Calgary Cops Kill Dog

[Patek23]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Jun 11 2005, 02:19 AM


If the cop was trigger happy, the facts will come out. And that cop will be out of a job. We'll have to be patient

See thats the thing, it wont. The City of Calgary will do anything to save face. I have been involved in and seen and also heard of many police cover-ups. I'm not saying major corruption like in the movies, but errors in arresting a person for mo reason then making them pay bail even though they've already payed bail for it before, and than making a new charge to justify the bail that was dismissed the next day, that kind of thing.

Originally posted by Flaming Homer+Jun 12 2005, 08:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flaming Homer @ Jun 12 2005, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Jun 11 2005, 02:19 AM


If the cop was trigger happy, the facts will come out. And that cop will be out of a job. We'll have to be patient

See thats the thing, it wont. The City of Calgary will do anything to save face. I have been involved in and seen and also heard of many police cover-ups. I'm not saying major corruption like in the movies, but errors in arresting a person for mo reason then making them pay bail even though they've already payed bail for it before, and than making a new charge to justify the bail that was dismissed the next day, that kind of thing. [/b][/quote]
What does any of your personal bias have to do with this case?
Do some research before opening your yap. Do you even know what bail is? Do you even know where it goes?
Errors do occur, no doubt about it. People can be unarrested. And 'making up charges' that dont exist is VERY common... seriously, do you even read your comments?
I've had it out with you before about similar topics. I wouldl ove to shed some light on your obvious prejudice so as to possibly change your attitude. But im not sure its worth it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Flaming Homer+Jun 12 2005, 01:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flaming Homer @ Jun 12 2005, 01:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Jun 11 2005, 02:19 AM


If the cop was trigger happy, the facts will come out. And that cop will be out of a job. We'll have to be patient

See thats the thing, it wont. The City of Calgary will do anything to save face. I have been involved in and seen and also heard of many police cover-ups. I'm not saying major corruption like in the movies, but errors in arresting a person for mo reason then making them pay bail even though they've already payed bail for it before, and than making a new charge to justify the bail that was dismissed the next day, that kind of thing. [/b][/quote]
As I said, innocent until proven guilty is a myth.

[Resolute 14]

Indeed. And, of course, as we all know, since Todd Bertuzzi is a giant coward who attacks players from behind, all hockey players are giant cowards who attack players from behind.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Jun 12 2005, 07:56 PM
Indeed. And, of course, as we all know, since Todd Bertuzzi is a giant coward who attacks players from behind, all hockey players are giant cowards who attack players from behind.

Yes just as we know that all german shepards are blood thirsty and attack on site. Innocent until proven guilty? Not for the dog I guess

Originally posted by Flame On+Jun 13 2005, 04:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Jun 13 2005, 04:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@Jun 12 2005, 07:56 PM
Indeed. And, of course, as we all know, since Todd Bertuzzi is a giant coward who attacks players from behind, all hockey players are giant cowards who attack players from behind.

Yes just as we know that all german shepards are blood thirsty and attack on site. Innocent until proven guilty? Not for the dog I guess [/b][/quote]
Ummmm.... seriously, do you actually read the garbage you post?
Here on earth, dogs can't be prosecuted for a crime.
I think what is being put to you is this:
Not all cops are bad just as all hockey players are not Bertuzzi's... i think its a given considering snakeye was the one defending the position that not all german shepards are blood thirsty attack dogs.
Back on topic now.

[Winsor_Pilates]

2 pages and over 70 posts for the death of a dog. We usually don't even get this much discussion when a human is killed.

[ricosuave]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Jun 12 2005, 11:03 PM
2 pages and over 70 posts for the death of a dog. We usually don't even get this much discussion when a human is killed.

well said.

ill take a hundred dogs deaths, even my own, in order to sleep at night knowing the police are there to protect me, my family and my property.

they are placed in situations you and i cannot begin to imagine. i believe that this officer made the correct choice for the correct time. if the owner had secured the dog like he was supposed to, this never would have happened.

and all you 'cop doubters' - put yourself in those shoes for a minute - going into unknown situations, in unknown area, with unknown people and animals. i dont care how friendly the owner said he was, if he was growling, or coming after me in that situation, especially after supposedly being locked up, youre damn right i would have shot him.

btw, i think it is protocol for officers to release the snap on their holsters in certain situations, domestic violence being one of them..

rico

[Flame On]

Who's being a cop doubter? It's so laughable. I'm all for killing dogs and people if it's warrented. If it's not though, shouldn't it be looked into? Probably the particular cop would even agree.

Everytime a cop fires his gun an investigation is done and sent to the crown in a different city to see if charges are warranted. Fatality enquiries are also done if a human is shot and killed (not sure if it is done with a dog).
And no, it is not policy or training to undo the snap before going into a possibly dangerous situation for the very reason that undoing it makes it easier for others to get it out too.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Jun 13 2005, 05:03 AM
2 pages and over 70 posts for the death of a dog. We usually don't even get this much discussion when a human is killed.

I wouldn't say its unusual though . . . . people are passionate about their pets and often like them more than humans.

A recent Globe & Mail article, half in jest and half seriously, noted that older people treat their pets far better than they ever treated their growing children.

I don't think police officers were put on this earth to be bitten by dogs or stabbed by someone as an alternative to killing their attackers. As with a lifeguard in a dangerous aquatic situation, their first concern should be to protect their own life and limb given they're of no assistance to anyone if they're hurt.

Nevertheless, there is a legitimate question as to the imminent danger this officer faced and we will all be interested in the answer when the final report is issued.

Cowperson

[Patek23]

Originally posted by Bent Wookie@Jun 13 2005, 03:24 PM
Everytime a cop fires his gun an investigation is done and sent to the crown in a different city to see if charges are warranted. Fatality enquiries are also done if a human is shot and killed (not sure if it is done with a dog).
And no, it is not policy or training to undo the snap before going into a possibly dangerous situation for the very reason that undoing it makes it easier for others to get it out too.

I'm not a cop doubter, in fact I'm all for them when they're getting they're job done properly, but what you are suggesting is what happens when everything is done proper. Do you truly believe that every single time a police officer has fired his gun it has been reported, do you truly believe that no officer has accepted bribes, been involved in drug rings or been involved in any any other criminal activity while on the job? because if so maybe I'm not the one who need some light shone on.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by Indi+Jun 10 2005, 10:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Indi @ Jun 10 2005, 10:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You mean the officer that was being attacked with a knife by the man who had repeatedly assaulted police officers, and actually had his weapon jam resulting in him have to reholster the gun and then pull it out again and fire the weapon at the individual attacking him with a knife.

I mean the officer in the Ira McCumber case was being attacked with a knife. Should he have taken it like a man or something?

no I mean the officer who, only days after killing a person with his gun, killed a dog in the very same fashion. Have you seen the spray on a cannister of Pepper spray, its not a fine mist by any means...It would take one helluva wind to take it off its target. A dog's sense of smell is everything, take that away and the dog would cry like a baby. [/b][/quote]
the officer in that case was being attacked by a man with a knife, a man who had attacked police before. The police officer suffered wounds from the knife attack. Now how exactly is his shooting the individual who was attacking him unjustified? How is that even a question?

[Resolute 14]

Also Indi, you may want to get your facts straight if you expect to be taken seriously. Maccumber didnt shoot the dog "mere days" after he was forced to shoot his human attacker with a knife. The dog incident was over six months later. He also only shot the dog after being bitten, and even after being shot, that dog was still able to pin another officer.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of irrational hatred, eh?

Originally posted by Flaming Homer+Jun 14 2005, 02:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flaming Homer @ Jun 14 2005, 02:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bent Wookie@Jun 13 2005, 03:24 PM
Everytime a cop fires his gun an investigation is done and sent to the crown in a different city to see if charges are warranted. Fatality enquiries are also done if a human is shot and killed (not sure if it is done with a dog).
And no, it is not policy or training to undo the snap before going into a possibly dangerous situation for the very reason that undoing it makes it easier for others to get it out too.

I'm not a cop doubter, in fact I'm all for them when they're getting they're job done properly, but what you are suggesting is what happens when everything is done proper. Do you truly believe that every single time a police officer has fired his gun it has been reported, do you truly believe that no officer has accepted bribes, been involved in drug rings or been involved in any any other criminal activity while on the job? because if so maybe I'm not the one who need some light shone on. [/b][/quote]
First off lets get the something straight. I am specifically speaking about the Calgary Police Service and the majority of services in Canada including the RCMP. Further, I am referring to recent history... so keeping that in mind:
Yes, EVERY time an officer has shot his gun it was reported.
I absolutely, positively do not believe that any member of the CPS has accepted bribes or is involved in a 'drug ring' while on job. As far as the criminal activity goes, I am pretty sure there is an ongoing investigation about a pyramid scheme involving a CPS member, but you would probably be happy to hear, some of his victims were other cops.
If you have information to contradict this, and please dont say 'a friend of mine experienced this or I heard about this one time', I am all ears.

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Jun 14 2005, 04:48 AM
Also Indi, you may want to get your facts straight if you expect to be taken seriously. Maccumber didnt shoot the dog "mere days" after he was forced to shoot his human attacker with a knife. The dog incident was over six months later. He also only shot the dog after being bitten, and even after being shot, that dog was still able to pin another officer.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of irrational hatred, eh?

In addition, Macumber's life has been completely turned upside down since the shooting. And all because he did what he was paid to do so guys like Flaming Homer can sit back and criticize when he himslef would be too much of a coward to walk where Macumber has been.

[Patek23]

Originally posted by Bent Wookie+Jun 14 2005, 06:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bent Wookie @ Jun 14 2005, 06:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I'm not a cop doubter, in fact I'm all for them when they're getting they're job done properly, but what you are suggesting is what happens when everything is done proper. Do you truly believe that every single time a police officer has fired his gun it has been reported, do you truly believe that no officer has accepted bribes, been involved in drug rings or been involved in any any other criminal activity while on the job? because if so maybe I'm not the one who need some light shone on.

First off lets get the something straight. I am specifically speaking about the Calgary Police Service and the majority of services in Canada including the RCMP. Further, I am referring to recent history... so keeping that in mind:
Yes, EVERY time an officer has shot his gun it was reported.
I absolutely, positively do not believe that any member of the CPS has accepted bribes or is involved in a 'drug ring' while on job. As far as the criminal activity goes, I am pretty sure there is an ongoing investigation about a pyramid scheme involving a CPS member, but you would probably be happy to hear, some of his victims were other cops.
If you have information to contradict this, and please dont say 'a friend of mine experienced this or I heard about this one time', I am all ears. [/b][/quote]
When all current legal cases are settled (not my own, but I am involved) I would be happy to tell all the stories.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Well Bent Wookie, I don't know about anyone else but you come off sounding very naive about corruption and the such. People lie, cheat and steal in the workplace, there's no reason cops would be an exception. No occupation is an exception. We've even seen priests do some pretty horrible things.

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Jun 14 2005, 05:48 PM
Well Bent Wookie, I don't know about anyone else but you come off sounding very naive about corruption and the such. People lie, cheat and steal in the workplace, there's no reason cops would be an exception. No occupation is an exception. We've even seen priests do some pretty horrible things.

How am I naive?
Again if you really think these things exist, you simply have no idea about how police are selected, trained, 'policied' to death by their own force, not to mention watch dog groups, the police commision, the LERB, the list goes on.
Its VERY disappointing to think that some people really believe that this stuff goes on... please if ANYONE has a story about corruption or the firing of a gun, lemme know... hell let us all know.
And I can't wait for flaming homers story... please include a relevant casefile number so I can 'FOIP it' and read the report.... hell, lemme know when court is and ill go to hear about all the corruption.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

While I don't go as far as Bent Wookie and say that I 100% beleive that no cops in calgary aren't 100% clean, I will say that I'm pretty sure the VAST MAJORITY of them are.

As for Flaming Homer's "corruption stories" I'm excited to hear them as well. I'd be willing to bet that since he apparently has so many of them that a few are going to turn out to be cops that were p*ssed off, because someone is being a jackass, and applying the full letter of the law and harshest penalties they can. Pretty much all of which could have been avoided had someone who wasn't a cop used some common sense.