Why does it matter ? Officers have to have the right to protect themselves from either humans or animals.

 

 

Why does any thing on this board even matter then? I'm giving my opinion. A dog rushing at you is not putting your life in jeopardy. It's my opinion that lethal force should only be used in life or death situations. Easy enough for ya?

What is more likely to kill an officer: A dog running out someone's front door, or a guy with his hands in his waistband?

 

There you go throwing common sense into the discussion...

I haven't watched the video but if the dog came at the officer and the officer felt threatened then I see the officer being justified.

 

You see it as justified because you are terrified of dogs. That's your issue, not the dogs.

What is more likely to kill an officer: A dog running out someone's front door, or a guy with his hands in his waistband?

 

Kill? Not the issue.

 

Attacked/injured is the threshold.

 

Next, are you saying that because one has a higher probability then the other is unworthy of a forceful response?

 

What is more likely to injure an officer - a person trying to run over him with a car or a guy moving his hands towards his waistband?

 

The "why" or "by whom" is irrelevant. If there is a "legitimate" potential for injury (and the video would say there was that potential) then a shooting is justified - dog or human.

 

The argument of "probably not" getting injured/attacked isn't valid for the guy moving his hands just like it's not valid for the dog who is "probably friendly."

 

Why does any thing on this board even matter then? I'm giving my opinion. A dog rushing at you is not putting your life in jeopardy. It's my opinion that lethal force should only be used in life or death situations. Easy enough for ya?

 

Who said "life in jeopardy?" Immaterial.

 

Attacked/injured is the threshold.

 

Does your "life or death" only apply to dog attacks?

Who said "life in jeopardy?" Immaterial.

 

Attacked/injured is the threshold.

 

Does your "life or death" only apply to dog attacks?

 

It's not immaterial. It's my opinion.

 

Your threshold may be attacked/injured. Mine is life or death situation.

 

Are we done yet?

The "why" or "by whom" is irrelevant. If there is a "legitimate" potential for injury (and the video would say there was that potential) then a shooting is justified - dog or human.

 

Like I've halfway joked about on here before, all an officer has to say is "I felt threatened," and it's justified for many. If this is the mentality that the police officers of our country have, it's a miracle we don't have more officer involved shootings than we do.

 

Good grief.

It's not immaterial. It's my opinion.

 

Your threshold may be attacked/injured. Mine is life or death situation.

 

Are we done yet?

 

Not yet. Does your "life or death" apply only to dog attacks?

Next, are you saying that because one has a higher probability then the other is unworthy of a forceful response?

 

And yes, I'm absolutely saying that. Surely you don't really believe that an officer should handle a DOG the same way he/she would handle a HUMAN.

 

That's a joke, right?

Not yet. Does your "life or death" apply only to dog attacks?

 

I'm not answering questions multiple times just because you don't fully read my posts.

Like I've halfway joked about on here before, all an officer has to say is "I felt threatened," and it's justified for many. If this is the mentality that the police officers of our country have, it's a miracle we don't have more officer involved shootings than we do.

 

Good grief.

 

The video legitimizes his belief. We're now seeing plenty of cases where video invalidated an officer's claim of "I felt threatened."

You still haven't answered the question I asked.

 

How do you know the dog was being friendly and not going to bite the officer when it lunged?

 

He doesn't. And by the same token, neither do you know (with any degree of certainty) that the dog WAS going to bite the officer. And therein lies the problem.

 

Blanket statements for either scenario are going to be hard to defend. There's just too many dang things that can make a difference.

It is if your justification is that in the end the officer PROBABLY wasn't going to be hurt. Absolutely the same.

 

Are they the same?

 

A person can hear and understand the command of hands up. Does a dog?

 

A person can pull a gun out n kill in one pull of a trigger. A dog can bite but it normally takes a lot of bites to kill an adult.

So for everybody defending the cops actions here, answer LB's question that has been ignored to this point:

 

If a normal citizen were in this officers shoes, would they be excused after killing this dog?

 

If you knock on a door and a dog bursts outside and attacks you, you have every right to defend yourself.

The video legitimizes his belief. We're now seeing plenty of cases where video invalidated an officer's claim of "I felt threatened."

 

How does the video legitimize his belief? Because the dog was running? How do you know the dog wasn't going to run right past the officer and into the yard?