Police

Train Police to Protect Pets

The killing of family pets by law enforcement needs to stop.

|

“I raised my girls to trust police officers,” said Brittany Moore back in April. “That if they ever got lost, to find a police officer and they would help them. Now they don’t trust them.”

Moore spoke those words at the state capitol in Colorado, during a rally on behalf of legislation meant to reduce incidents in which police officers shoot family pets. Her testimony underscores a serious problem for anyone who supports good law enforcement (which everyone should).

Just as biased news reporting is not just bad journalism but also bad for journalism, because it undermines trust in the press, poor policing is bad for law enforcement because it undermines trust in law enforcement.

Moore’s German Shepherd, Ava, was shot in 2011 by an officer who claims the dog bared its teeth and lunged. Moore says otherwise. “The rawhide bone fell from Ava’s mouth and she made the most awful sound that I have ever heard, and then immediately fell to the ground. She tried to get up one last time, but her hind legs wouldn’t work because her spinal cord was severed. . . . Our golden retriever went over and was nudging Ava trying to help her. Ava fell back on the ground and laid there and died slowly. . . . I will never forget the sound of my daughter’s torturous cries that night.”

Unfortunately, Moore’s story is not unusual. Cases of cops shooting dogs happen with discouraging frequency. According to a Justice Department report, “in most police departments, the majority of shooting incidents involve animals, most frequently dogs.” The shootings happen despite the fact that “dogs are seldom dangerous,” rarely bite, and even when they do, “the overwhelming majority of dog bites are minor, causing either no injury at all or injuries so minor that no medical care is required.”

The trouble is that police officers all too often don’t understand dog behavior. As the report (“The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters”) explains: “an approaching dog is almost always friendly. A dog who feels threatened will usually try to keep his distance.”

Yet because officers often don’t know that, you get situations such as the one a couple weeks ago in North Carolina, where a Mooresville police officer shot a dog being trained as a service animal after it wandered onto his property.

Then there was the case â€" reported the same day â€" in Leander, Texas: Police officers serving a warrant went to the wrong house, then shot the family pet, Vinny. Or another recent case in which a Los Angeles officer shot a dog outside the owner’s home for reasons “not immediately clear,” according to news accounts. Or another recent case in which a St. Louis police officer shot his partner (yes, really) while aiming at “what they said was an aggressive-looking dog.”

Aggressive-looking? That’s an awfully low standard for pulling a trigger, isn’t it?

There are two opportunities to address this issue: after an unnecessary shooting, or before one.

After-the-fact remedies include lawsuits â€" with all the attendant expense, turmoil, and negative publicity those can entail. (Brittany Moore has filed a federal lawsuit over the death of Ava.) Another remedy involves criminal prosecution. In December a Denver, Colo., police officer was charged with aggravated animal cruelty â€" a felony â€" after he shot a dog that had been restrained on a catch-pole.

Prosecutions are better than impunity, and they might send a message. But they represent a far-less-than-optimal solution.

The best answer is to train police officers on how to avoid shooting family dogs. That’s what Leander authorities did, bringing in trainer Jim Osorio after Vinny got shot. “I teach them dog behavior, types of aggression, how to approach dogs, and what types of tools are out there other than a firearm,” Osorio told Texas TV station KVUE.

Here in central Virginia, Henrico County trains officers on dog behavior through video, demonstrations, and instruction from animal-control officers. But not all departments around the state are so enlightened. So Virginia lawmakers should introduce a measure like the Dog Protection Act that passed in Colorado last year.

The measure stipulates that Colorado policy is “to prevent, wherever possible, the shooting of dogs by law enforcement officers.” It requires every officer to be trained in handling domestic animals. The training is provided by a webinar created by volunteers â€" including animal-welfare experts â€" that costs the state nothing. And the law requires officers to let pet owners or animal-control personnel “control or remove a dog from the immediate area in order to permit a local law enforcement officer to discharge his or her duties” whenever that is feasible.

David Balmer, a Colorado state lawmaker who co-sponsored the measure, says the key to winning passage was cooperating with law-enforcement agencies â€" rather than simply trying to ram a mandate down their throats.

“We met with sheriffs and police departments from across Colorado,” he says, “incorporating their suggestions into the early drafts of our bill. At the beginning, we faced stiff opposition from law enforcement. As we met with them over and over, they eventually dropped their opposition and began helping us write the bill.”

The Colorado bill would make a good model for the commonwealth â€" and, for that matter, the country. It would save some dogs’ lives. It would keep some departments from getting sued â€" and perhaps keep a couple more partners from getting shot. And it would increase people’s trust of the police they see on patrol. What’s not to like?

NEXT: The Case Against Intervening in Syria: Nick Gillespie on C-SPAN

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The trouble is that police officers all too often don’t understand dog behavior.

    Bullshit. Law enforcement officers tell each other going home safe is priority one, and pretend that any dog will rip a man’s throat out before he can respond as though it happens on a daily basis when civilians walk onto one another’s property unannounced. They don’t care to read a dog’s behavior when there’s an opportunity for fire their weapon.

    1. Yep, Make the pigs personally liable for lawsuits when they kill a dog and the incidents will drop down to zero.

    2. Hey Y’all!!! I have the perfect fix for all of this, listen up!! Y’all know how all the do-gooders want “no-kill” un-wanted pet shelters? I have worked (volunteered) in such places, I have seen way-hostile cats and dogs (some of them sick and ugly to boot) that are never, in a zillion years, going to get adopted? Yet? “No kill” even while they have no more room for adoptable strays. So? When policeman is getting ready to have a happy ol’ time shootin’ up the family mutt, he says to family, “Here, pay me $50 dollars, and I will allow you to move your pot smoke or your domestic dispute to the local no-kill shelter, and I will kill some of their un-wanted mutts instead”. OK? Family wins, no-kill shelter wins, in that they now have more room for adoptable pets. Cop wins, he gets $50, and some target practice. Done deal!!!

  2. Pepper spray is extremely effective on dogs. These fuckers are shooting dogs because they are sadists.

    1. Can’t these stupid bastards just play violent video games like the rest of us? Probably too dumb to figure out how to play. It’s easier to just shoot dogs.

    2. “These fuckers are shooting dogs because they are sadists.”

      Yeah reading the article I was thinking about Percy from The Green Mile. He didn’t screw up the execution due to lack of training. He did it because he was a sadistic cowardly little prick which I think more accurately describes 90% of these dog murdering cops.

  3. Yeah, train police to protect animals, that’s a brilliant fucking idea. Even stupider than teaching your kids to trust the bastards.

    That would lead to more puppycide.

    Officer Pigshit: Well, uhhh, durrr, I suspected that the owner was being cruel to the dog, so I had to shoot it for it’s own good. Procedures were followed, and uhhh, officer safety first.

  4. “I raised my girls to trust police officers,” said Brittany Moore back in April.

    I tapped out on the opening sentence, more for the Brittany than for teaching her kids to trust cops.

    1. “tapped out” – nice!

    2. I’ve taught my kids from the start:
      Remember a cop is like a gun.
      It’s a useful but dangerous tool.
      Don’t use it unless you have to.
      Make sure it’s pointed in the right direction.

      1. I’ve taught my kids from the start:

        Cops are armed enforcers for the local organized crime gang. Avoid interacting with them if at all possible, keep your mouth shut if they force an interaction upon you, and don’t expect that they are on your side.

        I leave it to the commenters which set of instructions corresponds better to their observations of their own encounters with cops. Anyone ever feel like they were better off after interacting with a cop on duty?

        1. Anyone ever feel like they were better off after interacting with a cop on duty?

          Once. Had a contractor threaten my property after I fired him. I called the County Sheriff and he’d had dealings with the individual before. The interaction went just as it should have. Friendly, polite, professional…

          So one out of 20 ain’t bad.

        2. Anyone ever feel like they were better off after interacting with a cop on duty?

          I’ve been about 50/50.

  5. Postal carriers, meter readers, UPS and FedEx drivers, they all deal with dogs all the time — the popo ought to be ashamed of being so cowardly in comparison.

    1. Letter Carriers get chewed up by dogs quite a bit. Throats are generally not ripped out, but they do get injured. There’s also a lot of getting injured while scrambling backward to get away from dogs. They could use better training on dealing with animals.

      1. Last year [2012], 5,879 Postal Service? employees were victimized by dogs.

        How many letter carriers are there? Several hundred thousand. At 200 working days a year, and who knows how many houses on each stop, I’d say 6000 dog bites hardly justifies the police attitude.

        1. I find “victimized” to be remarkably vague, and likely inclusive of incidents where no teeth were actually used.

          1. I find “victimized” to be remarkably vague, and likely inclusive of incidents where no teeth were actually used.

            I would definitely assume that that involves cases where a dog barks incessantly at a carrier through a locked gate or something like that. I’ve dealt with enough cases where dogs have normally been locked away but get out and the carrier does get bit to understand why they worry about it, but carriers are extremely high strung when it comes to dogs.

            1. I once had a mail lady that would literally stand on the sidewalk and scream when my daschund would bark at her from behind a security screen.

              Fucking hysterical.

        2. I didn’t realize I was implying that it justifies the police attitude. My point was that letter carriers aren’t that good at dealing with dogs. I’ve yet to hear a dog injury story that didn’t involve a postal worker wigging out as soon as a dog was involved and escalating the situation.

          1. You didn’t imply that; I didn’t mean to imply you did 🙂

            But I wanted some real statistics, and found an interesting figure, especially compared with one from memory that cops shoot 200,000 dogs a year.

            1. Where did you find this figure? Just curious

              1. Some official site; googled for USPS dog bites or something. Here it is.

    2. My dogs love the UPS man. Of course he has Milk Bones in his pocket instead of a gun and doesn’t require that others respect his authoritah.

      1. Yeah, I encounter a lot of dogs in my job. It’s amazing what a Beggin’ Strip does for a dog’s attitude toward me. A $4 pouch in my kit lasts most of the year.

        1. What if it’s a vegetarian dog?

          1. Then you don’t have to worry.

            1. Oh no – you should be very scared. If you see a vegetarian dog that means someone has slipped some drugs into your food and you’re hallucinating.

    3. Postal carriers, not so much. My parents were forced to set up a curbside mailbox because the postgrrrl felt threatened by their German Shepherd who would bark at her through the sliding glass door. This was like 20 years ago.

      1. That’s because canines are superior judges of character and can identify a government employee from a mile away. Having to walk to the curb for your mail is an infinitesimally small price to pay for the privilege of living with such a noble creature.

  6. Officer Safety Corner: Dogs and the Police Response: A Guide for Safe, Successful, and Humane Encounters

    Bark, stop, drop, and roll In more than 90 percent of encounters involving dogs, officers can diffuse any actual or potential safety threat by employing this technique because, simply put, it speaks to the dog in its own language, alleviating the dog’s fear and anxiety and by communicating clearly to the dog that the officer presents “No fight.”

    Bark ? Officer determines a dog is present by either hearing or seeing it.

    Stop ? Officer assesses the dog’s intentions?loose and wiggly or stiff?

    Drop ? Officer drops his or her eyes and uses peripheral vision so as not to stare at the dog. The officer should also be aware that a hat or cap will make it difficult or impossible for the dog to see the officer’s eyes.

    Roll ? Officer rolls his or her shoulder in a smooth and slow motion and moves to a standing position that is sideways to the dog. This signals to the dog that no aggression is intended.

    I want a video of Dunphy demonstrating this NOW

    1. *Make friends* with the dog:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpJNCO6Aj2Q

      1. Greatest dog scene in any movie EVER!

      2. It’s funny, but I wouldn’t recommend it as a technique.

    2. Bark, stop, drop, and roll

      Interesting advice. But it won’t work if you encounter a polar bear.

      If you come across a polar bear, the only thing to do is run for shelter. Polar bears can out run humans, so while your are running, drop an item of clothing. The polar bear will chase you but when it comes across your coat or whatever, it will stop and examine it. It might take up the chase again, but another article of clothing dropped will give you more time as the bear examines it. Repeat until you have safely reached shelter or are naked.

    3. This signals to the dog that no aggression is intended.

      We’re talking about cops here. Aggression is always intended.

  7. Make the pigs personally liable for lawsuits

    Are you nuts? That might force them to pause and consider the consequences of their actions, and we all know where that will lead us; straight to Hell!

  8. There are two kinds of animals: the ones we treat as food and the ones we don’t. The cops can do whatever they want to the ones we eat, and they should do whatever is necessary in self-defense. But when the cops start treating non-food animals as if they were as disposable as food, I don’t see why they shouldn’t have to stand in front of a jury and answer for it.

    I know some of my fellow libertarians get weirded out by the idea that some animals may have some basic rights, but unless you believe that Jesus made mankind of something better than the other animals, it’s natural to believe that there is some kind of continuum of rights, with lower life forms enjoying fewer and higher life forms enjoying more.

    Wherever our rights come from, there are lots of circumstances where people’s rights overlap and contradict each other. Adam Smith thought sorting that out was one of the legitimate functions of government, and I agree with him… If some animals enjoy some basic rights that overlap and contradict those of the cops, why shouldn’t a jury sort that mess out, too?

    There’s no doubt in my mind but that my dog’s rights are more than just an extension of my property rights, anyway, and if I pointlessly abused her basic rights, I don’t see why I shouldn’t have to answer to a jury for that. The idea that the police should, likewise, have to answer for abusing the rights of a dog they can’t even claim as their own property should be a no-brainer.

    1. One need not resort to a discussion of animal rights if they do not wish to. It is simply enough to say that a pet is a highly valued possession of the owner, and thus the rights of said owners are violated when the five-oh dispatch them, even if no “animal rights” are violated. For many, their pets are their most prized possessions.

      1. “It is simply enough to say that a pet is a highly valued possession of the owner, and thus the rights of said owners are violated when the five-oh dispatch them”

        I’m not sure it is enough.

        I sort of responded to this in my post to Fluffy below. Maybe it’s enough to say that many on the left don’t respect individual’s property rights at all, anymore, and if that’s the case, then why would property be sufficient to save your dog?

        Indeed, there are a lot of Progressives these days (see Tony and Barack Obama as examples), who don’t think our rights exist and shouldn’t be respected unless they serve the common good.

        Tony is willing to go so far as to say that Rosa Parks didn’t have a right to sit in the front of a public bus–because the government didn’t say so–and that Jews didn’t have a right to their lives during the holocaust.

        I’d like to hear more Progressives make those kinds of statements in public. For instance, after I make my case for a continuum of rights, let’s let the Progressives argue in public that animals don’t have any rights.

        I think we’re locked in a struggle, right now, between people who believe that our rights exist independent of the government and should be respected, on the one hand, and Progressives (and social conservatives), on the other, who think our rights only exist insofar as the government approves of them and they serve the common good.

        You can see where I’m planting my flag.

        1. I think there are more people in a third camp – those that have never really thought about rights and whether they are inherent to your humanity or whether they are a gift of gov’t. My guess is that if you asked any 10 random people off the street whether someone can morally take your car or other possession without your permission, most would say “NO!”, even if you added the caveat that your their local mayor or other gov’t official gave them permission to do so. However, most of those same individuals would probably not realize the implications of their position with respect to inherent rights.

          Of course, there are ideologists (as you mention) that outright reject inherent or natural rights, but I don’t think they are the majority.

          BTW, I do subscribe to your continuum of rights wrt to children. One can omit certain rights from children (owning property, e.g.), but I do not believe that one can morally violate children’s right to their life because it preemptively denies that same right once they become adults (full rights-bearing individuals). Preventing children from owning property does not violate their right to own property once they are adults.

          1. Preventing children from owning property does not violate their right to own property once they are adults.

            It violates their right to own property prior to being adults. It makes them start from zero possessions at the age they become adults unless their parents gift them possessions.

            If one of my kids could earn $1,000,000 before they turned 18, that should be their money. I shouldn’t be able to confiscate it just because I was their parent.

            Or did you have someone else in mind to steal their stuff? Seems like that would be even worse than their parents stealing it.

            1. I think minors do have property rights (for example they can own real estate, can’t they?); it’s more about their right to freely dispose of their property (i.e. limited rights to contract freely).

              1. Yeah, and I think that has a lot to do with the responsibility side of the equation. We’re generally free to do those things for which we can be held responsible, and we can be held responsible for that which we freely chose to do.

                Children can’t be held responsible for their choices so much, so their freedom to contract is rather limited.

                Animals, likewise, aren’t held responsible for much of what they do (short of being put down at the pound), so their freedoms are, likewise, limited. …although I would argue that one of the freedoms they have is the right not to be shot by a police officer for no good reason.

    2. Interesting comment. Are dogs’ rights limited to individual dogs? That would seem to be an acceptable Libertarian stance. Rights for chihuahuas, terriers, retrievers etc? No. That is a step on the road to canine communism.

      An aside. I’ve read some rather radical environmentalists who posit some form of rights to things like forests or underground mineral deposits. Any comments?

      1. I don’t feel like it’s necessary to split philosophical hairs on this.

        I think we should come to terms with the idea that juries have more discretion than they’re traditionally given credit for (vis a vis the law), and I’m happy to let a jury decide whether someone should be convicted of a crime for torturing a chimpanzee to death or needlessly shooting a dog.

        I’m not saying that the penalty for needlessly shooting a dog should be the same as it should be for needlessly shooting a person, either, but I think it’s still quite fair if juries get to hear such cases–and the punishment for being convicted of needlessly killing a dog is more than a parking ticket.

        I’ve seen dogs that were so terribly traumatized…they didn’t even become vicious–this one I knew was still insane years after someone adopted him. It’s hard to imagine trees in that condition. And it’s hard to imagine Congress passing a law against tree cruelty, prosecutors filing charges against someone for that and then standing for reelection, a grand jury indicting someone for tree cruelty, or a jury convicting someone for tree cruelty…

        But if such a law banning tree cruelty ever came into existence, I would certainly be against it.

  9. “oink” “woof” “oink” “woof” BANG, lol

    lamestpunever.com

  10. Do all the training you want, it won’t make any difference.

    The real problem is that both the legal system and police administrators consider “officer safety” more important than the civil rights and property rights of the citizenry.

    We need to change the laws so that in the absence of a risk proven by the facts, if an officer discharges his weapon it’s reckless endangerment. If the officer kills anybody, it’s manslaughter.

    That means if an officer claims he felt threatened by a dog, unless he can prove the dog was an actual threat, firing his weapon was reckless endangerment.

    If an officer claims a suspect “made a furtive movement towards his waistband”, if it turns out the suspect had no gun that’s manslaughter.

    The police are going to have to be forced to wait for actual threats to manifest themselves, just like everybody else, instead of being given carte blanche to open fire on any possible threat based on how they “feel”.

    Will that make LEO’s feel less safe? Yup. Too fucking bad. If it’s too dangerous – fuck you, quit. We’ll hire one of the thousand guys behind you in line who either got the same score as you on the civil service exam, or a point less.

    1. The rights and property of the citizenry are more important than the lives of law enforcement officers. (There, I said it.) That’s the entire point of having armed law enforcement – we’re going to pay people, and shower them with praise and let them march in parades and shit, and in exchange those people have to take some risks to protect the lives and property of citizens, including from themselves.

      1. Your rights only exist insofar as they serve the best interests of society, generally, Fluffy. I know because Tony and Barack Obama said so.

        And, you know, we all have to make sacrifices for the general good. If you think your individual property rights are so precious that they shouldn’t be sacrificed for the common good, them you’re a very selfish person, Fluffy.

        And selfish people don’t deserve the rights they claim anyway. Otherwise, maximizing profits and pursuing wealth would be perfectly acceptable behavior, and obviously that can’t be true.

        …I know that’s not true because Tony and Obama said so.

    2. Fluffy nails it. Its not that they don’t know how to deal with dogs so much as they don’t care.

      Dealing with an upset or aggressive dog requires a mindset that is foreign to our militarized agents of the state, who are trained and trained and trained that forcible submission is the proper initial reaction to anyone or anything that doesn’t show proper respect.

      Give all the classes you want. What you will get is better written after action reports that incorporate jargon from the class to justify the shooting.

  11. This is complete bullshit. No decent civilized person needs to be *trained* “on how to avoid shooting family dogs.” Love the “how”. You fucking kidding me?

    1. Agreed. It’s not like your gun spontaneously shoots dogs on its own, and you’ve got to be trained in proper ways to restrain your pistol. Here’s the training you need: put the strap over it in your holster, and leave it there…

  12. No decent civilized person needs to be *trained* “on how to avoid shooting family dogs.”

    We’re not talking about decent people. We’re talking about people who decide to go into a job where they use force for a living.

  13. People don’t become cops because they like people. They become cops because they have an inferiority complex. Their abusive treatment of people and their family pets is their way of demonstrating, to themselves, their own importance.

    In other words, the people who are most likely to become cops (and the ones most often recruited) are the very people that are least suited for the job. And, it gets worse, because those who have risen to command positions in most law enforcement organizations (federal, state, or local) come from that same breed. To cops, the world is divided into two groups: cops and little people.

    And it will get a lot worse before it gets any better because all of the mainstream media and most of the public are blind to law enforcement abuses of power. People only wake up to reality when they or someone close to them is victimized by those neanderthals.

    This is not a problem that any amount of training is ever going to fix.

    1. It is the inherent problem with government itself, Dave. The worst possible people are extremely attracted to government positions of power. And as they become more entrenched, they make it so that the power they have is even more attractive to the absolute worst people, creating a feedback loop of power-seeking animals occupying and increasing the power of government positions. This is why government grows, and it is why government can never work, no matter how much people bleat about “limited powers” and “checks and balances”. Because the power hungry scum will never let those limits or checks stand, ever. They will do everything in their power, tirelessly, to remove them, and the even worse person who follows them will be grateful, abuse the power, and remove some more. Obama is a perfect, perfect example of this.

      Government does not work because of human nature itself.

      1. Crap. Now I’m depressed.

  14. Its not that they don’t know how to deal with dogs so much as they don’t care.

    If they’ll drag a double amputee cripple out of his van and dump him on the ground because they’re too jacked up to actually listen to what he’s trying to tell them, they sure as shit won’t expend any effort trying to determine a dog’s state of mind.

  15. Her testimony underscores a serious problem for anyone who supports good law enforcement (which everyone should).

    I suppose “everyone” also supports “good” enforcement of rules by the mafia, who are like the government but weaker and with worse PR.

  16. When your main tool is a gun, every problem looks like a target on a shooting range.

  17. Here’s a crazy idea: How about we disband police departments?

    Private patrols, armed citizens and no drug war would have welcome effect on reducing crime rates.

    1. Private patrols, armed citizens

      TRAYVON!

      1. Exactly. Oh, that was supposed to be an argument AGAINST them.

  18. How about training police to protect the public instead of training them that its us against them?
    This where the real problem lies.
    When you view every encounter with a civilian as a deadly threat, you are gonna be ready to pull the trigger even without justifiable provocation.
    Remember it’s not just dogs they are killing without cause and getting away with it.

  19. Why do wolves howl?

    Duh. Their obviously mourning their murdered cousins.

  20. Cops know full well that people consider their pets to be part of the family, and that is precisely why cops kill them.

    It’s about power.

  21. Thats downright scary when you think about it. wow.

    http://www.Maximum-Anon.tk

  22. Well, there’s always got a be a non-conformist, so it might as well be me:

    Fuck dogs

    BUT

    That having been said

    Fuck cops too

    Here’s the thing though: I’m so goddamn sick and tired of idiots anthropomorphizing their dogs I could puke. This is a case in point. They’ve gotten the entire PD to undergo voluntary training, provided free of charge, because of a few dogs getting shot. Really? It’d be nice if that same level of activism took place when the cops are, you know, mowing down goddamn HUMAN BEINGS every day in this country.

    Dogs are property. Cops shouldn’t kill them willy nilly. They shouldn’t kill them at all if they can avoid it. But dogs do attack. They do bite. They do get aggressive. And not a single dog owner on the face of planet earth will ever acknowledge that their dog has an aggressive bone his precious little fluffy body right up until the court sends him off to be euthanized after attacking a kid or something. In fact, even in those circumstances you’ll most often find them blaming the victim and asking the judge to let poor little fluffy go (He’s never done anything like this before!). Your fucking dog isn’t your kid. And by the way, your kid is probably an asshole too. So let’s not elevate shooting a dog up to or beyond the level of outrage for shooting, you know, a PERSON, or act like every dog that gets shot is a teacup chihuahua yipping at the ankles of Judge Dredd before getting blown to the stratosphere.

    1. (cont’d)

      If we’re going to put cops through special training on the use of force and firearms, maybe we ought to think about prioritizing training them not to beat mentally ill homeless people to death, or not to shoot unarmed citizens before we get to the chapter on proper handling of fucking dogs. Jesus Christ…

      1. [/sarc off]

        Good rant. Seriously. Well done.

        [/sarc on]

      2. Well, here’s my ‘half-a-loaf’ argument:

        Isn’t training cops not to shoot dogs better than nothing? Isn’t having cops shooting people but not dogs better than having cops shoot both dogs and people?

        Here’s why I think people seem to get more upset about cops shooting dogs than about cops shooting people – because people know damn well that dogs aren’t sneaking around, acting suspiciously, ignoring police commands and making furtive movements toward their waistbands. People know that dogs are innocent of all the bullshit excuses cops make for shooting people. A cop shoots a dog and it’s at least more difficult to rationalize that the cop is a good guy and therefore must have had a good excuse.

        But plenty of those people blithely assume that if a cop shoots somebody, well, it probably was some scumbag who needed shooting anyway. I mean, if you get stopped by a cop and try to resist him in any way, well, you deserve to get anything that happens to you after that.

        So we train cops not to shoot dogs because that’s bad PR and plenty of people stop paying attention to anything else the cops do. That’s not a good trade-off to me. I think we should be training cops to shoot more dogs more often – at least until we train those people like Brittany Moore that’s it’s pretty damn bad parenting to teach your kids to trust police.

        1. I think you’ve hit it directly on the head. I’m just amazed that people are retarded enough that it works.

  23. I’m late to the comments, but

    ‘in most police departments, the majority of shooting incidents involve animals, most frequently dogs’.

    What else are they shooting? Rabbits? Parrots?

    Sorry that Ms Moore learned the hard way that the police are not trustworthy.

  24. eres un encanto besitos

  25. eres un encanto besitos

  26. sound that I have ever heard, and then immediately fell to the

  27. that I have ever heard, and then immediately fell to the ground

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.