The recently deceased Major

[HiTemp]

I read this story on Drudge today about a former bomb-sniffing dog (did two tours in Iraq) that now has PTSD and lived with his owner in Park County, WY. I know that's a ways away from your corner of WY. Seems the owner was out hunting and the person watching the dog didn't realize the dog escaped. When the dog - a two-time Bronze Star winner - came at a bicyclist in an aggressive manor, the dog was dispatched by the cyclist with a revolver. Now the owner is saying the dog shouldn't have been shot and is seeking some kind of civil relief. Wonder if the dog was taking his PTSD meds when the attack occurred?

WTH??? What happened to the owner being responsible for the dog and the dog's actions? Dog was a Belgian Malnois, a breed well known for it's aggressiveness AND vicious bite. If I was riding a bike and a dog like that came at me in an aggressive manor, I would drop him in a heartbeat, and it wouldn't matter if his owner was on his heels yelling no no no. I'm not getting shredded because some moron couldn't keep his dog under control.

Where does the owner get off trying to claim the dog wasn't in the wrong? He wasn't even there. Many of the commenters on the story are attacking the cyclist, calling him a wuss and such, but I disagree. I saw one of those dogs drag a shoplifter out of the woods once and it had a snoutfull of that guy's ass... literally. There was so much blood I thought that guy was going to bleed out before they could get him to the hospital. There is NO WAY one of those shark machines is coming close to me if he's not under control and acting aggressively. I don't think I have to wait until I'm pouring out blood to take steps against that kind of attack.

What are you hearing about this? Just curious - would you have shot or waited?

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I had not heard that he was wanting money, I did hear he was wanting a full honors funeral for the dog. Sad situation, but if a dog is attacking, its a valid target, PTSD or not, just like any human, and why he was not charged with anything. He was not just a bomb sniffing dog, he was trained to attack and used on patrols to catch and hold people from what I read. I would have shot it too, any dog large enough to be threat is just that when its posture and attitude is aggressive. I am not going to be mauled just so some guy can tell me he's sorry, and then come up with an excuse why OK I am now having to have surgeries to fix what ever was injured, if they can.

He claims that since there was no barking, the dog was not attacking, the shooter claimed there was a pack, there were no witnesses, so its hard to say. But I have seen dogs act in packs, and they do not bark much when they are on attack profile, they will if they are frustrated in that attack and will after the fact, but when they are zeroing in they get pretty quiet. I don't know, I wasn't there, and neither was the dog owner, so just because people did not recall any barking, and the guy has an idea how his dog acts when he is not there to actually observe, doesn't mean it did not happen as the guy said. The bottom line is the dog was not where he should have been, and with no witness to what actually happened, the question is moot, he gets the benefit of doubt.

I love my dogs like family, but if they are out and doing things like that to people I find no fault for anyone shooting them no matter how much I may hate it.

Now someone coming onto my property and shooting one is a whole other deal, I don't care if they were threatening or not.

[HiTemp]

This is a quote from the story that ran in the UK Daily Mail:

Bessler said: 'He has his story.

'I know my dog. I have my story.'

The retired Staff Sergeant added: 'I would like to take a civil avenue to go after him - the gentleman that shot him - because Mike was a retired military officer.

'I mean, it's not just a wrongful use of force.

I'm not sure what this means other than the guy is deeply saddened by the loss of his dog. I get that he places strong value on the dog's former service but for gosh sake the dog is NOT a human being. I'm not sure if he's saying force was wrongfully used because the dog was a retired military officer - which he is NOT because to be one requires swearing an oath of commission, and no one is claiming the dog speaks - or if he's saying force used was wrongful simply because he knows his dog.

He wouldn't be the first person to claim their dog couldn't/wouldn't/didn't do X when it turns out that's exactly what the dog did. In the end, I think it would be a lot healthier for him to simply acknowledge the dog was trained for war, had certain skills, and certainly had the potential to hurt someone badly if the right triggers were present. Unfortunate, but that doesn't diminish the dog's prior service in any way, so I'm not sure why he thinks it does. There's something missing here; who diagnosed this dog with PTSD? Far as I know there is no veterinary condition to match the human condition of PTSD. Much of that has do with conflict of conscience and being forced into situations where people have to violate that to such extreme that it impacts their mental health, their ability to "snap back" into a previous semblance of order. But dogs? Gimme a break! I have dogs, I love dogs, and I've seen them stressed out too, but I'd never compare what I see to PTSD. Have you ever seen a stressed out dog with a diminished sense of self-worth? One with nightmares over their participation (or not) in certain events? How would anyone even be able to detect that?

If he wants a military funeral for the dog, what's stopping him? Go buy a flag, round up a few vets and have one. Hell if I were local I'd put on a uniform and help but it wouldn't be to honor the dog but to honor the Sgt.'s service by helping him lay to rest his friend with military honors. Subtle difference there.

What I think is wrong is for him to expect his community to honor a soldier (or a dog) on demand. True respect doesn't work that way. If he runs around demanding these honors, what he's really saying is his community are scumbags because they don't hold the same high esteem for his dog as he does. That's just not rational AND it's not going to get him what he wants. He should tell his/the dog's story and stand back, let the community either step up and support or not, and the most important part is to be prepared for the not, as it sometimes happens. It's a personal thing with me; it's similar to a vet demanding everyone thank them for their service. You don't get to do that, and if you try, all it does is diminish your own service by revealing you did NOT give that service freely and unselfishly, but expected some kind of honorific in return - which makes you not a soldier but a mercenary.

What he should do, IMHO, is stop trying to force dog-honor and just go get some vets and have a military-style graveside service for his K9 friend and fellow soldier. Taps, 21-gun salute, flag, etc. Then he gets to honor his dog, his dog gets the honors he wishes for him, and no one could really fault him for going the extra mile for his faithful friend. He wins all around. Trying to force that out of others... eh, he's not going to have the success he hopes for.

Back several years ago one of the County Sheriff's K-9s was killed in the line of duty, saving the life of his deputy handler. The handler and a good sized group of deputies wanted to have a big, public funeral for the dog similar to what one would expect for a fallen human police officer. Some were all for it but some were dead set against it, citing everything from costs to how giving that honor to a dog would diminish the honor to all humans that merit it, etc. Quite a fight. Finally the Sheriff told them to just go do it, it would be all-volunteer, no one would be ordered to participate.

So they did. I didn't know the county owned so many cop cars. City cops (Pensacola PD) had a big presence, deputies from all across the top of the state of FL from Pensacola to Jacksonville showed up. Turned out to be a HUGE thing, which pretty much shut up all the folks who didn't think it was a good idea. The lesson here was that by leaving it up to the deputies, making it voluntary, the true measure of that K9's worth was shown. Shortly after the funeral the dog's handler was presented with an airline ticket to Germany where he would travel and go meet and train with his new dog, a $9,000 German Shepherd dog that was donated by local businessmen who were quite moved by the deputy and the ton of cops honoring his partner.

See, it can work if you just go do it and stop trying to use a lever to make it happen.

[HiTemp]

As to the "on my property" thing, I agree with you - all bets are off then. A visitor to my property has no more right to harm my dog than they have to harm my wife, my car, or my home. Off my property, where the person haw a right to be, I can't fault them if my dog is aggressive, but not so ON my property. Besides, it would be interesting to see how the public would react to the self-defense shooting of a 4lb Chihuahua with a bad leg. My guess would be that it isn't going to fly as a good shoot when all the cute pictures and the video of her having difficulty running hit the media.

I have to say that whenever I read one of these stories where a police raid takes place or they go to serve a warrant and shoot any dogs they come across, I can't help but automatically be against whatever they did. I realize in some cases it may truly have been something where someone was going to get mauled and they had to defend themselves, but I can't help but wonder if there is something inherently wrong with the process of insisting on going into danger dangerously, then using the danger to justify actions.
This is especially true in cases where they screw up royally and hit the wrong house or hit a house where who they are after no longer lives there.

If they can't determine by visual surveillance that a dog lives there, then they have a real problem. You can't see water bowls or food dishes in the yard? Leashes or tie-outs? People hauling in a big sack of dog food once in a while? This doesn't require any kind of Sherlock super power to find out. Why, I often wonder, if they had the place staked out for weeks were cops "surprised" by the presence of the dog(s) to the point they had to dispatch them? I often wondered why not roll up a cop disguised as a Humane Society or Animal Control officer under the guise of investigating whose dog might have bitten a neighborhood kid? Knock on the door, ask to see the dogs outside, get them on leases THEN hit the house. Do they really think someone is going to flush a kilo of heroin because the dog cops want to see their pit bull? Not likely. But the claim is that this would tip of the raid or put the undercover cop in danger. My answer is, if it's that dangerous to begin with, then maybe it would be better to let them leave the house and pounce on them then, simultaneously hitting the house when it's empty and an Animal Control officer can be tasked with dealing with the dogs. They seem to be able to handle even vicious dogs on a routine basis without harm, so why not use their expertise instead of having a SWAT team simply shoot the dogs as part of the plan? I just don't get that mindset.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I really have no objection to the military honor funeral for the dog. But I think he is projecting more on the dog than actually is, retired military officer? OK, and he would be just as dead if he was human and threatening someone who was armed and feared harm of their life. Its obvious the guy is probably devastated, but this is not the case of like Marcus Luttrell whose companion dog was shot on his place across a fence by some yahoos driving by, the dog was loose on the road. When dogs are killed for being off their property, its on the owner, its their job to keep them in check.

In Lyman NE, our closest little town of about 400 people, the local cop shot a dog. It was out of its kennel, in a neighbors yard threatening other dogs, he drove by and saw it, got out said it advanced on him aggressively and he shot it. For the heck of it I googled and it was even on Huffpo www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/ray-huffman-nebraska-policeman-shoots-dog-video_n_1971117.html The video is of the dog being shot, unfortunately it was shot off frame 1st, some claimed it was just circling, but it was circling because it was shot already, and he followed up with a few more to kill it.

Now this house is right on the main road through town, across the street from the one and only convenience store, and hyd hose manufacturer, houses are pretty close together right there too. You can see on google maps exactly where it happened. Street view even shows the same dog house in the video.

I had many times drove by and seen the dog in his kennel. The video is of the back of the house where the dog lives, so I am a little hesitant about the cop shooting the dog if he was protecting his property. But several people said the dog was acting aggressively, was off the property and the dog ran home when the cop came but then circled back and came towards him. From what I heard second hand he was trying to get it back in the kennel. This is small town, and I have got to know the EMTs and cop more than I would ever normally because of my in laws living there and the last year or so of several 911 call for for the father in law. The cop is not a one of those badge heavy types, it seems more like he just tries to be a little like Andy Taylor in Mayberry. I think he shot the dog , knew the family wasn't home and then tried to clean up so they did not come home the to the blood and mess more than was trying to hide, especially when its right out in the open on a highway and several witnesses. Scottsbluff county animal control will not come out for dogs, its up to the town to deal with them. One of the reasons we have so many dogs because my wife delivers the mail in town and the rural route around it and everyone thinks she is the go to person for strays since she knows everyone. She many times has worked with the town to find dog owners etc.

Of course the video brings the obvious question, who took it and why did they not go out and get the dog in?

I am not faulting the cop in that case. But there have been several incidents since that like you said, shooting the dog was just procedure in serving a warrant. I have a real problem with that. If a dog is property, they would have no right to burn a house down to serve a warrant, then why do they have a right to destroy a dog even if it is just barking at them. Police are not going to like the blow back from that kind of thing when they pick on the wrong people someday.

[HiTemp]

I read the story on HuffPo but the link to the vid on YouTube didn't show anything. YouTube says the video was removed because of multiple copyright violation claims. Hmmm. Someone illegally using my copyrighted dog execution video?

Well the whole cop-mindset thing is boggling to me. Anytime it has been asked about it on the FL gun forum, the automatic reaction seems to be one of two: the cops/pro-cops dismiss it as cop-bashing and ignorance, the anti-cop types say it's just another in a string of examples of abusive conduct.

Honestly, I don't think all these instances can be painted with one brush. I think in some of them the cop(s) had options but didn't take the time to use them. In others, there really wasn't much anyone could do and it came down to shoot the dog or be injured.

I just have this basic viewpoint that if you're going to go swimming in the ocean, a prudent person doesn't tie bags of chum to themselves because they know - or definitely should know - that doing so will make them instant shark bait. Now, if a person did chum themselves, then tried to claim self-defense when the sharks attack, I view that as absolutely stupid and nothing more than a way to justify idiotic actions from the start. That's kind of how I view some of these police incidents. The question never gets asked, WHY it was so necessary to serve that warrant/make that bust/corral that fugitive right than and right there?

Look, anyone with a dog knows no matter the dog, they still have pack sense. They alert if they hear something and immediately bark to warn the pack, and that pack would include their human owners, especially the ones who feed them. If danger approaches the pack, they will go after it and attack it, even if the attack is to run close and snarl and growl. That's what dogs DO. Compare it to a policeman and someone tries to grab his gun out of the holster. Every single one of them will react the same way - they will resist the attempt, twist away, and mount the best offense they can against the gun snatcher. They, like the dog in a home setting, can always be relied upon to act in that manner.

SO let's assume a situation where a cop has to be arrested, taken into custody for whatever reason. If someone was to make a plan to go sneak up on this cop and snatch his pistol, knowing full well how he's going to behave, would it seem a stretch for someone to shoot at him the minute he starts to twist, knowing an attack will follow and citing that impending danger as a means to shoot first so as to prevent it? I think most people would find that ludicrous. They would question the plan, wondering why didn't you get him in a circumstance where he may not have his gun ON him when you arrest him? Maybe get him to the gym for a workout and catch him with his pistol in his locker?

But when it comes to these raiding plans, it seems like no matter how stupid they appear after the fact, there always seems to be justification for even the silliest detail. That I just don't get.

The most recent argument over this kind of thing happened when Volusia County (NE of Orlando on the eastern coast. Think Daytona Beach) agreed to give back an armored personnel carrier it got from the military. The pro-Cops were screaming how it has saved lives, is necessary in the case of armed and barricaded subjects, etc. The other side found no issue with those uses but didn't think they need to parade this vehicle around in intimidating ways - which they did to much citizen dissatisfaction.

The problem is creep. Just like in post-911 days the Patriot Act seemed like a good idea. It was sold as a way for the government to intercept vital intel on terrorist activity that could be used to thwart an attack. Fine, but then the FBI started using it to go after citizens in criminal cases, then testified to congress it was "an oversight." Fourteen thousand of them the first year, then progress the second year when only some 6,800 improper uses were admitted to. So the problem is not that a particular tool works well to do a job; the problem is it works so well it will sure make it a lot easier than using "the accepted system" that includes things like RIGHTS. Cops are running around with Stingrays and cell phone simulators right now. Why? Because why get a warrant and get it from the phone provider when they can snoop without one anytime they want?

That's the issue with military equipment and military tactics. They want to paint the picture they'll only be used in extreme cases, against the worst criminals, but then we find them using it in all manner of cases NOT used to justify getting the equipment/using the tactics in the first place. That seems to smack of laziness and a willingness to let the ends justify the means. I don't think our civil, NON-military police forces ought to be swerving so close to the posse comitatus line by erasing the line between how they act and a federal or military force acts.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

It came up for me on Huffpo right now, thats weird, here is another link to it www.liveleak.com/view?i=f38_1350576100 Its not worth watching to determine any events leading up to it, it just shows the dog being shot.

I had to go by there yesterday, And now that I think about it, they now have their whole yard fenced, not with something cheap like chain link, its all steel wrought iron. It was also not long after they bought a brand new Chevy 4x4 and customized it with rims and lift kit, so I suspect since the story went national they had some money come in from donations, and the kicker, they now are breeding rotties and have 3 kennels behind their house.

But when it comes to these raiding plans, it seems like no matter how stupid they appear after the fact, there always seems to be justification for even the silliest detail. That I just don't get.

Oh I get it, and it goes back to the militarization, and the priority of mission over anything else. 4th amendment and property rights? Individual rights of bystanders and/or acquaintances and collateral damage? Forget that, we have to get this guy in custody, even if its just for something selling milk. Then after the fact when people who are not in that mindset look at it and see the gross overplay of authority and force, the lawyer/ bean counter CYA kicks in, and they admit to nothing no liability on their part at all, so its all justified, because that would mean a pay out.
And this is exactly how govt is out of control at all levels.

I noticed on TV the other night the Cheyenne police rolled out their MRap on a call the news covered. I hope that made everyone feel safe.

[HiTemp]

It takes a while but these things have a way of evening out. You can see it in the larger cities where police forces have citizen review boards, something every department hates with a passion because it puts the scenario outside the mindset of police. Cops may be having their day now but eventually courts will start tossing evidence, convictions, and calling methods into question. When some department loses a very bad guy by their overreaching actions, that's going to reflect badly on them and make fertile ground for elective office challenges when newcomers promise to clean up their act one way or another. Just look at how one mayor made geldings of the Baltimore PD. Same thing is in progress with the Chicago PD.

Now I'm all for police having the power and the tools to apprehend bad guys, but there is a limit. That's what our rights establish, those limits. I don't think they have the right to inflict military raids on innocents, and when that happens it ought to cost the person in charge of the screw up a career or at least a rank and they get removed from ever planning another one. When it's going to impact them financially and professionally there will be a lot more scrutiny and less immediacy to solving the problem. Hitting a wrong house ought to put into state law as something that's both criminal and non-defensible by simply saying "we thought it was the right one." When they hit apartment 210 instead of 201 and no evidence points to 210, that's it, they're all under arrest for home invasion. I'd bet every cop on the raid would be verifying the address in their own minds before acting.

I'm pretty tired of the "we was just following orders" mindset too. Think how that would be viewed if a Sailor was given the unlawful order to open fire on a cruise ship, then did so. He's not going to get by simply claiming he was following orders because it's his job to know that order is either legal or not. I think if cops want to get more "military," that would be a good place to start. Individual actions of all officers are their responsibility and no hiding under the rock of orders.

The many, many officers out there who don't align themselves with the "get them now at any cost" mindset are unfortunately snagged up in the mix with those that are. That makes it difficult to always align ones self on one side or the other, because the lines blur all the time. But they have to fix this or whatever establishment fix that eventually comes down from the courts will hamstring them in ways they don't want in order to restore or preserve our rights as citizens.

So now the guy has a new truck with rims and a full-on Rotty breeding operation, eh? Seems like his dog didn't die in vain then, so what's he bitching about? Wonder if his donors know about the rims? At least he had the good sense to erect a fence suitable to keeping those dogs in his yard.

[HiTemp]

It isn't just organized raids either. This just happened a few days ago in Palm Beach Gardens, which is a kind of suburb city NW of Palm Beach, FL.

The scenario goes like this:

A 31-year old musician (drummer) was returning home from playing a gig. His SUV breaks down on the interstate and he manages to make it to an exit ramp. He pushes the vehicle along at least part of the exit ramp. He calls a buddy thinking he's low on oil, the buddy drives some oil out to him at 2:30am but it wasn't the problem. The buddy leaves. It's now 3:15 in the morning.

An undercover cop in an unmarked vehicle spots the SUV from the nearby parking lot of a motel where the officer is on stakeout watching for car burglars. Without notifying his supervisor (or getting permission to leave his post), the officer drives his unmarked vehicle out to the exit ramp in order to check out this vehicle he claims he thought was abandoned. He pulls up, NO lights, just his plain wrapper looking car. He gets out of the car with NO badge/credentials, NO radio, and "is suddenly confronted by an armed man". Next thing you know, he then shoots the armed man dead.

The deceased drummer has NO priors, in fact no interaction with LE whatsoever in his past. He's a big player in local church bands, member of the church, lots of friends who question whether or not he even owned or had a gun, though now it's looking like he did own one and had a valid CWFL. Palm Beach Garden police officer was hired onto the job in April of this year.

The investigation has been turned over to Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, the same organization who just got their clock cleaned in court by a judge for destroying evidence they had a court order to retain. That case involved a police shooting and the evidence that vanished was the dash cam footage, the officer's weapons, and some recordings. Gee, we have no idea how this happened! The judge was NOT amused and is still considering how he's going to hammer the Sheriff.

So, of ALL places for an investigation like this to end up.

First, the LE organizations wouldn't release ANY details. When the press got hold of the drummer's background and good standing in the community, they demanded answers and a slow trickle of details is starting to emerge. It's not looking so good for the cop right now, and probably because he did almost everything wrong. No calling for a marked unit to check the guy out; no pulling up with his flashing lights on to give the drummer some idea who he is; no badge to show if challenged; no radio - in fact he called in the shooting by dialing 911 on his personal cell phone.

The big rat in this whole story is this; the cop was supposedly parked on a stake out nearby. He thought he was checking out an "abandoned SUV." Bu this drummer was on the phone to his friend when his SUV broke down, in fact the friend went to the scene with some oil 45 minutes before the shooting. Didn't the cop see any of that? Couple guys, TWO vehicles, both guys monkeying around the open engine compartment of this "abandoned vehicle?" Didn't he see the SUV being pushed by someone earlier? If this guy was coming home from a gig, it's quite possible he had his instruments and gear in the SUV and if so, he's certainly not going to walk away and leave it there. What was the evidence that led the officer to conclude "abandoned" versus merely "broken down?"


Here's a couple links.

First reporting

Later reporting

Don't be dissuaded by the second link source. Billed as a kind of online scandal sheet but it's actually a reporter for the local channel 5 who runs it.

In fairness to the officer, no matter what bad circumstances or decisions led him to the SUV, we still have no details on what happened once he got there. Did he approach with weapon out? Holstered? Did he identify himself at least by word? Did the drummer suddenly burst out with a weapon? We don't know any of those facts yet. But I have to say that I'm at least sickened by the fact that we have a dumb premise to start, violations of rules and protocols to get there, a dead citizen with no prior history of being a criminal in any way, and now crickets as to what happened in the important moments. Its the sum of it that stinks. What's likely to happen is it will all boil down to "he was pointing a weapon at me - I had to shoot - justified" instead of looking at the sum of all events. A cop wouldn't be IN that situation of life/death if he'd just done his job right and used some common sense about trying to stealth up on a broken-down motorist at 3am who had NO idea of his job or his intentions. It's that part of the blame that I fear will get swept away as unimportant but really gets to the nut of this "officer safety" defensive mode.

Like the saying goes, you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. Unless you're a cop, then the stupid games are washed away and the stupid prize is justified by wanting to go home at the end of the shift.

I do support the police, but it's getting harder and harder to justify it when this kind of crap happens and they don't weed these fools out.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

"he was pointing a weapon at me - I had to shoot - justified"

Yeah, but take away the badge its murder 2 in the same exact circumstance for us peons.

It takes a while but these things have a way of evening out.

Cold comfort for the dead and those who are in the system struggling to get free of it because of an agent of the states actions.

I support police too, but there is a limit on what they can do, its really fairly simple as expressed by the 4th amendment. The problem is what is seen as reasonable cause by those who enforce law is not shared by those who they are enforcing it on.

I feel the job is especially dangerous and frustrating in being limited to what they can do at times, but that is the job, if you are more concerned for your safety than anyone esles, maybe you need a different job with less authority of action.

[HiTemp]

Yeah that's true but it's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole when you try and discuss these situations to most anyone in LE from a citizen's perspective. My experience has been the defensive wall gets thrown up immediately and I hear things like "try walking in our shoes for a day," or "I don't get paid to look from a citizen's perspective, I get paid to enforce laws from a LEO perspective." When I hear that, I realize I'm just wasting my breath because they are determined not to hear what I have to say. But I do have a voice as I still vote in the local elections. I can still attend meetings and speak my mind on issues whether they like it or not. I have to say we don't have a big problem with this kind of thing around here. Our Sheriff and his deps are pretty squared away for the most part, and some scandals of the past have pretty much been sorted out. But the trend is nationwide, and I don't think this department is going to stay isolated from problems that are popping up all over the place. So I am concerned.

In the case that I cited above, the problem I have is that no matter how good the "shot in self defense" argument is, there is still the matter of a LEO rolling up on someone in an unmarked vehicle (it was a white van) with no uniform and no badge and no radio and no blue lights at 3 in the morning. If someone did that to me, even if he said he was a cop, I would not believe him until he produced credentials - which he didn't have. WTH was wrong with him, thinking he was going to roll up on a situation in the same exact manner as a criminal would do, using the same BS line so as to make someone lower their guard, and NOT expect to an unfriendly reception?

It's like these situations where cops position themselves outside a building, then when the subject emerges, they start yelling at him with conflicting orders (show me your hands, get on the ground, put your hands up, don't move) and justify cutting them in half with 50+ rounds because the guy made some funny (furtive) move and "didn't comply." Well for gosh sake who COULD comply with that mess? A normal human startle reaction is to lean down and forward while bringing the arms in, kind of like a standing fetal curl, and it's THIS reaction - the normal reaction - cops take to be reaching for something or failure to comply. That's what sickens me about this kind of scenario; they force a person into total reaction mode, total defensive mode, then use that defensive movement as justification for aggression on their part. NOWHERE in any police shooting investigation report will you find any analysis of the victim's reflexive actions judged against the sudden, aggressive stimuli applied to them with a judgment of was it normal or not. Instead all you see is the victim made some sudden move, the officer thought he was reaching for a weapon, felt in danger for his safety, thus fired 15 shots hitting the victim 7 times, with two wounds instantly fatal.

Here's what I propose: You shoot someone in an instance like that and it turns out he was unarmed, by definition you are unable to properly judge when someone is reaching for a weapon or not, therefore you lose your LEO certification and have to option to go re-earn it starting at step one. Do it a second time and you're done. If a lawyer misjudged something like evidence or screwed up a client's finances so badly the state bar would have his scrotum tacked to the wall. If a guy down at the tire shop "thought" my wheels were balanced but in reality put them way out of balance, how long is he going to stay employed at that shop? How come in this LEO profession no one gets to come behind and say your judgment sucked wind? OH, it's because it's so sudden and unpredictable - yeah, like the guy trying to piece together a reaction to four cop commands at once you mean? Gee, yeah, that sure can get confusing, can't it? He paid with his life, maybe the cop paying with a full re-certification is a small price in comparison. If he were not a cop, as you point out, he'd be paying with lack of freedom for a long time.

I really don't know what the solution is or will be, but I suspect it's going to be something in the middle. This just cannot go on where citizens, some unarmed, some completely innocent, end up dying on the wrong end of a judgment call. At some point, society is going to stop accepting those judgments. Kent state wasn't the first deployment of the NG to a college campus protest, but it was the first one where bad judgment stuck it's head up too high and ended up getting lopped off. Probably it will take another, equally stupid response to a situation that doesn't remotely deserve it and society will lower the boom. Congressional phones will light up, donors will demand something be done, and it will get done. Like the pendulum of the 60s, when it swings back they aren't going to be very happy and will relearn all those hard lessons of history about what happens in a backlash of public support.

I just wish they'd see beyond their dashcams and realize the giant bolder headed their way if they don't get a grip on this problem.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

The observing public don't know what to think from an objective standpoint, because we see some thug attack and charge a cop which is what the cop claimed, and later evidence backed up, and a whole nation was condemning the cop from the start from an outright lie he was shot while giving up. Of course a lot of that comes from these other incidences of cops unjustified aggressiveness and immediate violent reaction with fatal results and no repercussion.

I have a better idea, if in the case you shoot someone on duty or not, and you failed in procedure to produce ID and/or deescalate a situation that they had initiated, you are treated as any other common person and charged with murder. That is the only way police are going to be accountable is if they have to abide by the same laws and level of enforcement as us, and if that is a problem, then the laws need changed, not cops given a pass. I think we are already seeing the result of that double standard, and cops are losing support in some respects, because we don't automatically give benefit of doubt, we demand proof of justification, and that the way its should be, because if its not justified completely, its criminal and cannot be tolerated coming from authority if that entity is to maintain its very authority granted by the people. For that matter that same thing can be said of all levels of govt.

[HiTemp]

Oh but they happen so suddenly that the LEO has only a split second to react or risk possible injury or death! I'd be fine with that if every citizen got the same benefit of the doubt, but they DON'T. If you or I reacted in a split second and shot an unarmed person because we "thought" that furtive movement was suggestive of reaching for a weapon (meaning any hand motion toward a beltline or pocket) then we would at minimum be charged because: 1)we need an investigation 2)to get to the truth 3)and if you're truly innocent you got nothing to worry about (except that quarter-million legal defense bill), which we're really sorry about but, hey, at least we got to the truth!

That's the song you'll hear.

Sorry, but I need to rant.

As I've mentioned, the FL legislature is in progress of advancing two bills that effect self defense. The first one deals with elevating the standard of reasonable suspicion to probable cause before an officer can stop someone he thinks is carrying a concealed weapon illegally. The issue is that too many CCW's have been hassled by cops who stop them, demand to see their permit, ask a dozen other unrelated questions (where you going/coming from, why are you going there, etc.) just because they detect OR suspect a concealed weapon and MAYBE the dude doesn't have a CWFL. Only happened to me once and I was just walking along minding my own business when I got the "Lemme see your hands! Is that a gun on your belt? Do you have a permit for that?"

So now, unless the officer has PC that the weapon is being carried concealed illegally, they are not allowed to stop you and ask you to produce proof you are legally exercising your right (to bear arms). The police unions and a handful of Sheriffs/Police Chiefs are going ballistic. "How are we supposed to check up on a man-with-gun call if the guy conceals it before officers arrive?" How are we going to run some checks to see if anyone is illegally carrying on the street? How are we supposed to get all those illegal weapons off the street if we can't even ask?"

Well, could be that they've gotten so used to their evidence-fishing expeditions they no longer want to do what they were supposed to do all along. Think I'm illegally carrying? Based on what - your "hunch?" How about based on some kind of evidence I'm doing something illegal before deciding to stop and detain me for questioning?

The other bill is the open carry bill, supposedly in response to judiciary misinterpretation of legislative intent with regards to the previously passed statute that makes brief, inadvertent exposure of a concealed weapon not a crime. Well, the courts said "brief" is too vague, so in one case it was too brief, another case, exposed even longer, it was brief enough.

This bill allows open carry for anyone with a concealed permit. So with a permit you can carry any way you want. Now not only does that put a stop to the "brief or inadvertent" problem, but the bill also requires the judiciary to use the legal standard of strict scrutiny in their review of any case that deals with the right to bear arms/self defense. Strict scrutiny is the highest of three levels of legal standards. In the lower two, the government only has to assert a compelling interest to, for example, limit something like where one may bear arms or in what manner. Under strict scrutiny, the government must prove the compelling interest with evidence and/or testimony. So when they don't want guns here because they claim it increases crime or armed assaults, they can no longer just SAY that, they have to PROVE it or the government interest is not compelling.

Personally, the FL judiciary has never sat for anyone telling them how to run their courts, so I don't hold out a lot of hope in this thing. I'm sure it won't be long before some judge finds a legal reason to NOT use it or how the legislature's direction was improper, something to get around it.

Now I watched the Senate Criminal Justice Committee hearing on the bill. They cited two amendments, one of which was withdrawn temporarily at least, in order for Senators to work out something that will satisfy some concerned constituents. So there was silence about the amendment. After the hearing I went and dug up the text of the amendment and the issue is with private property owners who might not wish to allow open carry in their businesses (HELLO open carry advocates... you listening?). The amendment reads that private property owners may ban {B}carrying of weapons[/b] on their property by posting large, highly visible signage at all entrances.

So, it'll never happen is how this was lure was baited. All the people (like me) who warned that by holding provocative open carry events at businesses that support OC would do nothing but scare hell out of businesses who don't were dismissed as "you have no proof." Chicken Little kind of scenario they said.

So now, when Walmart puts up a sign to ban guns, it's ALL guns, concealed or not. Signs never had the force of law in FL, so if a place said "no guns" and you were discovered to have one in there, all they could do is ask you to leave. If you left, you broke no law. If you refused, you committed armed tresspass. Naturally, most people would simply leave.

Now, if this amendment ends up in the bill, the list of 11 places you cannot take a gun under any circumstances changes to 12, with the twelfth being "anywhere these large, highly visible signs are. Which, in practice, means no banks, no ATM's, no this, no that. Might as well start looking around for a velcro belt holster since the gun will be on/off/on/off/on depending where I might go that day.

The Senator who introduced the bill withdrew it in order to help work out a solution with those concerned. I hope that means he killed the amendment in order to find a different way, because it that's what open carry is going to cost, forget it. I only OC in my yard to begin with now, so I don't really care if it passes or not. But I'm going to be really pissed if these OC zealots end up making me a criminal because I didn't see a freakin' sign on the door.

The Senator assured everyone that FL statutes already empower businesses and private property owners protection against unwanted persons or actions on their property. The law he was citing says that a business or private property owner has the right to use reasonable means to DETAIN someone doing something illegal on their property. That's the law that lets store security detain a shoplifter... is he suggesting some mom & pop diner start detaining Open Carriers? How's that going to work? What's going to be "reasonable means" when the person you're about to detain has a sidearm clearly visible? That's not going to end well for somebody.

These advocates who were all high-fiving each other online when the FL House committee passed the House version last week have suddenly found themselves too busy to answer any questions right now. I posted asking how come they tell us every other amendment a week before we can read it on line but somehow skipped this amendment about the signs? Crickets. Who wrote the text of the amendment, who offered it? Bird chirps. What kind of victory for 2ndA is that if we can open carry but only where a slew of individuals say we can, and instead of being able to CC in those places, unless asked to leave, we commit armed trespass the moment we walk past those signs? Hooting owls.

I guess they are still in their PR/Damage Control meeting.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I'd be fine with that if every citizen got the same benefit of the doubt, but they DON'T.

Exactly, and since we don't condone people shooting unless they are actually harmed or its extremely imminent, allowing that kind of leeway for cops seems like it justifies summary executions for no crime committed but the fear of the officer alone.

BTW yesterday coincidental another dog shooting video popped up on facebook, plainclothes cop goes to a door, the people opened it and a dog runs out and he draws and shoots it, look like some sort of coon hound cross. I was thinking how if that was anyone else but a cop, he would be in jail for discharging a weapon, brandishing, animal cruelty and probably endangerment shooting literally at the feet of the owners since the 1st shot happened before the dog cleared the door. Don't tell me they abide by the same laws.

As to the ability of LE to stop and harass, I think that is different state to state, here they can walk up and ask if you are carrying, and you have to tell them. Of course there is little point to doing that now unless they suspect of doing something, because of constitutional carry they can't get you just for that.

[HiTemp]

In a case like that I would vote to indict if I were a grand jurist, and absent some really solid ground showing an absolute need to fire, it would be guilty if I were on a jury. Once again, we know dogs are territorial, we know they have a deep sense of protecting their "pack" (family) especially in their home. For some bozo, LEO or not, to waltz up to the door and not anticipate the possibility of a dog being in there is pretty poor situational analysis IMHO. My male pug is nearly impossible to hold back from someone ringing the doorbell, and it is so bad that I've had to banish him from access to the living room at all times just because of that. Now all he wants to do is sniff them and rub against their legs, but no one on the receiving end could fairly know that unless they had a pug too.

I think the question really comes down to the specific behavior. A dog barking at them just isn't enough. A dog baring its fangs and snarling, now that's different as it's signaling an impending attack that's certainly going to hurt. How in this case does anyone know that the dog wasn't just bolting through the door to get outside, as many dogs try to do? Gee, I wonder how all those Letter Carriers, UPS, and FedEx employees manage to go home safely at the end of their shift? I guess they just don't care about their safety as much as cops do, eh?

A plainclothes cop coming to my door will get no answer and I don't care if stays out there knocking til 2 in the morning. I have a decent security system and I'll just watch him from my iPad anywhere in the house I choose to be. In most cases where the person stays around knocking past the normal two or three attempts, it makes me wonder what they're up to. I can go out the back and around the side and usually can walk right up behind them before being noticed. In this area, we have a lot of unlicensed, out-of-state people who go knocking on doors to solicit home repair work. It's often half the price of what you'd pay a legit contractor, but it's often just a front to gain access to case your home with a burglary to follow not long after the (half-assed) work is done.

Earlier this summer I had a guy walk up my driveway into my carport which is beyond the back of my house. When the motion detector picked him up and set off the chime, I grabbed the iPad and saw him peering into the door of my workshop taking a quick eyeball inventory. I watched while he walked back down the driveway and then knocked on the front door. I went around from the back and didn't say a word until I was 3 feet behind him. When I asked who he was and what he wanted he literally jumped. He gave me the standard BS... he works for a construction crew that's sealing the roof of a very expensive home not far away, they have a lot of excess sealer so he's offering me a deep discount to apply this "sealer" to my roof shingles to prolong their life by years, can give me an excellent price, etc. I asked him what were you doing up in my carport? "Carport? Huh?" I showed him the screen of my iPad with a very clear still capture showing his mug peering into my shop. Oh, he says, I just went out back to take a quick look, to see if the roof had any existing problems. I told him if I'm missing so much as a piece of sawdust his picture is the first thing I'm giving to the cops when I file a report, now take off. I catch you trespassing again I'll detain you and let the cops sort it out. Got in his truck and left the neighborhood.

My only real concern with the security system is if a non-uniformed cop were to enter my property, especially at night, I have no way to ID them other than what I can see on camera. If they don't have a badge visible or some comm gear, something that might indicate they are a cop, it might get very ugly. Despite many such ugly situations in FL, and despite protocols such as turning on blue lights before they depart a vehicle at night to go prowling around yards for suspects, there are still some LEOs who go yard hunting with just black clothing and a pistol. If I saw someone on camera stealing around my shop with a pistol in hand, no visible sign of being a cop, no marked or unmarked car out front with flashing blues, then what am I supposed to take him as?

If it's okay for the cops to take any dog coming in their direction as a threat, because they don't know the dog or how dangerous he may be, then why would I be required to treat an armed trespasser slinking around my valuable property and possessions as anything but a hoodlum with ill intent? Looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Here's a suggestion... they have radios, why not call and have dispatch start phoning homeowners in the two or three yard area where they're about to pursue? Does a ten second radio call that might save their life too much to ask? After all, they're all about safety, right? If that's too much, how long does it take to flip on blue lights? At some point they have to consider that they cannot expect people to see the reasonableness of deadly force in one instant when everything they did up to that point sort of forced it into a deadly encounter. I think we have to look at the totality of their actions and hold them accountable for poor tactics if nothing else when they force encounters to go bad.

Like this deal in Palm Beach Gardens. How dense can a cop be to roll up on a person at 3 am in an unmarked van, not in uniform, no lights, no quick "whoop" of a police siren, no radio, no credentials, and expect a reasonable person to just "know" he's a cop when he claims to be? Now the deadly encounter occurs and all we want to focus on is that moment. No way! If you douse yourself with gasoline before walking over to a charcoal grille, you don't get to shoot the BBQ chef when he goes to light the coals because you are in imminent danger of death or serious harm You put yourself in danger by your actions FIRST, and that's what you should be held accountable for. And - because those stupid actions resulted in the loss of a life that would NOT have occurred had you done only one in a series of omissions, the price should be a high one.

How is this not like one of those cases where a guy shoots someone while supposedly cleaning his gun/showing his gun to someone? He had to violate all four basic safety rules to get from A to B, and one of them adhered to would have prevented tragedy. The gun, that I didn't treat as loaded, that wasn't pointed by me in a safe direction, that was pointed at something I didn't intend to destroy, went off when I had my finger on the trigger when it had no business being there. That's what I hear when I hear about these accounts of cops killing someone who, if they just gave them SOME indication of what was going on, would not have died believing they were facing a potential robbery and only wanted to go home safely at the end of their shift.

[zrct02]

It has been my conviction that the part of the police motto, i.e., 'to protect' is a lie. To protect only happens if the cop happens to be present at the time of the crime. That does not happen very often. It should not mean they can go fishing for illegal activities randomly but the cops evidently think it does.
What the cops do is clean up the mess after the fact which is the 'to serve' part of the motto.
That being said, right or wrong, a cop's orders should be followed (if possible) with no back talk or unnecessary movements. Otherwise, one could be not only right but dead right. These guys are scary.

[HiTemp]

Oct 23, 2015 7:23:00 GMT -7 zrct02 said:

It has been my conviction that the part of the police motto, i.e., 'to protect' is a lie. To protect only happens if the cop happens to be present at the time of the crime.

You can't always depend on that. There are ample videos on the internet where some cops stood by watching while someone received a beating or worse. Sometimes it's not the cops fault, such as when a scene becomes out of control due to numbers of people. This is exactly what happened in Baltimore during the Freddy Gray riots. Handful of cops with unknown, possibly questionable orders on limiting their actions, and a mob running wild burning cars and destroying property.

It should not mean they can go fishing for illegal activities randomly but the cops evidently think it does.

That's why they are facing the backlash they have created. In their zeal to "protect" the public, they are using ever-increasing means under the auspices of bad guys need to be taken off the street, so by whatever means. Problem is, they don't and can't know who exactly IS a bad guy until they have evidence. There have been too many cases of innocent people being subjected to their pressure tactics that deserved none of it, and that's the problem they refuse to acknowledge with any meaningful action.

How would you feel if you walked out of WalMart some day with a bag of light bulbs you just purchased and got tackled and held at gunpoint because you "might" have been that shoplifter stealing steaks out of the meat cooler? How justified would it be for you to be road-rashed because someone "thought" you "could be" the guy? If that were to happen, would you just accept the "sorry, wrong guy" or might you want them to examine their methods and perhaps realize that it isn't necessary to treat a potential meat thief with the same vigor normally reserved for an armed robber fleeing a bank job? The problem is they want a one-size-fits-all protocol but life doesn't come in one size and doesn't fit all. They have to use discretion, just like a salesman has to adapt his selling method based on his observations of the potential buyer. Problem is, not all cops are willing to, and always justify it with the worst-case scenario. Yet if we citizens tried to assess all cops based on the worst cops, we are flat out rejected as some kind of lunatic. I think that has to work both ways if there is to be true trust.

That being said, right or wrong, a cop's orders should be followed (if possible) with no back talk or unnecessary movements.

I strongly disagree. In any free society that has laws, those laws in some way mean a restriction of freedoms. Usually, hopefully, those restrictions are for a good reason, such as not being able to take a gun into a courtroom. When those pieces of freedom are given up, they have to be for a good reason and they have to have limits. That's why you can't ban guns altogether just to keep them out of the courtroom. When we allow our "protectors" to do things like detain us, question us, demand we turn over objects, we also placed limits on those things. You want to seize my computer? Get a warrant; that protects me from someone using such a seizure as a harassment tactic by requiring them to supply facts to a judge as to why my property should be seized, where, when, and what evidence they expect to find on it.

What it does NOT do is allow any cop, any where, any time to just walk up and demand things like identification unless they have reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime has been committed. If they don't, you can tell them to take a hike if they don't tell you when asked they are detaining you and why. That makes their job very hard and they don't like it, but that is the limitation the law put on them. Too often they don't respect that limitation and arrest someone because they didn't like a person holding them to the law. When the case is thrown out, the innocent (and lawful) person ends up with an arrest record that can't go away for 3 years (in FL) and costs about $1200 (2013 figures) to have expunged. And the cops? Nothing happens to them except MAYBE they get a complaint lodged against them on the record. So there is little incentive for them to respect the lawful limitations imposed on them.

Otherwise, one could be not only right but dead right. These guys are scary.

Right. There are some circumstances where asserting your rights will get you killed. Also, it's never a good idea to try and hold court on the side of the road, you save that for your court appearance. But once again, the system puts citizens at a great disadvantage because arrests, even bad or false ones, leave an indelible mark and the cops know that and use that as coercion to gain what they want whether limited or not.

The bill I mentioned above, this open-carry in FL bill, has some stinging rebukes for anyone who tries to violate rights in that area of statutes. It strips them of immunity and leaves them fully exposed to personally suffer the after-effects of not respecting the limitations imposed by law. Right now, if a cop has reasonable suspicion that you are carrying a concealed firearm and may not be licensed, he or she can stop you, detain you, and demand you produce your Concealed Weapon or Firearms License (CWFL). [NOTE: in FL, firearms are not weapons and vice-versa; they are two distinct categories.]

Because so many cops have been in the habit of merely seeing signs of a concealed weapon and - with nothing else - stopped the person and demanded to see a CWFL. If you don't have one - 3rd degree felony arrest. If you have one but don't have it on you (you are required by law to have it on you any time you carry concealed) - 3rd degree misdemeanor arrest. So basically the cops view it as a 50:50 chance they
are going to get an arrest out of it. Problem is, if you're just an ordinary citizen legally carrying with your license on you, it's a hassle. It costs you time, and it exposes the fact you are carrying to anyone who can see it. So basically you are treated as guilty until you prove yourself innocent. In some instances, for officer safety of course, these encounters have occurred with a loaded firearm pointed at the head of the innocent, law-abiding citizen until they are disarmed and it all gets straightened out.

Now THAT is ass-backwards of how rights and the limitations on government are supposed to work. Since LEOs have abused it, the citizens of FL are now going to insist that cops have probable cause, not merely reasonable suspicion, that the person is illegally carrying before they can ask anyone about their license. In short, they have to have some factual basis for the stop, and if they DON'T have it, they are de facto depriving you of constitutional rights and have their immunity stripped away.

Think they'll keep stopping people for evidence-fishing expeditions now? Not very likely.

Just yesterday the FL Sheriff's Association came out opposing the open carry bill. One of their chief complaints is that they will no longer be able to "check people out" for compliance. What they really mean is they can no longer do that without any factual basis and they don't like having to live to that standard. Well too freakin' bad. Who started the problem, anyway? They claim that this will inhibit their ability to get illegal guns off the street, and that's likely true, but it's the same thing as arguing that making us get search warrants inhibits our ability to get child porn off the streets as opposed to cops being able to search any home or property on their own whims. Well - yeah! But when we traded a smidgen of freedom for law, we imposed limits and you have to live inside those limits or you can expect nothing else but MORE limits. The "more criminals will go free" argument is just a clever disguise for "we'd catch them all if you take all the limits away," but we didn't merely give freedoms away, we insisted on a price, and that price is limitations.

I'd rather have a police force that respects limits and when they catch a bad guy, harder though it may be, I can rest assured they did it using legal means and it won't get tossed out of court for rights violations, than to have a force that plays fast and loose with the limitations and causes grief to the citizens who take the time and care to follow all their laws and live by their limitations. When they try and seize a power the people never intended them to have, they shouldn't complain when the people try and seize it back.

[zrct02]

Ummm I've never heard of a stolen car being referred to as an illegal car.

[HiTemp]

I'm at somewhat of a loss, Roger. I have no idea what you're referring to.

[zrct02]

Illegal guns.