Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

warrior1

(12,325 posts)
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 03:48 PM Apr 2014

Calif. TV station films dog calmly playing with kids after cop shoots himself trying to kill it

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/17/calif-tv-station-films-dog-calmly-playing-with-kids-after-cop-shoots-himself-trying-to-kill-it/


A California deputy accidentally shot himself while trying to kill a dog that he said was threatening his life on Wednesday, but video captured by a local television station later showed the animal much smaller than reported and peacefully playing with children.

According to a Riverside County sheriff’s spokesperson, the deputy was serving an eviction notice at around 2 p.m. on Wednesday when a “large” dog tried to attack him, KCAL reported.

“A dog came at the deputy in an aggressive manner,” Deputy Armando Munoz said, according to The Press-Enterprise. “The deputy, (attempting to defend himself) pulled his service weapon, shot one round, and injured himself in the leg.”

“He’s OK. He has non life-threatening injuries.”

snip

Dog is ok too.
167 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Calif. TV station films dog calmly playing with kids after cop shoots himself trying to kill it (Original Post) warrior1 Apr 2014 OP
Post removed Post removed Apr 2014 #1
You're blaming the mother?... TeeYiYi Apr 2014 #4
just use sunnystarr Apr 2014 #8
That would work. ..nt TeeYiYi Apr 2014 #11
You are spot on lillypaddle Apr 2014 #66
Please don't be asinine Hayduke Bomgarte Apr 2014 #19
Calling someone a "son of a bitch" is actually insulting his mother. cyberswede Apr 2014 #48
It's ridiculous lillypaddle Apr 2014 #67
The MRAs? CFLDem Apr 2014 #76
No, the word jumpers Warpy Apr 2014 #152
"bitch", hunh? What do you have against women? Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2014 #132
What exactly... gcomeau Apr 2014 #23
You'll probably soon find out. nt oldhippie Apr 2014 #24
I wait in breathless anticipation.... -nt gcomeau Apr 2014 #25
I'm surprised it took that long oldhippie Apr 2014 #28
4 people actually voted to hide *that*? gcomeau Apr 2014 #30
It will be hidden almost every time it is used. oldhippie Apr 2014 #31
I actually had never encountered that before. gcomeau Apr 2014 #32
Can I get the list of all the words James48 Apr 2014 #33
Seconded. AngryDem001 Apr 2014 #36
If you get the list from the P C police, would B Calm Apr 2014 #54
I've tried to get a list of the forbidden words, but .... oldhippie Apr 2014 #71
It IS Bullshit. AngryDem001 Apr 2014 #34
dick is also a word that is acceptable frylock Apr 2014 #37
and bastard itsrobert Apr 2014 #40
How so? cyberswede Apr 2014 #47
My first take was that the poster thinks all assholes are men. ;-) DesertDiamond Apr 2014 #53
I wonder why pintobean Apr 2014 #99
Really... Agschmid Apr 2014 #104
That's usually my reaction pintobean Apr 2014 #107
Bitch is what we call a female dog. IT is by necessity sexist as is "Dog" "COW" "Steer" and "BULL" Vincardog Apr 2014 #137
The poster to whom I replied suggested a double standard between "bitch" ans "asshole" cyberswede Apr 2014 #140
"dog"? Which sex does that refer to? Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2014 #141
The kind that breeds bitches. Vincardog Apr 2014 #142
"dog" is not gender (sex) specific. "bitch" is sex specific. Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2014 #143
The male sex is generally recognize as the inclusive term for the species. Dog is sex specific Vincardog Apr 2014 #144
"stud" is male specific. nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2014 #145
The "inclusive = male" assumption is at root of patriarchy & the idea that females don't count. Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2014 #146
You are picking a fight where there is none. Vincardog Apr 2014 #148
Good. "Son of a bitch" is a sexist remark. Glad we agree. Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2014 #149
Do people really need this explained to them? TorchTheWitch Apr 2014 #84
Yes, they do need this explained to them. As many times as necessary. nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2014 #147
You do not see the difference between a sexist slur and an anus? uppityperson Apr 2014 #122
forbidden by whom? lillypaddle Apr 2014 #68
Awww... Sheldon Cooper Apr 2014 #70
Unless you are describing legal firarm owners, it can be used there with no problems. n/t oneshooter Apr 2014 #69
I used a much less derogatory term once and got a post hidden BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #63
It is a sexist slur. n/t whopis01 Apr 2014 #111
Oh please... gcomeau Apr 2014 #121
It's sexist because you never see "son of a dick" as an insult. nt Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2014 #134
Umm, think that through. There's a pretty ridiculously obvious reason... gcomeau Apr 2014 #156
Yes, read your post. However we DO live in the 21st century where "bitch" is an insult referring ... Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2014 #157
Yes, the use of the word *on it's own* as an epithet... gcomeau Apr 2014 #161
Maybe for you lillypaddle Apr 2014 #64
You have offenend me oneofthe99 Apr 2014 #77
Post removed Post removed Apr 2014 #98
Instant karma! WhiteTara Apr 2014 #2
Without doubt n/t etherealtruth Apr 2014 #50
Absolutely. 840high Apr 2014 #62
"Instant karma's gonna get you, gonna knock you off your feet..." n/t nomorenomore08 Apr 2014 #81
yep eom noiretextatique Apr 2014 #138
No kidding. Warpy Apr 2014 #153
JUSTICE FOR THE DOOFUS leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #3
Glad the dog is ok...don't really care about this asshole joeybee12 Apr 2014 #5
Crap atreides1 Apr 2014 #6
I can firmly say Aerows Apr 2014 #7
Suck it, you piece of shit cop PeaceNikki Apr 2014 #9
Think of the children Politicalboi Apr 2014 #12
Uh, that's still a pretty big dog. louis-t Apr 2014 #14
that is a medium sized dog nt arely staircase Apr 2014 #89
Incompetence on so many levels. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #10
karma Liberal_in_LA Apr 2014 #13
Was the deputy's name Barney? hobbit709 Apr 2014 #15
Earnest T I think. (nm) Elwood P Dowd Apr 2014 #41
That is exactly what I was thinking cate94 Apr 2014 #51
Yup! Was thinking KARMA directed the bullet! n/t hue Apr 2014 #16
Instant Karma's gonna get you AtheistCrusader Apr 2014 #17
Dog - 1 / Trigger-happy Coward - 0 Tom Ripley Apr 2014 #18
Maybe Deputy donco Apr 2014 #20
One bullet and he's got to carry it in his breast pocket. notadmblnd Apr 2014 #29
What's with the Jayhawker? KansDem Apr 2014 #21
Stop shooting our children and dogs. Disarm the cops. marble falls Apr 2014 #22
reminds me of a vid... canuckledragger Apr 2014 #26
lol. nt arely staircase Apr 2014 #94
Well done! 2naSalit Apr 2014 #128
Sounds about right -nt Bonx Apr 2014 #27
The cop should be cited for endangering the lives of the children. hue Apr 2014 #35
Seems to me that the bullet found it's proper home. 99Forever Apr 2014 #38
gee, who would ever expect a dog to agressively charge a stranger that just entered their yard? frylock Apr 2014 #39
There is no "Stand Your Ground" for dogs. Nine Apr 2014 #58
does that include the backyard, while i'm at work? frylock Apr 2014 #60
Well, let's look at what the law is in CA, where this story took place. Nine Apr 2014 #73
Inapplicable. mbperrin Apr 2014 #87
And barking to announce a stranger passiveporcupine Apr 2014 #136
You don't know the dog was only barking and not charging. Nine Apr 2014 #166
It's not inapplicable to frylock's scenario, which is what I was responding to. (nt) Nine Apr 2014 #165
ah. well there you have it. police can kill your family pet with impunity.. frylock Apr 2014 #127
No, it simply means the officer can't be considered a trespasser. Nine Apr 2014 #164
Because a dog has the cognitive abilities to recognize Depity Fife by his uniform alone, obviously. baldguy Apr 2014 #74
For Pete's sake... Nine Apr 2014 #78
Once again, not the slightest bit of evidence that this dog attacked anyone. mbperrin Apr 2014 #88
your hypothetical is just silly noiretextatique Apr 2014 #139
From the article etherealtruth Apr 2014 #158
I don't know why everyone keeps arguing with me about this. Nine Apr 2014 #162
You are right you did NOT assert that the dog actually "charged" or attacked the cop etherealtruth Apr 2014 #163
No evidence this dog attacked anybody, period. mbperrin Apr 2014 #85
The attack is presumed in the hypothetical we're discussing here. Nine Apr 2014 #100
Was the self inflicted wound also hypothetical? You offer fiction where facts are known Dragonfli Apr 2014 #130
I'm not talking hypothetical. I'm talking actual events. mbperrin Apr 2014 #131
all is well that ends well nt arely staircase Apr 2014 #42
Deputy Dumbass Gets His Due mbperrin Apr 2014 #43
Isn't there something in cop training about ... harun Apr 2014 #44
Maybe after they stitch him up, a can of Alpo might ease his pain.....idiot...that's all he deserves bkanderson76 Apr 2014 #45
Won't anyone step up to defend this brave officer? Warren Stupidity Apr 2014 #46
+1 nomorenomore08 Apr 2014 #82
Truth is, a far greater percentage of people are shitty mbperrin Apr 2014 #90
Yay cops! bravenak Apr 2014 #49
every cop shooting dog case is found justified. the police have to. Garion_55 Apr 2014 #52
Dumb ass. OnyxCollie Apr 2014 #55
Focusing on the awesome owner chowder66 Apr 2014 #56
I agree! StarryNite Apr 2014 #150
So a dog can never be aggressive at one point in time and unaggressive at another time? Nine Apr 2014 #57
I don't know if it was the aggressor either. ohnoyoudidnt Apr 2014 #59
A cop serving an eviction notice is allowed to enter a property uninvited. (nt) Nine Apr 2014 #72
So is a letter carrier pintobean Apr 2014 #102
No, just for getting attacked by them. (nt) Nine Apr 2014 #103
They are armed pintobean Apr 2014 #105
"a dog doing what dogs are suppose to do"!? Nine Apr 2014 #108
You go ahead and keep defending this incompetent boob. pintobean Apr 2014 #110
while you defend the concept that dogs are supposed to attack people (nt) Nine Apr 2014 #112
I did no such thing. pintobean Apr 2014 #115
Your words: Nine Apr 2014 #119
Shooting himself in the leg would indicate panic. pintobean Apr 2014 #124
The dog also doesn't know the difference between a child molester and a deliveryperson. Nine Apr 2014 #126
The evidence is right in front of your eyes, the dog did not attack the idiot Dragonfli Apr 2014 #129
Thank you. mbperrin Apr 2014 #160
Are you assuming that the officer knew the dog was there before he entered the property? mbperrin Apr 2014 #133
How many of those 10 die, so that lethal force against the dogs would have been justified? mbperrin Apr 2014 #135
Not on DU no Egnever Apr 2014 #61
Barking at a knock on the door isn't really attacking, is it? mbperrin Apr 2014 #92
No but it is agressive behavior Egnever Apr 2014 #93
Well, maybe the dumbass should lose his job for shooting himself? Or are you also defending his..... Logical Apr 2014 #79
Glock Perfection! Adrahil Apr 2014 #118
Maybe he's simply not smart enough, or enough in control of his temper, to be a cop. nomorenomore08 Apr 2014 #83
Never owned or been around dogs at all, have you? mbperrin Apr 2014 #91
I don't know what the time lapse was. Nine Apr 2014 #95
Your defense of authority is noted. TBF Apr 2014 #96
? Nine Apr 2014 #101
If you've ever been around dogs you'd know TBF Apr 2014 #106
Ha ha. "Diplomacy." Nine Apr 2014 #109
You don't even know what "pack" means. pintobean Apr 2014 #113
I know that you have admitted to having dogs you can't control. (nt) Nine Apr 2014 #114
That's the 2nd false accusation you've made against me. pintobean Apr 2014 #116
Sorry, I thought I was still talking to TBF. (nt) Nine Apr 2014 #117
Oh, so you meant to insult me instead? TBF Apr 2014 #120
Barney, is that you? nt lillypaddle Apr 2014 #65
Precious is a *good* dog, and deserves all the hugs & kisses & cuddles & cookies she can get. baldguy Apr 2014 #75
In other police and dog news... PoliticAverse Apr 2014 #80
Nearly a Darwin Award by this cop. nt alp227 Apr 2014 #86
Have they arrested the dog's owner for attempted murder on the cop, yet? TransitJohn Apr 2014 #97
Curious as to what the dog looks like, making a guess before reading article. uppityperson Apr 2014 #123
You know what upsets me? So many people in the U.S.A. don't truly have homes. hunter Apr 2014 #125
Standards for law enforcement are way too low tabasco Apr 2014 #151
Fucking cop! gopiscrap Apr 2014 #154
If I find this amusing, does that make me a bad person? stage left Apr 2014 #155
Riiigghhtt JJChambers Apr 2014 #159
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2014 #167

Response to warrior1 (Original post)

TeeYiYi

(8,028 posts)
4. You're blaming the mother?...
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 04:04 PM
Apr 2014

You should edit your subject line. Using that word in that way is not cool; especially at DU.

TYY

Hayduke Bomgarte

(1,965 posts)
19. Please don't be asinine
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 04:43 PM
Apr 2014

I was speaking of the cop. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

ETA: And why in the world would I say the mother isn't fit to be a cop or carry a gun?.

Good grief!

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
48. Calling someone a "son of a bitch" is actually insulting his mother.
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 06:24 PM
Apr 2014

That said, I probably wouldn't have voted to hide that. I use that phrase a lot myself - but not directed at people.

Warpy

(110,909 posts)
152. No, the word jumpers
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 07:15 PM
Apr 2014

They see a word they don't like, instead of cringing and moving on, they alert and get the whole post censored.

Lovely people, they are. When they suck the guts out of this board, they'll be on to another one.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
23. What exactly...
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 04:53 PM
Apr 2014

...about either the phrase "son of a bitch" or it's specific use in 'that way' here is inappropriate... at DU or anywhere else outside some kindergarten class where we have to watch our foul language in front of the wee kiddies?

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
31. It will be hidden almost every time it is used.
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 05:08 PM
Apr 2014

It is one of the "forbidden words" on DU. You should know that by now.

James48

(4,416 posts)
33. Can I get the list of all the words
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 05:14 PM
Apr 2014

that automatically will get you booted by the jury?

I didn't expect to see that one - and I wonder what else makes the list...

(P.S.- I like dogs- even female dogs. )

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
54. If you get the list from the P C police, would
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 06:53 PM
Apr 2014

you share it with me? I really think some people get a little carried away with their political correctness and look for things to be offended by.

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
71. I've tried to get a list of the forbidden words, but ....
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 08:00 PM
Apr 2014

... it's very tricky. I even had a post hidden once for merely asking if a certain word was considered a forbidden word. I was in the gungeon and asked if the term hoplophobe was considered a derogatory term. I guess it was, because a jury hid the post merely for asking the question, because the term was such a horrific slur.

I have also learned by experience and observation that there are a number of term that a certain group doesn't allow and will swarm a post that uses one of them. And no, I am not even going to list them. Too dangerous. You'll have to figure them out yourself.

Sad, but that's the way it is.

 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
99. I wonder why
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 08:49 AM
Apr 2014
this post wasn't hidden. I can't believe someone would bring a source with that name into a safe-haven group.
 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
107. That's usually my reaction
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:35 AM
Apr 2014

when I see a post alerted on for using that word, unless it's a direct personal attack against another DUer. My tongue-in-cheek post was just pointing out a double standard. I guess I should have used the sarcasm thingy.

Vincardog

(20,234 posts)
137. Bitch is what we call a female dog. IT is by necessity sexist as is "Dog" "COW" "Steer" and "BULL"
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 03:33 PM
Apr 2014

IMO it is only small minded people who want to police words.

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
140. The poster to whom I replied suggested a double standard between "bitch" ans "asshole"
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 03:39 PM
Apr 2014

I merely pointed out that one is sexist, while the other isn't. I didn't police anything.

Bernardo de La Paz

(48,788 posts)
143. "dog" is not gender (sex) specific. "bitch" is sex specific.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 03:54 PM
Apr 2014

Some dogs are male; some dogs are female.

With the statement "you dog!" we have no idea whether the target is male or female. Similarly we have no idea if the insulter wishes to impute they are male or female. There is no reference to any male or female characteristic or attribute.

Clearer?

Vincardog

(20,234 posts)
144. The male sex is generally recognize as the inclusive term for the species. Dog is sex specific
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 03:58 PM
Apr 2014

What else would you get to cover your bitch?

Bernardo de La Paz

(48,788 posts)
146. The "inclusive = male" assumption is at root of patriarchy & the idea that females don't count.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 04:23 PM
Apr 2014

The "inclusive = male" assumption is at the root of patriarchy and the idea that females don't count. The thought patterns behind it are the same as those that used to think (and some still do) that "property owner" = male and "voter" = male and "jury member" = male.

The "male = inclusive" mode of thinking is actually the "female = excluded" mode of thinking.

Such usage reveals a thoughtless reflexive male privileged mindset. Language choices reveal mindset in much the same way as words like "coon" and "chink" are innocuous when used neutrally but are very loaded examples of bigotry in certain contexts.

Hence "dog" is not actually sexist, but claiming that "dog is sex specific" is itself sexist.

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)
84. Do people really need this explained to them?
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 01:13 AM
Apr 2014

The word "bitch" used as an insult is not gender neutral. "Asshole" is gender neutral since both genders have one. Duh.

Somehow it's escaped many people here that the word "bitch" used as an insult is sexist and has been used that way for centuries and specifically toward females. I'm not seeing why refraining from using hurtful insulting gender specific language as an insult is such a great hardship nor why anyone would be so hell bent on demanding that it's somehow appropriate to use bigoted language among mixed company and that they have some God-given right to use it here. Funny, I never see anyone on DU demanding their God-given right to use racist language here or be unable to recognize insulting racist language in the first place.

lillypaddle

(9,580 posts)
68. forbidden by whom?
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 07:50 PM
Apr 2014

a bunch of bullies? A minority here on DU? Are we that easily intimidated? Yep, guess we are.

BuelahWitch

(9,083 posts)
63. I used a much less derogatory term once and got a post hidden
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 07:43 PM
Apr 2014

It all depends on who is on the jury and how offended they are by such things.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
121. Oh please...
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 11:09 AM
Apr 2014

Calling someone "you son of a bitch" has as much to do with sexism as calling someone "you bastard" has to do with their parents actual marital status.

Less actually, since even if the person in question were being completely literal... which is pretty much NEVER TRUE here in the 21st century... calling someone the son of a female *dog* is about the dog part, not the female part.

Sheesh.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
156. Umm, think that through. There's a pretty ridiculously obvious reason...
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:03 PM
Apr 2014

...that doesn't have a damn thing to do with sexism. Or did you not read my last post?

Bernardo de La Paz

(48,788 posts)
157. Yes, read your post. However we DO live in the 21st century where "bitch" is an insult referring ...
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:21 PM
Apr 2014

Yes I read your post. However we DO live in the 21st century where "bitch" is an insult referring to the female sex, not to dogs except in kennel clubs and dog shows (where the word itself is not an insult).

"bastard" is gender neutral but is still a slam at children born outside of marriage, of which there are plenty about. In some dark corners of America they are still called "illegitimate" which is just as much of a punch against innocent children who have no choice in their birth. Calling someone a bastard may not be sexist but it is ugly bigotry.

 

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)
161. Yes, the use of the word *on it's own* as an epithet...
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:56 PM
Apr 2014

...is specifically applied to the female sex.

But the phrase "son of a bitch" means something else *completely*. It is simply shorthand for "contemptible jerk" or "asshole". It is not smack talk about that person's mother. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with their parentage any more than almost any use of the word "bastard" as an insult in general conversation does.


"bastard" is gender neutral but is still a slam at children born outside of marriage, of which there are plenty about."


Maybe a century ago. Nowadays calling anyone else a bastard as an insult simply does not have anything to do with their actual parentage however (except in specific circumstances in which the intent to use the term strictly literally is usually fairly clear to all parties involved.)
 

oneofthe99

(712 posts)
77. You have offenend me
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 08:51 PM
Apr 2014





/damn/


verb

past participle: damned



1.



(in Christian belief) be condemned by God to suffer eternal punishment in hell.

"be forever damned with Lucifer

Response to TeeYiYi (Reply #4)

Warpy

(110,909 posts)
153. No kidding.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 07:17 PM
Apr 2014

Rarely do you see such a shining example, a panicky and violent cop shooting himself because he draws slower than he thinks he does.

The rest of the Karma will get him when he goes back to work and gets razzed to death.

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
5. Glad the dog is ok...don't really care about this asshole
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 04:07 PM
Apr 2014

of a cop, though...not that I wish it was life-threatening...but maybe a little more serious so he might realize how wrong and despicable he was.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
7. I can firmly say
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 04:12 PM
Apr 2014

that this deputy is dumber than shit. At least shit is useful in fertilizing plants. "Pulls gun on friendly dog, shoots self in the foot."

That is a dumbass of epic proportions.

 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
12. Think of the children
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 04:27 PM
Apr 2014

Oh there they are with their loving dog Precious. I am so happy that the dog wasn't killed for no reason. I just hope this asshole cop doesn't sue this family.

hue

(4,949 posts)
35. The cop should be cited for endangering the lives of the children.
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 05:22 PM
Apr 2014

He obviously didn't have control of his weapon.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
38. Seems to me that the bullet found it's proper home.
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 05:29 PM
Apr 2014

What is it with cops thinking it's okay to execute family pets for no gawddamn good reason? This dumbass should be fired and have his right to ever touch a weapon again revoked.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
39. gee, who would ever expect a dog to agressively charge a stranger that just entered their yard?
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 05:30 PM
Apr 2014

is it now a requirement to become a LEO that you have to be a piss-pants chickenshit coward? I mean, if you're this fucking scared, and your number one priority is self preservation at any cost, then perhaps this isn't the job for you.

Nine

(1,741 posts)
58. There is no "Stand Your Ground" for dogs.
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 07:36 PM
Apr 2014

If you own a dog, it is your responsibility to control it, and that means not letting it attack people who enter the property. Not everyone who enters another person's property is trespassing. A police officer entering a property in the course of his or her duties is a perfect example of that. So are mail carriers and utility workers.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
60. does that include the backyard, while i'm at work?
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 07:39 PM
Apr 2014

if my dog (or in my instance, my roommates dog) is in the backyard, behind a latched, 8 foot fence, then that IS control of the animal, full stop.

Nine

(1,741 posts)
73. Well, let's look at what the law is in CA, where this story took place.
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 08:26 PM
Apr 2014
http://dogbitelaw.com/california/defenses-in-california.html

Trespass is a defense under the California dog bite statute...

The dog bite statute protects a victim "while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog." This prevents trespassers from obtaining recovery...

A person is considered to be lawfully on private property if he is there in furtherance of a duty required by law (i.e., a police officer or a mail carrier), or was there as a result of an express or implied invitation...


If you have a utility easement on your property, that is one scenario where someone could enter your fenced property while you were at work. A police officer carrying out his or her lawful duties is another example.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
136. And barking to announce a stranger
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 03:29 PM
Apr 2014

Is not acting aggressively. The cop was afraid and reacted in fear...fortunately for the dog he was so scared he squeezed the trigger before he even aimed the gun. If the dog was so aggressive, why didn't he then attack the wounded officer?

There is a difference between a warning bark (warning the people there is an invader approaching) and being aggressive. Most people who deal with the public probably understand this. This deputy might have been nervous to begin with because he was bringing an eviction notice and didn't know what kind of reception he'd get. So his nerve failed him.

Pitts have a sometimes "earned reputation" that precedes them, so it doesn't matter that it was a medium sized dog...just that it was a scary mofo.

Where is Ceasar when we need him. He trains people, not dogs. :lol:

Nine

(1,741 posts)
166. You don't know the dog was only barking and not charging.
Sat Apr 19, 2014, 06:37 PM
Apr 2014

The dog could have been barking, charging, sleeping, or doing back flips. We have no way of knowing.

Nine

(1,741 posts)
164. No, it simply means the officer can't be considered a trespasser.
Sat Apr 19, 2014, 06:25 PM
Apr 2014

The police officer has no more right to kill your dog than anyone else who can lawfully be on your property. A friend you invite over is not a trespasser either. Does that give your friend the right to kill your pet with impunity? Of course not.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
74. Because a dog has the cognitive abilities to recognize Depity Fife by his uniform alone, obviously.
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 08:36 PM
Apr 2014


And what is considered admirable & desirable in most dogs - such as defending their family from strangers invading their territory - is suddenly deserving of a death sentence if it's "Pit Bull"-type dog.



Nine

(1,741 posts)
78. For Pete's sake...
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 09:24 PM
Apr 2014

No, the point is not that a dog should be expected to know the difference between a burglar and a police officer or other innocent person. The point is that a dog's owner should take responsibility for making sure the dog cannot attack the innocent.

If you look at the video at frame 0:55, you'll see that the fence encloses not just a back yard but the part of the property that includes the front door. A police officer serving an eviction notice would be required to enter the fenced area to perform this duty. If the dog attacks the officer under these circumstances, the dog owner cannot claim trespassing as a defense because the officer was not trespassing as far as I can see. The dog owners are liable when they allow a dog access to the front door area and the dog attacks someone who is not there unlawfully.

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
88. Once again, not the slightest bit of evidence that this dog attacked anyone.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 01:18 AM
Apr 2014

He assuredly bit no one at all.

Just good ol' Deputy Dumbass wanting to be a tough evictor and decides to shoot the dog for good measure.

noiretextatique

(27,275 posts)
139. your hypothetical is just silly
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 03:38 PM
Apr 2014

there is no evidence, other than the quick-to-shoot cop's word that the dog "attacked" him.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
158. From the article
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:23 PM
Apr 2014
Animal Services did not take the dog into custody because there was no evidence it or the owner had done anything wrong.

Nine

(1,741 posts)
162. I don't know why everyone keeps arguing with me about this.
Sat Apr 19, 2014, 08:54 AM
Apr 2014

My very first post (#57) in this thread:

I don't know whether the cop was justified in pulling his gun on that dog and neither do any of you. The fact that the dog is not displaying aggression at one moment in time doesn't mean it wasn't being aggressive 10 minutes earlier.


I have never deviated from that position. I don't know whether the dog charged the police officer. There is no evidence one way or another. But people - including the article's own headline writer - are taking the fact that the dog is shown being nonaggressive around its own family and waving that around as proof that the dog could not possibly have charged at the officer. That is what I object to. It's a ridiculous leap to make. And people are only making this leap because it reinforces their own biases.

The whole subthread started by frylock (#39) where the poster asked, "gee, who would ever expect a dog to agressively charge a stranger that just entered their yard?" was premised on the assumption by frylock, not by me that the dog did "aggressively charge." Frylock then posed other hypotheticals. You can see the progression of the discussion in posts 58 and 60. Never once in this entire thread have I claimed knowing that this dog charged the officer. Not once. All discussion along that line by me were in response to hypotheticals and assumptions posed by others.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
163. You are right you did NOT assert that the dog actually "charged" or attacked the cop
Sat Apr 19, 2014, 09:53 AM
Apr 2014

It is a discussion board and we all will "run" with something.

There is no evidence that the dog charged the guy or that the guy flipped out because he was afraid of the dog. What we do know is that the cop used his gun irresponsibly

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
85. No evidence this dog attacked anybody, period.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 01:14 AM
Apr 2014

Deputy Dumbass was anxious to fire off a round, and luckily, it hit right where it would do the most good.

Nine

(1,741 posts)
100. The attack is presumed in the hypothetical we're discussing here.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 08:55 AM
Apr 2014

Dog owners have the responsibility to control their dogs. There are some defenses dog owners can use if their dog attacks someone and these vary from place to place. An owner would have a very strong defense if a burglar is breaking into the home and a rather weak defense if the dog attacks a girl scout walking up to knock on the front door. There is probably a strong defense when the dog is contained in a fenced backyard, but not always.

In the particular case of the OP, the officer was approaching the front door to serve an eviction notice. Does it matter, legally, that the officer had to pass through a gate to access the front door? I'm not a lawyer but I strongly suspect the officer would still not be considered a trespasser here, which means a trespassing defense could not have been used by the dog owners if the officer had been bitten.

Could the dog owners in this particular case use a defense of provocation as suggested upthread (if the officer had been bitten)?

gee, who would ever expect a dog to agressively charge a stranger that just entered their yard?


California law (and common sense, in my opinion) seems to hold that simply entering a dog's yard does not constitute provocation:

http://dogbitelaw.com/california/defenses-in-california.html

And that was my point. It's an irresponsible dog owner who takes the view that it's "natural" for a dog to aggressively charge a stranger who approaches what the dog considers to be its territory (and this territory may or may not align with the actual property lines), and that anyone who enters your property somehow assumes the risk of being attacked. But I have seen this type of Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine defense being made all too often: according to some, as long as the dog was on the dog owner's property, any attack by the dog is automatically the fault of the victim. But that's not what the law says.

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
131. I'm not talking hypothetical. I'm talking actual events.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 03:15 PM
Apr 2014

1. No evidence the dog "charged" anybody. Is walking up to someone looking for a friendly petting a charge?

2. Deputy was not bitten. Fact.

3. Dog is calm in pictures. Fact.

4. Deputy is stupid enough to shoot self by mishandling weapon, so too stupid for me to accept his version at face value, which is contradicted by the provable facts that we have.

I think the deputy is a bully and a liar and an incompetent handler of weapons. All the actual evidence points to that. I wish him ill and I wish him to be separated from his employment, and I'm taking action to try to accomplish that.

Want to argue hypothetical crap? Go to any college dorm and discuss topics like, "If John Lennon was still alive, Surface or Air?" and other gripping topics.

I'm happy the deputy is shot, the dog is alive, and the children are happy.

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
43. Deputy Dumbass Gets His Due
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 05:59 PM
Apr 2014

Now fire the lying piece of shit.

Apologies to actual shit, which has useful purposes.

harun

(11,348 posts)
44. Isn't there something in cop training about ...
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 06:10 PM
Apr 2014

the fact you don't need to use a gun to stop a dog?

There's probably 100 better ways than using a gun, just say'n.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
46. Won't anyone step up to defend this brave officer?
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 06:18 PM
Apr 2014

How disappointing. I guess shooting dogs crosses a line that simply shooting people doesn't.

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
90. Truth is, a far greater percentage of people are shitty
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 01:23 AM
Apr 2014

than are dogs.

And far more dogs get shot than people by law enforcement.

That's bad. Dogs are loyal, brave, loving, and patient.

Sometimes people are. We call them Gandhi and Mother Teresa. The rest are more like me.

Garion_55

(1,914 posts)
52. every cop shooting dog case is found justified. the police have to.
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 06:45 PM
Apr 2014

if they admit that any shooting is not justified thats an instant lawsuit.

it really is like 99% of all dog shootings will be found justified by the 'internal police investigation' and the cop goes back to work after about a months paid vacation. its very rare for any officer to pay any kind of personal price for shooting a dog. especially when swat comes busting into your home at 3am looking for a plant. say goodbye to your dog if that happens. cops will do it just for spite no shit.

one city might recall their mayor and city council even because of a dog shooting.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/idaho-mayor-faces-possible-recall-after-police-officer-kills-dog/

chowder66

(9,011 posts)
56. Focusing on the awesome owner
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 07:28 PM
Apr 2014

Talk about taking the higher road!
I'm ticked off at the cop too and hope he gains some perspective but man that dog owner was terrific in his response!

Nine

(1,741 posts)
57. So a dog can never be aggressive at one point in time and unaggressive at another time?
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 07:32 PM
Apr 2014

A perfect DU storm: hatred of cops + kneejerk defense of pitbulls + utter lack of basic logic

I don't know whether the cop was justified in pulling his gun on that dog and neither do any of you. The fact that the dog is not displaying aggression at one moment in time doesn't mean it wasn't being aggressive 10 minutes earlier. If anything, the fact that the cop shot himself makes me more likely to think he was responding quickly to a charging animal rather than just shooting the dog for the sheer fun of it.

ohnoyoudidnt

(1,858 posts)
59. I don't know if it was the aggressor either.
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 07:37 PM
Apr 2014

What I do know is the cop entered a fenced in area uninvited.

 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
105. They are armed
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:23 AM
Apr 2014

with pepper spray. So are cops. I support cops and the job they do. I do not support cops who shoot dogs when they don't have to. Serving a court order is not an emergency. There should be a proper procedure for doing so in a manner that respects property and life. It looks like this guy panicked at a dog doing what dogs are suppose to do.

Nine

(1,741 posts)
108. "a dog doing what dogs are suppose to do"!?
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:43 AM
Apr 2014

Well there's the problem right there. You think a dog charging at an innocent person who is on the property for a legitimate purpose is just fine and dandy.

Serving a court order is not an emergency and neither is trying to deliver a package or sell girl scout cookies. But they are all legitimate and lawful reasons for a person to approach someone's front door. Are you assuming that the officer knew the dog was there before he entered the property? What is your evidence of that?

What is your evidence that the officer did not have to shoot the dog? Is it your belief that pepper spray always stops a charging dog? Letter carriers carry pepper spray and yet...

http://www.nalc.org/depart/safety/dogbites.html

An average of 10 letter carriers suffer from dog-related injuries every delivery day.

Nine

(1,741 posts)
119. Your words:
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 10:58 AM
Apr 2014

"It looks like this guy panicked at a dog doing what dogs are suppose to do."

Either the officer is telling the truth and the dog "came at (him) in an aggressive manner," or the dog didn't. If you thought the officer was lying, you would have said that instead of saying that he "panicked." That makes me think you feel it's OK for dogs to charge at people. But feel free to clarify.

 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
124. Shooting himself in the leg would indicate panic.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 11:19 AM
Apr 2014

The cop was on private property that was fenced in. That's the dog's territory. His job is to alert and protect his family (pack). If the cop didn't go inside the fence, he couldn't have been charged at, or in any danger. The dog doesn't know the difference between a cop and a child molester. Yeah, the dog did its job. It was protecting the kids. The cop fucked up.

Nine

(1,741 posts)
126. The dog also doesn't know the difference between a child molester and a deliveryperson.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 12:17 PM
Apr 2014
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter11-5.html

In most states, dog owners aren't liable to trespassers who are injured by a dog. But the rules are convoluted and vary significantly from state to state.

In general, a trespasser is someone who wasn't invited on the property. Unless you warn people off your property with signs or locked gates, you are considered to have given an "implied invitation" to members of the public to approach your door on common errands—for example, to try to sell you something or ask directions...

A general rule is that a dog owner who could reasonably expect someone to be on the property is probably going to be liable for any injury that person suffers.

Specific legal rules that determine whether or not a dog owner is liable to an injured trespasser vary from state to state. Here are the basics...

Most dog-bite statutes do not allow trespassers to sue for an injury. The owner is liable only if the person injured by a dog was in a public place or "lawfully in a private place." That means that the injured person must have a good reason for being where he was. Mail carriers, for example, are always covered. Police officers performing their official duties are not considered trespassers, either.


The police officer had a lawful right to be there, and I believe a deliveryperson or a neighbor coming over to talk would also have had a lawful right to at least knock on the front door. Unfortunately, the fenced area encloses both the dog and the front door at this property, which I think creates a hazard to the public. If the dog was merely barking, that's one thing, but I don't think you really believe the cop was "panicking" over a dog barking. If the dog was charging at the officer, the officer had a right to defend himself. A neighbor kid coming over to ask one of the children living there to play would have been a lot less able to defend against a charging dog. That's why I think it's an irresponsible view to accept dogs charging at strangers as normal and expected. If your dog can't be trusted not to charge at strangers, it's your responsibility to protect the public from your dog.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
129. The evidence is right in front of your eyes, the dog did not attack the idiot
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 02:16 PM
Apr 2014
even after he was helpless and bleeding. Had the dog been in attack mode as is dishonestly claimed, he would have continued with his attack and there would have been some sign of wounds from the fictitious attack.

What is your evidence that the officer did not have to shoot the dog?


Please do pay more attention in the future.

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
133. Are you assuming that the officer knew the dog was there before he entered the property?
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 03:21 PM
Apr 2014

It's a chain link fence, so uh, yeah, he probably should have known.

Of course, he probably should have know how to discharge a weapon without shooting himself, so there you go.

And I suppose that the deputy could be blind, what with all the hiring inclusion going on these days, and so he couldn't have seen the dog, which would be some sort of violation of the deputy's rights, having a dog that's not sending a signal to the blind that he's there, and that might explain his problem with his weapon, which in that case, he's not incompetent at all, just a victim of insufficient modification to this job description to account for having to shoot without being able to see.

This hypothetical stuff is fun! Just chunk all known facts and imagine away! Wheeeee!

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
135. How many of those 10 die, so that lethal force against the dogs would have been justified?
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 03:24 PM
Apr 2014

Because after decades of teaching in public school, I can assure you on a national basis that there are at least 10 kindergartners bitten every day by a fellow attendee.

Yet hardly anyone suggests putting them down, or even pepper spraying them, for that matter.

Should there be no proportionality in life at all?

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
61. Not on DU no
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 07:39 PM
Apr 2014

Of course the dog plays well with the kids in the family. So does mine but god forbid someone starts pounding on my door my Dog goes ballistic.

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
92. Barking at a knock on the door isn't really attacking, is it?
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 01:29 AM
Apr 2014

Unless you agree that the evicting officer is justified in shooting your barking dog through the door.

My dogs make different sounds to let me know who's at the door. Stranger? One short yip.

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
93. No but it is agressive behavior
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 01:40 AM
Apr 2014

I wasn't there I cant judge but pics of the dog playing with it's family prove nothing.

I am glad the dog wasn't shot just the same.

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
79. Well, maybe the dumbass should lose his job for shooting himself? Or are you also defending his.....
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 09:51 PM
Apr 2014

lack of firearm skills?

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
118. Glock Perfection!
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 10:50 AM
Apr 2014

(Idiot cop putting his finger on the trigger while drawing) + (gun without a external safety) = Glock Leg

And that's putting aside the cops' recent tendency to shoot anything on 4 legs that comes near them these days.

nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
83. Maybe he's simply not smart enough, or enough in control of his temper, to be a cop.
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 11:15 PM
Apr 2014

I don't know this, of course, but the story suggests that possibility.

And this isn't even getting into his potential deficiency as a marksman.

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
91. Never owned or been around dogs at all, have you?
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 01:26 AM
Apr 2014

It shows.

Dogs don't attack one minute and play the next. But on with some logic:

We KNOW the dog didn't bite Deputy Dumbass - no bite marks, just a bullet wound.

We KNOW the dog was peacefully playing with the kids a short time after.

Doesn't look good for Dumbass and his story.

I'd like to get the cop on the end of an MMPI.

Nine

(1,741 posts)
95. I don't know what the time lapse was.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 07:59 AM
Apr 2014

And I don't think it's all improbable for a dog to charge at a stranger, be called off or scared off, and then be playing with family not long after. In fact, I've seen it happen.

The officer's claim is that 1. the dog was charging, 2. the officer went for his weapon, 3. the weapon was discharged prematurely, and 4. the dog was scared off by the gunshot. (1) has not be proven one way or another, it's established that (2) and (3) happened, and I don't doubt that (4) would have happened whether or not the dog was charging. So the fact that the officer wasn't bitten proves nothing. And the fact that the dog was playing with family by the time the news crew arrived doesn't prove anything either, I believe.

Nine

(1,741 posts)
101. ?
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 08:57 AM
Apr 2014

I'm some kind of authoritarian because I said we don't know whether the dog charged the officer or not?

TBF

(31,921 posts)
106. If you've ever been around dogs you'd know
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:27 AM
Apr 2014

that they are protective of their packs. I could train it out of my labs pretty easily but my husband wants them to bark when folks approach the property. And they most certainly will back down upon command and run off to play with the kids (takes a couple minutes to redirect but they will do it).

The story is funny because KARMA.

Especially in the case of an eviction the guy should have at least tried diplomacy before he started shooting. I might react differently to this story if he were entering a suspected drug den - then I sadly would suspect the training of the dogs to be very different.

Nine

(1,741 posts)
109. Ha ha. "Diplomacy."
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:56 AM
Apr 2014

Diplomacy with a charging dog.

You have labs. A "pack" of them to use your own term. You believe you could train this pack protection instinct out of them but you decline to do so because your husband would rather terrify anyone approaching your property. You believe the dogs are under your control and will "back down" upon command, and yet you admit it can take minutes to "redirect" your dogs when they are showing aggression or defensiveness. Sounds to me like a tragedy waiting to happen.

 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
113. You don't even know what "pack" means.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 10:06 AM
Apr 2014

You obviously don't know dogs. People do have a tendency to fear what they don't understand.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
75. Precious is a *good* dog, and deserves all the hugs & kisses & cuddles & cookies she can get.
Thu Apr 17, 2014, 08:39 PM
Apr 2014

Bad cop, no doughnut.

uppityperson

(115,674 posts)
123. Curious as to what the dog looks like, making a guess before reading article.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 11:18 AM
Apr 2014

Yup. I guessed right. Glad the kids and the dog are ok, hope the cop learned something positive from his experience.

hunter

(38,264 posts)
125. You know what upsets me? So many people in the U.S.A. don't truly have homes.
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 11:43 AM
Apr 2014

Most of us live in places we can be evicted from for little or no cause.

Homelessness, or being forced to live in a dangerous and unhealthy place, is always a very real threat hanging over our heads, just one slight misfortune away.

An ordinary safe comfortable existence, a small garden, maybe a dog or cat, a place where one can feel secure, these become an impossible dream for many of us.

Welcome to hell.

That's why people cheer when one of the enforcers of this brutal society literally shoots himself in the leg while attempting yet another act of brutality.

 

tabasco

(22,974 posts)
151. Standards for law enforcement are way too low
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 07:13 PM
Apr 2014

They'll take any ass-kissing jerk off the street where I live.

 

JJChambers

(1,115 posts)
159. Riiigghhtt
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:28 PM
Apr 2014

I'm sure all the pitbulls that are responsible for mauling people to death were as equally vicious with their families, at all times, because it is impossible for a dog to be both vicious and calm at different times. The families of the numerous children mauled to death by their own dog, who report that the dog was normally loveable and wouldn't hurt a flea, were actually lying and their dogs were vicious 24/7.

Response to warrior1 (Original post)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Calif. TV station films d...