Militarization of Police

Cop Shoots Dog: Three Stories to Wreck An Animal Lover's Day


February saw police officers in New Mexico, Florida, and Virginia unnecessarily shoot family pets, including a playful Australian Shepherd that bit an officer's shoe, a guard dog that was shot dead while the owner was away, and a brown and white mutt that was shot for being off-leash in a public park. 

From New Mexico: Victoria Baca called the New Mexico State Police earlier this month to file a complaint about an online scam. The dispatcher said she would send an officer to Baca's home sometime that day. Baca said she would be out running errands, and for the officer to call when he was on his way to her house. When the officer eventually called, it was to let Baca know that he had jumped her fence while she was out shopping and shot her dog for biting him. Baca and her kids founds the 11-year-old pooch on their front porch, where—too heavy to lift—she stayed for several days. (KOB4)

From Florida: When the Jones's dog Baxter, a six-year-old Australian Shephard, escaped from their house, their neighbors in Pembroke Pines called the police. Baxter made it back to the house before the police arrived, and ran out again when the officers approached the front door. Here the stories diverge: Cameron Jones, 13, says Baxter barked at the two officers. The police say Baxter bit one of them on the shoe. Either way, one of the officers drew his gun and shot Baxter, who is recovering at an animal clinic. According to Sergeant Chris Chacon-Chang of the Pembroke Police Department, "It's a good shoot. The officer was being attacked." (WPLG10)

From Virginia: Radford University student Joseph DeMasi and another student were walking their dogs off-leash in a city park when a Radford Police Department Officer, responding to a call about two unleashed dogs, shouted for their attention and told them to restrain their pets. DeMasi's dog Copper and the other student's dog initially ran toward the officer. The other dog stopped when called for, but Copper continued to run. According to DeMasi, "there was no barking or growling," and the dogs were "10 to 15 yards away" when the officer fired his gun. According to the officer, Copper "launched" himself. After shooting Copper, the officer followed DeMasi to an emergency animal clinic, where, "He told me I'm lucky his aim wasn't better and I'm lucky my dog isn't dead." DeMasi says he then made a crack about the officer's grammar and was forced onto his knees with his hands behind his back. A police spokesman "declined to address those allegations, stating they were inappropriate to discuss." (Collegiate Times)

NEXT: Why is the Economy Growing So Slowly?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Riggs, you fucking asshole.

    I was getting ready to eat lunch and now I have lost my appetite.

    1. We call that the nutpunch diet. It’s like fasting, except it’s a bit of a misnomer as the sheer magnitude of such stories can cause one to slowly wither away.

      1. somehow it hits harder when balko delivers them.

    2. You must be a very sensitive fellow. The stories made me hungry for a big ole steak.

      1. Oh, I’m sure you’ll have a big piece of meat in your mouth at some point in time tonight.* And if you want to refer to it as a “steak,” I guess that’s your prerogative.


        1. Just note that she approves of cops executing dogs and move on.

        2. Will you let us know when your have recovered your appetite, sensitive guy? Maybe you should avoid this place at dinner time. Bad things happen here.

          1. That’s your comeback? Really?

            We need better trolls!!!!!

            1. You got the troll you deserved.
              The big boys are at the adult chat rooms.

              1. But, I thought the big boys were out foraging for their sustenance for the day so they could go back to their cave and use their magickal computer box…that came to be despite civilization.

                1. Don’t know nuthin’ ’bout that.

                  My beat is the Cop-Shoots-Dog? stories, and the men who weep over them.

    3. I would prefer to read about a cop being shot than a dog. A dog is more trustworthy and less vicious.

    4. My neighbor just met a bisexual man on —datebi*cOMit’s where for men and women looking
      for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment.
      It’s a nice place for the people who have the same sexual orientation.

  2. You know, despite their reputation to the contrary, postal employees seem to have a better track record with firearms… AND they’re better at dealing with “threatening” dogs.

    1. Better than cops, that is (in case you couldn’t figure it out).

    2. When I finally make the mistake of bringing children into this godforsaken world to endure the crushing debt that has been foist upon them by their grandparents, I will teach my son that when it comes to playing cops and robbers, he should always be the robber since they are the more honorable profession.

      1. Maybe the younger generation should just pack up and leave with their kids, and leave all these old assholes with the debt they created. Why are we expected to pay for their screwups?

        1. Because of American Exceptionalism (in this case, being one of the only industrialized nations that taxes foreign income. No escape bitches!).

        2. Leave to where?

      2. the crushing debt that has been foist upon them by their grandparents

        Your parents did all that? And you still speak to them?

    3. Mail carriers, delivery people, meter readers, Jehovah’s Witnesses all seem to manage to approach people’s houses without shooting their dogs. Perhaps police ought to consult with some of those people.

      1. That’s an excellent point that I hadn’t thought of. I’m curios why dogs are constantly “attacking” cops, but not myriad other people (such as, oh I don’t know, anybody fucking else in the park where those guys were walking their dogs.

        Perhaps it’s because they can sense evil.

        1. It’s because any attempt to approach an officer, under any circumstances, is threatening.

          1. Don’t worry, Dunphy assures us that survey sez, everybody hearts cops.

            Yet for some reason they assume that anyone (or apparently anything, even a dog) approaching them has hostile intent.

            1. It’s the anti-cop bigots like me who ruin things for everyone else, obviously.

          2. Which makes perfect sense, because to cowards all manner of things appear threatening.

            1. Mensan, given your nickname, you of all people should be giving the benefit of the doubt to police. They can’t help that they work in an industry where employers are willing to litigate their defense of policies that bar employment to people who are too intelligent.

              Yes, I’m being facetious, and no, I am not making that up.

      2. Well, dogs do pick up on subtle clues from their people. Cops are threatening, those other groups not so much. So the dogs could be trying to protect their people against threats.

        Still assholes, though.

        1. This probably has a lot to do with it. Also cops tend to “project” an “alpha-male/ pack leader” type of presence that dogs pick up on as well. If their owners have allowed the dogs to become the “alpha dog” then the dog will immediately attempt to dominate and take leadership away from the cop, which can then be misinterpreted by the cop as an “attack”. Basically if more cops and dog owners watched The Dog Whisperer they’d be better equipped to deal with dogs (and Eric Cartman).

  3. Since we established in an earlier thread that animals are just disposable property, I’m not sure why this should gin up any more outrage than a cop breaking a window.

    I’m being snarky, of course, but I’m curious about the logic that makes shooting pets somehow more reprehensible than destruction of any other inanimate property if indeed that’s all pets are (animate property).

    1. I would feel just as bad if he had shot a farmer’s cow.

      1. 1) Most people wouldn’t, and I think you know that.

        2) Would you feel just as bad if he had shot the farmer’s barn-door, requiring a repair that may cost more than a new shelter dog?

        1. What about emotional value? Most people are emotionally attached to their pets. Most people are also emotionally attached to certain inanimate objects (wedding ring, family heirloom, etc.)

          From a more utilitarian POV, think of the time and energy spent training the dog. A new shelter dog would not be an adequate replacement for the hours spent teaching the previous dog not to pee everywhere.

          Shorter version: Shooting pets is worse than destruction of other property because pets typically have a much greater value than other property, once all definitions of value are considered.

          1. I thought that initially as well, but I really don’t see people getting as upset if someone stole some dollar amount from them that would be the market equivalent to the time and energy invested in the dog’s training and it’s emotional value.

            There’s a good discussion below about all this.

            1. You might want to go read up on civil forfeiture practices, then. There is no dearth of outrage across a spectrum of valuations.

      2. A hot dog makes me lose control.

      3. Yeah, or shot the engine block of their car if they used a remote starter and he bacame startled while in a parking lot.

    2. Unless you shoot a police dog, which is considered a canine officer.

    3. I would guess one distinction is that pets are for companionship, not for consumption.

      1. I get the obvious emotional reason, but I’m looking for the logic here. Whenever animal rights come up in a post, it’s nothing but “animals have no rights and are just property”. One could say one values their pet more than a table, but that doesn’t logically explain why almost everyone feels worse about a pet being shot as opposed to a table being broken. If we’re being logically consistent, the distinction between companionship and consumption is moot as long as both are merely regarded as property.

        1. The reason is that dogs are seen as innocents, being unable to, you know, reason and all. So when a dog gets shot, some people feel worse because the dog is too simple to understand the situation.

          I don’t really get it, but that seems to be the reason. Personally, I find it somewhat repugnant that many people get more upset about the cops injuring/killing an animal than a person.

          1. People figure the person did something to bring on their fate.

          2. Why not get upset at both? Legs of chairs don’t feel pain. Animals, whether they are property or not in the eyes of the law, feel pain.

            In my view, if a dog attacks a cop, really attacks, and the cop has the right to be where he is, then he has a right to stop the attack. I would feel the same way if the dog attacked any person. Have you seen some of those pit bulls?

            My problem with these stories, is that the dogs did not appear to have really attacked the cops, and/or the cops were not where they sould have been.

            1. There is one pit bull in particular that is going to get shot if I ever see it off leash again.

        2. There’s nothing inconsistent about being more concerned about a dog than an inanimate object.

          If I lose my grandpa’s bowie knife, I’m going to be a lot more upset than if I lose the cheap pocketknife I bought last week. Is that inconsistent?

          Some objects simply hold more value to the owner for a variety of reasons.

          1. Sure you can be more upset, but I meant, why would someone assume there should be harsher penalties for someone taking your bowie knife than the pocket knife (adjusted for market value of course)?

            Why is animal cruelty illegal, but table cruelty is not? If they are both just property, then it is entirely irrevlevant that one feels pain and the other doesn’t.

            1. If they are both just property, then it is entirely irrevlevant that one feels pain and the other doesn’t.

              No, I don’t think that follows at all.

              There are many different types of property under the law. Land, real estate, movable, immovable, personal, intellectual and so on. It’s a bit ridiculous to suggest that putting two items in the catch-all category of “property” means they must be treated the same in all cases or have the same quality. To say a dog is property is like saying birds are animals. Both are true, yes, but there’s a lot more to it than that and it would be a mistake to that birds can breathe underwater because fish are also animals.

              1. True, but the existence of categories implies strands that tie all of the items in that category together. For example, both birds and fish are animals, hence one can say that they are both alive.

                The common thread tying all property together is that the owner is entitled to use/abuse/dispose of it in any way that does not harm someone else (whether the law recognizes that or not). Intellectual, real estate, or moveable possession, you can give it, sell it, use it, as you please (again with the caveat that the rights of others are respected).

                If one supports animal cruelty laws, then one is carving animals out from the essential definition of what is property.

        3. It is worse than a broken window because of the emotional attachment to the pet. You would probably see more outrage if a cop destroyed a kid’s favorite stuffed animal than you would for a broken window, though perhaps not as much as the dog.
          A pet is also much more unique than a window or a door. Regardless, this is not about an animal’s rights, it is about the rights of the animal’s owner.
          Also, many people that do not support animal rights still oppose the senseless infliction of harm or taking of life.

          1. Also, many people that do not support animal rights still oppose the senseless infliction of harm or taking of life.

            See, that’s what I find to be logically inconsistent. Either they are property, which means there should be no sanction whatsoever for anyone abusing the shit out of the animals and torturing them in any way (as long as they belong to the person in question), or they are something more than property and must be protected by special laws against cruelty.

            If they are a protected class (i.e. you can own a dog, but you can’t buy them just to chain them up in your living room and skin them alive), then you have implicitly given them a right (the right not to be assaulted in some fashion as described in the legislation).

            1. Yes, basically. Although the stated rationale for most laws against animal abuse is because serial killers tend to also have histories of animal abuse.

              Interesting factoid: Animal anti-cruelty laws predate child anti-cruelty laws because people couldn’t believe that anyone would abuse children.

            2. OK, how about this. It’s not about a right inherent in the animal, but in the animal’s owner. By needlessly killing someone’s pet, you are inflicting emotional pain on the owner. The dog is just property, but it is property that the owner considers to be in a different category from inanimate property or perhaps even livestock. So while the dog on its own does not have any rights, the owner is harmed in a different way when a pet is killed than when other sorts of property is damaged.
              Rationally or not, a lot of people think of their pets as semi-people, so the harm that they suffer when a pet is killed is more akin to the harm you would suffer if a family member were killed than if your door was smashed in or something.

              I’m just sort of thinking in text here, so don’t hold me to this.

              1. That holds up for when other people kill your pets, but not for anti-cruelty laws in general, which also prevent the legal owner from torturing the animal.

                1. Well, I’m pretty ambivalent about animal cruelty laws.

    4. I’m not the biggest dog lover in the world, so I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d get a lot less upset about police destroying people’s property (be it animate or not) if they would apologize and offer some compensation when they figure out that what they did was not necessary (even if given the circumstances they did what they had to do). I’d like to see police departments admit the possibility of something being done by the book, but still being wrong.

    5. I’ll offer my two cents… I think it’s pretty obvious to anybody who’s ever owned a pet that they’re not inanimate object. The issue is one of policy. For example, we would agree that if I accidentally run over my neighbor’s cat for which they paid $80 at a local shelter, it’s different than if I accidentally run over my neighbor’s bike for which they paid $80. The question is: what is the cost of legally accounting for the difference between a bike and a cat? In the context of civil lawsuits, doing so would expose everybody to ridiculous amounts of potential liability every time they back out of their driveway. As such, it is entirely rational to support a legal system in which a cat is no different than a bike while fully realizing that in reality they have different values.

      1. It also follows that it’s entirely rational to find shooting a dog far more reprehensible than shooting a window even if one doesn’t support special rights/protections for pets.

        (And since when is there a 900-character limit? Thanks alot, HERC.)

        1. Don’t blame Herc. He’s an innocent victim like the rest of us.

          1. We feel your pain, Suge.

      2. That’s a very interesting perspective, thank you.

        I think you’re probably right, but it doesn’t mean I like the idea of the whole thing being “because it’s more convenient this way”.

        1. I’m not always a utilitarian, but legal protection is inherently a balancing act. Even a positive right like the right to due process is balancing the benefit of legal enforcement with the harm of wrongful conviction.

    6. People form emotional attachments to their property all the time. Susette Kelo, for example.

      It takes a real asshole to gratuitously destroy a piece of property to which the owner likely has an emotional attachment.

    7. don’t employ the argumentative tactic of a woman, thanks.

  4. Radford Police Department Officer

    He works for the university. They need to get this out to the alums. I were an alum I wouldn’t give that fucking cesspool a dime until that pig was looking for another job.

    1. It says Radford PD, not Radford University PD. The university is named for the town where it’s located.

      1. Good catch. Then it is hopeless. Fucking pig bastard.

  5. If there was a fence and locked gate at the first person’s house, why can this officer not be charged with B&E?

    He had no reason to enter her property without her consent. That’s against the law unless he is in pursuit of a criminal or is serving a warrant.

    1. Awww, you think the rule of law still applies to LEOs?

      1. I never though that it did to begin with.

    2. Wouldn’t he have some sort of probable cause because he had been called by the property owner? (I know it was related to online crime and entering the property was unnecessary, but what’s the actual law here?)

      1. Not likely. They were called by the homeowner and asked to meet her there. They were not told of an imminent threat to her person or property. She even requested they call when on the way so she could get home. IOW, they knew it was not an emergency call, therefore they had no reason or right to enter a locked or gated part of her property without her express consent.

        PC comes from seeing an act in process or as part of an investigation, but even that needs a warrant.

        This was B&E and trespassing. No way around it.

  6. Baca said she would be out running errands, and for the officer to call when he was on his way to her house. When the officer eventually called, it was to let Baca know that he had jumped her fence while she was out shopping and shot her dog for biting him.

    So, the officer trespassed, committed who knows how many crimes thereafter (shooting someone’s dog has to be against the law), and is being prosecuted.

    The police say Baxter bit one of them on the shoe.

    Easily confirmed by examination of the shoe. What’s that? No such confirmation has been made?

    And since when does a dog biting you on the shoe justify shooting the dog? A dog that is attacking you doesn’t go for your fucking shoe, you moron. That’s what a dog does when he’s trying to get you to play.

    1. I’m sure that “dog bit officer’s shoe” is one of those standard things they put into reports where they kill peoples’ pets.

      Kinda like how they always put on a speeding ticket that they calibrated the radar gun that morning.

      The burden of proof is on you to prove the officer wrong.

      If you can’t produce the officer’s shoe, tough shit.

      1. Yeah, but it would be easy to scratch your shoe and claim it was a bite mark. Suspect that this would be taken at face value.

    2. I’m curious about this case. Was this in the front yard or back? Most homes don’t have front fences, and if they do, there’s a gate. Why would he need to “jump” the fence? If this was the backyard, why does he even need go to to the backyard? This all sounds very fishy to me.

    3. And since when does a dog biting you on the shoe justify shooting the dog?

      Not to mention that most dogs don’t have enough bite force to bite through shoe leather. Sounds like BS to me. Just shake your foot and shoo (no pun intended) the dog away.

      But I guess then he wouldn’t get to shoot something, and since their superiors get all cranky from the extra paperwork, not to mention IA getting all up in their ass when they shoot peasants citizens, they have to settle for shooting dogs.

  7. Hello?

    [tap tap]

    Is this thing on?

    1. Give us some stories about how Assad is killing rebellious dogs, and we’ll talk.

      1. Our humans cannot compete with your dogs, it is true.

        1. Arab dictator killing people – that’s just a ‘Dog bites Man’ story.

          1. Don’t forget: We are fucking Muslims, worse than dogs.

            Right, John?

  8. God I hate cops. I am so tired of people just taking this shit.

  9. Double standard update:

    Does anyone believe for a second that if the person(s) doing the shooting hadn’t been a cop, they would be looking at serious criminal time in each and every one of these cases?

    In not one single case is the use of deadly force in self-defense justified. That means, at a minimum, reckless endangerment, unlawful discharge of a firearm. Add to that whatever the penalty is for shooting a dog. You can tack on trespassing/B&E for the NM cop, and assault for the VA cop (for his little “respect mah authoritay” fit at the vets).

    1. Firing a gun in public is a crime. As is cruelty to animals. If I went to the park and shot a dog that was off its leash, I would be arrested even if I claimed the dog was about to attack me.

      1. Wow, you are dumb. But I am sad that you don’t have the same rights as your cops. Would a siren and a uniform make you feel better about yourself?

        1. Rather, will no one play with you today?

          1. What’s “rather”? Your imaginary friend, perhaps?

            1. We all know it is you rather. And no one cares anymore.

              1. Not “rather.” And you seem to care.

          2. And more important, do you have cop envy?
            You seem sad that they have powers that you do not.

          3. Maybe she’ll post your name again, John. Apparently that’s an OK thing to do around here now.

            1. Is that what happened? It’s an outrage! If I were you, SugarFree, I’d leave this place and never come back.

    2. If the cop is not serving a warrant or in pursuit or something like that, they should be held to the same standards for use of force as anyone else would be. That seems like a good test for the justifiability of dog shootings.

    3. Hate crime, because at least one of the victims was a dog-of-color.

  10. No officers were injured?


  11. Damn, the pointer in that picture looks exactly like the pointer I had as a kid.

    1. How did it die?

  12. Who says American “libertarians” cannot focus on the essentials?

    Free Bowser!

    1. Right! Because, you know, it’s only possible to be outraged by one thing at a time.


      1. See the definition of “essentials” please and thank you.

        1. OK, I will. And when Syria is considered “essential,” I’ll be happy to comment on it ad nauseum. Until then, [points to door]…

        2. OK, I will. And when Syria is considered “essential,” I’ll be happy to comment on it ad nauseum. Until then, [points to door]…

          1. I see. Dogs are more important than humans. Thank you.

            1. Yep, since every single thread is not about human suffering, that means that humans don’t matter.

              The news should only focus on African countries with starving populations, or Arabs in rebellion, etc., every single night until all human misery is ended.

              Then we can finally focus on the economy.

              1. Oh no, no! Dead dogs are important! Really! Nothing rouses the rabble like the perfect matching of cops (you hate them!) with dogs (you love them!) Everybody wins. It’s the propagandist’s dream story. It works every time, and the puppets never fail to perform a comical dance!

  13. “Clements said he understands that people in the community would be upset over the death of a pet, but that the officer who responded had no way of knowing the animal was a pet and not feral because it had no tags.

    Stone said she was told Haze appeared to be hurt or ill and her neighbor had planned to knock on doors to see if the cat had an owner nearby, but that her brother-in-law called police.”


    1. That’s right, because we all know it’s impossible for cats to slip their collars.

      Good thing that brave, strong policeman shot that dangerous house cat and saved the community…

      1. Right? I mean maybe you can convince me a dog is a threat but a fucking cat? And the cop even said in his report that the cat “did not respond” to his presence. Umm, officer cats don’t respond, it’s what they do.

        1. The cat was suspected of being rabid, too. One thing I’m sure of is that rabid animals WILL fucking respond to your presence.

    2. Since when do cats have tags? And since when do police shoot feral cats?

      1. 1) Some localities require cat licenses. Also, many owners choose to put name tags on them if they go outside, or even if they don’t.

        2) Apparently as of now.

        1. At least they shot it. I remember a case from awhile back where some officer got in trouble for beating an injured cat to death rather than shooting it.

      2. My three cats have tags. I keep the tags in the filing cabinet next to my computer because even the retarded cat can slip out of a collar in under five minutes.

    3. Even if it was feral, I’ve dealt with tons of feral cats without having to fucking shoot any of them.

      1. It’s usually pretty easy to tell if a cat is feral too.

        1. This too of course. You’d have to be functionally retarded not to be able to spend just a few minutes attempting to interact with the creature to determine if it was recently in a domestic situation, or had gone (or been born) feral.

        2. It’s usually pretty easy to tell if a cat is feral too.

          The first clue is that it won’t come within six feet of you. Rendering armed self-defense pretty pointless.

    4. A bullet?
      I thought you libtards where all about lowering government spending.
      They should have just used a hammer.

      1. Yay! A spoofer!
        What took you so long?

      2. Hammers cost money. Should have used a local rock.

  14. Is there some special method that police departments use during the recruitment process to eliminate candidates who have even the slightest hint of common sense?

    It’s sure nice to know that we put our lives in the hands of people who are so casually cruel to animals. That’s usually a good indicator of sociopathic tendencies.

    1. Being a cop is a shitty horrible job. You mostly deal with the scum of the universe. I hate cops. But most criminals are worse. So the nature of the job weeds out most normal people. Basically, the profession attracts frustrated bullies.

      1. Which is a very good excuse to give them as little leash as possible.

        1. They should have no leeway. They ought to be tightly supervised with people up there ass every day. And they should never be given the benefit of the doubt.

      2. the profession attracts frustrated bullies

        Yep, most of the bullies who beat up from smaller kids in school grow up to be either criminal thugs, cops, or both.

        1. Don’t forget the semi-illiterate ex-football players from high school with out the skilz to play college football.

    2. Cops and criminals often come from the same socioeconomic classes.

      1. The impotent rage here is delicious!
        Careful boys, you’re gonna hurt yourselves!

  15. I wonder . . . what do you suppose would happen if a police dog slipped its leash and aggressively approached a CCW holder, who then shot the dog?

    Any takers?

    1. Too easy. First degree murder of a police officer.

      1. what do you suppose would happen?

        Armageddon, obviously.
        Mayhem in the chat room.
        Grown men weeping and losing their appetites.

    2. See me @ 4:16 pm.

      1. That sounds like you’re propositioning him.

        1. So? You got a problem?

          1. No, just wanting in on it. You know how us gays are, we have an insatiable appetite for annonymous sex with every other man, amirite?

            1. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m too young for it to be a bona fide lemon party.

              (Google that shit)

    3. CCW holder would be shot and killed by the cop and it wouldn’t go to court.

  16. What’s the point of openly carrying a gun around to intimidate the peasantry if you can’t practice your quickdraw on their pets?

  17. All three cases are ridiculous, but there’s an important takeaway for the first two: don’t get the pigs involved in anything. I can envision very few circumstances where I would want to call them up. Though I guess you can’t help it if your neighbor thinks they’re heroes.

    1. This. Two of these people did not weigh the benefit of a police visit against the well being of their pet.
      In the Virginia case, why was QuickDraw McJumpy dispatched instead of Animal Control?

    2. The only reason to call the cops is if you need to report something for insurance purposes.

  18. Instead of Cop shoots dog, how about Cop Shoots Cop?

      1. SYL is how I discovered the band. It’s amazing how many bands I’ve discovered just by researching covers.

  19. This story makes me want to go out and shoot three police dolphins right this minute.

  20. Harry Callahan: I know what you’re thinking. “Did he fire six shots or only five?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, Tippy?

  21. I’ve posted this before, but since it seems to be an isolated incident, I’ll post it again. Deputy disciplined for shooting terrier. This needs to happen a lot more frequently.

    1. Party-pooper! Heretic! Dunphy-fellator! Slaver!

  22. I’d just like to see the ASPCA, or PETA, or the AKC step up and say something.

    1. Every day, hundreds of thousands of pets are abandoned and abused, shocked, taunted and hurt in every way. Please become a fan to show that you care about pets! And please suggest to friends.

      1. Hey! We’re, um…pets too!
        Yeah, that’s the ticket.

        1. Shut up and go back to being brain-dead.

          1. Speaking of us with our heads cut off, how are a mob of libertarians in a cop-shoots-dog thread like…damn, I gave away the punch line!

    2. No WAY! Arms of the state (and their symbiotes) take care of each other.

  23. I’m sure all 3 officers were given medals for valor in the line of duty.

    1. We were! Thanks!
      Tomorrow we’re gonna go out and shoot us some Labradoodles!
      Just for kicks!

      1. Shooting labradoodles will probably get you the keys to the city, or at least officer of the year.

        1. Oh, we see! Shooting some dogs is OK! The truth slowly emerges.

  24. Let’s say your dog spies a potential new playmate, and runs toward him. This person draws a pistol and shoots the dog. A line drawn from the shooter to the dog, if continued, goes right through you or some other person.

    Does “depraved indifference” potentially became a factor in this scenario?

    1. Lame scenario. What happens if your dog runs toward a cop who is driving a tank? In a park? Full of crippled children and their…their grandmothers? Who are feeding the cute duckies?

    2. Scenario needs clarification. Is person carrying a magical badge of officerhood?

      1. Or the consent of the population?

        1. Do you even know what “consent” means?

          1. Please don’t feed the troll, Zeb. She’s fat enough as is.

            1. Don’t turn around, uh-oh!
              Der Kommissar’s in town, uh-oh!

          2. Do you even know what “consent” means?

            In this context, it means a police force that is under the control of, and funded by, a municipal entity. The taxpayers and voters give their consent to its existence, and they can vote it out of existence any time they choose. Hope this helps.

            1. Anything any government does to anyone is justified with implicit consent because teh people haven’t defunded it!

              It isn’t rape if she’s just sobbing because she never explicitly said no!

              Implicit consent FTW!

              1. Wow. You a dumb one!

    3. Does “depraved indifference” potentially became a factor in this scenario?

      Irrelevant, really, since the fucker would be bleeding out after I exercised my right to defend myself (hey, who wouldn’t feel like they were at imminent risk themselves in this scenario) by drawing my (legal) concealed carry pistol and shooting him down.

      And, yes, if someone shot one of Mrs. Dean’s dogs, the odds are quite high that I would take it that hard.

  25. Once again, I feel the need to point out that outing a commenter no longer leads to banning. So there’s nothing to fear if someone wants to backtrack the griefer and contact her employer or–much more likely– her social worker.

    Make sure to mention how stories about dogs being killed and maimed sexually excite her.

    1. Looks like somebody has an authoritarian snitch streak.

    2. Defend the hive! Swarm!

  26. This is like the worst support group ever.

  27. Is it surprising that cops don’t give a flying monkey fuck about private property?

    1. Yes? No? Help us out here.

  28. Datebi* C’ O ‘M ?????????c o m m u n I ty?????????????bi s e x u a l and b I ?c u r Io u s In d I v I d u a ls ? You’ll find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.?Join it right now and have fun?Totally Free To Place Profile and connect with hundreds of thousands of singles like you now!

  29. From all the pet shootings as of late I get the impression that these assholes are trained to shoot dogs that are not properly restrained.


    Officer safety, you know.

    1. We know. We know.

  30. If I shot every dog that was coming right for me, I would have a lot of rows of dog tattoos or something.

    1. Instead of tears, little bones tattooed under the corner of your eye?

  31. Let’s be honest, many cops become cops so they can have and use guns and are looking for the opportunity to shoot and kill things, both dogs and people. Not all cops, mind you, but enough so that there is never a shortage of “cop shoots dog” and “cop shoots unarmed, shackled suspect” and “cop shoots grandmother” stories.

  32. badly ought to be trusted with it. George Washington struck the right note in his

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.