Police Allow Dog to Die

[Juan_Bottom]

What a model of efficiency HUD is. So let me get this straight... little poor Aunt Sally calls up the police about her sick dog, who are out in the projects trying to bust the crack dealer down the hall and find the guy whose been hocking stolen goods, including guns, from somewhere in the neighborhood, as well as respond to the domestic disturbance four blocks away, but forget about the job they are supposed to be in position to do, they have to go on down and stick a thermometer up Fido's but to make sure he's not dying? Or better yet, they've got to call in a squad car to drive Fido to the vet where he can run up a tab that Aunt Sally has no chance of affoding, cause, after all, she can't even afford rent for herself, and, at the end of the day, everybody's happy that Fido pulls through, except that now Aunt Sally's got to take out a HUD mortgage so she can pay the vet?? And HUD is going to advance the money... and/or if the cop as you characterize it is "responsible", I don't get it either... what is HUD doing, advancing money for Aunt Sally to hire a lawyer and sue the police department.

This is just absolutely all ludicrous.

I have literally no idea where this came from.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development does not give out mortgaes, banks do that. And banks answer to HUD. I was the middle man, making sure nothing went wrong. It's the banks mony, but HUD calls the shots always.

The debt is a seperate issue. Say these two hit a dog on the way to the vet, and the dogs owners sued. Now they have to take out a mortgage from a bank to pay off the suit. After qualifying, and taking the loan, the case goes to me, It was my job to be the middle man and make sure that A)everything is legal, and B) they have no hidden debts that could supercede the lienholder and take the first leinholder position.

HUD does not give out money, or sue anyone or anything...

You should go back to law school buddy.

I am speaking from my experience dealing with civil court payoffs.

Police have a broad range of discretion when enforcing the law.

Yes, I'm not saying that the police don't. But it's not their job to issue out punishment. It seems to me that the cop ignored the dying dog, and let this get personal. The point is that traffic stops i]are[/i] largely discretional. He could have let them go, escorted them, whatever. But instead his actions killed a dog. The fact that he knew the dog was ill does show intent, no? The ticket is ill-gotten gains, I'm certain.

BTW, beside the point, I didn't catch what road this happened on, but if it was a state highway-state trooper, he could only detain them if they had commited a felony. 20 minutes would be much too long. Just depends on the officer, and state law.

To determine whether there is grounds for an arrest, given the amount of stuff out there a 20 minute stop is not unreasonable. The police had a responsibility to determine whether this person had a valid license, if they had any out of state warrants, whether they were on drugs since, I'm afraid to say, the driver was impaired - since they demonstrated a failure to appreciate that a sick dog is not a reason to endanger other motorists (or even themselves).

[

Impaired?
But they did demonstrate the ability to appreciate that if they didn't rush, their dog was going to die. I would accept the arguement that they faltered by not calling the police... but I wouldn't agree with it.

Cops do traffic stops constantly, so I'm certain he knew right off the bat if he was going to arrest, provided nothing else came up. Surely all the other stuff could be handled later, or if giving escourt, by other cops via computer/radio.

Hardly "punishment".

The punishment was killing the dog, with no sign of apathy. He could have done something, anything to help. Again, his complete lack of action shows intent.

More like depriving these folks of a benefit they thought they were entitled to get out of their lawbreaking behavior.

Says who? I'm certain they would have taken every fine in the book to save their dog.

But don't worry Mr. ACLU lawyer... if they choose to fight the ticket, which I doubt they will, they will get their day in court, and hopefully the judge, who does have lots of latitude in prescribing punishment, will order these la-la's to put in some community service in the local hospital where they can see what happens to people in high speed accidents first hand.

Excuse me, Mr. ACLU lawyer?
BTW, in most states if you pay the fine, that is an admission of guilt, and the ticket is the punishment. You can't recieve anything else, as that is double jeopordy. No doubt they will pay the ticket, and sue in civil. It'll look bad having admitted guilt, but their guilt isn't in question, it's the officers. Honestly they have the city/state(if it was a state trooper) by the balls. Oh, and proabably the officer's wife too.



No one is denying that the cop killed the dog?

[gdeangel]

Dog died of his illness. You have a long way to go to get causation to the officer. Nor is there ANY duty by this officer to be responsible for the safety of the dog. The dog is just, in lawyer speak, another chattel. Maybe to the humane society or "animal enforcement division", maybe then there is some duty to act (and they are funded, equipped and trained for that kind of work). But highway patrol has no duty to this dog... only to people, particularly those on the highway. There is no legitimate civil claim here. Just a strike suit to get a settlement from a city attorney who probably doesn't want PETA stirring up a lot of negative press.

I don't know what all that HUD stuff was about the police being "responsible" ... I was just trying to flush out what you were talking about. Honestly, even from your second post I still don't get it. So you, as an officer for HUD, are there to make sure that HUD, which is effectively guarantying the bank loan with federal money, doesn't get suckered... and somehow that means guarantying loans to pay of legal bills for running down somebody's pet? But only if there is a cop who ignored the dog, so that your borrower can make a defense that the cop did it? Forget double jeopardy, that's a long leap to actually saying the police are guilty in this situation that violates a little fundamental thing called due process. It just makes no sense to me on so many levels that I will just leave it ...

But would you agree that the ticket in this case really is meaningless? And if we are going to have "safe speed" laws, it is appropriate to enforce them in a meaningful way? People talk as though the individual driver is the person who should make the call about when breaking the law is appropriate. That's just not the way it works. Montana tried to do it that way, and, ironically, their law was held unconstitutional after being challenged by a motorist trying to get out of a ticket.

[TheProwler]

"This was not our finest hour," said San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams. "It was not handled right by our officer, but whether there was a violation of our policy that is subject to punishment, I don't know."

The article also stated: Gonzalez said he's been told the ticket will be dropped. I assume he was told this by someone in authority, like the Police Chief.

It is obvious that the police are admitting that they made mistakes.

Oh, darvlay, doesn't it feel good to just say what's on your mind instead of asking a bunch of questions? Doesn't it?

1. There is not enough information to draw any valid conclusions on whether the Officer acted out of spite or not;

Correct, but the statements made by the Police Chief indicate that he was in the wrong.

2. The article was poorly written and aimed towards getting emotional responses from readers;

Entirely wrong. It is written in a very matter-of-fact style.

3. Comparing a dog to a human in this scenario is illogical as laws and police procedures are not written by the Humane Society; and

The comparisons to humans are only to demonstrate how the speeding driver may have felt. Some people actually do love their pets.

4. A dog is no more "important" than a cat, a bird, or any other animal; and
5. A pet dog is no more "important" than a pet cat, pet bird, pet hamster, or any other companion animal.

To each his own. But to judge the importance of an animal by how you feel about animals is not relevant to how others may feel about an animal. It is very subjective.

I do not believe that people are more important than animals. Just because we are smarter and dominate them, that does not make us superior in a spiritual way. Man has done a lot of harm to this planet. Man has done a lot of harm to other men and to other species. I look at men and I see a lot of guilt. We believe in our own importance and we place our wants and needs above all others. We are selfish.

Two key points:

Risk Assessment: I see nothing in the article that points to poor risk assessment by the speeding driver in my opinion. Granted, I consider myself a good driver and, for me, driving 95 mph is not dangerous in and of itself.

Compassion. The article does give facts that would indicate that the cop showed a lack of compassion.

[gdeangel]

"This was not our finest hour," said San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams. "It was not handled right by our officer, but whether there was a violation of our policy that is subject to punishment, I don't know."

The article also stated: Gonzalez said he's been told the ticket will be dropped. I assume he was told this by someone in authority, like the Police Chief.

It is obvious that the police are admitting that they made mistakes.

Sad, but not surprising. I guess I did not read that part of the article. The intimidation power of the animal rights crowd is just too great for sure. How many PETA nut-jobs do you think this guy would be getting phone calls from if they didn't drop the ticket. America think about the message being sent here... if you're group is powerful enough and/or drums up public opinion, you can get special treatment. It's become our national mantra. More than a sick dog dying, which, admittedly, is saddening, the real pain comes at knowing how America's respect for justice and equality under the law have gone off the deep end.

[Grooveman2007]

Prowler, I don't give a damn if the driver felt that he was taking an assesed, controled risk himself by driving 95. If he were in his own little bubble-world where his actions couldn't harm others then he can do whatever he so pleases. However, no such world exists and he has absolutly NO right to arbitrarily increase the risk of those around him. In and of itself it may be safe for him to drive that fast, but he has no control over other variables. The cop didn't pull him over to protect him from himself, he pulled him over to protect the other motorists. And he did the right thing by doing so.

[TheProwler]

Hey, the bulk of society has agreed that we need these speed limits to keep our roads safe and that we need police officers to enforce these laws. Fine. It is the cop's job to pull these people over. Understood.

But he did not have to be a total, uncaring prick about the situation. There were some good suggestions put forth here such as escorting the couple and their dog to a vet. Or he could have allowed the passenger to leave with the car and take the dog to the vet.

I know you Americans generally drive a lot slower than us Canadians, so you might be a little unfamiliar with how well cars can be controlled as speeds around 95 mph. To state that driving 95 mph on a highway is *always* putting others in danger is wrong. Period. We don't know if there was any traffic. For all we know, the dude slowed way down when he was near other cars and then sped up once he was in the clear again.

I will admit that it is possible that the driver put others at risk. But there was no mention of other traffic. Your are making huge assumptions when you say he was putting others at risk.

And all that is really beside the point. The officer made a serious error. The response of the police department has nothing to do with PETA or anything like that - the police department could easily have put the "protecting the public" spin on things if they had a leg to stand on. I suspect they don't, so they are going to throw this asshole to the wolves, like he deserves.

[Smokingdude420]

The fact that he kept them for about 20 minutes is reason enough the cops did it out of spite. I've been pulled over for speeding many times and it doesn't take that long for them to run your info and write a ticket. The cop could have easily just escorted them to the vet and then wrote them the ticket there. That way they would have had to pay the ticket the dog could have had a better chance to live and the cops wouldn't have gotten in trouble or the ticket dropped.

[MeDeFe]

ok, first things first.

1. I think 150 km/h is a safe speed, I've done over 200 myself a few times (no I was not speeding), at least it's safe on European highways which tend to be rather straight and in good shape with no potholes or bumps and with a physical divider in the middle of the road so there's no risk of you getting into the wrong lane and in the way of the oncoming traffic. If the interstate 35 is really as bad as has been alleged in this thread, then 150 km/h is not safe at all, no matter what time of the day or how little traffic there is or how well the driver is able to concentrate on driving.


2. So far I've seen 2 of our dogs die, for the record: I was sad both times. I know from experience about thinking of dogs as family members. But even if one of our dogs suddenly started choking and throwing up and whatnot I would not drive at roughly 50% above the speed limit (as far as I found out, you're allowed to do 55-65 mph on US highways, they were doing 95). Not even if it was a human being would I drive that far above the limit, because I know that the risk of an accident and both me and the other one dying is too high. I know some roads around here where I might go 30% above if I have to, but definitely no more than that.


3. Was it right to keep them there that long? Average of 11 minutes when someone is pulled over, 20 for them, but: they had gone 50% above the allowed maximum speed, there was an imminent danger of them continuing speeding, the driver was probably in a quite agitated state. I think it's justifiable.


4. Would there have been alternatives? Sure, if the dog had survived it would probably have been pretty good for pr, too. But are police allowed to just go off like that every time someone comes along with a sick animal? I'm not sure how the American police force works in that respect, can someone enlighten me? Are policepersons who have (supposedly) been tasked with watching a certain portion of a highway and pulling over speeders allowed to leave their post to save a pet?


5. And as has been pointed out: At which animal do you draw the limit? Are you only allowed to speed for a dog? Or also a cat? A hamster? Goldfish? Personal feelings of the owner cannot count here, because there is no was you can measure them. Humans have been defined as more important because we're all one species, but if you start pushing the line, where will it end? Ant farms?

[Grooveman2007]

ok, first things first.

1. I think 150 km/h is a safe speed, I've done over 200 myself a few times (no I was not speeding), at least it's safe on European highways which tend to be rather straight and in good shape with no potholes or bumps and with a physical divider in the middle of the road so there's no risk of you getting into the wrong lane and in the way of the oncoming traffic. If the interstate 35 is really as bad as has been alleged in this thread, then 150 km/h is not safe at all, no matter what time of the day or how little traffic there is or how well the driver is able to concentrate on driving.


2. So far I've seen 2 of our dogs die, for the record: I was sad both times. I know from experience about thinking of dogs as family members. But even if one of our dogs suddenly started choking and throwing up and whatnot I would not drive at roughly 50% above the speed limit (as far as I found out, you're allowed to do 55-65 mph on US highways, they were doing 95). Not even if it was a human being would I drive that far above the limit, because I know that the risk of an accident and both me and the other one dying is too high. I know some roads around here where I might go 30% above if I have to, but definitely no more than that.


3. Was it right to keep them there that long? Average of 11 minutes when someone is pulled over, 20 for them, but: they had gone 50% above the allowed maximum speed, there was an imminent danger of them continuing speeding, the driver was probably in a quite agitated state. I think it's justifiable.


4. Would there have been alternatives? Sure, if the dog had survived it would probably have been pretty good for pr, too. But are police allowed to just go off like that every time someone comes along with a sick animal? I'm not sure how the American police force works in that respect, can someone enlighten me? Are policepersons who have (supposedly) been tasked with watching a certain portion of a highway and pulling over speeders allowed to leave their post to save a pet?


5. And as has been pointed out: At which animal do you draw the limit? Are you only allowed to speed for a dog? Or also a cat? A hamster? Goldfish? Personal feelings of the owner cannot count here, because there is no was you can measure them. Humans have been defined as more important because we're all one species, but if you start pushing the line, where will it end? Ant farms?

Oh my God. We Agree.

[black elk speaks]

hey. did anyone notice that the dog died within 20 minutes of the stop? i think the dog was a gonner from the get go. honestly, what, another 10 minutes or so to the hospital? check in? assessment? diagnosis? 20 minutes didn't matter much to this pooch.

i think that the officer made cold remarks. probably not a dog lover. but saving the dog's life is not cause for reckless driving. i personally feel bad for the people's loss, but the best thing that they could have done was be patient and let the the officer do his job. had they done that, they would have only been detained 10 minutes or so. maybe they could have made it long enough to watch fluffy pass away in the vets office. here is a thought. if the dog was that near death, they could have made the animal comfortable in his last minutes by loving him and being with him. instead he died virtually alone listening to his owners arguing with an officer in a highly stressful situation. thats a shame. we all live, we all have rights, and yes, we all die. tragic? maybe. maybe not. maybe the dog is better off now in whatever comes next.

farewell fluffy, farewell.

[Juan_Bottom]

Prowler, I don't give a damn if the driver felt that he was taking an assesed, controled risk himself by driving 95. If he were in his own little bubble-world where his actions couldn't harm others then he can do whatever he so pleases. However, no such world exists and he has absolutly NO right to arbitrarily increase the risk of those around him. In and of itself it may be safe for him to drive that fast, but he has no control over other variables. The cop didn't pull him over to protect him from himself, he pulled him over to protect the other motorists. And he did the right thing by doing so.

LOL, Wut?

Hear that firemen, and ambulance drivers, police!

No more arbitrarally going over the speed limit.

My point from before still stands. The officer killed the dog. Just because its not a person, doesn't mean he isn't responsible.

[black elk speaks]

Prowler, I don't give a damn if the driver felt that he was taking an assesed, controled risk himself by driving 95. If he were in his own little bubble-world where his actions couldn't harm others then he can do whatever he so pleases. However, no such world exists and he has absolutly NO right to arbitrarily increase the risk of those around him. In and of itself it may be safe for him to drive that fast, but he has no control over other variables. The cop didn't pull him over to protect him from himself, he pulled him over to protect the other motorists. And he did the right thing by doing so.

LOL, Wut?

Hear that firemen, and ambulance drivers, police!

No more arbitrarally going over the speed limit.

My point from before still stands. The officer killed the dog. Just because its not a person, doesn't mean he isn't responsible.

if the people hadn't been speeding, they never would have been detained in the first place.

say, whats with you. have you been oppressed? tell us about yourself and your hatred for authority?

[Juan_Bottom]

I am not saying anything about their detention! I'm saying something about the cop killing the dog.

[Grooveman2007]

I am not saying anything about their detention! I'm saying something about the cop killing the dog.

I think that a legitimate argument could be made that says they killed their dog by giving the officer a reason to pull them over.

[Juan_Bottom]

I am not saying anything about their detention! I'm saying something about the cop killing the dog.

I think that a legitimate argument could be made that says they killed their dog by giving the officer a reason to pull them over.

I disagreee. Sure they took a risk, but it was within the officers power to try and help the dog. They were pretty much powerless once pulled over, and at the officers mercy. Trouble is, he had none.
(unless it was a highway, and speeding isn't a felony there, then they coulda left)

[black elk speaks]

I am not saying anything about their detention! I'm saying something about the cop killing the dog.

thats funny, i thought the claim is that the detention is what killed the dog. my guess is that the dog was either at the end of its life, or they let the dog get into something that made it sick. the problem is that we don't know all the facts. maybe they poisoned the little fucker for eating the girlfriends shoes. then they pinned it on the cop so PeTA would like the cop for the, how did you put it? murder?

murder: n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

[Juan_Bottom]

Murder in my book.

especially with premeditated malice.

I believe I explained just how the cop showed intent.

[black elk speaks]

Murder in my book.

especially with premeditated malice.

I believe I explained just how the cop showed intent.

we aren't reading your book. its convoluted, boring and leaves out large quantities of important details. i see that you forgot to include the important part about murder specifically involving human beings.

[Nikolai]

1. If the cop was going to kill the dog, he could've just shot it. Probably would've been a better idea, frankly - put it out of its misery. But he didn't. What he did do was pull over a vehicle traveling at an unsafe speed. And while the duties of police officer do not include protecting and serving dogs, they do include protecting and serving people. I think it's safe to say that the cop did his job. Sure, he was callous about it. (I would've been a lot worse, frankly.) But he did his job. And for this, the police chief is apologizing? Oh, the joys of political correctness in our day...

2.

Prowler, I don't give a damn if the driver felt that he was taking an assesed, controled risk himself by driving 95. If he were in his own little bubble-world where his actions couldn't harm others then he can do whatever he so pleases. However, no such world exists and he has absolutly NO right to arbitrarily increase the risk of those around him. In and of itself it may be safe for him to drive that fast, but he has no control over other variables. The cop didn't pull him over to protect him from himself, he pulled him over to protect the other motorists. And he did the right thing by doing so.

LOL, Wut?

Hear that firemen, and ambulance drivers, police!

No more arbitrarally going over the speed limit.

My point from before still stands. The officer killed the dog. Just because its not a person, doesn't mean he isn't responsible.

First, firemen, ambulance drivers, and police are permitted to go over the speed limit because their decisions are not arbitrary. There are certain circumstances under which that is permitted, and certain circumstances under which it is not. So you are correct - no arbitrarily going over the speed limit. But they didn't do that legally anyway, so you're not adding anything. Give Grooveman credit for a good explanation. Second, assuming you are correct that the cop killed the dog... so? Are you honestly saying that you think that a dog's life has equivalent value to a human's? If a terrorist had your dog and your mother (or other dearly beloved relation, if that's a bad choice) hostage and said he would release one and kill the other, would you really tell the terrorist to send out the dog? C'mon.

[Grooveman2007]

I am not saying anything about their detention! I'm saying something about the cop killing the dog.

I think that a legitimate argument could be made that says they killed their dog by giving the officer a reason to pull them over.

I disagreee. Sure they took a risk, but it was within the officers power to try and help the dog. They were pretty much powerless once pulled over, and at the officers mercy. Trouble is, he had none.
(unless it was a highway, and speeding isn't a felony there, then they coulda left)

The best way to put is that even though the cop pounded the last nail into the coffen, the couple gave him the hammer.

[jonesthecurl]

This topic: sucked dry.

[TheProwler]

Everyone has stated his/her opinion.

That cop is a disgusting pig.


And the Thought Police are doing a fine job on this planet of ours. From USA to Britain, the clones are out in full force.

Must....obey....the law.

I'd put a bullet in any one of your brains to save one of my dogs. Nothing personal. They're my friends.

[Iliad]

Everyone has stated his/her opinion.

That cop is a disgusting pig.


And the Thought Police are doing a fine job on this planet of ours. From USA to Britain, the clones are out in full force.

Must....obey....the law.

I'd put a bullet in any one of your brains to save one of my dogs. Nothing personal. They're my friends.

Well you're a very sad person. I like animals and have several pets of my own but I won't even consider killing an actual person. Perhaps I might want to save my pets but I won't become a murderer while at it.


That cop could've saved those lives. How do you know they would not have flew out of control at 95 mph?

[TheProwler]

Well you're a very sad person.
...
That cop could've saved those lives. How do you know they would not have flew out of control at 95 mph?

This isn't Flame Wars. You should keep the personal insults out of Chatter Box.

This discussion has gone around in circles a few times already.

How do you know they would have flown out of control?

Why did the cop not just escort them to the vets?

Why did he make insensitive comments?

Why did people here assume that the driver went 95 mph when he was near other cars?

Why do you assume that I am talking about murder when I talking about putting a bullet in your brain?

Why did you not assume I was talking about justifiable homicide? Or should I say homocide?

Why didn't you laugh at that joke?

Why has a dog never been an axe murderer?

Why are some people axe murderers?

Why do you defend the axe murderers and create leash laws for the occasional fear biters?

Why do people think we own all the land on this planet?

Why do they make cars that go 95 mph if it is really so unsafe?

Why do you not understand that by being so callous the cop may have created two very upset citizens who now carry a deep sense of resentment for those in authority and may some day act out in a much more serious and harmful way?

Why are you unable to envision yourself in a position of helplessness like those people had to experience to understand that the cop overextended his authority and may have contributed to the death of the dog and, in doing so, deeply hurt two of the people he is supposed to be serving and protecting?

Why are you comfortable being controlled by the government at all levels in the name of "public safety"?

Why do so many people here ask questions instead of just stating their thoughts and ideas?

[hecter]

I wonder how many murders, or Iraqi civilians killed, or little girls raped have taken place while you guys argue about a dog whose fighting chance at surviving wasn't very good to begin with...