Police Officer Kills Dog for Walking Toward Him With Tail Wagging
Bradley Brock says his dog Moose was walking toward a police officer wagging its tail when the officer gunned his pet down.

For Bradley Brock, his 3-year-old dog, a mastiff named Moose, was his family and his support after a serious motorcycle accident. In a span of seconds on a November night last year, a police officer in Inkster, Michigan, took all of that from Brock when the officer shot Moose multiple times as the dog approached him.
Brock says, and video appears to show, the dog wagging its tail as it trots toward the officer. Brock has now filed a federal civil rights lawsuit arguing that the shooting was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The shooting is another alleged instance of an officer misreading dog behavior and slaying a pet—a sadly common occurrence that continues to devastate families, generate public outrage, lead to officers being fired, and cost police departments hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawsuit settlements.
Brock says he called 911 on November 15 of last year after a man at a gas station pulled a gun on him. Video of the incident shows an Inkster police officer talking to Brock while Moose sits on the sidewalk a short distance away, off leash. Moose then trots over to Brock, wagging his tail and stopping to sniff a passing pedestrian, before turning and moving toward the officer.
"He was very friendly, but if anybody was around me, he wanted to check 'em out and make sure they're okay," Brock says. "That's all, like any dog."
However, the officer begins quickly backpedaling, draws his gun, and within seconds shoots the dog multiple times.
Brock, escorted by police, took Moose to an emergency veterinarian, where the dog was euthanized. The veterinarian report notes that the Inkster police left immediately after dropping Moose off and "refused to give account of what happened."
The loss of his dog crushed Brock. He had lost one of his legs in a motorcycle accident several years earlier, and he was training Moose to be his service dog. Brock says Moose was a rescue dog who was caged and abused for the first six months of his life.
"When I got him, he had no hair from the middle of his back to the tip of his tail," Brock says. "They had run over his head with a truck, and it crushed his jaw and caused him to bite the tip of his tongue off. He was highly abused, so when I got him, I healed him as much as he healed me. We were partners."
The only reason footage of the incident exists is because a security guard at a nearby marijuana dispensary captured it on video via a drone he had in the air at the time. The Inkster Police Department told local news outlets that the officer's body camera wasn't turned on, nor was the dash camera in his cruiser active.
Brock says the dispensary initially refused to give him the video, but he later ran into the security guard, Antonio Williams, by chance. Williams sympathized with Brock and handed over the footage.
"The video clearly shows the dog was not aggressive," Williams told WXYZ Detroit. "The officer pulled his weapon and I don't know how many times he fired because I was busy wondering where the bullets were going."
Williams was fired from his job for sharing the footage with Brock, but he told WXYZ that he had no regrets.
The Inkster Police Department did not respond to a request for comment for this article. However, it previously said in a statement to Detroit's WDIV Local 4: "The members of the Inkster Police Department are without question saddened by the loss of anyone's pet, and we send our sympathy to the owner, however it is incumbent of pet owners to be responsible with their animals."
Brock says he wants the police to be better trained to recognize the difference between an aggressive and friendly dog. "I get it. We live in Detroit," he says. "People have pit bulls that are aggressive, that are guarding illegal activities. That wasn't my dog."
A 2016 Reason investigation found that a Detroit narcotics unit was responsible for a string of drug raids that left dead dogs in their wake and allegations from owners that their pets had been wantonly slain.
In the years since then, the city has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars settling lawsuits stemming from those raids. In 2020, the city paid $75,000 to settle one lawsuit after body camera footage contradicted an officer's claims that two pit bulls were growling and lunging at him when he shot them.
In 2018, Detroit paid $225,000 to settle another lawsuit by a couple who claimed police officers shot their three dogs while the animals were enclosed behind an eight-foot-tall fence—just so the officers could confiscate several potted marijuana plants in their backyard. In 2015, the city approved a $100,000 settlement to a man after police shot his dog while it was securely chained to a fence.
Following viral videos of dog shootings, intense negative publicity, and hefty lawsuit payouts, many police departments have started to recognize the need to train their officers on how to deal with canines without just reaching for their guns. Reason reported in 2018 on a pilot program by the National Sheriffs' Association that uses virtual use-of-force simulators to run officers through common situations where they might encounter a dog.
"My dog was well over 10, probably 15 feet away from him when he took the first shot," Brock says. "There's no reason that he should have taken that shot at a dog that's 15 feet away and wagging his tail."
"I just want justice for my boy," says Brock. "That's all."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
He followed policy.
The dog owner, however, didn't follow policy or common sense. By law, dogs need to be leashed in most cities, and for good reason. Now, you can get away with skirting those leash laws when your dog is exceptionally well trained, heels, and sits in any interaction. But this dog clearly wasn't well trained. And a big dog like a mastiff should never be allowed to walk up to others on the street uninvited.
The responsibility for the dog's death primarily rests with the owner and his irresponsible behavior.
Have to agree with you. This is on the owner. Ive seen videos of police killing dogs that would make anyones blood boil, but this was gross irresponsibility on the part of the owner, even if the cop was too quick on the trigger. Your off leash massive dog advancing on someone, not on your property, is as irresponsible as barrel sweeping a crowd with your finger on the trigger.
We had a 5 year old a few months ago who's face was permanently mangled by the family german sheppard (well, the dog of the grandparents). Per the family, the dog could have been on a canine unit he was so well trained. Have seen everything from poorly trained pitbulls, "friendly" Rottweilers, and well trained german sheppards who decide to flip a switch on a person. A mastiff could absolutely tear a person apart.
Put your dog on a fucking leash or dont be surprised when someone in a society, in which you know many people are armed and have a right to protect themselves, caps the dog. I hate that the cop shot him and its super unfortunate, but this is on the owner.
How many cops were "absolutely torn apart" or even injured by pet dogs last year.
I'm willing to bet it's a number that I could count to relatively quickly.
Counting to zero is actually pretty difficult.
Easily work do it for everyone from home in part time and I have received 21K$ in last 4 weeks by easily online work from home. fgp I am a full time student and do in part time work from home. I work daily easily 4 hours a day in my spare time.
.
Details on this website:>>> http://WorkStar24.blogspot.com/
Although my initial response to this was anger, upon reflection I have to say you're right. The owner of a dog has to recognize the hazards his/her pet faces and act to protect the pet from said hazards. There's no way the dog can understand what those hazards are. He walked up to that cop with no awareness of what danger he was in. It's on us humans to fill in the blanks.
The police officer also has a responsibility to act like a reasonable human being. You can acknowledge that the victim wasn't perfect but also point out that the perpetrator is a massive fucking asshole.
Even if a girl got pass-out drunk at a frat party, it still doesn't mean her rapists are suddenly innocent. Her poor decision doesn't invalidate the criminal decision of others.
most people here have acknowledged the stupid of the owner while also acknowledging the cowardice and terrible behavior of the cop. I realize its the internet but can we keep 2 ideas in our heads and not make everything zero sum.
And yet, all the other people on the street were unafraid of the dog. The big bad police officer was the only one fearing for his life!
The responsibility for the dog's death primarily rests with the owner and his irresponsible behavior.
The dog's death is not the point. The poorly trained, poor dispositioned, reckless police officer whose dash and body cams were "malfunctioning" and the depraved indifference both the officer and the department "leadership" showed is.
I think everyone can agree the police officer is a fuck. But this situation was 100% caused by the owner not keeping his dog out of danger. If I leave the door open and live by a highway, I take some responsibility if my adventurous dog gets run over on the street.
I should not have to incarcerate my animals to "protect" them from being murdered because they have the potential to harm.
This is the same bullshit rhetoric for masking, gun confiscation and frisking "super predators."
And some little old lady or child shouldnt have to be under threat because you dont want to put your dog on a leash.
"This is the same bullshit rhetoric for masking, gun confiscation and frisking "super predators."
Its really not. And you are being histrionic if you are comparing reasonable control of an animal that can do harm to someone to COVID masking.
Take some personal responsibility, youre not a child / prog
Absolute bollocks
This wasn't some stray, feral pitbull. This was a pet dog who the officer himself had observed being calm and friendly.
I feel your pain, loser.
And some little old lady or child shouldnt have to be under threat because you dont want to put your dog on a leash.
If the dog has a calm and unaggressive disposition, what is the threat exactly?
Teeth, claws, and volition.
If I were roaming your neighborhood, pissing on peoples' lawns, harassing their pets, and sniffing and licking random passersby while openly carrying two carving knives, you'd be totally cool with it as long as I was totally cool with it, right?
The dog was in plain sight and just walked up to another human being and casually sniffed the person. Why would you assume the dog is vicious and aggressive after observing that interaction?
The person was in plain sight and casually sniffed the person. Why would you assume the person is vicious and aggressive after observing that interaction?
2A my friend. The gun doesn't have volition, you do. I don't have to wait for the car you forgot to put the park brake on hits me before I react to it as I see fit. You don't decide when the person with the knife/gun/pool cue/broken bottle is a threat to me, I do. The dog does have volition, but isn't human, you either claim ownership and control of the dog or it's a potential threat that could go off at any moment. You may not like my interpretation but letting the dog off the leash means it's my interpretation to make just as much as walking around brandishing a knife/gun/pool cue/broken bottle/etc.
no dog in the history of dogs has ever nicely sniffed a human and then bit another. Seriously the reasoning you people are going through to shit on the cop is elementary level. We can shit on the cop and also recognize the owner should have controlled his dog.
The girl I took care of the other day who will look like a disfigured freak forever got her face mangled by the grandparents german sheppard who per the family was near SWAT level trained. But hey, he was just sniffing and cuddling on someone 2 minutes before so clearly someone should tell that girl she was under no threat.
Well, in Inkster and many other cities, it's the law. It's the law because an unleashed dog is a danger to himself and to others.
If you don't like such laws, don't move to cities with leash laws.
And the penalty for violating that leash law is what, precisely?
According to the online version of their code, it appears to be a fine or 90 days in jail (or both). That's the same penalty as for letting your dog bark all night or for selling colored baby chicks or rabbits at Easter, by the way. I don't see anything in the code authorizing the penalty of summary execution.
If the cop had ticketed the owner for violating the leash law, that would have been an entirely appropriate reaction to the situation. This was nowhere close to proportionate or appropriate.
You're missing the point. It is utterly irresponsible to let a dog off leash in the city, in particular a dog as poorly trained and as big as this. There are many ways in which an off-leash dog can get killed or harm others (and then get euthanized).
The dog leash law exists to remind stupid, irresponsible dog owners of this fact.
Shoot my dog or take me to jail for 90 days? Leash, shoot the dog, go to jail in order of preference greatest to least, whether I actually prefer any of those options as options or not.
No, I'm not missing the point. The proportionate and just response to a violation of the leash law is the fine that the leash law provides for. Summary execution of the dog is grossly disproportionate and unjust.
It is even more disproportionate and unjust when the dog has not hurt anyone and is not acting in an even vaguely threatening manner.
Yes, off-leash dogs can be a danger. So can off-leash men. Does that give me the right to demand that you be locked up or even executed for your pre-crimes?
That's a ridiculous argument.
The dog was not shot because the owner violated the purported leash law (I have not independently verified the claim up thread that there is an applicable leash law in this jurisdiction but am assuming the claim is correct).
It was shot because the officer perceived it as a threat. The officer also had reason to believe that the person he was dealing with was not very responsible with the dog (as it wasn't on a leash) and therefore the odds of it not being well trained. The lack of proper training was also evidenced by the fact that the dog was walking up to total strangers rather than sitting quietly by it's owner's side. This would reasonably increase the officer's perception that the dog posed a risk.
Perhaps that perception was no correct or even reasonable, but the dog was NOT shot as an enforcement or punishment for the owner violating a leash law.
The article doesn't say if the owner was charged with a leash law violation but, given the video evidence and the officer's observation of the crime, I hope he was.
Yeah, that's what callous ideologues like you believe: "who cares about the dog, I can use this to beat up on police."
I don't give a f*ck about the police officer, I do care about the dog. And this owner was utterly irresponsible. You do not go out on city streets with an off-leash mastiff (and an obviously poorly trained one at that) if you care about the well-being of your dog.
And then lie saying, "I rescued an abused animal to train it to be a service dog."
I wouldn't jump to a conclusion that was a lie without more evidence I see in this article. It may not be accurate by many (most?) people's definition of a "service dog", but it may well be how the owner perceived it and intended his training to result in.
Yes!
Oh horse hockey. The cop was at fault and will hopefully be fired.
Bullshit. You are blaming the victim and it's every bit as detestable in this context as in the bad old days of "she was asking for it by the way she was dressed".
The dog was adequately trained and was reacting appropriately to the situation. The cop was in no danger. The cop had no reason to even draw his weapon, much less to fire it. Lots of things "could be dangerous". That's not a justification to start shooting.
The dog was adequately trained and was reacting appropriately to the situation.
For an abused rescue dog it was fairly well behaved. For a service animal, it was terribly trained.
Regardless, on public property where I wasn't it's not my call to make. The ubiquitous an cine que non indicator would be a leash. If the dog was ready and chomping at the bit to tear the officer's throat out, but controlled on a leash, the shooting would've been clearly unjustified. Like shooting a lamp with a short, an open blender, or a running chainsaw.
My policy would be to wait for a year or two, let things settle down. Then get some real justice.
I had three toy poodles at the park on leashes. Across the field ran a big pitbull toward us. If I had had a pistol...
The owner shouted "He's just a pup. He won't hurt you." But I didn't know that and frankly I thought I was going to have a heart attack.
It's true. He didn't hurt them. I had them in my arms and as soon as the owner trotted up and I put them down, the pitbull began hunching all three of them, two females and a male. The male flew into a rage and snapped at the pitbull and a snarling fight was on. Only it would not have been a fight. I got the male in my arms again about the time the pitbull went for his neck. One of his fangs cut into my arm.
Thankfully the owner got control of the pitbull, put the leash back on him, and hurried away. And no, I never got rabies shots even though I could not find the owner. Risky.
Risky business too letting your big scary-looking dog loose without a leash.
"The Inkster Police Department told local news outlets that the officer's body camera wasn't turned on, nor was the dash camera in his cruiser active."
Bullshit.
Ah, you are using English usage. Legal usage differs. It judges that state after the fact. Until it can be shown to exist legally, it doesn't exist legally. Therefore the cameras were not on, legally.
Schrödinger's cameras?
Bingo, they are trying to cover for the fool.
jeebus buy him a new dog at least, assholes.
Do they get to run over it first?
That's not government's way of doing things. Government has no empathy. He's lucky they didn't bill him for the bullets they used on the first dog.
I'd be careful with that line of comment around dog owners who have just lost their dog. I had someone tell me "you can always get another dog" about a day after we had to put down a sweet beagle girl (filled with cancer) and all I could think was "you are obviously not a dog person". The last thing I wanted to think about was a "replacement".
Just a suggestion.....
I went to the fortune teller and she told me that a terrible, depressing tragedy would befall me in about 13 yrs. To cheer myself up, I got a puppy.
dude, that just happened to us a month ago. 13yrs
I heard that joke about 3 mos. after having put down our 11-yr.-old beagle a couple years ago. Funny then, funny now.
I'll never understand the excessive infatuation with dogs or pets in general. They have no conceptualization of your love and treat pretty much anybody who doesn't explicitly abuse them the same way and you'll likely own a half dozen or more in your lifetime. "They're my children." is a pretty cruel proposition.
You're an ignorant idiot.
"treat pretty much anybody who doesn't explicitly abuse them the same way"
Wrong! Just wrong! You're thinking of cats.
It makes no difference how aware the dogs are of us. Even if it's an illusion that people form it's still beneficial to humans.
However, dogs are conscious, pick up on human emotions, and have a degree of self-awareness as a result of millions of years living in family and social groups before taking up with people. They wouldn't have been able to insert themselves into human society otherwise because they and especially their immediate ancestors are otherwise quite dangerous.
Yea, sort of like human children. Although when compared to human children the half dozen is high for some demographics and alarmingly low for other demographics.
yes yes sorry to offend but I was putting it on the Po to good-faith-effort at least replace the dog, not telling the guy to go get a new one.
anyway I'm more into "lamppost the dude" at this point in the afternoon
Plenty more looter cops where machine politicians got that one...
"The shooting is another alleged instance of an officer misreading dog behavior and slaying a pet"
"Cop behavior" was within established norms.
Everyone including police officers are not experts in animal behavior and can't be expected to know the signs. I have a degree in the field and sometimes I still get it wrong. Stiff legs and body, tail out straight, looking a little sideways or locking eyes, ruff down the back up. Sometimes none of that happens and the officer had no idea if it was a well trained dog or a renegade. Dogs can turn into 4 legged buzzsaws without any warning. Happens and more so for certain breeds.
And of course, cops have special rights to execute anyone or anything that looks at them funny. Fuck this guy.
Trained and lived with all manner of dog breeds. Several larger breeds, dobermans, pit bulls, rottweilers, german shepherds, etc. will take your hand in their mouth as a gesture of affection and will bump you with their nose, mouth closed, as a challenge of your authority. Both habits have to be broken as taking your hand in their mouth gets dangerous to smaller and more frail people as they get older and the gap between bumping you with their nose to challenge you and biting you with their teeth to challenge you is exceedingly small. Not every dog develops the same habits and, given various living situations, the habits can be tolerated or even conditionally encouraged. Being in public with the dog means you keep it on a leash so that the general public isn't subject to (snap judgments about) you and your dog's living/conditioning situation.
also, I can't fucking even. Officer Hair-Trigger is worth picketing until he is a janitor at Animal Services.
At least it wasn't a friendly toddler.
"The officer, utilizing xir experience and training, presumed the child's backpack was a suicide vest."
It's unfortunate that the dog won the stupid prize as the result of the stupid owner and stupid cop's games.
this probably summarizes it best ^
Being responsible and a decent human being is a bit much to ask from a police officer. ACAB
Or from a practicing asset-forfeiture armed robber with qualified immunity and union goons out destroying evidence of initiation of deadly force for not reason other than officious cruelty. Come unequal yet apposite reprisal, be prepared for much sobbing, groaning, gnashing of teeth and laying on of wreaths like a Romanian dictator's funeral. Oh, and Schadenfreude!
Sociopaths in blue.
"it is incumbent of pet owners to be responsible with their animals."
Apparently it is not however incumbent of police officer to be responsible with their service weapons.
Someone this afraid and with this reaction to this situation is not fit to be a police officer and should be fired.
Someone like this is absolutely fit to be a jackbooted thug lording it over the people. How would someone like this *not* fit that role?
Who other than a dickhead wants that job anyway?
Duly noted.
I hope this faggot cop gets what’s coming to him. When I was in school I delivered pizzas for a few years. Plenty of people had big unsecured dogs. Some were hostile. I managed to do my job without the benefit of weapons, armor, or a badge. And I was never unable to handle a situation. Never got bit either.
Ever get a call from the scene of a robbery asking you to deliver a pizza?
I absolutely agree that shooting a confined dog on private property is a wanton destruction of private property. If the guy had tossed a baseball at the cop, even as a friendly gesture, and the cop confiscated and then destroyed the baseball, I'd have a hard time saying he's owed anything and certainly not much more than the cost to replace the baseball.
Yes.
It's disgusting that even in the filed complaint, which is a public record, the POS cop is listed as "John Doe." Rights for thee but not for me.
So what? He would have filmed the same cop beating his kid to death, and I'll believe anything different to be possible on the day that I see it. Anyone who tolerates these pigs deserves the deepest possible misery, and to lose everyone and everything they care about at the hands of police.
It is irresponsible to let your dog walk up to other people without their explicit permission. Keep your dog leashed or train him well. This is even more important for big and potentially dangerous dogs like mastiffs.
Police shouldn't have shot the dog, but the responsibility ultimately rests with the owner.
City of Inkster leash law:
You think the penetly for breaking that ordinace is killing the dog, I got. Also, fuck you.
No, I don't think that's the "penelty", I think that's the consequence. A trigger happy officer is only one of many things that kill off-leash dogs in the city.
If you are as irresponsible with your dog as this guy was with his, then fuck you. People like you don't deserve to have dogs.
Better a live slave than possibly dead as a free man, eh?
Our slave Bradley Brock escaped!
Don't worry, he won't get far on foot.
This has nothing to do with laws or "being a slave", it has everything to do with being a responsible dog owners.
If you don't leash your dog in the city, you are being irresponsible, period. If you let your dog approach other people without their consent, you are being irresponsible, period.
That's true regardless of whether your city has leash laws.
If you didn't like lockdowns, you should have moved somewhere there aren't cities or government.
Correct. And I avoided cities with lockdowns, mask mandates, or vaccination mandates.
That's the way libertarianism is supposed to work: local self-governance.
Gonna go with a hearty, "fuck off, Karen," on this subject.
You think the penetly for breaking that ordinace is killing the dog, I got.
Yup. Does the dog have a God given right to a state funded abortion or is it a piece of property to be owned and controlled? Why not God given rights for hamsters, goldfish, viruses, or coffee table coasters?
If the dog has every right a human has then rights don't mean jack shit as people generally treat dogs pretty terribly by human standards even when they're treating them exceedingly well and people like Salted Nuts are going to say and do stupid shit like "Shooting my dog on public property makes me a slave./Your rights on public property don't mean shit relative to my dog's rights."
Libertarians for Karen dog-controlling laws.
As a libertarian, I have no problem with local communities passing any kind of Karen laws. Or racist laws. Or zoning laws. That's because in a libertarian society, local communities would simply be replaced by HOAs, which would likely have even stricter regulations. Liberty includes the right to choose to live subject to Karen laws.
But this actually isn't a "Karen dog-controlling law". Keeping your dog leashed in the city is responsible dog ownership. Letting your 120 pound dog approach other people without their permission is a violation of the NAP.
As a libertarian, I have no problem with local communities passing any kind of Karen laws
I do. It's not more liberty-friendly just because it happens at the local level. It does mean I don't have to abide because I don't have to live there, but a violation of liberty is still a violation of liberty, even if it's a local ordinance requiring cake owners to bake gay wedding cakes.
Wearing a seatbelt, and requiring your passenger to wear a seatbelt, is being responsible. I don't think it should be legally required by law. Keeping a dog on a leash when off your own property is along the same lines-it's a good practice and what you should do, but it also shouldn't be legally required.
In a libertarian society, almost everything would be governed by private associations: towns, roads, neighborhoods, parks, etc. Many of those private associations would impose strong restrictions on what you can do: smoking, seatbelts, leashing your dog, etc. These would be in the CCRs and enforceable by fines and/or expulsion. Are you or are you not OK with that?
Well, and this guy didn't get charged with a violation of the leash law, instead his dog got killed when he failed to control it. And that's the consequence of not leashing or controlling your dog in public.
In a libertarian society, almost everything would be governed by private associations: towns, roads, neighborhoods, parks, etc. Many of those private associations would impose strong restrictions on what you can do: smoking, seatbelts, leashing your dog, etc. These would be in the CCRs and enforceable by fines and/or expulsion. Are you or are you not OK with that?
If you stumbled across a race of barely sentient apes or schmoos and intended to co-exist peacefully with them as a species and under libertarian principles, you would confine or leash them until such a time as they demonstrated awareness of the NAP and property rights. You wouldn't let them wander up to people in public until they had broadly demonstrated an understanding and acceptance of the NAP, property rights, and reciprocity. Otherwise, the would literally be non persona non grata, free to be treated by anyone whom you "inflicted" them on as anything between a golden goose and a bag of garbage.
It is irresponsible to let your dog walk up to other people without their explicit permission. Keep your dog leashed or train him well. This is even more important for big and potentially dangerous dogs like mastiffs.
Police shouldn't have shot the dog, but the responsibility ultimately rests with the owner.
Again, it's unfortunate that the dog won the stupid prize as the result of the stupid owner and stupid cop's games.
Abused animals aren't used as service dogs. Service dogs aren't allowed to be off-leash outside the house. Know why? Because if some one-legged blind dumbass lets the dog off the leash and it tears off after a squirrel or someone who looks like its abuser, the one-legged blind man is both useless to stop the dog and utterly fucked by the lack of a dog.
The dog walked up to someone else and sniffed them. If that person had freaked out thinking the dog was attacking them and shot it, I'd be hard pressed to say they owe the owner anything more than the cost of the dog and, considering it was a rescue dog, that's not very much. I'm sorry your dog got shot because you failed to control it.
That cop is a total pussy, worried that an obviously friendly dog would harm him.
Police don't kill dogs because they feel threatened. They kill dogs because they know that their owners love them like children, and since they can't get away with killing children this is the next best thing.
They can get away with killing children. And I know you're somehow jealous of what they can get away with.
"Game of Thrones" had an excellent solution for tyrants that are mean to dogs....remember what happened to Ramsay Bolton???
Do you ever bother to think about what you are saying? Using dogs for hurting or killing humans is obscene and evil.
Remember that article about a couple K-9 units texting each other as they raced each other to see who would get "the first bite"?
They absolutely love their jobs. Driving around, siccing their dogs on people, laughing as the people scream, kicking them while they're down before putting the cuffs on so tight that it causes nerve damage.
Cops are scum, and K-9 cops are the bottom of the scum barrel.
Too many of today's cops are cowards. They are the ones with all the protective gear and guns. They are supposed to be the ones taking the risk, yet their very first Inclination is to escalate and start shooting. Even if the dog was aggressive shooting the dog is completely unnecessary.
That just reflects the general population and culture, doesn't it?
I mean, where are those fearless, manly men you want to defend you supposed to come from? And even if you manage to hire them, how many of them do you think are going to sit through diversity training where some overpaid fake-blond bimbo tells them about how the cis-hetero-normative patriarchy oppresses overpaid fake-blond bimbos are?
Brock says he wants the police to be better trained to recognize the difference between an aggressive and friendly dog.
How 'bout training them to not be fucking pussies?
That's the problem, but too many police reforms want them to undergo mandatory sensitivity and implicit bias training. The people willing to sit through that and to be told that they're racist by virtue of their skin color are going to be self-selecting toward pussy.
How about making it clear to Brock that he is to blame for his dog's death?
It's disgusting to see people argue that it's necessary to fully incarcerate and control animals for the safety of others or run the justified risk of being executed by state employees.
I see this as the same clinging Karen bullshit that sics CPS on children walking alone, supports mandatory gun confiscation, believes masks are a small sacrifice and generally looks to control people's lives "for the greater good."
The slow death of liberties to cowardice.
It's exactly that kind of Karen bullshit. "He was breaking leash laws!" As if leash laws have anything to do with liberty.
It's probably good to leash up your dog around strangers. It shouldn't be against the law to have an unleashed dog. It's a good idea to wear a seatbelt. It shouldn't be illegal to not wear a seatbelt.
As a libertarian, do you think an HOA can require dogs be leashed? Well, then tell me why a town shouldn't be able to have the same rules?
In any case, I didn't say that "the officer was justified in shooting the dog because the owner violated the dog leash law". I was saying that "responsible dog owners leash their dogs in cities and ensure that their dogs don't approach others without permission"; that's because, leash law or not, dogs end up getting killed if you violate those basic rules.
Leash laws just try to drive that common sense point home for people (like you and Brock) who are too stupid and irresponsible to understand that.
As a libertarian, do you think an HOA can require dogs be leashed? Well, then tell me why a town shouldn't be able to have the same rules?
I don't know why I should be a particular fan of HOAs, either. I don't like arbitrary rules about how tall the grass needs to be or what colors I can put on my house or what political signage I can put on my front yard. I also wouldn't live anywhere that a HOA is going to call cops if they see my unleashed dog.
HOAs don't call the cops for CCR violations, they fine you. If you continue to make a nuisance of yourself, they expel you.
In a libertarian society, you don't have a choice, since most of the functions of local government (roads, safety, schooling, etc.) are provided instead by private associations governed by private CCRs. Whether you are a "fan" or not doesn't matter.
"He vass breaking ze Kristallnacht lawz!" How can any civil servant of Christian National Socialism feel safe if armed Jewish kids or pet dogs are allowed to live free and not die??
You can do with your dog whatever you want to on your private property.
On public streets, in most places, you are required to keep your dog leashed (not "incarcerated"). That isn't just because other people don't want to have to guess whether that 120 pound mastiff is friendly or aggressive, but also to keep them from many other risks.
Even in towns where there is no leash law, you need to control your dog.
That just tells me that you are a thoroughly irresponsible dog owner, if you actually own a dog.
Got three large, friendly dogs that are trained to walk off leash and have been habituated to people and other animals in a variety of situations since they were puppies.
Leashing dogs increases aggression. Isolating a creature or person and not allowing normal interactions makes them psychotic - if you do not allow your dog to meet other people and animals and instead keep it in your yard until walks at the end of a 6' rope, you are an abuser and should not be surprised when it turns goes crazy.
Compare to areas where it is normal for off-leash dogs at parks and you'll find healthier, happier dogs who have functional social skills.
Do not penalize my life because your fears.
That's nice. But if they just once run up to the wrong person, they get killed.
I live in a rural community where I can walk my dogs off leash. When I take them to the city, I obey the leash laws.
Quite apart from how irresponsible it is to have dogs off leash in a city, the leash laws are lawfully enacted, valid, and enforceable. If you don't like them, do what I did and move to somewhere where they don't have leash laws.
So all laws are just, reasoned and scientifically rational?
Or is this more Karens barking up fake trees? Are we smothering all to save one again?
And again, the infraction of not being incarcerated does not deserve death.
Your argument basically sums up to "obey the law or else."
"So all laws are just, reasoned and scientifically rational?"
Excuse me while I giggle at the fact the guy saying his 3 large questionably dangerous to a stranger variables, are to be assumed to be absolutely harmless off leash to someone who doesn't know you or your dogs. This kind of belief borders on the religious. But sure, its scientifically rational to assume no threat to oneself and wholeheartedly trust a stranger I know nothing about with animals that are definitely safe because "trust me bro"
Ya, ill look elsewhere for my scientific rationality, thank you.
"It's disgusting to see people argue that it's necessary to fully incarcerate and control animals for the safety of others or run the justified risk of being executed by state employees."
Again, no one is making this exact argument. Most reasonable people will understand you have the responsibility to control a massive potential threat and your failure to do so puts it and others in danger, when you arent on your property. On your property, do what you want. This "incarcerate" nonsense is histrionic whining. Be a little less dramatic. Or let your dog roam free at its risk. Adults realize there are consequences to their actions.
This "incarcerate" nonsense is histrionic whining.
Yup. "Expecting people to keep their hands to themselves is forcibly restraining them."
I love the libertarians who will completely forsake principles because, uh, liberty doesn't apply when there are fur and four legs involved, I guess.
This kind of thought process is what steers normal rational people away from libertarianism. I can argue back and forth with them over policies, make pro-freedom points, sometimes even getting them to see the pro-freedom side of things... but then someone like buttplug has to argue that if he cant peddle kiddie porn then he isnt really free. Or Salted Nuts saying that if he cant have a 200 pound mastiff that could literally eat grandma off leash, he is basically an incarcerated slave. Just flat out ridiculous "principles only" arguments that most of us give up when we leave the 2nd grade.
These are the people that continue to ensure everyone rolls their eyes at libertarians.
Especially fascist infiltrators sent here to wheedle for just a little more tolerance of initiation of deadly force by qualified immunity parasites. With potential converts like hired asset-forfeiture robbers and murderers who gun down pets, who needs opposition?
I accept responsibility for training my animals to be socialized and not a risk to anything but squirrels.
I do this by introducing them to every facet of human society I can since an early age, acclimating them to the weird behaviors of humans and teaching them acceptable interactions and a semblance of personal boundaries (80lb Akita mix now will stand back and stretch up to beg for a hug at about 2' away because she's still a lapdog at heart, but has learned she gets in trouble for knocking people over.)
I do not encourage positive canine mental health by isolating them from society in a backyard and keeping the world on a 6' tether when walking - this is how you get aggressive dogs.
Not only is the response disproportionately fearful, but it's wrong. Kinda like most things the government does.
I do not encourage positive canine mental health by isolating them from society in a backyard and keeping the world on a 6' tether when walking - this is how you get aggressive dogs.
Nope. Just utter stupidity and refutation of reality on par with "I'm a woman trapped in a man's body." There are literally millions of non-aggressive dogs living in such conditions. Whether you like it or not it's the definition of domesticated and the opposite of it is literally wild/feral.
Not only is the response disproportionately fearful, but it's wrong.
2A. I get to defend myself, against threats real or imagined, as I see fit right up until it violates your right to do the same. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose and your right to defend yourself with a dog ends at the end of the leash/lead.
You looked at me funny from across the parking lot. Bang bang. Muh fears and rights.
It's amazing how nominal libertatians switch to fascism at the drop of a hat.
Cool, ill hang out around your family and open carry. Also occasionally I like to twirl the gun around on my finger, and barrel sweep those around me. Also you have no idea what weight of a trigger pull I have. But "trust me bro" its safe, I do this all the time. Its never accidentally gone off, so fear not, your child or grandmother or you, are totally safe on the other side of the barrel, I would never fire at you, and even though I just barrel sweeped your family a couple times with my finger on the trigger, you are cool in my book, I wasnt going to fire man!
If you take that as a threat and do something about it, you are literally a fucking slaver, taking my freedom to open carry in a way I feel is safe. Ya I might have just pointed it at you, but im friendly, Ive given you no reason to doubt me. But you dont know me at all, but trust me im friendly.
You looked at me funny from across the parking lot. Bang bang. Muh fears and rights.
I've already said that you're willfully retarding yourself to in order prioritize pet ownership above human rights, you don't have to continue to prove it.
Brock says the dispensary initially refused to give him the video, but he later ran into the security guard, Antonio Williams, by chance. Williams sympathized with Brock and handed over the footage.
There's some subtext here about the owner of a marijuana dispensary refusing to help a citizen with a complaint against the cops, but I can't quite formulate what it is.
Williams was fired from his job for sharing the footage with Brock, but he told WXYZ that he had no regrets.
And more subtext here.
There's some subtext here about the owner of a marijuana dispensary refusing to help a citizen with a complaint against the cops, but I can't quite formulate what it is.
[sub]private corporations[/sub]?
Or something something libertarian-ish marijuana sellin', distrust-the-cops-bow-out-once-they-have-a-taxed-and-regulated-business-license sub..
Likely some deal with the cops about looking the other way. Someone should watch for news related to that dispensary.
If that were my dog, the officer would already be dead.
I guess it's a sign that I grew up in a different time and place, but I'm puzzled by the inability of police officers to tell the difference between a friendly dog and one that is attacking. I never had any special training but I can do it, and I'm no Crocodile Dundee.
I say this with respect to the dog lovers but I see a bigger issue: how well does this police officer react to being approached by a human being? I'm concerned that the next creature this officer panic-shoots will be a human.
He absolutely should not have shot the dog, and it shows a clear lack of judgement and character (probably also terrible training) that his first instinct was to unload his magazine.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. You show up at my house, armed and unannounced, the dog is going to greet you. How you respond to the dog is a clear declaration of intent.
The use of firearms against dogs continues to be astounding considering that pepper spray intended for humans is both non-lethal and phenomenally OP for dogs. The dog will never get mad and shoot back, the humans will. Why you would waste your bullets on a (non-rabid) dog is beyond me.
Perhaps they look at it as an opportunity for target practice in the field.
"...but I'm puzzled by the inability of police officers to tell the difference between a friendly dog and one that is attacking"
He knew it wasn't attacking. He killed the dog for entertainment.
Dog worshippers need to be confronted about their cognitive dissonance when it comes to the impact their animal has on other people. Nobody has a responsibility to assume your dog is safe and friendly, and I’d bet the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of kids hospitalized by dogs every year were all bitten by loving teddy-bears that wag their tails and approach strangers. Any argument comparing gun ownership and dog ownership is pure nonsense. The rifle in my gun safe cannot dig it’s way under a fence or bolt out an open door and kill a neighbor kid. It has no mind, no animal instincts. Put your idiot beast on a leash or leave it locked up at home. You’re making life worse for those around you.
You have a responsibility to assume that any human you see is not actively attacking. You can't just shoot grandma because she conceivably might have a gun in her purse and might decide to shoot you.
You should assume that most dogs you see aren't killers because the number of killer dogs out there is a tiny, tiny percentage.
Yes. And when they violate your personal space and start going for your privates, then you can assume that they are "actively attacking".
A responsible dog owner must keep control of their animal in all situations.
Yes. And when they violate your personal space and start going for your privates, then you can assume that they are "actively attacking".
You can only meet non-deadly force with non-deadly force. I'm starting to wonder if there's something actually wrong with you for thinking you can shoot people who get too close to you.
I'm wondering if there is something wrong with you for allowing strangers to enter you personnel space. Your a victim waiting to happen.
If they get close and I don't want them too close, they don't deserve to die. They might need to get punched or pushed or slapped, depending on the circumstances. I don't reach for my gun anytime someone bumps into me when I'm in line to get into the stadium.
There's some serious sociopathy happening here.
That is incorrect. The standard is whether a reasonable person would see an imminent threat. Mastiffs are massive and dangerous, potentially deadly, dogs when not properly trained or controlled. Male mastiffs are 160-230 pounds. And a mastiff that just walks up to strangers to sniff them is clearly not properly trained or controlled.
Red herring.
Control and train your dog, not just for the benefit of others, but also so that your dog doesn't get killed.
I'm starting to wonder if there's something actually wrong with you for thinking you can shoot people who get too close to you.
I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with people who conflate animal rights with human rights. Like, somehow, they got to adulthood without the least bit of understanding of God given rights, the laws of man, and the laws of nature. Or, maybe, they got to adulthood and don't really care about God given rights, the laws of man, and the laws of nature and are feigning ignorance to selectively void any/all of them, like progressives.
I think that people who view animals as disposable things are half a step away from rationalizing eugenics.
I think that people who view animals as disposable things are half a step away from rationalizing eugenics.
All animals are non-disposable or are some animals more equal than others?
Millions of years of naturally-imposed eugenics, 10,000 yrs. of domesticated animals, 5,000 yrs. of written words and civilization, and you and Brock still can't figure out how to avoid getting your dog killed.
"Yes. And when they violate your personal space and start going for your privates, then you can assume that they are "actively attacking"."
NOYB2 has a sad story with his ex...
I kid, but low hanging fruit.
Seriously, your inability to determine canine body language is not a valid reason to execute a dog.
Your fearfulness is not a valid reason to pre-emptively harm.
Ah, killing every dog at large is for the children. Got it.
Do you own a dog? Do you keep him off-leash in the city? Do you let him greet strangers without their consent? If so, you are an irresponsible dog owner and risk your dog getting killed.
Yes.
No.
No.
I also carry everyday and have met dogs off leash, even *gasp* without their owners. Only once did I consider shooting a dog, and MY aggressive behavior drove it away.
But hey, I understand a dog's mannerisms, and do not default to killing one at large unless forced.
And you have no reason to believe that police "defaulted" to killing the dog.
Except he did. Shot multiple times at a distance.
Altruism working!
Some stats on dog attacks for you. I’d say yeah, it’s a problem.
https://kids-n-k9s.com/dog-bite-statistics-for-the-united-states/
Fun exercise: Guess how many of the dogs that bite every year wag their cute wittle tails.
Most of them. Dogs wag their tails both to greet you and when they are about to attack you (the wags are subtly different).
First, take Chihuahuas out of the list.
Then, we better ban dogs at houses, per your link.
"80% of dog bites happen at home. (Kahn et al (2004) Miller and Howell (2007)."
Translation: cop union copy-paste damage control brainwashing.
I'm an ex-LEo but fuck that cop.
I've served in law enforcement for 28 years and had dogs approach me, no big deal, even if off leash there was no cause to shoot the animal. Dogs are not deceptive like humans, tricking you into believing they are friendly and then turn vicious on a dime. I'm a dog lover and on occasion asked owners if their dog was friendly, but mostly you can tell. You can see from the footage the dog was friendly, the owner was right there, and the dog had just greeted a passerby, tail wagging, without incident. Officer was poorly trained, too nervous, and trigger happy.
and the dog had just greeted a passerby, tail wagging, without incident.
That's what really is messed up about this. The dog just said hello to a different person right in front of the officer. I don't know how you can perceive this dog to be a threat to any reasonable degree.
Nevertheless, it was the dog owner who acted irresponsibly: if you don't control your dog and don't keep your dog from "greeting" strangers, you risk your dog getting killed.
If you don't put on a mask, you are assaulting the general public and should be shot. For the good of others.
FUCK THIS KAREN SHIT.
Controlling your animals does not require lockdown.
Total non-sequitur. And yes, controlling your animal quite literally means locking it down. 1000 people are bitten by dogs every day in the United States. If you walk around other people and their kids with your dog off leash, you are an asshole.
The overwhelming majority of bites happen at home or a friend's house.
Typically to animals that are not widely socialized. Huh.
Fuck stupid idiots like you. Nowhere did I say that the dog "should be shot".
I am pointing out the fact that if you don't control your dog and don't keep your dog from "greeting strangers", you risk your dog getting killed.
That's the way the real world works. Act accordingly. Do the right thing for your dog. Laws or Karens have nothing to do with it.
Geez, you are stupid.
Yet you're totally supportive of the officer for shooting a friendly dog at a distance.
Laws are written by Karens, dipstick.
And we're not talking a Chihuahua here, we're talking a Mastiff, a massive dog that's heavier and far stronger than most people, and animal that can kill you with a single bite or simply by jumping up on you.
If you don't put on a mask, you are assaulting the general public and should be shot.
You do realize dogs aren't people, right? That they'll never understand God given rights, property rights, indirect consequences, and reciprocity at the level of even an 8 yr. old, right?
Unlike you, I do not view animals as disposable propery, you are right.
And I think vastly less of you now for it.
Unlike you, I do not view animals as disposable propery, you are right.
Guessing at your answer above, incorrect. You don't consider lots of actual, literally disposable animals as disposable. You consider some disposable animals as disposable. And you consider some animals as indispensable, to the point that you'll corrode human rights in order to preserve their indispensability.
You think vastly less of yourself regardless of what we think about each other. I don't think less of you for it, you just give me less obligation to hold you to my standards.
Knowing that you live in a country where a great many citizens carry a firearm on them that could end your dogs, and that them doing so is legal if they pose a threat, and that you allow them off leash it would appear you treat dogs as more disposable than anyone here.
But hey, risking they take a bullet or run in front of a car is worth it to not have them LITERALLY incarcerated, right?
Ya but that wouldn't be the analogy. A big potentially dangerous dog(s) off leash that I know nothing about, and you insisting you have the right to let them roam around me, run up to me, and its my responsibility to take on that risk that they wont hurt me...
The equivalent would be at the height of COVID, you have a fever and chills and a cough, and you insist that you have the right to come up and breathe directly in my face because you swear its not COVID, and COVID wouldnt kill me anyways, and you are definitely getting over it anyways and probably arent infectious. Anyways, you promise that its totes safe, and your freedom to cough in my face trumps my freedom of having your spittle in my face.
If you are going to try your hand at an analogy, at least make it accurate.
I'd say don't depend on others not having dog-o-phobia to keep your dog(s) alive. The cop is a phobic or just a dick but the crazy guy was engaging in very risky behavior by being out and about in a city with his dog unleashed especially once he called the police and knew they were coming. The likely outcome is not hard to predict.
But looter cop union cover-ups, to the point of getting someone fired for revealing the truth, those are unusual, unexpected, who'd-a-thunk outliers, right?
I'm not so sure based on the video. The dog seemed agitated and was running fast towards the officer. This may have been playful or it may have been aggressive. But even playfully running at another human is unacceptable in a dog with that size and strength.
The likely outcome is not hard to predict.
Yup. Stupid games. Stupid prizes.
Justified. That Mastiff should have been leashed and the officer had no idea that the approaching dog was friendly or not. "it's ok, he's friendly" are fatal last words before an attack especially with a dog as big as that.
Leash your pets when out in public, folks.
The dog had literally just said hello to another person within line of sight and was wagging his tail.
He was a super predator!!!!! Stop and frisk!
A tail that's high and wagging is often a sign of the dog being aggressive.
This dog was running fast towards the officer, and it was a massive dog, poorly controlled and poorly trained.
And it was safer to open fire across a horizontal plane above hard surface at a distance?
Even if you're a piece of shit who wants to shoot loose dogs because it makes your pecker tingle, you cannot say the officer's response posed less of a risk than the dog.
And again, THE DOG HAD JUST INTERACTED IN A FRIENDLY FASHION WITH ANOTHER PERSON IN VIEW OF THE OFFICER.
But if Karen was skeered, we better kill the icky thing for zher.
At least one repentant sucker now understands that there is nothing stupider than to ask a murdering minion for help, much less give any of them the time of day. Here's hoping he realizes enough to vote libertarian from this time forward.
And people wonder why Detroit residents shoot whose cops with high-powered rifles. Schadenfreude City!
I mean, we've got several members of this very forum who are pretty clearly stating that dogs should be able to wander around the city and shit wherever they please and cops should be strung up from lampposts for responding to robbery calls. Calling the cops and then getting your dog on a leash before they show up is just too complicated for them to understand.
Seems like Detroit culture just calls to some people.
Nice straw man, mad!
Am I allowed to shoot straw men or do they have rights that supersede everyone else's Constitutional and property rights too?
We've got several members who are pretty clearly stating it's acceptable to shoot any dog that is not appropriately chaperoned. All these horrid super predators roaming the streets...
Seems like the Democratic Karen culture just calls to some people.
We've got several members who are pretty clearly stating it's acceptable to shoot any dog that is not appropriately chaperoned.
Is/have/can/do/would. 2 mortally wounded, 2 pretty clearly suffering from rabies, one sucking eggs, and one destroying property and molesting domesticated pets/livestock. If we move from familiaris to canidae, the number gets phenomenally larger.
Treated but never directly killed numerous study animals. I've never compared, but I can only imagine my numbers abjectly pale in comparison to your average veterinarian or breeder/animal store owner.
Brock must be a very nice guy, because I would want that police officer dead!
Maybe the cop can use the "I mistook my gun for my pepper spray" excuse.
If a citizen with a CCP shoots an unleashed dog that walks up to him, you can be sure the police are arresting him for animal cruelty.
Shoot first, don't answer questions later.
Those cops are doing what Democratic and Republican soft machine politicians trained and ordered them to do--and to kill all who resist, though they number in the tens of thousands. They are exactly what Lysander Spooner described in 1868, when some intimated he was overstating his case.
If a cop doesn't get to shoot a dog on a call he feels like his time has been wasted.
Dog was off leash. End of story. Owner's fault. I feel most for the poor doggie.
I have a house in a rural town in New York State. I have a full concealed carry permit. The town I spend time in has no leash law. If I pulled out my pistol and shot a dog for running at me when walking along the roads in this town, I would kill a dog every time I go out for a walk.
It's absurd to think that every time a dog runs at you, the only response is to shoot the dog because you are in fear of your life. Completely absurd. In my hundreds of encounters with dogs running towards me while on walks, I've had once a dog catch my skin and bled a little bit. Many hundreds of big dogs, not uncommonly barking ferociously, and never have I felt like my life was so in danger that I had to pull out my pistol and shoot, even though I have a pistol readily available.
Mistaking dogs' intentions -- or practicing arbitrary killing?
Well the guy's a cop right? He needs all the practice he can get.
It is disingenuous the way the police department tried to justify the killing of the dog and shifting blame to the owner. It is also interesting that at the start of the shift at some police stations they do an inventory of guns and ammunition but don't check the battery charge of their body cams. Hmmm, how convenient.
Somebody has to come up with a new standard "police issue" firearm that has an integral camera built in so that the gun can't fire a bullet unless the camera is turned on as soon as the safety is off. The number of gratuitous gun discharges would plummet.
How about a gun that fires the bullet back at the cop if the cam is not on and rolling? I would vote for that.
Sorry. This cop is too much of a wuss to be a real cop.