I Don't Get It

[snowman46919]

I don't want my dog to be defenseless...however I don't want my dog to decided that it's ok to attack any person that happens to be on my property, or in this case, inside my apartment. She's permitted to bark when someone knocks on the door, I encourage it. I reward it.

An obedient dog wouldn't attack just anyone, they are intelligent creatures. In all the reports I saw the dog never attacked anyone. If I invite you on my property the only "attack" you will get from my dog is wanting to get on your lap and lick you. Trespassing on the other hand is an entirely different issue and would be the one I was addressing not simply just any person being on your property but someone unwarranted and unlawful. If we are going to make comparisons we musn't change the situation to justify the argument but justify the argument to the situation. Oh and a criminal probably isn't going to knock, pretty sure that was on the same memo that said they couldn't possess a firearm.

 

[ljadayton]

An obedient dog wouldn't attack just anyone, they are intelligent creatures. In all the reports I saw the dog never attacked anyone. If I invite you on my property the only "attack" you will get from my dog is wanting to get on your lap and lick you. Trespassing on the other hand is an entirely different issue and would be the one I was addressing not simply just any person being on your property but someone unwarranted and unlawful. If we are going to make comparisons we musn't change the situation to justify the argument but justify the argument to the situation. Oh and a criminal probably isn't going to knock, pretty sure that was on the same memo that said they couldn't possess a firearm.

I agree, an obedient dog wouldn't attack anyone, however, I could make the argument that an obedient dog wouldn't "charge" at someone either. I didn't see where it said if the owners were outside or inside..the dog decided the LEO was uninvited? As far as someone entering without knocking, that's been tried...same result...loud barking dog at the door

 

[Coach13]

I don't get that no one had a problem when Liberty Sanders or Walter Zoomie shot dogs in defense of themselves, but when a cop does it no matter the reason, its wrong. Buncha ****ing hypocrites.

Come on, we all know what an aggressive dog looks like, how they react, and breeds most likely to be aggressive. A golden retriever? Come on. The officer was investigating a suspicious person? So was the dog..... The officer knows he is in the dogs territory regardless of aggressive or loving. If you come to my house my 150lb dog named Bigfoot will greet you at the top of the drive way with county wide echoing bellows, intimidating as hell, yet he is a 14 month old bloodhound in search and rescue training with a chronic case of terminal tail wiggles. Any intelligent officer would recognize instantly. This, I would almost put money on, was the case with the golden. He was probably checking out who was in his yard barking and running up to get his belly rubbed, just like Bigfoot would. Shoot my dog in the same situation, I have plenty of money for court. I am not saying that every situation is a bad shoot, but like the kid said, the officer was in the dogs yard, and, had other options and took a pass the discharge his fire arm. $50 bucks says the officer is in the 2% butthole/hothead type. Being clear, 98% of officers are pretty cool and exercise good judgment.

I feel for the folks that lost a son, as ours is to us.

BTW, my dad’s an officer 36 years and he thinks it's BS too.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

The difference is you didn't die for it, your wallet may have a bit but you are still intact if I am not mistaken.

My feelings were hurt, and my inner child was bruised.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

I feel for the folks that lost a son, as ours is to us.

A son? Are you serious? You consider a dog your son?

This is what I'm talking about. Irrational animal lovers who have seen too many Disney movies featuring talking, crying, reasoning cats, dogs, deer, mice, rabbits, aardvarks, boll weevils....



I think what makes animal loving freaks what they are is the fact that the animals they love so much can't and won't tell them how Effed up they are...unconditional love...

A thinking, reasoning human being will see it and call them on it, and that's why they value animals over people.

Now I'm done.

 

[finity]

A cop's primary motivation has to be finishing his shift safely and going home to his family.

NO. No, no no, no.

The cops primary motivation HAS TO BE protecting the rights of the people he gets paid to serve.

His own safety is only second to that. He is an agent of the state. He has a moral (& legal) obligation to put others rights above his own safety. If they don't like that then they need to find another line of work that doesn't involve the capability of using the power of the state to take someones freedom away.

 

[youngda9]

The cops primary motivation HAS TO BE protecting the rights of the people he gets paid to serve.
...He is an agent of the state.

Being an agent of the state negates what you believe his primary motivation HAS TO BE. That's very wishful thinking on your part. His primary motivation is to keep his job and come home safe at night just as Blackhawk2001 said...nothing more or less. To do that he does what his boss tells him to do, just like the rest of us. In his case he is an employee of the state and has their interests in mind when performing his job.

He has a moral (& legal) obligation to put others rights above his own safety.

Whose morality? Is it written into his job description or the law somewhere? Please cite sources. Again more wishful thinking.

If they don't like that then they need to find another line of work that doesn't involve the capability of using the power of the state to take someones freedom away.

More wishful thinking...and I wish this was the case as well. But it's clearly not how things work.

 

[finity]

Being an agent of the state negates what you believe his primary motivation HAS TO BE. That's very wishful thinking on your part. His primary motivation is to keep his job and come home safe at night just as Blackhawk2001 said...nothing more or less. To do that he does what his boss tells him to do, just like the rest of us. In his case he is an employee of the state and has their interests in mind when performing his job.

Just because they DON'T do it doesn't mean they DON't HAVE TO do it.

You see, people with attitudes like yours are the problem with law enforcement today. You say it's just a job. It's not just a job.

My job is just a job. I don't know what you do but more than likely your job is just a job. A cops job isn't JUST a job. They are "the state". They are "the government". They have been given extraordinary power over us that will affect our freedoms & fortunes. They are "the ones" limited by our Constitution from infringing on our rights. When it comes right down to it "the enforcers" are the ones that should have the most limitations placed on them by society, not the least.

A congressman can pass a bad law or a judge can issue a bad ruling but if "the enforcers" don't enforce those laws/rulings then our actual rights haven't been violated. Our freedoms aren't infringed until we have an actual impact on our lives. That's the same reason why the SCOTUS won't hear a case about the Constitutionality of a law until someone can show that they may have been damaged by it.

Whose morality? Is it written into his job description or the law somewhere? Please cite sources.

Umm...The Constitution of the United States? I'm pretty sure I remember that there are a few paragraphs in there somewhere about the peoples rights & that they should not be abridged or infringed by the government.

More wishful thinking...and I wish this was the case as well. But it's clearly not how things work.

Just because it's wishful thinking doesn't mean that it's invalid thinking.

 

[youngda9]

You see, people with attitudes like yours are the problem with law enforcement today. You say it's just a job. It's not just a job.

I am not a cop. I was explaining their attitudes, not mine. That was an incorrect assumption on your part.

My job is just a job.....A cops job isn't JUST a job.

Many cops feel the same way about their job, that it is just a job.

Umm...The Constitution of the United States? I'm pretty sure I remember that there are a few paragraphs in there somewhere about the peoples rights & that they should not be abridged or infringed by the government.

You stated that cops have a "moral (& legal) obligation to put others rights above his own safety." I asked for a source, still waiting.

Just because it's wishful thinking doesn't mean that it's invalid thinking.

If you bothered to read my post, it said "More wishful thinking...and I wish this was the case as well." Clearly I never implied that it was invalid thinking.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Many cops feel the same way about their job, that it is just a job.

Then they should choose a different career. Any career path that requires an oath of honor, in my opinion, is not just a job - it is an honorable position of moral importance.

 

[youngda9]

Then they should choose a different career.

If they are trampling on other's rights than they should be fired. But if they view it as "just a job" and are performing their job properly and not trampling, then no.

Any career path that requires an oath of honor, in my opinion, is not just a job.

Agreed...but other's may not feel that way, that is my point.

it is an honorable position of moral importance.

Morals are a personal and subjective thing. What one views as moral is not for another. Veering into that discussion leads nowhere.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Morals are a personal and subjective thing. What one views as moral is not for another. Veering into that discussion leads nowhere.

The morals required to be a police officer are a standard that society dictates. If someone does not agree or share those morals, they should not be a police officer.

That, in my opinion, is not a choice. Being a police officer is not the same type of occupation as a fry cook at McDonald's - they are given authority by society in order to uphold societies agreed upon morals. If someone feels they want a job that does not require morals, they should not wear a badge.

Most jobs are, just jobs for a paycheck. In my opinion the careers that are definitely "moral" jobs are : Military, law enforcement, doctors, and teachers. I am sure we could come up with more, but those stand out in my mind as morally bound jobs.

 

[youngda9]

Being a police officer is not the same type of occupation as a fry cook at McDonald's - they are given authority by society in order to uphold societies agreed upon [strike]morals[/strike] laws.

There, fixed that for you.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

There, fixed that for you.

Laws are a written set of rules and guidelines.

Where do you think these laws come from? At some point, society agreed that their moral beliefs were so strong, they would write them down and hold everyone responsible for following them.

 

[finity]

I am not a cop. I was explaining their attitudes, not mine. That was an incorrect assumption on your part.

I didn't assume you were a cop. If you read MY post I even say that "I don't know what you do but more than likely your job is just a job."

You don't have to be a cop to be part of the problem with law enforcement. You just have to be a non-LEO enabler. If you make excuses for their behavior by saying that "it's just a job" then you enable their bad behavior by lowering the expectations we have of someone who is put into a position of such great power.

You stated that cops have a "moral (& legal) obligation to put others rights above his own safety." I asked for a source, still waiting.

I will agree with you to some extent that the vast majority of "morals" are subjective. That doesn't mean that ALL morals are subjective. It is almost universally frowned upon to murder someone. It is generally considered wrong to rape.

The basis for the moral obligation for them to protect our rights above all else comes from hundreds of years of western philosophical thinking which culminated in the Founders enshrining those "morals" into the Constitution.

You won't ever hear me say that any morals are "absolute" or that they come from a "higher power" but I will say that some morals are important enough & necessary enough to the proper functioning of a civilized society that they should be adhered to.

Maybe the sticking point is the use of the word "morals". Some people equate that word to "religious teachings". Obvioulsly, we have seen throughout history that many religous teachings are far from "moral". Maybe better words would be "basic values" or "minimum standards of conduct".

If you bothered to read my post, it said "More wishful thinking...and I wish this was the case as well." Clearly I never implied that it was invalid thinking.

Yeah, my bad. I totally missed that part.

 

[youngda9]

You don't have to be a cop to be part of the problem with law enforcement. You just have to be a non-LEO enabler. If you make excuses for their behavior by saying that "it's just a job" then you enable their bad behavior by lowering the expectations we have of someone who is put into a position of such great power.

I was EXPLAINING that some of them feel that way about their job. I thought that I clearly explained that to you in post #89, no? I wasn't attempting to enable anything(Major incorrect assumption on your part)...just explain that some people don't run around thinking of moral authority passed down by our forefahers while performing their job as a police officer. Right or wrong was nowhere in my post, just explaining that many don't operate under the same principles that you may, or at least believe police officers should.

I will agree with you to some extent that the vast majority of "morals" are subjective. That doesn't mean that ALL morals are subjective. It is almost universally frowned upon to murder someone. It is generally considered wrong to rape.

Well, adultry is definetly wrong...but cops don't enforce that because it isn't in our LAWS. Therefore they enforce LAWS only...sure some are based on morals. But many well understood morals are not written into laws. Therefore they are not enforcing morals, just laws of which some are based on morals.

Maybe the sticking point is the use of the word "morals".

See previous comment. Yes, that is the sticking point.

Some people equate that word to "religious teachings". Obvioulsly, we have seen throughout history that many religous teachings are far from "moral". Maybe better words would be "basic values" or "minimum standards of conduct".

Sure, but those are broader terms just like morals. I can have very poor "basic values" and "morals" (visit prostitues in NV, gamble in Michigan City, drink excessively, smoke pot where legal, habitually lie, commit adultry, etc.) and never see a police officer because I didn't break a law. Yet my morals and basic values are crap...a cop isn't going to enforce that because it didn't make the cut when legislating the laws they are sworn to uphold.

Laws are what cops enforce. What they are based upon is up to vast interpretation...Just some of the things laws have been based on are:
morals
values
standards of conduct
religion
politics
bribes
beliefs
misconceptions
greed
fairness
equality
racism
diversity
etc.

I hope that clearly explains where I was coming from.

 

[jeremy]

You know a Thesaurus can be a really good tool...

 

[youngda9]

^^ I didn't really want to go there, but thanks for pointing that out I recognize that a couple of thost things could be interpreted as almost the same...like fairness and equality. The rest are pretty good I think. Oh well.

 

[jeremy]

Actually several of those on the last list you have are synonyms for Morals...

I personally have never been a big fan of Morals Myself...

 

[GeneralCarver]

I totally agree with Frank. There's way too much cop hating on this forum.

This is very hard for me to agree with. My dog, Barney, is part of my family. I love him dearly. And I have an invisible fence around my property too. If someone saw Barney, and thought he was charging them, I can see them defending themselves. They'd be in the right. There's no way of telling that I have an invisible fence. I have got to put up signs advertising that.

I'm sure your attitude would change if your dog was the one getting shot down. Wow, I can't believe I'm seeing a bunch of police state loving citizens here actually sticking up for cops coming unannounced onto private property and shooting domestic pets. I mean come on dude, how often do people get attacked by Golden Retrievers in middle class neighbor hoods? Seriously.

These ******* cops just don't give a crap about us or our lives and would rather shoot your pet rather than use pepper spray or just judge the demeanor of the dog and take a chance. That's what I've been doing my whole life, I've never been attacked yet. If a dog charges you, stay still, let him bark and sniff, don't reach to him and you should be good 99% of the time. And that's what Officer Triggerhappy should have done and would have if he really cared about people and respected their lives, property and pets.

You guys seem to not belive in the fact that there are bad cops. That some, not all, but some of them pride themselves on taking advantage of situations like that. They go back to the locker room in the shower and high five, and smack each other on the butt and laugh at killing your dog and watching your get upset.