Quote:
Originally posted by Snakeeye+Jun 9 2005, 10:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Jun 9 2005, 10:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Jun 9 2005, 01:06 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye
|
Quote:
@Jun 9 2005, 06:15 PM
While I suppose I fit into the "copcarteblanche" crowd that Fotze mentions, I would suggest that you are arguing against the cops because they are cops, not because you have any knowledge of the facts surrounding this incident.
|
No but thanks for assuming what I was thinking.
What I was actually thinking is that shooting a gun should be a last resort even if it is only at an animal and not a human.
And as I said, it's hard for me to imagine that this was a situation where all other options had been exhausted. But I did acknowledge that it might have been that kind of situation.
That said, if a cop is trained to shoot by reflex, it's hard to blame him for acting on reflex. If we train people to use deadly weapons when confronted, that's what they'll do. But if his life was not in danger, I don't think shooting the dog was justified. Even if he has to take a bite from the animal before they can get it subdued, I would think that would be preferable.
|
And if the dog is rabid?
If the dog catches the officer in the throat?
I suppose a child should take a bite too, just to be sure the dog is actually attacking him?
How about we use that theory against humans? Should an officer (or anyone) have to take a stab wound from a person with a knife before shooting the attacker? Cause, you know, you might be able to talk the person out of attacking you between the first stab wound and the second.
I am curious as to how you are so informed as to what happened that you cannot believe all other options were exhausted? Since you were obviously there, could you please fill us in on the chain of events? It would allow the rest of us to judge whether this was justified, or whether the cop might have overreacted or misinterpreted the dog's actions and intent. [/b][/quote]
As far as I know, you can treated for rabies. A throat attack seems unlikely, especially since most people would use their arms to block an attempt on that area.
Why bring up humans? We're clearing talking about dogs here. Stay on topic.
Where did I say I know what happened? Can you not argue without putting words in people's mouths?
And let's face it, you're making as many assumptions as anyone here. You're arguing hard against anyone who thinks it might have not been justified which means you're assuming the shooting was justified. Hypocrite.