. Did the officer suffer emotional stress? Did he have to be treated for it afterwards? Of course not, he just got upset with what he said and went after him. He got emotional, sure, but come on. That is extreme straw grasping to call that harassment.

a reply to: notsure1

Good grief, what a mess! The uniformed cop was trying to be professional, and the owner did seem to understand that the uniformed cop might have had to shoot the dog. He wondered, since he wasn't present, and wasn't happy, of course, that the dog was shot, but that wasn't his key issue. The real issue here is that the other cop, the one in the purple shirt, was a complete idiot, and a real jerk. Possibly racist.

The head of the dog would have to go in for rabies testing, which is done through examination of the brain. No issue there. However, the uniformed cop even stated that "they" could remove the head - presumably animal control or a local vet - or he could, but the jerk cop wouldn't let the guy move from the yard. After attacking him for his free speech, he's told to cut the head off - highly irregular - but he's not allowed to go inside for an implement to do the job. There is absolutely no reason to demand that a pet owner be required to remove the head from their own pet, after it's been shot. No reason to attack hi for his words, or his volume. That plain clothes cop caused a huge issue here, when it wasn't necessary.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: notsure1

Vets don't do the test. They just send it on. If they know what it's for, then there shouldn't be a problem. That's like refusing to take a stool sample in because ... who takes sh!t to the vet? Sick people, that's who.

True, but no one demands that the owner remove the head. That's done by the vet, and then they send it for testing. I'd guess the vet told the cops they could bring the animal in, for the head to be removed, and the cop decided to be a bigger jerk than he already was, and demanded that the owner remove the head. Highly irregular. I worked as a vet tech in the Army, and with a civilian vet later, and never heard of such a demand being made.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: notsure1

If the animal was acting funny, it can be an indicator. Not every animal with rabies bites, and all it takes is to get saliva or body fluids into an open sore with exposed nerve endings.

No one takes chances with it because it is fatal. Once the virus hits your brain, you are dead, and while the virus travels along your nerves it is extremely difficult to actually diagnose it ... until it hits your CNS. By then, it's pretty much too late to do much to help you.

That's why they don't take many chances with it and if they think an animal might have it and might have exposed you to it, they generally test the animal which is, unfortunately, fatal to the animal.

Now, in this case, the cop is more than likely being a jerk.

Even way back when I was in the Army, a person could receive three shots - small needle, in the arm - if bitten, and rabies was suspected. Easily treatable. As for testing, once the dog was shot, yes, testing the brain is the only option. An animal still alive, though, can be simply quarantined for ten days, to see if they start to show signs. We did that many times. No bite in this case, and unless they suspected a local outbreak, no reason to even have the dog tested. No reason, ever, to demand the owner remove the head, threaten to arrest hi if he refuses, then tell him he can't even go inside for a tool to do the job.

That plain clothes cop was way out of line.

originally posted by: Meee32
Okay so if the dog did bite the neighbour and it did charge at the police and they had to shoot it then damn right the owner should cut it's bloody head off! The owner is responsible for his dogs actions! He is responsible for taking care of it and keeping it under control!

So therefore he is also responsible for removing it's head... I'm sure if he asked the officers to wait he could pay a vet to come down and do it. Why should others have to fork out because of his dog?

I do also believe that the dog charged at them as he wasn't denying it when they talked about it on video.

I'm sure most responsible dog owners would see a change in their dog and know something is wrong long before anything happened and they would take it to the vets to have it checked out. The guy recording was an entitled, irresposible douche.

No, that's not standard procedure. I worked with vets in the Army, and with a civilian one later, and no one demands that a pet owner remove a head for rabies testing. Yes, the dog would have to be tested, if it bit a neighbor, as claimed, but that procedure is left to professionals. Billing the owner for the costs would be reasonable; demanding that he remove the head himself, or face jail, is not reasonable. That plainclothes cop was abusing his power, by that action, and also by attacking the man for his speech alone. He even stated that was why he grabbed him.

We don't know why the fog bit someone, either, if in fact he did bite someone. Perhaps this was a problem dog, or perhaps a neighbor was in the wrong yard, or did something that provoked the animal. Either way, the owner even stated that "it is what it is", in regard to shooting the dog. His big issue was with the power-tripping plainclothes cop. The uniformed cop was trying to be professional, and people need to note that. Shooting a dog that comes at you, that is already reported to have bitten someone else, isn't unreasonable.

The roper procedure would be for Fish and Game to transport the dog in, to have the head removed, then have that sent in to be tested. Having the owner cut it off in the yard is flat out barbaric, and highly irregular.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JBurns

The other weird part is the fact this story is not being covered by media, either locally or nationally. I find that odd given the circumstances and the medias hatred of law enforcement. Even the Sheriff's department website has no mention of the incident.

Of course not - the offending cop is black, and the dog owner is white. That doesn't fit the narrative that the media wants to portray.

I don't know if this is posted yet or not, but this incident is quite true.

Crawford sheriff: Investigator shouldn't have told man to behead dead dog

From that source -

“He said you got two options: you can either remove the dog's head or take him to the vet and they can remove it,” says the dog’s owner, Joe Goodwin.

Goodwin says he asked if he could take the dog to the vet, but Investigator Hollis would not let him leave the scene.

“No, we've got to have it right now, and you’re not going anywhere. I’m still conducting my investigation,” says Goodwin explaining what the investigator told him.

Then Goodwin says the investigator told him he could either remove his dog's head or go to jail, so he says he removed the head.

“That shouldn't have been done on the scene, from what I gathered,” says Walker.

Walker says they are still investigating what happened, but he says as he understands it. His officers should not play any role in investigating whether the dog was rabid.

“We would not transfer an animal in that situation. That’s up to the health department. We would respond, and we would notify them,” says Walker.

Walker says the county's health department should have been at the scene and handled any rabies testing.

Walker says this is still under investigation. Investigator James Hollis has been placed on administrative leave.

So, yes, this was highly irregular. Hollis, the cop in purple shirt and bowtie, was abusing his power, and very out of line.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: MountainLaurel

Nowhere in the video is a dead dog shown, nor is a head removed. Never was he forced to cut the head off. The title is a lie.

Nope, it's all true. Posted the link moments ago.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Show me in the video where anyone forced him to do this...

He is even told WHERE he can take the dog to have the head removed. He VOLUNTEERS to go get a kitchen knife and cut the dogs head off.

Try the start of the video, where Hollis, the plain clothes cop, states he will have the dog owner tossed in jail if he refuses. No, that isn't "volunteering", and the cop is on leave now.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JBurns

The other weird part is the fact this story is not being covered by media, either locally or nationally. I find that odd given the circumstances and the medias hatred of law enforcement. Even the Sheriff's department website has no mention of the incident.

Of course not - the offending cop is black, and the dog owner is white. That doesn't fit the narrative that the media wants to portray.

I am surprised the media didnt report on it and just opt to not show photos of the officers involved.

a reply to: raymundoko
Yes it had to be sent to a lab then cut off, which is why they don't cut off then send to a lab. Its not smart to cut off a rabies invested dogs head with a kitchen knife in the grass somewhere while people walk idly by looking on. When they say requires head to be removed and sent to a lab, they mean send dog body to a lab, head removed by a professional, then sent to another lab for testing.

Duh! Oh and the dog is dead, were not talking about that, just like were not talking about like you said earlier, and I quote.

He was never asked to cut his own pets head off. Why is this lie still be perpetuated?

Oh yes, that is exactly what he was asked, now maybe its because the so called detective there did not know procedure, which is good that he called in to ask on procedure. But clearly, the guy and even the cop that shot the dog thought that, even the cop at one point tried to sympathize with the guy by saying something along the lines of. "I could never cut off the head of my dog, feel sorry for you buddy"

So, ya...Head removed and sent to a lab. Now what do you think that means?

a reply to: Barcs

I explained why the rules were discussed. Read the thread. A poster told people here that you can cuss in the face of an officer without anything happening. I explained how that wasn't true. I even said it was off topic.

He was NOT walking away from the officer when he was cursing at them. He had to be turned around and put on his truck. It's at the beginning of the video.

It's not up to you to decide if someone caused emotional stress, it's up to the person who got verbally assaulted, then it's up to a judge/jury.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. He was told he "could take the dog up there right now". I don't think you watched the video. He said he would rather go get a kitchen knife and do it himself.