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

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

The video is a lot longer than eight seconds. Try actually watching it. You can see the cop assault the man, and you can hear him admit to threatening the guy with jail. Stop trying to deflect from the facts.

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

Good grief - FIVE posts to me? What, you can't respond in one, and have to repeat everything, over and over again??

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

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

You already posted that nonsense. Repeating it doesn't make you right.

The cop is wrong, and his employers have already stated that fact.

The Crawford County Sheriff says one of his investigators should not have ordered a man to cut off the head of his dog as a way to check for rabies.

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

source

You are still wrong, and so was Hollis. His racism apparently got the better of any common sense he might have had.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You replied to me five times...I replied to each one of your replies...do you not realize you did that?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Context is your friend. Nice selective reading:

He says it is standard protocol to call the Crawford County Health Department when they think a dog could be rabid, but he says they are investigating what happened next.

As in they are still getting all the details. Nobody was ordered to do anything and that is what they will find out.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Nobody was assaulted and that's your own misunderstanding of law. He wasn't threatened with Jail for not cutting a dogs head off and the fact you don't understand that speaks volumes. He was threatened with Jail for how he was acting towards the officers. He could have been arrested for Obstruction most likely if he continued how he was acting.

originally posted by: raymundoko

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.

Surely you understand what the word "decide" means? Just because I have an opinion, doesn't mean I'm claiming to have power to decide anything over police officers. You have a knack for posting non sequiturs, which is why we keep getting so off topic. Again, I saw no reason for the conflict to get physical as escalated by the officer.

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.

Dude, stop posting irrelevant arguments. This situation is not "swearing in front of a minor". I never argued that it was okay to do that. He was using adult language around adults, can we please stick to the topic? No, swearing is absolutely NOT verbal assault or harassment. The way the laws are worded in regards to that, clearly show that you have to go beyond just swearing. I already explained and broke down the exact wording of that MO law that was posted earlier in the thread. That was pretty much ignored and you keep making excuses for the officer without any hard evidence that he was justified in going after the guy physically.

Obstruction of justice is laughable. The police are completely responsible for causing the huge delay because they shot the dog without even asking the owner to subdue it first, and then went after the owner physically because they were upset with his comments. It's is absurdity of the highest degree to pin the delays on the owner, when all of it could have been prevented, had the officers been respectful of life instead of just gunning down the dog before even trying to contact the owner. It was completely mishandled by the police and unnecessarily escalated by them TWICE.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nobody was threatened with Jail for not cutting a dogs head off. That is a bald faced lie. It's normal procedure to put an officer on administrative leave (different from suspension) during an investigation into their actions. I am sorry you don't understand how this works.

He wasn't told he "could" decide to do it; he was told he had to do it, and threatened with jail.

That is a total fabrication and no link you provided supports that false statement.

a reply to: Barcs

Wrong again. You broke down FIRST DEGREE harassment law. I already showed there are varying degrees of harrassment, and cursing at someone continuously is covered under almost all local ordinances. Understand the difference in degrees when it comes to breaking the law. And he was in front of kids, his own. His original post said his kids witnessed the entire thing.

You are also extremely confused yet again. The owner in the video (the male) was not home when this happened. We hear in the video that the dog charged the officer twice. The officers says he tried to get the wife to call it off and she couldn't. It seems you went into this whole thing with a predisposition to what you thought happened and only heard what you wanted to.

Here you are again, deciding in hindsight, that the officer should have given the owner more of a chance to subdue the dog.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Context is your friend. Nice selective reading:

He says it is standard protocol to call the Crawford County Health Department when they think a dog could be rabid, but he says they are investigating what happened next.

As in they are still getting all the details. Nobody was ordered to do anything and that is what they will find out.

Again, WRONG! Watch the video, already. The cop states that he did, in FACT, order that, and asks the man if he's refusing. What are you doing, selective listening???

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Nobody was assaulted and that's your own misunderstanding of law. He wasn't threatened with Jail for not cutting a dogs head off and the fact you don't understand that speaks volumes. He was threatened with Jail for how he was acting towards the officers. He could have been arrested for Obstruction most likely if he continued how he was acting.

Wrong, again. He attacked the man for speaking as he was, and stated that was his reason. A cop isn't legally allowed to assault someone who is standing still, not attacking the cop, because the cop is a whiny baby who doesn't like the words used. Cops are not above the law, and that one broke it. The other did his best to try and cal things, but the one was very much in the wrong. All of the evidence disagrees with your opinions.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

No one was attacked.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

He asked if he is refusing to comply with the order to remove the dogs head. He never threatens to arrest him for that. It was a perfectly reasonable question. Do YOU have selective listening?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nobody was assaulted. The situation isn't under review for assault. The review board is trying to determine if the officers forced the man to cut the dogs head off. The review was opened based on the news pieces. The news pieces already came out and said they were not provided the entire video, but only a 20 second clip of the event and the portion of him cutting the head off while he had the department of health on the phone. Source

Some of the pieces have even provided corrected stories: Source

CRAWFORD COUNTY, GA - The Crawford County Sheriff's Office says a man who removed his dog's head for rabies testing was given options before the animal was beheaded.

Hollis is back on active duty. He was not punished. Source

The bite victim had to be taken to the hospital:

The deputy made contact with the woman who was attacked by the dog. She sustained bites to her leg and was taken to the hospital, the news release states.

Which is why the deputy was forced to shoot the dog when it lunged at him the second time.

It says Joe Goodwin then began arguing with the officer but was given options concerning how to handle the dead animal.

"The Crawford County Health Department was notified and the owner of the dog was advised, by that agency, of the state rabies testing requirements and options regarding the dog," according to the sheriff's office news release.

So it was the health department that said the dogs head had to be removed. That explains the "well she said" comment about a woman who was giving instructions in the video.

Goodwin conveniently left this out when the news stories broke, but was pressed and admitted:

Goodwin told 13WMAZ that he was told he could take the dog to the vet for rabies testing.

This is the transcript according to the news:

"We're asking you to remove the dog's head," Hollis responds.

"Yeah," said Goodwin.

"And you're refusing, right?" Hollis asked.

No threat of arrest, nothing. Hollis leaves to make a phone call for further clarification. During that time Goodwin VOLUNTEERS to cut the dogs head off.

And since you missed it, this is why Hollis was on paid leave:

Walker said Tuesday that his office is still investigating what Hollis said.

Since Hollis is no longer on leave it looks like he got cleared of any wrongdoing, as is obvious in the video.

Edit: broken links?

a reply to: Xcathdra

People are severely confused about what happened in that video. The officers were there investigating an incident that caused someone to be hospitalized. A dog then attacked an officer and had to be shot, resulting in an even bigger investigation. Now we are finding out the owner had to be told several times to calm down prior to the start of filming (or he edited it out). He wouldn't calm down. His language was antagonistic in nature. He was threatened with Jail for THAT. Not for refusing to remove the dogs head. He was turned towards his truck as a warning, and it obviously wasn't that rough as he didn't even drop his phone. The officers were fully aware he was filming and told him he could record all he wanted.

The people who are still going on about this incident are people who obviously have an issue with peace officers.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

He asked if he is refusing to comply with the order to remove the dogs head. He never threatens to arrest him for that. It was a perfectly reasonable question. Do YOU have selective listening?

No one is officially denying that threat. Clearly, it was very real, or the other cop and the official statement that he was completely wrong would have reflected that. Only you are denying it.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nobody was assaulted. The situation isn't under review for assault. The review board is trying to determine if the officers forced the man to cut the dogs head off. The review was opened based on the news pieces. The news pieces already came out and said they were not provided the entire video, but only a 20 second clip of the event and the portion of him cutting the head off while he had the department of health on the phone. Source

Some of the pieces have even provided corrected stories: Source

CRAWFORD COUNTY, GA - The Crawford County Sheriff's Office says a man who removed his dog's head for rabies testing was given options before the animal was beheaded.

Hollis is back on active duty. He was not punished. Source

The bite victim had to be taken to the hospital:

The deputy made contact with the woman who was attacked by the dog. She sustained bites to her leg and was taken to the hospital, the news release states.

Which is why the deputy was forced to shoot the dog when it lunged at him the second time.

It says Joe Goodwin then began arguing with the officer but was given options concerning how to handle the dead animal.

"The Crawford County Health Department was notified and the owner of the dog was advised, by that agency, of the state rabies testing requirements and options regarding the dog," according to the sheriff's office news release.

So it was the health department that said the dogs head had to be removed. That explains the "well she said" comment about a woman who was giving instructions in the video.

Goodwin conveniently left this out when the news stories broke, but was pressed and admitted:

Goodwin told 13WMAZ that he was told he could take the dog to the vet for rabies testing.

This is the transcript according to the news:

"We're asking you to remove the dog's head," Hollis responds.

"Yeah," said Goodwin.

"And you're refusing, right?" Hollis asked.

No threat of arrest, nothing. Hollis leaves to make a phone call for further clarification. During that time Goodwin VOLUNTEERS to cut the dogs head off.

And since you missed it, this is why Hollis was on paid leave:

Walker said Tuesday that his office is still investigating what Hollis said.

Since Hollis is no longer on leave it looks like he got cleared of any wrongdoing, as is obvious in the video.

Edit: broken links?

The issue isn't whether or not the dog needed testing, or even whether or not it needed to be shot, as far as I am concerned, and I have stated this already. The issue is that he was threatened, and he was, in fact, assaulted. Your links don't work.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The links work. Here is one of them again: Source

Crawford sheriff says man given 'options' before cutting dog's head off

The pertinent parts were quoted in my previous post. He was not assaulted. Hollis is no longer on leave. Your narrative is a dead one.

After Investigator Hollis arrived on scene and exited his patrol vehicle, he called the Crawford County Health Department and spoke with Ms. Sims to let her know of the situation and what needed to be done about the dog. Investigator Hollis placed his phone on speaker mode so that Mr. Goodwin could hear her instructions.

Ms. Sims stated that either the owner of the dog needed to cut the head off of the dog or take it to a Vet and have them to do it in order to have the dog tested for rabies. After Ms. Sims stated that Mr. Goodwin had to cut the head off of the dog, he became irate and started yelling and cussing.

a reply to: raymundoko

I didn't see this update posted, it's from December 15th: Source

Basically it just says the investigation is ongoing. I know some people posted the officer was back at work, but I couldn't find a source to confirm.