Apparently, the dog is still alive after a recovery in the animal care center. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189074/The-horrific-moment-NYPD-officer-shoots-dog-crowded-city-street-shrieking-bystanders.html)
As far as the shooting goes, I won't go as far as to say it was wrong. I am a loving dog owner myself so I feel sick watching the dog lying there in terrible pain. He was indeed protecting his handler, just like he was taught. You can't blame the dog for doing something he was trained to do. Also, he didn't attack up untill the point when the officer came within his protecting area. So if the officer hadn't tried to approach him, he wouldn't have tried to bite.

Despite of all this, if a pitbull was to come raging at me, I would probably do the same as the officer did. History has shown what pitbulls can do to officers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/22/dog-mauls-five-police-officers

Edited January 2, 201313 yr by kjel0112

THere's no excessive force, the dog just attempted to bite a citizen, then went after one of the cops. The cops did the correct thing as the dog presented a threat to the safety of themselves and the public.

 

Yes, and that is called Excessive Force. Excessive Force is simply self-defence under pressure and you stop thinking clearly. As the dog was barking out loud intimidating and running towards the Officer in an attempt to bite, he used his gun. How you're gonna deal with a situation is something an Officer must make up himself called ''discrete proportions.'' He choose to use his gun because he freaked out. So: Excessive Force.

No, it's not excessive force. Excessive force is when the force used is unreasonable; that wasn't the case here, and the force was completely justified. Again, it doesn't matter what the dog thought. It's not a person. You don't have to minimize force to the same degree, because "killing a person to save a person" is MUCH more questionable than "killing an animal to save a person". There's little that's *less* relevant to the acceptable level of force. If the dog is threatening a person, it's justified to shoot it. Period. No matter what the dog thinks. That's part of the whole "human > animal" thing.

No, it's not excessive force. Excessive force is when the force used is unreasonable; that wasn't the case here, and the force was completely justified. Again, it doesn't matter what the dog thought. It's not a person. You don't have to minimize force to the same degree, because "killing a person to save a person" is MUCH more questionable than "killing an animal to save a person". There's little that's *less* relevant to the acceptable level of force. If the dog is threatening a person, it's justified to shoot it. Period. No matter what the dog thinks. That's part of the whole "human > animal" thing.

 

It is because Excessive Force is all about handling without controling yourself and performing actions that actually are not supposed to happen. Like the cop shot a dog.

 

Though, call it animal cruelty, call it whatever you want. This guy did the right thing.

As a dog lover im not going to watch it but I agree with RobertB using a tazer was defentiley the solution

Yes, tazing the dog, it's not unheard of either, woop's sorry i missed the reading when there was a video right in front of me, my mistake..

Dog being tazered, get's scared and run's off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Itfr_V424

 

0:04, the dog of the right is actually cute!

I tend to highly agree with Slimory here. The cops shouldn't have even gotten close to the victim and the dog if they don't possess the skills to control a situation like this.

 

3. It doesn't matter what the dog wanted. The cop would rather not take the risk of a bite. There's no question that it was *legal* for the cop to shoot the dog; when an animal threatens to hurt a person, it is generally legal to kill it. Animals don't really have the same right to life that people do.

 

Its mentality like ^this^ which has led the Homo Sapiens to believe that they and only they dictate this world and have a right to live, above all- no matter if other die in that process. This is why people come out on the streets protesting if a cop die in a shootout but nobody ever comes out if a dog was shot protecting his owner.

Sure the dog was paranoid, and it was necessary to remove him for the betterment of his owner only. But he did not understand this fact. The workaround for this was that if cops, who are supposed to handle the situation calmly and wisely, should have either overpowered he dog by taser or any other means and removed him from there or distract his attention to evacuate the victim out of there asap. Shooting him with a real bullet was not, by any means, a justified action. And if a cop does such a thing, then well, he's really not fit to be a cop in the first place. Yes you can kill a cow in self defense, but in a normal situation, you shouldn't do something so foolish that the need for self-defense arises, in the first place. My humble opinion here is that the cops should've cleared the scene after observing the dog's violent behavior and be ready with the taser to overcome any threats from him. Next step, check the victim and get him/her to the paramedics. Shooting, as I've said before, is NOT an option.

I tend to highly agree with Slimory here. The cops shouldn't have even gotten close to the victim and the dog if they don't possess the skills to control a situation like this.

 

 

Its mentality like ^this^ which has led the Homo Sapiens to believe that they and only they dictate this world and have a right to live, above all- no matter if other die in that process. This is why people come out on the streets protesting if a cop die in a shootout but nobody ever comes out if a dog was shot protecting his owner.

Sure the dog was paranoid, and it was necessary to remove him for the betterment of his owner only. But he did not understand this fact. The workaround for this was that if cops, who are supposed to handle the situation calmly and wisely, should have either overpowered he dog by taser or any other means and removed him from there or distract his attention to evacuate the victim out of there asap. Shooting him with a real bullet was not, by any means, a justified action. And if a cop does such a thing, then well, he's really not fit to be a cop in the first place. Yes you can kill a cow in self defense, but in a normal situation, you shouldn't do something so foolish that the need for self-defense arises, in the first place. My humble opinion here is that the cops should've cleared the scene after observing the dog's violent behavior and be ready with the taser to overcome any threats from him. Next step, check the victim and get him/her to the paramedics. Shooting, as I've said before, is NOT an option.

 

Thank you Bollocks!

cp702,animals have the same rights as people (maybe not officialy) just because we live in cities or drive cars dosnt give us the right to declare wether an animal should be on this earth or not.moaning over :)

I recommend this topic is closed. A lot of arguments are heating up.

I recommend this topic is closed. A lot of arguments are heating up.

 

Arguments are good, it lets people 'vent' frustration (within acceptable limits). This is a trick we use when stopping an angry driver, we let them have a shout and rant to calm down... but then if it goes too far we 'close' the argument. And honestly I agree, this is a sensitive matter with  extremely strong and well thought out opinions, and sometimes, it's best to close those down

Yeah i don't see a problem with argumenting too.

I mean this is a Forum and the greeks originally built them so people can discuss about shit like that (damn i didn't know they had internet back then....)

 

My Opinion:

 

Well..It's kinda difficult. I accept what the Officer did. But of course stuff like that is never easy to hear.

And it plays right into the hands of Anti-Police people. But at the other hand...It's (hard as it sounds) just a Dog. We have people dying on the Streets. Officers getting shot for no Reason. It's good to be critical about it. It really is. But don't forget that Cops need to decide in Seconds. And if i would feel threatened by a dog i would do the same thing.

To basically sum up everyones opinions...the officer made the safest decision but less force shoudlve been used ;)

Oh yeah and I dont see any need in closing the topic as people are just voicing their opinion

honestly i think he was justified in shooting the dog, i mean if he hit the dog with a ASP then that could just cause the dog injuries that would put it in more pain and honestly i would have thought that shooting the dog was the fairest thing to do but that said i still feel bad for the dog R.I.P

 

honestly i think he was justified in shooting the dog, i mean if he hit the dog with a ASP then that could just cause the dog injuries that would put it in more pain and honestly i would have thought that shooting the dog was the fairest thing to do but that said i still feel bad for the dog R.I.P

 

Dog lived.

To basically sum up everyones opinions...the officer made the safest decision but less force shoudlve been used ;)

No, that doesn't sum up everyone's opinions; I, for one, strongly disagree. I don't see how you can reconcile these two things. You should use the amount of force that leads to the safest result; any more is too much, but any less is too little. I can see saying "less force would have been nice", but to say that you shouldn't make the safest decision is irresponsible.

No, that doesn't sum up everyone's opinions; I, for one, strongly disagree. I don't see how you can reconcile these two things. You should use the amount of force that leads to the safest result; any more is too much, but any less is too little. I can see saying "less force would have been nice", but to say that you shouldn't make the safest decision is irresponsible.

 

Im not going to disagree or argue as everyone has their opinion ;)

Just don't say you're summing up everyone's opinion, then. Not everyone agrees. That's what I was saying.

First off the dog lived. Secondly the Officer acted correctly. The dog lunged at a passer by and turned on the Officers. He fired one shot at the threat neutralizing it so he could reach the injured party. If he had fired multiple shots then that may be excessive force, but he did not. Now I have read some say well he (the dog) was just protecting his owner. That is irrelevant. The dog was dangerous and acting aggressively at that moment. The Officers did what was necissary for the incident at hand. Its ignorant to monday quarterback his decision when we were not there and only have a few seconds of video to view before the actual shooting.  

 

This is my opinion and not aimed at any one person. Also, I have been a dog owner for three years so I can understand the feeling of seeing such a close friend injured.

Yeah I didn't read many of these comments but I see nothing wrong with this. They were literally just standing around doing nothing (The cops), and the dog charged a civilian then went after the cops. Action was justified, no need to even question it. Sure a taser could've been used, but in the video on P1 the dog did in fact run away, what's to say this dog didn't? This dog had a motive of trying to "protect" it's owner, he would be more determined then that dog in the P1 video. That dog just decided to charge for no reason, or by command.