Puppycide

Cop Uses 'High-Powered Rifle' to Shoot Child's Dog Through Fence

During a birthday party for a 5 year old while serving a 10-year-old warrant.

|

Vicki Malone via Fox 25

Police in Wynnewood, Oklahoma arrived at the home of the Malones with a warrant for someone who had lived at the rental residence 10 years earlier, according to local TV station Fox 25.

While there, an unidentified police officer took what Fox 25 described as a high-powered rifle from his vehicle and shot Opie, described as a bulldog/pitbull mix, multiple times, including at least twice in front of children who were having a birthday party, according to Vicki Malone, the mother. Police insist the dog came around the house to menace police, but Fox 25 reports it obtained video that showed the dog lying on the ground with a bullet wound in its head near the fence, not near the house as police insisted.

The police chief also admitted to Fox 25 that they knew the Malones were the most recent residents and that a number of people had moved in and out of the house. But, said Ken Moore, police "had to start somewhere," and the warrant gave them the authority to enter the Malone property without their permission.

For her part, Vicki Malone says she never saw any warrant. Eli, the five-year-old whose birthday party police crashed to shoot and kill his dog, told Fox 25 he was sad the police did not apologize for killing his dog.

Advertisement

NEXT: DHS Agents Tried to Seize Wall Street Journal Reporter's Phones

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. Fuck the Wynnewood, Oklahoma PD. That is all.

    1. I hope that family has something horrible done to the family of that cop in retribution. It’s time these gestapo trash start fearing revenge from their victims.

  2. If this doesn’t turn the soccer moms against them; nothing will. Too late for that to do any good, of course.

    1. Yeah, it’s the upper-middle class soccer moms who’ve decided pit-bulls and bulldogs are nekulturny breeds.

    2. It won’t. Nothing is more Nazi like than a soccer mom. Well, maybe a SJW. Imagine a soccer mom who is a SJW, the horror.

      The puppy must have been doing something wrong, the soccer mom will reason.

      1. Those cops have such a hard job and sure, this dog wasn’t doing anything wrong, but he looked like a dog that the cop had previously dealt with too gently and almost been bit by. So the officer is a good person, but his long-term exposure to pit-bulls that are dangerous caused him to make a mistake in which bullets were fired and dogs arrived at thermodynamic equilibrium.

        1. OMFG, that was hilarious. I pictured it as spoken by Brando as the godfather:

          “Those made men have such a hard job and sure, this dog was acting like a civilian, but he looked like a dog that the soldier had previously dealt with too gently and almost been bit by. So the soldier, just following orders, his long-term exposure to pit-bulls that are dangerous caused him to make a mistake in which bullets were fired and dogs arrived at thermodynamic equilibrium.”

        1. This is why I stay far, far away from Derpbook.

        2. That’s some snarky, funny stuff.

  3. What the fuck these fucking psychopaths.

    1. Bureaucrats with guns.

      Bureaucrats waste Others People’s Money in obscene ways.
      Bureaucrats with guns waste Other People’s Lives in obscene ways.

      It’s hard to understand how an intact human being could do such a thing. What is really chilling is that they’re not any less intact than the general population. Human beings are scary things.

      1. Wrong.

        The role of police officer attracts psychopaths much like church rectories attract paedophiles.

    2. What the fuck these fucking psychopaths.

      Psychopath???? Hardly! The lad needed his “Killed a Harmless Pet” Merit Badge……..and he got it!

    3. Sociopath.

  4. Oh joy, it’s been too long since we’ve had a good puppycide.

    OT: The Reason writers should read this article:

    Twitter’s Stalinist treatment of Milo

    1. The SF Chronicle of all places managed a sensible article on the subject.

      1. Someone is moving in on Sevo’s territory.

        1. Go fuck your daddy, shitpile

    2. I think the Milo/Twitter thing was covered yesterday.

      1. Yes, that’s what I’m referring to. Here we have a far left proggy site with a more reasonable take on the Milo affair than Reason. It’s embarrassing.

        1. ^^^Yep. Worse, its pathetic.

    3. At least since Teddy Roosevelt was President over a century ago, there exists an overwhelming consensus that firms are not mere private property in the traditional sense.

      Why should libertarians be reading this, again?

      1. I didn’t say libertarians should be reading it. I said Reason writers may want to look at it for a slightly more objective version of the Milo affair. The article is full of bullshit, but wouldn’t you expect better from a libertarian site?

        1. I don’t see why much more needs to be said than Rico’s fluff. Even that guy ends with a limp, “well, it is an issue!”

      2. The author is an anarchist of a sort. If you read the article he is actually using that to rebuff the SJW types who immediately become in favor of private property when it suits there agenda.

        1. I didn’t really see that component of it. And I do agree with his broad point that it’s annoying to see progressives (or conservatives) use the “well, it’s legal, so you can’t complain!” line of reasoning.

          1. I follow some the author on Facebook and thats the angle he was arguing there.

  5. What’s with this “high powered” rifle bullshit in the headline? You sound like a gungrabber.

    Kinda doesn’t matter what kind of gun you use to kill a dog. A little 22 will do it.

    1. To be fair, that’s how it’s reported in other (non-Reason) articles.

      Still, you are right-this was most likely a .223, not some big game rifle.

    2. Most cops actually do have evil ARs chambered in .223 in their cars now.

      1. Which are not high powered.

        1. Disagree

          Personally, high power = supersonic.

          1. Anyone showing up at Camp Perry for High-Powered matches with .223 rifles?

            1. Yes, especially considering that you can rack up points at the shorter distances with a flatter trajectory. .223 and a host of 6mm variants are not at all uncommon. More pertinent to the is/ought and the issue at hand; no word in the rules on .338 Lapua, .50 BMG, or, even a bit in the other direction, .50 Beowolf and *nobody* shoots them a Camp Perry High-Powered matches. So, not High Powered, huh?

              There are formal or official definitions of “High Power” and they include .223. The only definitions of High Power that don’t include .223 are informal, arbitrary, *and* typically ignore velocity and kinetic energy (i.e. things that actually strongly correlate to power).

              Being critical of someone describing a .223 as high power is just as mendacious/malicious as people using the term assault rifle. You aren’t objectively or technically correct, you’re just being culturally divisive.

              1. Hold on there, mc. I, myself, had not intention of being divisive, per se-I was going off my understanding of projectile power, and what I’ve been taught/shown regarding the power of the .223 round (I have an AR, myself) compared to other rifles.

                Also, the NRA booklet you linked to defines a High Power Rifle as “Any center fire rifle.” That seems overly broad to me, but I do think there ought to be some standard definitions, and I don’t mind using the NRA stuff as some part of a foundation.

                Keep in mind that so many in the media have no clue as to what they’re talking about regarding guns, and some seem happy to misinform. For those of us tired of seeing that, we tend to get nitpicky in order to un-obfuscate the narrative.

          2. Since we’re talking about killing dogs and not a target match, I’m going with hunting rules.

          3. That is not proof that the .223/5.56 is high powered. 5.56 was included because it was a service rifle, and shooting with service rifles is a major component of the High Power Rifle competition.

            .223 is by definition an intermediate cartridge. That is, in terms of power, it’s between a pistol cartridge and a traditional military rifle cartridge. I wouldn’t call that “high powered”.

        2. To the media, all rifles are “high powered”.

          1. Same goes for puppies.

      2. If any cop should have them patrol cops should. They are the first at the scene of horrific events.

        1. Even the ones they don’t create themselves?

        2. Whatever happened to the old Remington 700 12 gauge between the front seats?

          1. People complained about the puppy parts scattered all over the yard.

          2. Still there in my town. Right next to the Colt M4LE.

          3. Remington 700 12 gauge? Perchance, did you mean Remington 870 12 gauge?

            1. Those are the top two of their lineup.

              1. The 700 is a rifle, not a shotgun…

    3. Or a burlap sack, a car trunk, and another dog.

    4. Polite disagree. Overpenetration is a real thing and when you job is to keep the peace, high powered rifles should be a last resort/not in the presence of civilians/not for dogs sorta thing.

      Though I agree, a caliber or similarly descriptive fact would be appreciated.

    5. But it does matter in terms of endangering bystanders, where the bullet goes after it goes through the dog, etc.

      The fact that this was done anywhere near a children’s party is the real issue.

      1. The fact that this was done anywhere near a children’s party is the real issue.

        Damn skippy! Unless everyone was inside the house at that moment (and even then…), it would seem that this guy was awfully cavalier about his sight picture.

      2. The fact that this was done anywhere near a children’s party is the real issue.

        THE SO-CALLED CHILDRENS PARTY WAS A SOPHISTICATED COVER OPERATION FOR ILLICIT DRUG MANUFACTURE AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND SEX, AS PROHIBITED BY THE MANN ACT.

      3. I think it’s great. Help these kids understand what the police are all about at an early age.

        1. Someday those kids will register to vote, and they will remember the initiation of deadly force… and what parties empowered it and which were on their side…

    6. The “high-powered” part shouldn’t matter. But the “walked backed to his car to get a rifle” part certainly should. He obviously wasn’t in any danger and certainly could have used his service sidearm if he was.

      This asshole just wanted to kill this pet for disrespecting him, and in a more spectacular fashion than in any way necessary.

      1. That one still falls number two in my book (but a VERY close second) to “serving a 10-year old warrant”. Really? What the fuck took so long? If I call 9-1-1 in that town, will it take them a week to respond? And the Chief’s remark that “we have to start somewhere”.

        1. to be fair, they just upgraded from a 2600 baud modem for internet access to a t-mobile all-you-care-to-use data plan (one shared among the force). you can’t stop progress.

    7. At least they didn’t say “high caliber”.

  6. So the police knew that the person they were looking for wasn’t there. That’s no reason to let a good warrant go to waste. I mean, hell, if have authority to enter someone’s house without their permission and shoot their dog in front of a bunch of kids you better take that opportunity.

    1. Maybe one of the parents had a dime bag in the bedroom.

  7. What the fuck is wrong with these people? Huh?
    Blue lives matter? Fuck you. Act like your life is worth caring about and then I will care. Maybe.

    Did I mention fuck you?

    1. As punishment, I suggest the police officer has to shoot his own K-9 dog in the head in front of the whole squad.

      1. Would that be punishment for someone who is an obvious sociopath?

        1. Good point reverse him and the dogs places

      2. No, the correct punishment would be to feed him to his own dogs ala Ramsey Bolton.

  8. I guess I fail to understand how a warrant would give them the right to enter a premises where they know the person they are looking for isn’t.

    1. They didn’t have the right to enter.

      1. OK, authority to enter then. They claim they had the authority to enter. Just can’t figure how they figure.

        1. They figure their authority comes from Mr Kalishnokoff and Mr Beretta.

    2. Because FYTW.

    3. That was my initial question, besides why did it take 10-years to execute, was the warrant for a person or location?

  9. The police chief also admitted to Fox 25 that they knew the Malones were the most recent residents and that a number of people had moved in and out of the house. But, said Ken Moore, police “had to start somewhere,”

    Shoot the dog. Make national headlines. Then the tipline will be lighting up like nobody’s business!

    All in all, a cunning plan. But will it work? We shall see.

    1. police “had to start somewhere

      Shooting ‘something’ is always a good start.

    2. In addition to the cop who shot the dog being fired, the Chief needs to go too. He sounds like a bloody moron.

  10. Chalk up another future libertarian. Keep up the good work, cops. Doing our recruiting for us.

    1. I like your confidence, but the cops could shoot the entire family including pets, of most people, and they still wouldn’t come to embrace anything but more government.

      1. I mean the kid is the future libertarian.
        Every time a cop shoots a kid’s dog, a future libertarian is born.

  11. This is my whole problem with policing right here. Instead of knocking on the door and saying, “we have a warrant, but we’d like your permission to search. This is why I am here. Could you please restrain your dog.” They just walk in and when the dog does his job and barks at a random stranger coming onto the property, the cop takes offense and shoots it dead. There was never a pressing reason to be in the yard without asking for the family to put their dog up.

    1. And he didn’t even get scared of the dog and shoot! The dog barked, the cop walked back to his car, got his rifle, and THEN shot the dog.

      1. Disrespect of Cop is punishable by anything up to summary execution.

        1. All the dog had to do was not lip off to the officer and comply.

    2. If I know pits (and I do, I’ve raised them for nearly 30 years), this dog was most likely threatening to lick the guy’s hand, and follow him around wiggling and begging for treats.

      This cop wanted to see what his rifle would do to a dog. He saw a pit, and knew he had a “shoot one dog free card” to cash in.

      Fuck him. Publish his name and picture.

      1. Publish the name, picture, and address of the officer who shot the dog.

        Publish the name, picture, and address of the judge who signed the warrant.

        1. Shut the whole department down.
          Take their pets away.

          1. You forgot “nuke the town”.

        2. Judge is probably retired by now, he signed it 10-fucking-years ago.

          1. Did he? I didn’t see that it was a ten year old warrant.

            1. I see below it was a ten year old arrest warrant.

      2. Yes, my pit mix is harmless unless you are a furred/feathered creature that makes furtive movements…oh and tennis balls.

      3. Find out where he lives, the names of those in his household, ages, schools, workplaces, etc. then find his arrest record and make sure to forward copies to everyone the cop has ever shaken down (“arrested”). That should make for some good times.

        People like him should be made afraid to leave the house.

    3. How do postal workers deliver all that mail without ever shooting dogs?

      1. The saying “going postal” might be why mail men don’t get issued weapons

    4. Whenever an innocent cop gets shot for nothing, that unidentified, anonymous, protected, immune, mock trial, cop and his chief and union lackey all need to have the bloody stool beaten out of them by their colleagues they so cavalierly put in the line of fire. It’s a pity this can’t go up the food chain to the looter politicians.

    5. That won’t do. All the “illegal” drugs will be in the sewer by the time that’s over with.

  12. What the fucking hell? They knew the people they were looking for had not lived in that house for several years, but they “had to start somewhere” so show up at a 5 year old’s birthday party and start by shooting the family dog???

    To begin with, how the hell do you get a warrant on that basis?

    I am generally in sympathy with law enforcement and what they have to endure, but this…

    And, in another story today, police in N. Miami shoot a [black] guy lying on the ground who was working with some kid from a group home with autism. When he asked the police officer why he shot him, the LEO replied “I don’t know.”

    1. It’s a slightly easier choice for dirtbags to make when they face absolutely no repercussions for the life and death (of others) choices they make.

      1. Your point? We need dirtbag cops?

        1. Oh, by “dirtbags” you meant the cops, not criminals.

          1. Obviously. My point is that you’ll see a higher frequency of reasons like “I don’t know” when the system gives cops almost no incentive to not shoot a person.

            1. Lately, where the system breaks down, volunteer citizens seem to be taking up the slack. Not very precisely, true, but whaddaya expect from volunteers of America?

    2. I am surprised warrants don’t have expiration dates.

      This was clearly an excuse to search the current occupants. They weren’t seriously interested in the prior residents. For that they might have contacted the landlord. not the current tenants.

      1. I’m sure that issues play out like this with marshal’s offices, constables, etc. every day, and don’t make headlines, and don’t result in violence. they go out, confirm with their own eyes that the wanted person isn’t at the residence, and are on their way-no fuss, no muss.

        Of course, many warrants do expire, and they aren’t usually sat on for a decade. I don’t know about Wynnewood wanting someone in this family, but they sure as hell behaved like Sam Peckinpah’s version of the Keystone Cops.

        That family should be able to move to a nicer house, when all is said and done*.

        *won’t be much, and will be paid for by OK taxes, but, you know.

    3. They had the warrant for 10 yrs. but were waiting for suitable children & dog to show up.

  13. Love how the Sheriff has already declared the shooting justified without an investigation. I mean, we know the investigation would be BS anyways, but at least they usually leave the illusion for a while.

    1. He should just come out and say, “i’m not firing any of my officers over the shooting of a dog. Hell, when they kill their K9 partners, we just cover it up and move them off the K9 team.”

  14. Eli, the five-year-old whose birthday party police crashed to shoot and kill his dog, told Fox 25 he was sad the police did not apologize for killing his dog.

    It is too bad they didn’t at least give him an insincere apology.

    1. I like it better when they don’t apologize. Shows the peasantry what they are really up against.

      1. Five years old isn’t too young to learn that lesson.

    2. They majorly fucked up, the story is all over the internet, and they are going to clam up and hope it blows over.

      Apologies can be used in a law suit to establish your guilt, so no way that is going to happen.

      And from the looks of them, these were pretty common folk [no, you, contrary to popular belief, you do not have to be black to be mistreated by the po-po’s] who would not get the consideration more suburban constituents [who are typically more aware of their rights and might have “connections” and the wherewithal to do something about it] might be entitled to.

      I’m willing to bet this idiot just had his carbine and was dying to shoot something with it.

      1. “I wanna shoot somethin’, and Lord knows i ain’t clever enough to sneak up on a deer…”

  15. While there, an unidentified police officer

    Here’s hoping some intrepid reporter gets his name.

    Sorry, but if you are carrying a pistol (as I’m sure this cop was), and you go back to your car and get rifle, you just wanted to see what your rifle would do to a dog. If you really were sufficiently threatened to justify shootng the dog, you would have used your pistol immediately.

    But, said Ken Moore, police “had to start somewhere,” and the warrant gave them the authority to enter the Malone property without their permission.

    I don’t even know where to start with this. Let’s get the name of the judge who signed off on this search warrant, while we’re at it. I’d like to hear its explanation as to why it signed a warrant to search a location the suspect hadn’t been at for 10 years.

    Why they couldn’t have started with a phone call to the house to ask if they had any idea where the guy might be, and if they minded if a detective came out to look around, I have no clue.

    1. I don’t even know where to start with this.

      Start somewhere. So I guess that means you’ll need to shoot the cop’s dog. I have it on good authority that’s how you start investigations.

      1. I gotta admit if, in a week, a black veteran pops up outta nowhere and starts gunning down cops’ dogs left and right, I’m gonna cheer. I’ll still feel bad for the innocent dogs that got shot, but I’ll still cheer.

        1. Although to do it properly*, they would need to shoot some of them in the presence of the cops’ kids.

          *I in no way endorse the harming of anyone’s property or animals just because a bunch of dumbfuck, pants-wetting pigs can’t control their violent urges.

    2. Now, now, RC, there are dangerous elements in society who hate the King’s men; therefore they must be allowed to do the King’s work anonymously.

      1. Can’t wait til cops start working in ski masks like their blue brethren in the terrorist ridden shitholes of the middle east.

    3. I’ve looked up some other articles on this [and there are aplenty] hoping that there was more to the story to somehow mitigate this level of stupidity. There isn’t

      Agree the fuck up started with whoever asked the judge for the warrant, and then the judge who signed off on it, and then of course the keystone cops who carried out the travesty.

    4. If you really were sufficiently threatened to justify shootng the dog, you would have used your pistol immediately.

      And emptied the magazine in full panic fire with 1, maybe 2 rounds actually hitting the dog.

    5. My understanding was that there was no search warrant. They had a 10 year old outstanding arrest warrant, and were stupidly trying to serve it under the assumption that the guy still lived there.

      1. What Playa says. This, apparently, wasn’t a search warrant, but an arrest warrant. I read the 10-year old part yesterday, too. Usually, the higher the level of offence, the long the warrant can stay active.

        But, 10 years? If it was low-level enough to not actively serve it for 10 YEARS, it should be low level enough to have purged within that time (Statute of Limitations, and all).

        Plus, if this were part of some “warrant round-up” situation, I would think it would have been mentioned by someone involved-chief, reporter, etc.

        I doubt the judge did anything regarding the warrant that was unseemly–it was likely signed a decade ago. This is all on the PD/officers.

        1. And if there were sending this guy around to serve a 10-year-old arrest warrant, he was probably not the brightest star in the department’s constellation.

          The Farva of the town, if you will.

          1. “Something about a bus full of kids?”

          2. Considering he had to use a rifle and fired multiple times to kill a dog… yeah.

            Good thing he wasn’t called in to defend the children from the dog.

          3. he was probably not the brightest star in the department’s constellation.

            I can imagine someone who would be involved in a shooting like this might also volunteer to serve a 10-year-old warrant.

            You know, to go get those scum-bags that have been making the department look bad by not being arrested for 10 years?

  16. Police in Wynnewood, Oklahoma arrived at the home of the Malones with a warrant for someone who had lived at the rental residence 10 years earlier

    Nice, this is exactly the level of idiotic incompetence ‘some’ of us expect from government.

  17. So, question for the resident attorneys – is it common for warrants to not have expiration dates? If a warrant has been issued for my address at any point in history is that warrant still valid? You see where this is going – once a warrant has been issued for a given address, then is that address fair game for searches forever more?

    1. It’s not like the law matters anyway.

      1. Stop it, Crusty. Just stop it. [sobs]

      2. “I smelled something illegal at that child’s party. So I did the only sensible thing which was to shoot the nearest family pet.”

    2. I don’t even know if this warrant was 10 years old, or had been issued that morning for the suspect’s “last known address”.

      As CJ points out, though, the idea that the law matters when dealing with cops is, well, naive. Does anybody think this would turn out any different if they didn’t have a warrant at all?

      Say the cops went by without a warrant to ask the people who live there if they knew anything, etc. The dog would have been shot just the same, and the cop would get off just the same.

      1. Did the cops actually carry out a search of the house, or did they just shoot the dog and leave?

        Also, are pitbulls illegal in Wynnewood, Oklahoma?

        They might have a case.

        1. A case for what?

          Wrongful discharge of a firearm, cruelty to animals, destruction of property, or any of the other crimes this cop committed? Not a chance in hell. His boss already cleared him without bothering his empty little head or black little heart with an investigation.

    3. Doesn’t the FYTW clause cover that?

    4. I’m not aware of warrants having expiration dates, but I’m pretty sure that shouldn’t matter for this case because the police appear to have admitted that they didn’t have a reasonable basis at the time they entered the property to believe that the person they were looking for even lived at the address anymore, let alone that the person was actually there. This smells ripe for a 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 lawsuit to me.

      1. Section 1983 only applies where it’s alleged that someone acting under color of law (such as a cop) has committed “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Even in this age of penumbras and emanations, I don’t think that “not having your dog shot” is a federal constitutional or statutory right.

        1. Unless they entered the house. I seem to recall an amendment covering that.

        2. “I don’t think that “not having your dog shot” is a federal constitutional or statutory right”

          Your dog is your property, and you can not be deprived of your property without due process. That’s not a emanations, it is right here in the 14th.

    5. The warrant is issued for the arrest of a person. The master file may or may not contain a last known address and list of places the arrestee is known to frequent.

      Arrest warrants expire when the statue of limitations has lapsed for the underlying crime, unless it can be proven that the person fled prosecution.

      Search warrants are executed immediately.

  18. I can imagine them re-raiding the residence under the same pretense as retribution for all the bad press. Bonus they’ll wait till the family has a new puppy, and promptly shoot it as well.

    1. Oh, you know there will be retribution.

      1. Look for CPS to show up soon and snatch the kids.

        Unfortunately, I’m not joking.

        1. There was gunfire at a 5-year-old’s birthday party, and an animal was killed on the premises. CPS will have no choice but to remove the kids from such a dangerous home environment.

          I’m not joking either.

          1. Obviously, the animal was dangerous. The cops shot it!

        2. No, you are not…those kids were endangered by having a “viscous animal on the premises [“did it or did it not ‘charge’ at an officer who found it necessary to return to his squad care and retrieve his M4 carbine and return to the fence to kill it?”] and were probably left outside in the yard to play at some point without direct adult supervision.

          Yep, could be years of foster care in homes of nascent pedophiles for those little shavers.

          1. Look at the pic up there, with a viscious pit bull pinning down a small child. Its a miracle the kid survived.

            Yeah, these kids are goners. Or would be, if any of the local cops were bright enough to call CPS on the family.

          2. What would a viscous animal look like, besides all over the floor?

  19. In Journalism Land, all rifles are “High Powered”, anything not explicitly liberal is “Right-Wing”, all dogs that bite are Pit Bulls, and all terrorists are repressed homosexuals who are having work-related problems.

    1. By liberal you mean plutocratic? like der Fuehrer? the American liberal party of beer legalizers?

  20. I was just thinking “we haven’t had a good ‘cop shoots dog’ nut punch in a while” and then this happens.

    Hmmm… “I haven’t had Amber Heard and Megan Fox in a three way…” *waits several minutes* God dammit.

  21. But, said Ken Moore, police “had to start somewhere,” and the warrant gave them the authority to enter the Malone property without their permission.

    Yeah, judges are great.

  22. I’m not one that believes all cops are bad. I just wonder sometimes, when things like this happen, where all the good ones are. I don’t hear much outrage or condemnation, and a little shaming might go a long way if it was from the “brotherhood”.

    1. Fuck shaming and civil suits. He should be treated as though he were some asshole who maliciously shot a family’s dog. Because that’s what he is.

      1. Preet is licking his chops right now.

        1. Every time I post in this thread, I make a conscious decision to not express my desire to see this cop and all the cops like him (and all their boot licking sycophants) fed feet first into a dull bladed woodchipper face a jury of his peers and a prosecutor of his fan club.

      2. Two words. “Police unions”

        1. One acronym: RICO.

    2. They’re too busy shaming cops who give other cops speeding tickets for doing 100 in a 65.

      1. Yeah, if you want to see what the “thin blue line” really cares about, ask the FL state trooper who was hounded out of her job.

    3. And another thing, like so many other issues with the police, they resort to the explanation that it was within “policy” or “legally allowed” while utterly ignoring that we don’t want our cops doing that, allowed or not.

      Ok, your shooting of this dog fell within the legal guidelines, and you’re within policy, great, sadly however, we don’t employ people who use bullets to diffuse dog situations.

      1. And another thing, like so many other issues with the police, they resort to the explanation that it was within “policy” or “legally allowed” while utterly ignoring that we don’t want our cops doing that, allowed or not.

        I think that’s what they call customer service.

    4. frilly, I hear ya.

      Being a member of the cop tribe means you adopt beliefs and do things that are just wrong outside the tribe. To me, that creates a rebuttable presumption that every member of the tribe a bad person, until proven otherwise.

      Treat all cops as stupid, dangerous, panicky animals until they demonstrate something else. Its only prudent.

      1. Treat all cops as stupid, dangerous, panicky animals until they demonstrate something else. Its only prudent.

        And that’s they’re doing, not ours.

  23. The vitriol and filth in these comments is exactly what causes the war on cops in the first place and this is why they must act so aggressively in these situations. You have only yourselves to blame. Woodchippers, woodchip thyself.

    1. STFU, shreek.

    2. So wait, I vigorously object to my employees fucking up, and I’m to blame for their decisions to fuck up harder?

      This makes sense to you?

      1. Yes, perfect sense. And if that doesn’t work, threaten to drone them. You can do it:

        1. ” threaten to drone them”

          I’ve seen you try this on other people asshole, and you should know, we’ve never spoken and you’re so far off here you look like Trump.

          1. “Is it true you were bullying my precious Trumpkins online, Mythtard?”

            “I learned it from you, Mr Trump. I learned it from you!”

            1. A frilly pink thing|7.21.16 @ 3:20PM|#

              I’m not one that believes all cops are bad.

              Don’t you look like an even bigger asshole now.

              1. It’s just a troll. Ignore it.

                By the way, it also posts as “dajjal” in case that handle engages you as well.

                1. Noted, ty.

              2. Yes and if that doesn’t work call them an asshole, and if that doesn’t work, ask them how it feels to breath water with weights tied to their ankles. You can do it:

    3. How are your ghost pepper plants dealing with the drought, Kizone?

    4. Yeah guys. I’m sure all the BLM types are visiting Reason right now.

      1. Why not? If they’re looking for faceless Go Pee fascists to kill, this place is lousy with those ever since Trump’s brownshirts got tossed out of the Dilbert site.

    5. @mythhead: Why do you bother trolling this site?

      Oh,right, it’s because you’re a troll,, and that is just what trolls do.

      1. “He’s a troll, Mr Trump. He was harassing us online and cyberbullying!”

        “It’s true Mr Trump, he’s a troll. He was ganging up on us with his sockpuppets!”

        1. I should follow my own advice…

          DON’T FEED THE TROLLS

        2. Shriek, how pathetic is your life that you spend so much effort to try and troll us here? Genuinely curious.

          1. Yes good and if anyone points out that your life is so pathetic that you have to incite violence to spice things up, just call them ‘pathetic’ and ask them why they spend so much effort on a libertarian web site fighting for the principles they believe in. You can do it:

            1. You have to admit it is kind of pathetic that you rail against addiction so frequently, then clearly show that you’re addicted to posting on this website. Is there a professional you can seek help from?

              1. I went to the professional and they said, “You are pathetic. But no more than anyone else. Keep on keepin’ on. That’ll be $160.”

    6. Stick a chainsaw up your gaping prolapsed anus and turn it you fucking retard. I hope you get Lou Gehrig’s disease.

      1. “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Troll, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou retard, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

  24. Someone should arrange to have the local pizza joint send some drivers over to educate this department on dog handling procedure.

  25. You know what an interesting interview would be?

    With letter carrier who delivers to that house. Have you met the dog, what’s he like, how do you deal with hostile dogs, etc.

    I expect it would be humiliating in the extreme for the local po-po.

    1. The letter carrier in your hypothetical better watch his back.

    2. They might shoot the letter carrier.

      “HE WAS COMING RIGHT AT ME WITH SOMETHING IN HIS HAND!”

  26. Canine lives matter too.

  27. Let’s not go jumping to conclusions here. Remember we’re only hearing one side of the story. We don’t actually know what happened before the video. These good officers may very well have had reason to fear for their safety, and had to make a split-second decision in a life-or-death situation. If you’ve never worn the uniform, you have no idea what it’s like and really have no business spreading misinformation and your misguided opinions about matters you know nothing about. Let’s grow up and just wait for a full and fair investigation, which will conclude that the police were following standard procedure, even if unfortunate mistakes were made in this tragic situation. These brave heroes are, after all, under-staffed, under-paid, and under-appreciated and their training budget was severely slashed in the latest round of budget-cutting.

    1. Need to throw in something about sacrifice, family, protecting the public, and darn it, just doing the best they can.

    2. I just ate, why did you have to type this.

    3. Give me a raise of the dog gets it! The pigs copied that from National Lampoon and added real blood.

  28. It’s not clear to me, from the news story or the video, whether the dog was inside or outside the fenced yard when shot. The linked news story says he was “near the fence” or “near the gate”. The video clip just shows a fence in the background, with no way to tell which side is which. If the officer did shoot a dog that was confined inside a fenced yard, the story could have made that clearer.

    1. The cops need time to get their story together. Geez.

      1. Why?

        What difference, at this point, does it make if they tell obvious, self-serving lies?

  29. I don’t know about anyone else, but if a cop starts popping off rounds at my kid’s birthday party I might assume the SOB is out of his goddamn mind and put one in him before he kills someone.

    I know that if I did the same thing, the cops would not hesitate to put one (or 72) in me.

    1. They would shoot 72 times, but only like 3 or 4 would actually penetrate you.

      1. Cop bukkake

        1. Paging teenage girl.

  30. Hey everyone I have an idea. Let’s all write out our fantasies about killing cops. OK you go first. No wait, I see you already did. Nice work! OK now let someone else try. It’s easy. Just stay up all night thinking up a story for why you just had to shoot and then type it in the box below:

    1. Trolls, I think I might shoot a troll if he were in my front yard.

    2. My fantasy is about a happening upon a gutshot pig bleeding out… and the thing having the temerity to ask me for help.

  31. The key bit from hte linked story:

    Malone said the officer initially told her the dog had lunged at him through the fence.

    Sounds like the dog was inside the fence and the cop was outside.

    According to the Wynnewood police chief, the dog charged the officer. While he declined our multiple requests for a recorded interview, Chief Ken Moore said the officer told him the dog was vicious and attacked him by coming around the corner of the house. Moore said the officer tried to kick the dog off him once and then shot him.

    That makes it sound like they were both inside the fence. Which is it? The dog lunged at you through the fence, or the dog came around the house and attacked you? If the dog lunged at you through the fence, how did you need to kick him off you (unless he came all the way through the fence)? And if you tried to kick the dog off you, that sounds like (a) the dog was on you – so let’s see the bite wounds, and (b) you were unable to successfully kick the dog off you, which makes your trip back to the car for your rifle kind of . . . odd.

    In short, the official story is a hash of obvious, self-contradictory lies.

    1. The dog lunged at him through the fence, then the officer came over or through the fence and shot the dog. So the answer might be “both”.

    2. It sounds like the officer shot the dog the first time with his sidearm, then got the rifle for the next two shots. It’s not at all clear whether the dog was confined inside the fence.

      1. At a party. The dog was nowhere near a threat.

        1. The dog was nowhere near a threat.

          Untrue, the threat was right across the fence, the dog died by identifying and engaging it.

          1. …I walked into that one.

            1. Mad casual, whatever that is, has unusually sharp wit. I steer clear…

      2. So the dog lunged at him through the fence, and the cop went in anyway, was attacked by the dog coming around the corner, “tried to kick the dog off him”, shot him with a pistol, went back for the rifle and shot the dog twice more?

        Somewhat plausible, I guess. Still doesn’t clear up the kicked the dog off him thing, doesn’t explain why he didn’t finish him with the pistol, begs the question of why the cop went in after being lunged at, why a vicious dog who tried to get at him through the fence went away around the corner of the house, and overlooks a couple of obvious points:

        (a) If a pit bull attacks you for reals, all vicious-like, you will have injuries. They are faster and stronger than you. If they want a piece of you, they will get a piece of you. So, if this guy was in the yard with the dog and was attacked (he came around the corner of the house and had to be kicked off, remember?) I wanna see some bruising or puncture wounds.

        (b) That ain’t a vicious dog.

    3. Can’t be R.C. If a policeman says it, it’s true. If he says two contradictory things, they are both true. If video contradicts the policeman, the video lies. It’s just common sense.

  32. They are not helping their cause.

    1. They don’t have a cause. They’re fucking pigs, surrounded by Mpigs Unions who protect them.

    2. Frankie! Thanks for not reluctantly and after careful deliberation droning me today. You da best! And remember, droning only helps your cause if it’s done surgically and strategically and with minimal collateral damage. That’s the key – “minimizing the collaterality” like you alway say.

    3. This is their cause.

      Enforcing submission, and FYTW, and going home safe until they can cash their pension. This ticks all the boxes. If they have another, its hard to tell.

  33. My friend’s aunt makes $87 an hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for seven months but last month her pay check was $13489 just working on the laptop for a few hours. try this site…

    ========== http://www.Alpha-Careers.com

  34. SOMEONE could use some crate training…

    1. But paul, the dogs already dea-ohhhh.

  35. He was mah dawg, man! (Cheese sobs)

  36. I wonder how many dogs would get shot at a large party where everyone was open-carrying?

    1. Depends. If it’s a cop’s BBQ or retirement party, the answer is “How many dogs are at the party?”

      Otherwise, zero.

      1. I can just see a cop planning a BBQ for his buddies:

        “Dang, honey, I got the hot dogs, but I forgot to get any dogs! Lemme run down to the animal shelter real quick and pick some up. You know how disappointed the guys get if there aren’t any dogs to shoot.”

  37. Furry Lives Matter!

  38. Furry Lives Matter!

  39. I don’t know how to feel about this yet.

    What was the race of the dog?

  40. I see the PD has a Facebook page. Perhaps some of you with Facebook accounts might pay a visit?

    http://www.facebook.com/WynnewoodPoliceDepartment/

  41. If a citizen shot your dog near your kids the logical thought would be he’s a dangerous madman and to shoot him before he can hurt anyone. What exactly makes a police officer any different?

    Odd how people deliver millions of letters, packages, and pizzas onto people’s doorsteps without ever having to shoot a boy’s dog at his birthday party.

    They seem to be making it difficult to have sympathy for blue lives on purpose.

  42. I feel sorry for the dog and all, but there’s a more ridiculous issue here. How did they get a warrant for a house that they knew the person they were seeking hadn’t lived in for years? Did they fail to mention that to the judge? And why would they even want such a warrant?

    The “”had to start somewhere”? Does searching a house that the suspect hasn’t lived in for years and that has had several residents since then count as a start?

    And if they knew that the suspect didn’t live there and had no reason to believe that the current residents had any connection to the suspect (other than having bought a house from someone who bought a house from him), why not try knocking on the door and talking to the residents? And, if their dog is a problem, politely ask them to restrain the dog? And, really… While I suppose there’s some minimal additional chance of the people destroying evidence that had a minimal chance of existing anyway, wouldn’t it have been sensible, upon seeing a bunch of kids there for a birthday party, to have rescheduled the search for a time when they had a better chance of not having to fire any weapons with five year olds running around?

  43. I’m surprised they didn’t confiscate the child’s birthday money!

  44. We can even create playlists of them so it will be very easy to find our videos which we like. We can also download those videos and can watch them offline. Showbox for pc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.