Why are cops so afraid of dogs that they must shoot?
I have been chased/charged by over 200 (or 500) dogs in my life, and I never got any teeth sunk into me (just a few times when I was little, and it was never such a big bite).
I am not a cop, and I assume they will get a higher percentage of actual attacks (not simply a charging dog but a bite).
Back in NYC, I have literally been threatened with arrest for (almost) refusing to walk down a street where a man with a seizure had a dog protecting him. I think a dog got shot one time, right after an officer told me to go another way, so I could not see what was about to happen (I'm not sure what happened the time I was sort of involved).
I wish there was something that could be done, because this society is full of cowards that shoot dogs, knowing there will be no criminal charges against the shooters.
Why not wait until a dog actually bites before shooting? A gun ensures no problem getting them off.
(I know jaws lock on some dogs, as it happened when I walked a Pit Bull which got attacked by a skunk. He got too close and the skunk attacked him, then he killed it by biting its back. He got a good hold and his jaw locked. He could not unlock his jaw, and it took me 15 minutes to separate his locked jaw from the skunk. A jaw lock is the only reason a cop should shoot before actually getting physically attacked, and it is a weak reason.)
And most bites are weak anyway.
There has to be something better than shooting in most of these dog shooting cases.
Re: Another Example Why Police Shouldn't Have Guns
quote:The rungs of culpability are as follows:
1. Guyger, with malice aforethought and premeditation, did knowingly, intentionally, and savagely murder Botham Jean.
2. Guyger, in the heat of passion, did knowingly and intentionally murder Botham... for which she may or may not feel remorse after the fact, but is ultimately moot.
3. Guyger did recklessly discharge her firearm which caused the death of an innocent man in his residence.
Her excuse will (as always in these cases) be that she "felt her health or life was threatened".
Just like George Zimmerman of Florida did(at least he was actually being beaten up, unlike the home-invader Guyger, who simply barged into an innocent man's house).
But Zimmerman went looking for trouble, and the kid Martin noticed Zimmerman was coming after him. Martin had the right to use his fists, if I am the one writing the letter of the law. Fight with your fists, not guns (not knives, not mace).
If Martin hypothetically beat an unarmed Zimmerman to death, then he should be held to account (though it was in self defense, so perhaps his hypothetical sentence would be a bit less than the typical murder)
END OF HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO
My whole point is that one should fight with fists. Not guns. But bringing death should be seen as extremely serious. This "I felt threatened" is just way to big of a loophole. If somebody is so much of a coward, then perhaps they should file for disability (avoiding the need for a job) and never leave their house. They should certainly not be a neighborhood watchman who tails young men who walk through a street.
Guyger felt "threatened". People like her are the worst and most dangerous alive (aside from the lawmakers in this country). I feel threatened when there is a possibility that human-slime like her might just be legally (!) allowed to do what she did.
From 1854 to 2003, no white got the death penalty for killing a black in Texas. Up until 2016 (and possibly ever), no white ever got the death penalty for killing a black, in Florida. No whites got executed for killing blacks in Alabama from 1913-2016 in Alabama.
This lady was on record (electronic messages to a friend) supporting a person who trained his dog to have a certain (unfriendly and alert) reaction to blacks. She essentially described herself as "racist" (the dog was said to be "racist").
THIS LADY IS A POLICE OFFICER!
This lady said, in electronic communication, she shoots "fast" so she dies "last". She was describing her police conduct.
(She must shoot fast when in the middle of an on-duty policing situation, if she shot a harmless and unarmed man point blank in the chest, while not in the heat of a job-related situation)
The most simple solution to the problem of racist cops shooting blacks is to only hire black officers IN THE FUTURE. One can grandfather clause existing white police-officers. But future white officers should be disqualified.
The issue of the "I was scared" problem is more difficult to pin down. We can easily see what an awful officer this lady was, NOW, but her fellow officers sure did fail to notice what they probably should have.
MY THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS:
A 10 year sentence for murder is odd in a state like Texas, but that was apparently was a majority-black jury decision.
This "murder" charge and conviction really was a no-brainer. Good job, Dallas, on that part.
What to do about racist police officers? I think there really needs to be some radical solutions, there.
Re: The real issues here. (National Review article on Guyger)
Law & the Courts
With the Guyger Verdict, a Texas Jury Chips Away at the Unwritten Law That Helps Bad Cops Go Free
By David French
October 1, 2019 3:02 PM
Earlier today, a Dallas jury convicted former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger of murder after she mistakenly entered the wrong apartment and shot dead its rightful occupant — a young black man named Botham Jean. The verdict came in spite of an incredibly puzzling jury instruction permitting Guyger to argue that Texas’s “Castle Doctrine” could apply to her actions. Under the Castle Doctrine, the use of force is presumed reasonable if another person is “unlawfully and with force entering or attempting to enter your occupied home, car, or place of business.” Yet Guyger was the armed person unlawfully entering Jean’s home. He had the right to shoot Guyger. She had no right to shoot him.
The jury’s verdict is significant — and not just because justice was done in this dreadful case. It’s a small data point that some juries in some jurisdictions may well be rejecting a classic police defense that’s been used to help bad officers escape accountability for unjustified shootings. In jurisdiction after jurisdiction, the written law requires officers to show that they used deadly force based on a “reasonable” belief that the suspect presented a risk of inflicting deadly force or serious bodily harm. Yet in jurisdiction after jurisdiction, juries have followed a different, unwritten code — that virtually any expression of fear by a cop justifies a shooting. As I’ve argued before, clever defense lawyers twist the legal standard into a line of argument that goes something like this: The officer was afraid, and she can explain to you the reasons why she was afraid. Therefore, it was reasonable that she was afraid.
quote:Nobody gets a death sentence for murder... the only time they're eligible for the death penalty is for a Capital murder.
But that is not true.
In Florida (a state with a population bigger than New York state), first degree murder does bring the death penalty.
But, no white has ever gotten the death penalty in the blood-hungry state of Florida IF THE VICTIM WAS BLACK.
This is a diverse state with a population larger than most countries.
Lots of white on white murders in Florida. Lots of black on black murders in Florida. Lots of black on white murders in Florida. Lots of white on black murders there.
Lots of death sentences in Florida.
It just so happens that Florida has never executed a white person for killing a black.
(We know why, and the attitudes of Florida aren't too different from the rest of the country)
quote:Good departments institute training that uncovers both explicit and implicit biases, which everyone is susceptible to on some level. Lets take your own as a fine example. Your assumption is that White + Police = Racist. In fact, so much so that you would actually disqualify white people from becoming police officers on the sole basis of their race.
There has been a problem in the larger "white community" at-large.
This "problem" has caused too many black humans to loose their lives.
This problem has been noticed (very well-noted) in the black community.
This problem is a cancer upon the body of the nation.
This problem has caused many tens of millions to loose confidence in the larger population in the United States of America.
There is a problem with WHITE RACISM (and racial bias against black humans).
quote:FILED 5:30 a.m. 08.14.2017 ANALYSIS Killings of Black Men by Whites are Far More Likely to be Ruled “Justifiable” The disparity remains no matter the circumstances and has persisted for decades. By DANIEL LATHROP & ANNA FLAGG
When a white person kills a black man in America, the killer often faces no legal consequences.
In one in six of these killings, there is no criminal sanction, according to a new Marshall Project examination of 400,000 homicides committed by civilians between 1980 and 2014. That rate is far higher than the one for homicides involving other combinations of races.
In almost 17 percent of cases when a black man was killed by a non-Hispanic white civilian over the last three decades, the killing was categorized as justifiable, which is the term used when a police officer or a civilian kills someone committing a crime or in self-defense. Overall, the police classify fewer than 2 percent of homicides committed by civilians as justifiable.
The disparity persists across different cities, different ages, different weapons and different relationships between killer and victim.
To understand the gaps, The Marshall Project obtained dozens of data sets from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and examined various combinations of killer and victim. Two types of “justifiable homicide” are noted: “felon killed by private citizen” or “felon killed by police officer.” (In a bit of circular logic, the person killed is presumptively classified as a felon, since the homicide could be justified only if a life was threatened, which is a crime.)
The data were processed to standardize key variables and exclude more than 200,000 cases that lacked essential information or were homicides committed by police. The resulting data detail the circumstances of each death; any weapons used; information on the killer’s and victim’s race, age, ethnicity and sex; and how police investigators classify each type of killing (“brawl due to the influence of alcohol”, “sniper attack” or “lover’s triangle”, for example).
Little large-scale research has examined the role of race in “justifiable” homicides that do not involve police. The data examined by The Marshall Project are more comprehensive and cover a longer time period than other research into the question, much of which has focused on controversial “Stand Your Ground” laws.
In the United States, the law of self-defense allows civilians to use deadly force in cases where they have a reasonable belief force is necessary to defend themselves or others. How that is construed varies from state to state, but the question often depends on what the killer believed when pulling the trigger.
This was about a third of the text article.
There are a lot of graphics to show the data from different cities.