Serious Topic: Swat Team Kills Man's Dogs in Front of Children

[Enkidu88]

Well, to start with you should always cooperate with the police, especially if it's a damn SWAT-team.

It's a fundamental right to NOT have to cooperate with police and the idea that the police are always correct and should be given extensive latitude, is what leads to abuse of power. Without legal representation all you're required to do is give your name and address, he didn't have to say anything to the SWAT team. I don't even understand why they'd be talking to him, their objective is to secure the suspect not to interrogate him. Was he even read his Miranda rights?

I'll admit I didn't watch the video because I don't handle scenes like that particularly well, but if what others state is true and the extent of his lack of cooperation was a sarcastic tone of voice, than shooting the dogs was way over the line. If on the other hand he was becoming violent or the dogs were making threatening moves, I'll be siding with the police. I'd need more info.

The whole rights stuff varies from country to country, but my opinion is that you should always cooperate with the police, since being a dick/fight them/whatever is only going to make the situation much worse. If the police comes with a search warrant, doesn't that mean you HAVE to cooperate? at least that's how it works here.

I never said that the police is always correct, but it's not they who decide who's guilty or not, it's the court (judge, jury, whatever you have for that). The police only do the arrests after all..

Just wonder, isn't it punishable to resist arrest? I think you can go to prison for it here (if you're violent that is).

I watched the video and you actually don't see the dogs in it, the guy with the camera enters a bit after the rest of the team, but from my knowledge of this stuff (then again, I'm not sure how it is in other countries) they never shoot unless they deem it necessary. From what I saw he also resisted arrest.

If the guy was physically fighting back then yeah, it's resisting arrest. I was just assuming from other's comments that he was basically just being sarcastic, which isn't reason to do anything. If the police have a warrant your required to submit to being arrested, doesn't mean you have to answer any questions or anything.

Like I said I'd like to see a news article or any kind of information about this incident before I come down on one side or the other. I was just pointing out that people shouldn't allow the police to do what they please just because their police.

 

[JLML]

Well, to start with you should always cooperate with the police, especially if it's a damn SWAT-team.

It's a fundamental right to NOT have to cooperate with police and the idea that the police are always correct and should be given extensive latitude, is what leads to abuse of power. Without legal representation all you're required to do is give your name and address, he didn't have to say anything to the SWAT team. I don't even understand why they'd be talking to him, their objective is to secure the suspect not to interrogate him. Was he even read his Miranda rights?

I'll admit I didn't watch the video because I don't handle scenes like that particularly well, but if what others state is true and the extent of his lack of cooperation was a sarcastic tone of voice, than shooting the dogs was way over the line. If on the other hand he was becoming violent or the dogs were making threatening moves, I'll be siding with the police. I'd need more info.

The whole rights stuff varies from country to country, but my opinion is that you should always cooperate with the police, since being a dick/fight them/whatever is only going to make the situation much worse. If the police comes with a search warrant, doesn't that mean you HAVE to cooperate? at least that's how it works here.

I never said that the police is always correct, but it's not they who decide who's guilty or not, it's the court (judge, jury, whatever you have for that). The police only do the arrests after all..

Just wonder, isn't it punishable to resist arrest? I think you can go to prison for it here (if you're violent that is).

I watched the video and you actually don't see the dogs in it, the guy with the camera enters a bit after the rest of the team, but from my knowledge of this stuff (then again, I'm not sure how it is in other countries) they never shoot unless they deem it necessary. From what I saw he also resisted arrest.

Man... You mean that the dog refuse to put on cuff? Damn it to Hell! OPEN FIRE!
Basic behavioral study of dog suggest that before he attack, he growl at the target to tell him to back off. The dog was barking, meaning he didn't even think of defending his owner. If he was human, it would have being a shrieking man.

If you read my original post you'll see that I wrote that I believe the officers wouldn't shoot if they didn't think it was necessary. I wasn't there, so I don't know, but unlike some here I trust the police, and believe they don't shoot (and as in this case, kill) any living being unless they think it's necessary.

Maybe I'm a complete idiot to think that the ones working to protect people actually try to protect people? (not serious. if you didn't get it maybe you're the complete idiot? xP)

Seriously, don't quote me if you haven't read the full post. (and if you have, that reply was even more meaningless)

 

[manaman]

I finally got to watch the video with sound and I have to ask. Does anyone have a link to real news story on this? Not one with the video embedded from youtube with some bloggers comments after it.

It's just that, well I have been arrested before in a bust and it was not even close to being like that. Not saying every bust ever in this history of the world is going to go down the same way, but still something seems fishy about that video and I have been unable to track down a legitimate news source.

 

[Akalistos]

If you read my original post you'll see that I wrote that I believe the officers wouldn't shoot if they didn't think it was necessary. I wasn't there, so I don't know, but unlike some here I trust the police, and believe they don't shoot (and as in this case, kill) any living being unless they think it's necessary.

How the hell can it be necessary when the dog was just barking. In my reply to you i said: they growl when feel threaten before ANY kind of attack. I can clearly hear him barking, so no. They were in no dangers what so ever. My guess is, if you commit a crime, it fall on everyone around you. Even the dog.

Maybe I'm a complete idiot to think that the ones working to protect people actually try to protect people? (not serious. if you didn't get it maybe you're the complete idiot? xP)

Now, your just attacking me because i don't agree with you. And if it the extent of your argument toward me, it sunk you more than me. Come On, if you were right you could; prove it to me by stating fact, droving a point with logic, posting the responce of the officer to my inquiry. Insult isn't a free pass, and make your point invalid. But i guess i can answer to the trust you put in the cops. Human are flaw creatures. So it ok to assume that they can make mistake. Also, as flaws creature, they can nourish bad stereotypes and anger over people that doesn't necessarily deserve it. Hence Racism. Racism isn't just limited to skin colors but also belief, lifestyle, luck, clothing. Every time you hate someone you don't even know about or just met, that some. With all that, we can assume that each individual has a mind of his own. Here at some point, that guy decide to shoot the dog. I can't say why he done it, and so can't you. My family owned, and always had a dog for pet. I know them better than most people do. I know how they act and how the react. Even as a kid, one of ours dog, Capucine, was always there to pull me back toward the house when i went to the highways. In this situation, it was wrong. We aren't talking about a vicious watchdog, but a simple pet. I'll be on your side of the fence if i would have heard anything close to a growling. I can't believe you said you know dog and didn't pick that up. Than again, it wasn't your but your friend's dog.

Seriously, don't quote me if you haven't read the full post. (and if you have, that reply was even more meaningless)

You don't want me to retort to you. Ok, I'll let you do the talking. Enjoy.

Well, to start with you should always cooperate with the police, especially if it's a damn SWAT-team.

here... i guess your intentions are clear now.

Have a nice day
BTW: I also made a point. One that involve being able to respond to someone without calling them name.

 

[Spectre39]

I have a hard time following exactly what happened in the video, but I can reasonably say that they did all their shooting before they even found the suspect. I don't think the suspect's confusion had anything to do with the decision to waste those dogs.

The pit bull shooting was to some extent understandable. They breach and immediately find a large dog on the other side of the door you don't think to look if it's restrained or not. As to whether it was aggressive or hostile, I can't tell. I would say no, since I didn't hear any snarling or growling. Not that it had the chance to, they kind of shot it within the first four seconds of the raid.

The corgi is absolutely inexcusable. It was in a cage, while being small itself. You see the cage first, not the animal. There's no way, even in a high adrenaline drug bust would you ever mistake a small caged corgi to be a threat. They simply shot it straight away without even thinking about it.

When you consider what was actually in the house compared to what a SWAT team would expect there to be, this can only be considered use of excessive force. No armed suspects, jittery dogs, and only one pipe with a few grams of weed? Either their intel was waaay off, or they pride themselves with overreacting to any perceived infraction of the law with a "take no prisoners" attitude. Isn't there supposed to be a rule that states you aren't allowed to use lethal force unless a suspect has been identified as armed and dangerous? This whole "Shoot first ask questions later" causes too much collateral damage, and may even shock otherwise innocent civilians to defend themselves. There was a huge lack of good old fashioned police work involved here. If only they had the common sense to treat a search warrant like that, a warrant to search the home instead of a license to kill-on-sight anything that doesn't resemble furniture, there would have been no need for guns blazing to begin with.

 

[Caurus]

I believe that your dog may be the exception. Most animals, no matter how small of a chance they have, will fight like hell when they feel their survival is threatened. There's no way to know which animals don't have that will to live.

That's really not true. Animals have personalities as much as people do, some will fight others will cower etc. Just because they are animals doesn't mean their first instinct when scared is to bite or whatever.
I have had plenty of pets and they have all differed greatly in personality and only a couple were violent when distressed come to think of it.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

some will fight others will cower etc.

"Some" is the keyword. My point was that you don't always know which animals will react how if you've never met them before.

 

[Caurus]

some will fight others will cower etc.

"Some" is the keyword. My point was that you don't always know which animals will react how if you've never met them before.

You said MOST not some. MY point was that "most" was incorrect.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

some will fight others will cower etc.

"Some" is the keyword. My point was that you don't always know which animals will react how if you've never met them before.

You said MOST not some. MY point was that "most" was incorrect.

I suppose that could be true in the case of dogs because of their domestication, but I just doubt that so few dogs have any sort of survival instinct that "most" wouldn't be even slightly accurate.

 

[bobknowsall]

*shrugs* The dog was a possible risk, so they removed it from the equation. What they did was a little excessive, but I'm not going to call them monsters for doing it.