That particular one...go to the other thread and look at some of the attacks on postal workers. That is a USPS site and talks about postal workers dying also but doesn't give numbers.

 

Stroke, heart attack, fell and hit head. I don't see any that died as a result of injuries.

 

Let's get back to the situation in the article. With around 10 officers present was anyone in enough danger that an officer needed to open fire on a crowded street. If you were in charge of that officer how would you handle it? And don't give me that the video doesn't tell the whole story. The dog was excited and jumped up on someone for a split second. The fact that no one else felt threatened enough to open fire or even take the dog to the pound speaks volumes. Let me ask you this: if I'd have been there standing in the spot that the lieutenant was and the dog would have jumped on me like that do you really think he'd have opened fire? And if I'd have opened fire on that dog as a private citizen how do you think that would have turned out for me? I'd have hit the dog at that range by the way.

Stroke, heart attack, fell and hit head. I don't see any that died as a result of injuries.

 

Let's get back to the situation in the article. With around 10 officers present was anyone in enough danger that an officer needed to open fire on a crowded street. If you were in charge of that officer how would you handle it? And don't give me that the video doesn't tell the whole story. The dog was excited and jumped up on someone for a split second. The fact that no one else felt threatened enough to open fire or even take the dog to the pound speaks volumes. Let me ask you this: if I'd have been there standing in the spot that the lieutenant was and the dog would have jumped on me like that do you really think he'd have opened fire? And if I'd have opened fire on that dog as a private citizen how do you think that would have turned out for me? I'd have hit the dog at that range by the way.

 

If you were standing in the middle of 10 cops and pulled a gun out, that would be one of the dumbest things ever.

 

I said twice (post 26 and 38) so far, that in this case it doesn't look like he should have fired at the dog...not sure how many times I need to say that.

 

The fact that no one else fired says nothing, there are several cases of justified shootings where only one officer shot.

 

As far as the officer shooting if it was you standing there or not, I guess that depends on if he felt the dog was putting you or others in imminent danger, no way to know what he was thinking.

 

If you felt the dog was attacking you or someone else, I think you'd be cleared. Especially since in this case the dog wasn't in his own yard. You as a citizen would have the right to shoot a dog that you felt was attacking you or others.

If you were standing in the middle of 10 cops and pulled a gun out, that would be one of the dumbest things ever.

 

I said twice (post 26 and 38) so far, that in this case it doesn't look like he should have fired at the dog...not sure how many times I need to say that.

 

The fact that no one else fired says nothing, there are several cases of justified shootings where only one officer shot.

 

As far as the officer shooting if it was you standing there or not, I guess that depends on if he felt the dog was putting you or others in imminent danger, no way to know what he was thinking.

 

If you felt the dog was attacking you or someone else, I think you'd be cleared. Especially since in this case the dog wasn't in his own yard. You as a citizen would have the right to shoot a dog that you felt was attacking you or others.

 

I'd agree with you if the first officer had shot the dog. He missed. Spectacularly. The other officers felt so threatened that they looked at did absolutely nothing. In almost all of the other cases we are talking about an officer that shot a suspect. In this case the officer's judgement was bad, his marksmanship was worse. His other officers did nothing to stop that devil dog running amok.

 

And somehow they manage to handle these situations without shooting them. Numerous articles have been written in the past couple of years on the lack of training that officers receive on dealing with dogs. We've seen way too many videos and read way too many articles on family pets needlessly killed. This attention had led to a handful of officers being fired and/or charged for these incidents. You would think that more attention would be given to training the police for these situations to protect both the animals, the officers and their jobs.

 

Do mail men carry guns? Because if they did, I'd say more of them would shoot some dogs. Otherwise your comment about them not killing dogs is silly.

Just a warning to anyone ever brave enough to visit me....I have 3 dogs, and they'll greet you excitedly at the door...or at your car door if you aren't quick enough...don't shoot. The worst they'll do is plant a muddy paw or two on your leg and love you to pieces.

Do mail men carry guns? Because if they did, I'd say more of them would shoot some dogs. Otherwise your comment about them not killing dogs is silly.

 

And would those shootings be justified? Just because you can shoot a dog legally doesn't mean you should. Go online and read the numerous studies that show that police training is substandard in regards to dogs. IT CERTAINLY WAS IN THIS CASE. Or do you think this is a "we don't have the facts" case like you ALWAYS claim? I'm out of town this week. Last night at midnight someone pounder on the door out my house with my 5'1" wife and 11 month old daughter at home and demanded to be let in. According to KY since they were on my porch, and it was under roof, she could have shot him through the door with our Taurus Judge ( which she drew and pointed at him). Howeve, She gave him the chance to admit he screwed up and leave. So since police only have to suggest a threat they can justify killing someone sorting the dog would be okay, right?

 

And since I already asked this question to JD and he seems to have went to bed do you see ANY way this officer's actions were justified? This post was about this situation.

 

And would those shootings be justified? Just because you can shoot a dog legally doesn't mean you should. Go online and read the numerous studies that show that police training is substandard in regards to dogs. IT CERTAINLY WAS IN THIS CASE. Or do you think this is a "we don't have the facts" case like you ALWAYS claim? I'm out of town this week. Last night at midnight someone pounder on the door out my house with my 5'1" wife and 11 month old daughter at home and demanded to be let in. According to KY since they were on my porch, and it was under roof, she could have shot him through the door with our Taurus Judge ( which she drew and pointed at him). Howeve, She gave him the chance to admit he screwed up and leave. So since police only have to suggest a threat they can justify killing someone sorting the dog would be okay, right?

 

And since I already asked this question to JD and he seems to have went to bed do you see ANY way this officer's actions were justified? This post was about this situation.

 

Why don't you back up a little there, chief. I don't ALWAYS say anything. I do realize that every accusation against police isn't an actual case of police misconduct. Even the ones that seem like obvious police misconduct to the masses of internet lawyers.

 

However it seems like you ignored my point. You made an irrelevant comment about how mail men don't kill dogs as much as police. Doesn't take a genius figure out why. Mail men are not typically armed.

 

I'm not sure I follow you on the example with your wife. I've read the KRS twice regarding defensive force, and it says nothing about being "under roof" unless that is part of a definition of dwelling or residence that I didn't see.

 

"A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred."

 

As for your other comment,

 

"So since police only have to suggest a threat they can justify killing someone sorting the dog would be okay, right?"

 

Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't know what you mean by that.

 

I haven't really watched the video so I will withhold judgment on this specific case for now. I don't really care either way. If he was wrong, he was wrong. I understand that police are humans and sometimes, albeit rare in the grand scheme of things, they will screw up.

Why don't you back up a little there, chief. I don't ALWAYS say anything. I do realize that every accusation against police isn't an actual case of police misconduct. Even the ones that seem like obvious police misconduct to the masses of internet lawyers.

 

However it seems like you ignored my point. You made an irrelevant comment about how mail men don't kill dogs as much as police. Doesn't take a genius figure out why. Mail men are not typically armed.

 

I'm not sure I follow you on the example with your wife. I've read the KRS twice regarding defensive force, and it says nothing about being "under roof" unless that is part of a definition of dwelling or residence that I didn't see.

 

"A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred."

 

As for your other comment,

 

"So since police only have to suggest a threat they can justify killing someone sorting the dog would be okay, right?"

 

Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't know what you mean by that.

 

I haven't really watched the video so I will withhold judgment on this specific case for now. I don't really care either way. If he was wrong, he was wrong. I understand that police are humans and sometimes, albeit rare in the grand scheme of things, they will screw up.

 

That was supposed to be shooting, not sorting . I was typing on my phone and the auto-correct took over.

 

As for being under roof:

In 2006 the KRS laws were amended to adopt the "castle doctrine". As part of that the definition of dwelling was amended to include porches as well as temporary dwellings as long as they are "under roof. "

Why wouldn't this officer face the same wanton endangerment charge that one of us would face if we fired a gun in a crowd?

And since I already asked this question to JD and he seems to have went to bed do you see ANY way this officer's actions were justified? This post was about this situation.

I hope you do realize that I answered that question several times prior to going to bed.

Just a warning to anyone ever brave enough to visit me....I have 3 dogs, and they'll greet you excitedly at the door...or at your car door if you aren't quick enough...don't shoot. The worst they'll do is plant a muddy paw or two on your leg and love you to pieces.

 

I love friendly "country" dogs.