It's actually not especially with video support.

 

Again, there's nothing in that video that suggests that dog is going to attack the officer. Unless you are willing to assume that every dog that is running is going to attack someone, that video shows NO justification.

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

 

Threatened? Really? No, of course not. There is not a single law enforcement agency in the country that uses that standard. "You may use your gun if you feel threatened." They all use a standard along the lines of an imminent threat to their life or the life of another or serious physical injury. And even then, there is a stepping scale of things to try before that if practical. That is far different than "threatened."

 

Basically a cop shot a dog for no good reason. This is not one of life's more difficult questions.

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?

 

Yes, if they reasonably believe their life or others' lives are in danger, but if merely scared or afraid of injury, no.

 

So you know for certain the dog was going to attack the officer?

 

Do you know for certain it wasn't?

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.

 

I didn't say that. Don't argue with me if you can't manage to do so without intentionally changing my words. You are the one who described the situation, and I answered it. You don't like the answer, good for you. My answer is consistent with the standards utilized by law enforcement agencies. If you want to argue against stuff I didn't say just so you can feel like you are winning the argument, feel free to change everything I write.

 

I'm done lol.

Threatened? Really? No, of course not. There is not a single law enforcement agency in the country that uses that standard. "You may use your gun if you feel threatened." They all use a standard along the lines of an imminent threat to their life or the life of another or serious physical injury. And even then, there is a stepping scale of things to try before that if practical. That is far different than "threatened."

 

Basically a cop shot a dog for no good reason. This is not one of life's more difficult questions.

 

To be clear (and I guess I wasn't) I use "threatened" to mean among other things "...of serious physical injury i.e. the "hands to the waist" example AND a dog running and lunging.

Yes, if they reasonably believe their life or others' lives are in danger, but if merely scared or afraid of injury, no.

 

So "serious bodily injury" isn't enough?

So "serious bodily injury" isn't enough?

 

I guess we can split hairs about it, but to me serious bodily injury is a fairly high threshold, much closer to a life or death situation than simply being injured. Surely an officer who has to arrest a non-compliant suspect might fear they will get injured in doing so, but that's not enough to warrant killing them.

I didn't say that. Don't argue with me if you can't manage to do so without intentionally changing my words. You are the one who described the situation, and I answered it. You don't like the answer, good for you. My answer is consistent with the standards utilized by law enforcement agencies. If you want to argue against stuff I didn't say just so you can feel like you are winning the argument, feel free to change everything I write.

 

I'm done lol.

 

I changed nothing.

 

You said people "occasionally put their hands near their waste. That is no reason to shoot them. hat 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? "

 

I asked a clarification question - do the officers have to see a weapon before firing?

 

Has there ever been a case that showed that the victim clearly made a move for their waistband after being instructed to raise their hands and was subsequently shot and the officer was found guilty?

I guess we can split hairs about it, but to me serious bodily injury is a fairly high threshold, much closer to a life or death situation than simply being injured. Surely an officer who has to arrest a non-compliant suspect might fear they will get injured in doing so, but that's not enough to warrant killing them.

 

Can a charging dog do serious bodily injury?

 

Before KILLING a dog? :lol2: Yes, I'm saying he/she should wait.

 

So what you are saying is you'd rather an officer get injured, before they defend themselves?

Can a charging dog do serious bodily injury?

 

In the same way a resisting suspect might be a black belt in jiu jitsu. Maybe. But I don't think that's enough to get you to the level of reasonably believing all suspects (or dogs) warrant lethal force.

In the same way a resisting suspect might be a black belt in jiu jitsu. Maybe. But I don't think that's enough to get you to the level of reasonably believing all suspects (or dogs) warrant lethal force.

 

If the black belt doesn't show any signs of attacking or if the dog just stays at the door and barks then we agree.

 

However, what if the person being arrested comes at the officer with his fists and feet? Does the officer have to wait until he's been severely injured before shooting? Is that too late?

 

Fine.

 

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

 

What other action is there if the dog is on you on less than two seconds?

What other action is there if the dog is on you on less than two seconds?

 

Heck, you can't hardly get "oh he's a good boy" out of your mouth in that time.