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

 

All you said was "life or death" and I don't want to assume you mean for dogs only. If so, then we're at a point where we simply disagree. If you mean all incidents - humans as well - then we probably have some more discussion ahead.

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.

 

Not difficult to grasp, but....:idunno:

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

 

Fine.

 

Even if I'm carrying, shooting the dog would NEVER be my first (or appropriate) reaction.

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?

 

A few factors:

 

Short time to make a decision - 2 seconds

Dog lunging

 

That would meet most juries threshold.

All you said was "life or death" and I don't want to assume you mean for dogs only. If so, then we're at a point where we simply disagree. If you mean all incidents - humans as well - then we probably have some more discussion ahead.

 

We have no more discussion.

 

I've given my opinion on the matter, and I'm not wasting any more of my day posting on it just because you don't share my opinion.

Let's use the part of the argument that says that you wait because most of the time it's not a problem.

 

Should an officer not shoot a person who has been instructed to put their hands up but brings his hands to his waist? How many times have we seen cases where the officer did shoot despite there ultimately being no weapon? Are you saying the officer was not justified?

 

 

No. An officer should not shoot a person in the circumstances as you describe them. Again, as you describe them, not as subsequent posts may add to the description. People occasionally put their hands near their waist. That is no reason to shoot them. Did the person hear the instruction? What distance are the actors from each other. Can the police see a danger or not? There is a lot more that should be considered before we just assume that police should shoot.

A few factors:

 

Short time to make a decision - 2 seconds

Dog lunging

 

That would meet most juries threshold.

 

I find it extremely hard to believe a jury would protect that cop based on what's in that video.

 

You cannot prove based on that video that dog was going to attack the cop. Pure speculation.

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.

 

Again, no one (at least not me) has used "killed" as the threshold.

 

Not sure how many times I have to repeat that.

 

I'm asking a simple question: Can an officer use his gun if he feels threatened?

There is a lot more that should be considered before we just assume that police should shoot.

 

Not according to Clyde.

I find it extremely hard to believe a jury would protect that cop based on what's in that video.

 

You cannot prove based on that video that dog was going to attack the cop. Pure speculation.

 

The burden of proof is NOT that he was definitely going to be attacked - just like the courts ruling that the hands "going to the waistband" is enough even if there isn't a weapon found subsequently.

 

Shooting a dog on someones door step seems pretty darn reckless to me...

 

What if one of the kids had chased the dog out the door and been shot, does he get off the hook for that too?

 

If we're playing the what if game...What if he waited and the dog bites his face...or gets out and attacks a neighboring kid?

I'm asking a simple question: Can an officer use his gun if he feels threatened?

 

That question is way too ambiguous and you know it.

If we're playing the what if game...What if he waited and the dog bites his face...or gets out and attacks a neighboring kid?

 

Then shoot the dog.

 

The POSSIBILITY of being bit by a dog does not (or should not) warrant killing the dog.

No. An officer should not shoot a person in the circumstances as you describe them. Again, as you describe them, not as subsequent posts may add to the description. People occasionally put their hands near their waist. That is no reason to shoot them. Did the person hear the instruction? What distance are the actors from each other. Can the police see a danger or not? There is a lot more that should be considered before we just assume that police should shoot.

 

Hold on.

 

Are you saying that an officer should wait until there is 100% proof that there is a weapon? I'm assuming you know the courts do not agree. Actually, I can't think of many people who believe that an officer has to actually see a weapon in the scenario I described.

That question is way too ambiguous and you know it.

 

It's actually not especially with video support.