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

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Wrong again. Either animal control (usually an on call vet) can remove the head OR THE OWNER. The owner is given the option to prevent having to pay the fees and there are instructions for how to remove the head.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

He was refusing with the order to remove the dogs head. We gather later in the video that he was told he could take it somewhere to do that. Context is your friend.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nobody said this incident wasn't true...there's video of it. It obviously happened. And again, Hollis was on the phone figuring out the details when the man volunteered to go get a kitchen knife and cut his dogs head off. The video doesn't lie. A white trash person raising a violent pit probably does.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The cop is on paid leave while they do a department review. He has not been punished yet. Context is your friend. The start of the video has no context. Stop using a 8 second clip to describe a hour long situation.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Are you highly confused? Did you read this thread? Did you watch the video? Nowhere in the embedded video do you see a dogs head get cut off. That is what people were asking. I was informing them it was safe to watch the embedded video. Context is your friend.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Wrong again. Context is your friend. You are using 8 seconds of a 10 minute clip out of context.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Wrong. It has been outlined several times that he was told he could take the dog somewhere to get the head removed. He volunteered to go get a kitchen knife to do it himself. Read the thread. the time stamps are there.

So many people seem to have never watched the video and are here commenting.

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

Well that's irrelevant because I was specifically talking about how it was not verbal assault, when somebody else said that it could qualify and you quoted laws to try to justify it. You were responding to my posts arguing against things that I never argued about. My entire point is that the officer had no reason to go after the guy physically.

Plus you are wrong. People CAN curse at officers in their face, provided they are calm and not threatening them. It's not always the wisest move, because a cop can lie and say you were threatening or going after them and arrest you, but it's technically legal. For example if I'm pulled over and the officer is right by my window, I'm legally allowed to curse in his face all I want. He's the one who's in my personal space. It would be different if the guy was walking toward the cop screaming profanity and acting like he was going to attack them but I've seen ZERO evidence of this. Based on the video, the only thing the owner did wrong is insult the cops and curse at them on his own property, which is legal.

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.

No the video didn't actually show that. It showed from the moment he was roughed up, so to claim that you know he wasn't walking away is nonsense. You don't know this.

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.

Yeah no kidding, but the law CLEARLY said that the the person doing the "harassing" would have to INTEND to cause emotional stress, plus emotional stress must have been actually caused. It's not completely up to the receiver. That clearly shows that you guys don't understand what harassment is. You can't harass somebody on your own property when they are confronting you. Harassment is basically when you specifically target somebody and go after them to start bashing them and bullying them for the sole purpose of making them feel bad, including stalking them or following them. The way that MO law was worded, confirms this. Cursing at somebody by itself is NOT harassment, ever. Harassment requires the INTENTION of causing emotional stress, and being upset about your dog being gunned down and cursing over it, doesn't qualify based on the wording of the law.

a reply to: Barcs

In your personal space? It seems you are extremely confused about what your rights are during a stop. If you curse at an office through the window he is probably going to ask you to step out of the vehicle, which you have to comply with as it's a reasonable lawful request. There are videos of people being arrested for doing JUST THAT. It gets to a point where it's obstruction because the officer has to complete his stop in a reasonable amount of time and he can determine that you are preventing him from doing his job.

Courts have shown that saying things is itself intent. I showed the rulings. One guy was jailed for calling an officer a facist and the Supreme Court upheld that ruling. Do you think he intended to cause personal distress or instigate a fight by saying that? He probably felt that way and thought he was making an observation. The courts felt differently. There are also varying degrees of harassment. The quoted law is first degree only.

Keep in mind the man in the OP video called the investigator "faggoty". If that's not a direct personal insult intended to cause damage I don't know what is my friend.

Edit: Keep in mind, the officer doesn't have to feel like you had intent. He can just arrest you and let the courts decide if you did. Guess who courts overwhelmingly side with in such cases?

Edit 2: By all means though, I ask you, as I asked the other poster, to film yourself cursing at officers belligerently (as was the case in the OP) and film it for us.

a reply to: raymundoko

I don't care, I've done it plenty of times and never got arrested. You can find court rulings that go against your claims as well. I get that it's up to the discretion of the officer to make the call and there is often gray area involved, but cursing in itself is absolutely not verbal assault or harassment, there has to be more than just that. Nothing the owner did fit that category. Sorry, calling somebody names and cursing in itself is not illegal. Plus courts are NOTORIOUS for siding with the police officers in almost every situation. That has nothing to do with whether or not it's justified. Cops are favored in the legal system. It's always been that way. If it's your word vs theirs, they win 99% of the time due to inherent favoritism and bias that people use to support them, EVEN WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT.

This is why the system is a complete joke. There is so much gray area involved with the law, cops get a free reign to just arbitrarily arrest somebody because they said something offensive or didn't like what they said. Police need to be better trained in de-escalation, like I said above. These types of situations constantly happen when a better approach by the officer could have drastically changed the outcome. Shoot (or arrest) first ask questions later is their mantra and it's not good, when they often gun down the people they are supposed to be protecting and use bully tactics to get people to comply.

Anyways, this is getting way off topic. I'm just looking for evidence that warranted the police officer to push him up against the car in that situation and thus far I've still seen none.

I would stay away from using traffic stops as examples since it is a detention / arrest / stop and certain information is required by law to be provided to law enforcement. There are court cases where officers have busted out car windows because the driver was refusing to roll the window down or refusing to provide information.

The laws are similar / somewhat different when dealing with a situation outside of a motor vehicle / on private property.

Pedigree information is not protected information and states have laws requiring a person to provide certain information to law enforcement.

As for calling officers names like I said before that is more of a state law / state court ruling / local law type thing. Ive worked for an agency that had an ordinance against cussing at law enforcement but like I said i've never used it, no officers to my knowledge have ever used it and I doubt a prosecuting attorney would entertain the charge if it made it to his / her desk.

As for justification to push the guy against his car - if the guys behavior was perceived as erratic or as a potential threat it would be justified in order to retain control of the situation and to get the person to calm down (or at least secured to prevent further escalation). Since the police were lawfully present and conducting a criminal investigation with the guy being the prime suspect he would technically have his movements restricted given circumstances / behavior / etc.

a reply to: Barcs

If you don't see why he was pushed against the truck I have no idea what to tell you. We can hear what he is saying. We can only imagine his body language. His voice inflection is evident. He was warned and let go. I don't see a problem with what happened.

Edit: You also don't get to decide from a video how the officer felt at the time. In real time, if he felt a situation was escalating, he may have felt that is what he needed to do to deescalate.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
As for justification to push the guy against his car - if the guys behavior was perceived as erratic or as a potential threat it would be justified in order to retain control of the situation and to get the person to calm down (or at least secured to prevent further escalation). Since the police were lawfully present and conducting a criminal investigation with the guy being the prime suspect he would technically have his movements restricted given circumstances / behavior / etc.

Yeah I get that. But that's a big if. I'm looking for actual evidence that he was perceived as a threat, because it sounds to me like the officer assaulted him because he was butthurt over his comments, not because he thought he was a threat. I mean the very first thing he says in the video should be a clue. "You don't talk to my officers like that".

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

If you don't see why he was pushed against the truck I have no idea what to tell you. We can hear what he is saying. We can only imagine his body language. His voice inflection is evident. He was warned and let go. I don't see a problem with what happened.

Again, he didn't threaten the officer. He didn't lunge at them, you are just guessing about his body language. Why do people always make excuses for police using excessive force? Cursing at a cop is not an excuse to go after them physically, especially when they are likely upset about their pet being gunned down without any preventative measures or precautions taken by the officers first. The owner had every right to be upset. Shoot first ask questions later, that's how they operate. Police need better training. I'm tired of hearing about incidents like this. At least require some college education, it's pathetic.

Edit: You also don't get to decide from a video how the officer felt at the time. In real time, if he felt a situation was escalating, he may have felt that is what he needed to do to deescalate.

Please stop saying this. I never once suggested that I get to decide anything. I just don't think he was justified in doing that and until I see hard evidence of something more than swearing, I will maintain this position. Swearing is not verbal assault or harassment and shouldn't be treated as such.

a reply to: Barcs

Please stop saying this. I never once suggested that I get to decide anything.

I just don't think he was justified in doing that

Surely you see that those statement contradict each other...You are absolutely deciding that because you got to review a video after the fact you know how the situation should have been handled at the time.

Swearing IS verbal assault and harassment (in some varying degree), especially continued swearing at a person, as defined by MANY local laws/ordinances. Did you know that in GA (and many states) you can be arrested for swearing in front of children 14 and under? That went all the way to the Scotus as well.

a reply to: raymundoko
Listen dude, hindsight is 20/20. But you might be blind, are we talking future tense here? In the opening vid the investigator after getting flustered by the guy talking # back, says. We asked you to cut the head off, and your refusing right? And I quote.

Again. DUH!

Your know if that dude thought he didn't have to cut his dogs head off. Well guess what? We would not be talking about it in this thread. Imagine that, this thread would not exist, and that dog in that opening post link with its head gashed well you get the picture.

No doubt they were all confused on the subject of cutting potential rabid dogs heads off, the cop, the investigator, which is why he called it in. After the effect I may add, and off course the guy who owned the dog, he was confused to.

And your confused as well, or at least playing at it. Here since you like asking stupid question, heres one for you. Dont you have better games to play?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.

I would bet they'd have done just hat, had he not made the video. Not reporting then would look even more biased. At least the jerk cop was suspended, but I won't hold my breath on his being fired.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Wrong again. Either animal control (usually an on call vet) can remove the head OR THE OWNER. The owner is given the option to prevent having to pay the fees and there are instructions for how to remove the head.

According to what? The cop has been placed on suspension, and the article I linked states that is not a normal procedure. Nor would it be a safe procedure, if the dog actually had rabies. Plus, threatening the owner with jail, if he didn't want to do it? Far from standard procedure!!!

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

He was refusing with the order to remove the dogs head. We gather later in the video that he was told he could take it somewhere to do that. Context is your friend.

Normal procedure is NOT to order a pet owner, under threat of jail, to cut off the head of an animal, to have it tested for rabies. Hence the cop being suspended. He wasn't told he "could" decide to do it; he was told he had to do it, and threatened with jail. He was wrong. Already posted the link for that.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nobody said this incident wasn't true...there's video of it. It obviously happened. And again, Hollis was on the phone figuring out the details when the man volunteered to go get a kitchen knife and cut his dogs head off. The video doesn't lie. A white trash person raising a violent pit probably does.

Actually, a lot of people in the thread were speculating about it being a hoax of some sort. Sheesh, read the thread through, and you can see that for yourself.

Hollis was on the phone after threatening the guy with jail, and after assaulting him for his free speech. Hollis was suspended.

"White trash"? Now you sound like the cop. That's a racist comment.