Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Police Shoot Corgi For 1g of Marijuana

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 9:27:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Police break into a house because a drug operative said they saw drugs there. The guy had one gram of marijuana in a pipe, so the police bust in the house and shoot both this Welsh Corgi and his bulldog. The submitted the guy on the ground and kicked him. He didn't even resist. He was just crying cause they killed his dogs.

A Welsh Corgi is not a threat. It's a little fat dog with stubby little legs. The police shot it for no reason.

Welsh Corgi: http://theoffendingparty.files.wordpress.com...

Probably what the Welsh Corgi looked like after the police raid: http://www.rhythmism.com...

Watch the full video. The government ships drugs to the U.S. and makes money of the Drug War. And it costs tax payers 500 billion tax dollars to fund the bogus drug war.

The footage starts at [2:54]
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 11:02:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's so f'd up man. It's the dog that upset me the most. Like come on, a freakin dog?! War on drugs = epic fail.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 11:20:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 9:27:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:


A Welsh Corgi is not a threat. It's a little fat dog with stubby little legs. The police shot it for no reason.

Welsh Corgi: http://theoffendingparty.files.wordpress.com...

Probably what the Welsh Corgi looked like after the police raid: http://www.rhythmism.com...


The dead one was cuter.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 11:31:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 11:02:04 PM, jat93 wrote:

It's the dog that upset me the most. Like come on, a freakin dog?!

What did you expect the police to do in that situation?
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 11:42:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 11:31:19 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/30/2011 11:02:04 PM, jat93 wrote:

It's the dog that upset me the most. Like come on, a freakin dog?!

What did you expect the police to do in that situation?

Not shoot a 35 pound dog? Not burst into his house with a militarized force to assault and kidnap him and terrorize his family for the a complete nonoffense?

I don't believe that people should have to live in fear of a squad of armed men breaking into their property, killing their pets, traumatizing their children, and kidnapping and robbing them. For that I am called an anarchist and a radical.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 11:51:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 11:42:56 PM, Grape wrote:

Not shoot a 35 pound dog?

Not shoot is not an action, is a lack of one, again, what action should they have taken.

Not burst into his house with a militarized force to assault and kidnap him and terrorize his family for the a complete nonoffense?

Again, not burst into his house is not an action, it is a lack of one. What should they have done?

There are two very general questions here; should the law/procedures exist, and second should the police follow the laws/procedures if they do exist.

It is also not clear which one of these you are arguing.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 12:02:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 11:51:47 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/30/2011 11:42:56 PM, Grape wrote:

Not shoot a 35 pound dog?

Not shoot is not an action, is a lack of one, again, what action should they have taken.


Ignore the dog, it's not capable of doing any harm. If it was somehow causing a real problem a swift kick would deal with it. They shot the dog immediately because their modus operandi is to kill animals.

Not burst into his house with a militarized force to assault and kidnap him and terrorize his family for the a complete nonoffense?

Again, not burst into his house is not an action, it is a lack of one. What should they have done?


Not burst into his house! Maybe go home, have a cup of coffee, and arrange a meeting with a psychologist to deal with their sadistic tendencies?

There are two very general questions here; should the law/procedures exist, and second should the police follow the laws/procedures if they do exist.

It is also not clear which one of these you are arguing.

No and no.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 12:11:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 12:02:06 AM, Grape wrote:

Ignore the dog, it's not capable of doing any harm. If it was somehow causing a real problem a swift kick would deal with it.

Thus as a general rule the police should ignore dogs until they are physically attacked at which point they should simply subdue the dog without resorting to an action which could kill or otherwise permanently harm the dog.

There are two very general questions here; should the law/procedures exist, and second should the police follow the laws/procedures if they do exist.

It is also not clear which one of these you are arguing.

No and no.

Thus the Police officers should ignore the law and the departmental/state procedures and they should simply act as you would have them to act.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 12:16:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 12:11:24 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:

Thus as a general rule the police should ignore dogs until they are physically attacked at which point they should simply subdue the dog without resorting to an action which could kill or otherwise permanently harm the dog.


They should use threat assessment. If the dog is actually a grizzly bear, they can shoot. A small dog does not merit the use of force. Oh, except they shouldn't be in the guys house or on his property at all.



Thus the Police officers should ignore the law and the departmental/state procedures and they should simply act as you would have them to act.

Yes. If the law says to do something immoral, they should act morally rather than follow the law.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 12:20:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The men with guns strike again.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 12:26:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 12:16:29 AM, Grape wrote:

They should use threat assessment.

They do, you simply don't agree with their evaluation of the threat. You have not clarified aside from to say apparently they could shoot a grizzly bear upon entering but anything less is undecided.

So again, exactly how are they to preform this assessment - what is the specific criteria upon which you would say they were justified in shooting the dog.

Now remember you are outlining a doctrine that someone can use in this high stress situation and they have to apply it in the time frame they have to act, and then consider the consequences if they are wrong and/or they under value the threat.

Yes. If the law says to do something immoral, they should act morally rather than follow the law.

So to clarify, the police should do as you decide is moral and ignore the law and the departmental/state procedures.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 12:40:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 12:26:02 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/1/2011 12:16:29 AM, Grape wrote:

They should use threat assessment.

They do, you simply don't agree with their evaluation of the threat. You have not clarified aside from to say apparently they could shoot a grizzly bear upon entering but anything less is undecided.

So again, exactly how are they to preform this assessment - what is the specific criteria upon which you would say they were justified in shooting the dog.

Now remember you are outlining a doctrine that someone can use in this high stress situation and they have to apply it in the time frame they have to act, and then consider the consequences if they are wrong and/or they under value the threat.


Do you seriously think it's necessary for me to write up a detailed and thoroughly researched procedure for police action in order to conclude that a 35 pound dog is almost never a serious threat to an adult human? In that specific instance it was not necessary to shoot the dog and it was an immoral act of cruelty. A squad of armed men attacking a defenseless person's house is not a high stress situation for them. I don't care about the minutiae of police procedure, and I'm not going to waste my time addressing this line of argument anymore unless you're going to assert that it was necessary to shoot the dog in that particular instance.


Yes. If the law says to do something immoral, they should act morally rather than follow the law.

So to clarify, the police should do as you decide is moral and ignore the law and the departmental/state procedures.

All morality is based on what someone believes, so your attempt to belittle my position because it's my opinion is worthless. I have decided that it is immoral, and you are implying that I believe it is immoral because I have decided it. I'm not stupid enough to make actual concessions because of slanted wording. Every moral position that exists is someone's opinion. My beliefs are not arbitrary by virtue of being my beliefs. I am not going to go through the process of outlining a moral theory that explains why it is wrong to assault people in this fashion. I believe in a form of deontological rights derived from discourse ethics, so I believe it is logically (not to mention psychologically) necessary to oppose this kind of wanton violence.

As I've said three times now, I believe the police should do what is moral instead of what the law says. Are you contesting that what they did was immoral? Are you contesting that morality is more important than the law?
meowmixxx
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 2:24:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have a hard time believing anything that Alex Jones says, for various reasons.
Debates I'm in:
Emotion is a weakness in decision making.
http://www.debate.org... IN VOTING
It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality.
http://www.debate.org... IN VOTING
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 2:40:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 12:26:02 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/1/2011 12:16:29 AM, Grape wrote:

They should use threat assessment.

They do, you simply don't agree with their evaluation of the threat. You have not clarified aside from to say apparently they could shoot a grizzly bear upon entering but anything less is undecided.

So again, exactly how are they to preform this assessment - what is the specific criteria upon which you would say they were justified in shooting the dog.

it's not that tough..
Here's an evil looking corgi: http://www.nikonians.org...

not that intimidating huh?
maybe if it was feeling brave it Might take a nip of his super swat-team boot?

They shouldn't pull the trigger as an immediate reaction.. and a little dog barking at you from across the room shouldn't register as an immediate, or serious, danger..

as Grape said, the Heights of the corgi's possible Dangers (that of Heroically going for a nip at their boot) could be easily nixed by a quick kick.

now... this isn't the same as if they had shot a little person who was yelling at them angrily from across the room...

but it's fcked up in the same kind of way
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 2:44:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
now, they also don't want to have the thing as a distraction from paying attention to the people :/

which is probably why they figured they'd shoot it..
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 8:28:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 2:24:44 AM, meowmixxx wrote:
I have a hard time believing anything that Alex Jones says, for various reasons.

That is irrelevant what you think. He had the video FOOTAGE to back it up. So your post is essentially worthless, pointless, and without any relevance so why did you bother wasting our time with posting this utter nonsense.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 11:06:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah, I've seen this video before and it sickens me. I've been in law enforcement for over a decade now and I am astonished at this power trip. What an embarrassment for that department.

Congratulations Colombia, Missouri... Thanks to the heroic actions of your police department, the world is now safer with one less evil Corgi and a pothead out of the picture.

Somebody needs to do something about this monstrous, blood-thirsty breed of ferocious man-eating wolves post haste!

http://www.youtube.com...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 12:30:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Somebody's probably already said this earlier, but my opinion is that the police definitely had a choice. They could have just hit the dog/dogs in the head or something.
I doubt if either of the dogs could have done anything to the police officers as I am sure they were wearing enough protection to stop a bite from piercing their skin, assuming one of the dogs was able to bite one of them.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 7:38:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 12:40:05 AM, Grape wrote:

Do you seriously think it's necessary for me to write up a detailed and thoroughly researched procedure for police action in order to conclude that a 35 pound dog is almost never a serious threat to an adult human?

You are claiming the action was wrong, yet you have no metric by which you can conclude that aside from the general assertion that you think it was wrong. You also have provided no practical formation by which anyone could use in all such situations and apparently think that the Police should act in such situations with the knowledge they would have after the fact is over - that is interesting to say the least.

In that specific instance it was not necessary to shoot the dog and it was an immoral act of cruelty. A squad of armed men attacking a defenseless person's house is not a high stress situation for them.

Grape, I can understand this from Geo, but from you it is surprising to make such a large number of assumptions and not to consider the procedures that the Police have to follow in all such cases. They obviously do not know the individual is unarmed and that he will not resist arrest, nor that he would not attempt to destroy the evidence, flee, etc. .

I don't care about the minutiae of police procedure, and I'm not going to waste my time addressing this line of argument anymore unless you're going to assert that it was necessary to shoot the dog in that particular instance.

Now I am starting to believe you are actually serious and it is just ridiculous. You now move further and admit that not only do you have no ability to develop a practical procedure you will openly condemn someone for following an established one, and it is simply a waste of your time to consider how it should be - aside from the fact that one decision was obviously wrong because it is immoral to you and that apparently is enough to over ride the law and established procedures, even though I am strongly willing to bet you have little experience in such tactical situations - but those that have should let you write their procedures because from the comfort of your computer chair you can reflect on what they should have done in a situation when you are using facts that they did not know at the time of the incident and further could not know.

All morality is based on what someone believes, so your attempt to belittle my position because it's my opinion is worthless.

I am not belittling your position, I am asking you to make a practical statement instead of some fantasy playground. You have indicated that in your opinion what the Police did was immoral, and I asked you should the Police ignore the law and proper procedures and instead act as your morals dictate. You then danced around this question and refused to answer it, launching into a paragraph on the nature of morality.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 7:51:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 2:40:42 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

now... this isn't the same as if they had shot a little person who was yelling at them angrily from across the room...

but it's fcked up in the same kind of way

No it isn't unless you claim that people and dogs have the same rights under the law, in that case you would be correct, but they do not.

It is easy to look at the situation now and think wow, that seems over reacting, however in the situation it is different and the solution of "just give it a kick" is fantasy nonsense.

When you enter you will be charged with securing a particular area and you have to maintain that for not only your safety but that of the officers who depend on you to cover what they can not.

Lets assume that you have your 3 covered, you hear a dog barking and moving towards you from your nine, you can easily sweep your head around and your gun and cover/respond to the threat while still being able to sweep back quickly and secure your 3.

If instead you opt for the foot ball defense you have to change your body position and thus prepare to kick the dog, while you are doing this, and kicking the dog (assuming you connect and do not permanently injure the dog but restrain it), where is your gun pointed and what is it securing - nothing. Second, how stable are you while you are kicking the dog in case you are attacked. Third while you have left your area unsecured someone/something comes out from there and attacks the people you were supposed to be protecting.

The reason why you do not do the same if it is a person (child, etc.) is because in general the threat the person makes (if innocent) has a similar value as the endangerment the place to the police and thus you would not simply kill them. But in general a dog does not have the same value so it has to pose a far lower threat (direct or indirect) to be killed. Note the threat is not one simply of direct violence, the Police have to be able to issue commands and interact with each other and the individuals in the room.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 7:54:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 7:42:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Why so different?

Because the situations are completely different and so are the goals. The Police have to secure the dwelling, the Postman does not. The Postman is also just delivering the main, the Police are going to force detention. It would be very unlikely for a Postman to have a high risk of forced response, and they have the option - which they will exercise to leave and not deliver the mail. Their procedure is not to mace the dogs and deliver the mail, it is to retreat and use the mace to cover their retreat.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 8:03:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 7:54:54 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/1/2011 7:42:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Why so different?

Because the situations are completely different and so are the goals. The Police have to secure the dwelling, the Postman does not. The Postman is also just delivering the main, the Police are going to force detention. It would be very unlikely for a Postman to have a high risk of forced response, and they have the option - which they will exercise to leave and not deliver the mail. Their procedure is not to mace the dogs and deliver the mail, it is to retreat and use the mace to cover their retreat.

In both cases the animal is dealt with. The job objectives are irrelevant.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 8:07:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
HOW DOES DOG REPELLENT SPRAY WORK?

Dog Repellent Spray contains approximately 0.75 fluid ounces of pepper-based solution. This is enough for approximately 10 one-second bursts. If you intend to rely upon your Mace™ Muzzle unit as a defense, you should test the functioning of your unit periodically by discharging one or two bursts outdoors in a safe area away from all persons and animals in the vicinity. Take care that you do not exhaust the contents of the canister you intend to rely upon, but it is extremely important to test the unit and practice your aim.

Your best protection is to avoid potentially dangerous situations if you can. Always be aware of your environment and any dogs that may be in the vicinity.

When you sense that you are in a potentially dangerous situation, carry your Mace™ Muzzle unit in your hand. Slip your thumb under the safety cover and be ready to spray the canine by pressing down on the red button with your thumb.

Notice how the Mace™ Muzzle dog pepper spray unit is shaped so that you can tell by the feel how it should be held. The safety cover will prevent access to the red button if you hold the unit backward. The shape of your Mace™ Muzzle unit will enable you to know, even in the dark or in a stressful situation, when the device is properly oriented and ready for use.

If you have to use your Mace™ Muzzle unit, point and spray short bursts at the nose, mouth, and eyes of the aggressive dog, allowing you an opportunity to move away from the area and out of harm's way. Do not linger in the area after animal is subdued. Get to a safe location as soon as the opportunity arises.

The Mace™ Muzzle unit is designed to be actuated in short 1/2 second busts aimed at the dog's mouth. When actuated, a stream of the pepper-based formulation will be released from the unit for a distance of approximately 10-12 feet (more or less, depending upon the pressure in the unit and wind conditions). Avoid spraying directly into the wind. Use the unit when it is in the upright position, otherwise it may not function properly then or afterwards.

Mace Effects on Dogs: Mace™ Muzzle is an organic pepper-based compound, which causes extreme irritation if applied to a dog's nose, eyes, or mouth. The effects begin within a few seconds of contact causing a dog to cower and retreat. It is normal for most dogs to roll on the ground and rub their eyes in an attempt to remove the spray from the facial area. The painful, irritating effects usually wear off within minutes, leaving the dog unharmed.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 9:13:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 7:54:54 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/1/2011 7:42:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Why so different?

Because the situations are completely different and so are the goals. The Police have to secure the dwelling, the Postman does not.:

Cliff, you seem to keep neglecting the fact that it was a friggin' CORGI... By all means, Google what a Corgi is and then tell me that it posed a credible so great that it necessitated killing it. I have no objection to killing a dog as long as it actually poses a threat. A Corgi, I'm sorry to say, doesn't fit the profile.

Secondly, lets suppose that the dog actually presented a threat. They entered the house and immediately shot the dog. But then, as it's yelping in pain, they blast it again with a 3-round burst. Basically, they executed the dog. Was that necessary? Was the dog still "attacking" them?

And you know, I would just love to see you act this glib if the police invaded the sanctity of your home over a minute amount of pot *gasp*, executed your dog, scared the sh*t out of your kid, and treated you like a serial killer.

Your inability to view the scope of the event within a reasonable context is astounding. We're not dealing with the Russian mafia here. Do try and put it back in to proper perspective.

Please defend the feds actions at Ruby Ridge while you're at it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 9:31:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I seriously cannot believe that you're justifying this, Cliff. Do yourself a favor and watch it again and analyze it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)