Police Allow Dog to Die

[TheProwler]

<a lot of things>

Lets keep it simple. It was never stated that the highway was busy or that there was any other car in sight when the couple was speeding. People were making assumptions that may be false.

The police officer could have made an effort to help save the dog which was very important to the two citizens of the United States that he was detaining for an extended period of time over a traffic violation.

The only thing we know for sure is the police officer did not act compassionately; in fact, he acted in a callous, unsympathetic, almost sadistic manner.

[TheProwler]

Up here, we have the sanctity of human life and the dangers of erratic driving affecting that human life . . .
.............
and down here is a dog's life value.

And here is the worth of some posters on CC
...
and down here are religious freaks

This story has nothing to do with erratic driving. I will say it again: 95 mph is not a dangerous speed for most modern vehicles. If the roads were relatively clear, nobody's well-being was greatly threatened.

Do you people really think driving 95 is that dangerous? You must lead very conservative lives.

[Curmudgeonx]

Prowler opined:

The only thing we know for sure is the police officer did not act compassionately; in fact, he acted in a callous, unsympathetic, almost sadistic manner.

Callous, unsympathetic - I agree

Sadistic - nah, he didn't know that the couple had a sick animal in the car when he pulled them over.

And I agree that 95 mph is not inherently an unsafe speed, but if someone was emotionally involved and distracted by the animal and its illness in the car, then I would suggest that 95 mph may be too fast for that person. When I personally hit that speed and higher, I am alone and focused on my driving, not dealing with a emotional distraught spouse, a whimpering sick dog, etc.

[Xayath]

While I can understand the points on each side i must state that the complaint side has done little to justify their claims independently of subjective emotion.

You're full of crap.
Have you read any of my, or TheProwlers posts?


And did you come to the conclusion that the dog would probably die anyway, so the officer did nothing wrong? Is that what I'm reading?

i stated that the officer did do something wrong. He did not treat the situation with the amount of respect it deserved.

I came to no conclusion on the health of the dog, i stated rather that there was little chance for an animal human or otherwise to survive asphixiation for longer than 5 minutes

i Have read all posts and my statement is that your justifications while well thought out only apply to emotional reasoning which while valid is not enough on its own to suffice as factual proof. While i do not believe there is as much of a difference between the life of a human and that of a dog, i.e. both must be respected, i cannot personally justify as much effort for my dog (and i have owned two) as for my sisters or my brother. I respect what you have said, but in order to agree with you i need proof outside that of an emotional responce to a incident. Yes a dog died. Yes an officer of the law acted without respect. As to wiether or not the detaining of the car was right, i merely say that the evidence cited is only emotional. Emotions while helpful can influence us to deviate from making good judgement calls. In this instance i will cite that had the motorist respected traffic laws he would have actually made better time even if not stopped by the police. Traffic lights are timed to the flow of traffic and are based on speed limits. if you travel the speed limit you are almost twice as likely to only hit green lights. Simply, all i ask is for calm presentation of factual events and based on the article there are few.
Allegedly 95
the motorist claims the dog died while detained
and so on

i am not saying you are wrong, i am saying you are not justified in claiming fact.

The Prowler wrote:
The only thing we know for sure is the police officer did not act compassionately; in fact, he acted in a callous, unsympathetic, almost sadistic manner.

sadistic is alittle excessive but other wise perfect and that alone being that is is all we know is what he should be punished for


and curm that wouldnt matter what he knew before hand, but i agree that sadistic does not apply

[black elk speaks]

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.

now there is a fine statement. you mean to say in defense of your dogs? because if you are simply saying that you would kill me, to say your dog form say, getting hit by a bus, then i would have to say that you should be locked up in a mental facility.

Yep, I'd rather have a stranger die than have one of my pets die...

Worlds overpopulated with people anyway... The dog and cat population were doing fine until we f'ed it up.

you are being sarcastic, i hope.

[TheProwler]

Prowler opined:

The only thing we know for sure is the police officer did not act compassionately; in fact, he acted in a callous, unsympathetic, almost sadistic manner.

Callous, unsympathetic - I agree

Sadistic - nah, he didn't know that the couple had a sick animal in the car when he pulled them over.

And I agree that 95 mph is not inherently an unsafe speed, but if someone was emotionally involved and distracted by the animal and its illness in the car, then I would suggest that 95 mph may be too fast for that person. When I personally hit that speed and higher, I am alone and focused on my driving, not dealing with a emotional distraught spouse, a whimpering sick dog, etc.

It was sadistic when the cop purposely made the couple wait, knowing that they were upset and getting more upset about their dying dog.

Some people are calm under pressure. We can't assume this dude was a basket case because his dog was dying. When one of my dogs had an accident and her eye was hanging by the optic nerve out of her head, my wife flipped. She stood there screaming. I was very concerned, but very calm. Granted this wasn't life or death, but I would react the same way if it was - and my wife would too. BTW, I drove.

[Juan_Bottom]

i Have read all posts and my statement is that your justifications while well thought out only apply to emotional reasoning

I never argued emotions. I argued that what the cop did was illegal. That's why they dismissed the ticket.

And I agree that 95 mph is not inherently an unsafe speed, but if someone was emotionally involved and distracted by the animal and its illness in the car, then I would suggest that 95 mph may be too fast for that person.

If the officer was detaining them for an extrenious amount of time because of their 'dangerous emotional state,' then he must have know that the dog was sick.

I do believe that the officer is more dangerous than he couple. He clearly abused his authority to teach them a lesson by killing their dog. Which, is a worst crime than speeding, morally and legally.

[wrestler1ump]

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...

Good point.

Now I must don my cape and venture into the seedy filth of the big city and fight these evil forces. Crime does not sleep - so there is no rest for super heroes like me!

WTF do you want me to do about it?

I don't know, I was just pointing out the fact that there a lot more pressing issues than the life of a dog.

There certainly are, but serial killers do not normally prey on dogs.

[Xayath]

just guessing that this is not an agree to disagree thing is it?

[TheProwler]

just guessing that this is not an agree to disagree thing is it?

No. It is "the other side" not understanding pure and simple logic.

[Curmudgeonx]

There certainly are, but serial killers do not normally prey on dogs.

Actually serial killers do prey on animals from an early age as it teaches them killing skills and reinforces the sociapathic behavior. Look it up.

[Xayath]

just guessing that this is not an agree to disagree thing is it?

No. It is "the other side" not understanding pure and simple logic.

I would have to wonder at that.

Neither side is using pure logic, however, you side tends to use more a priory based argumentation and theirs uses a posteri based arguementation. While neither are substaintive alone a priory is always at a disadvantage when arguing law vs. procedure.

Your side argues what should have happened. The other side argues concerning what happened. The two sides are arguing from two different time frames and that clouds the issue. So, while it seems that the other side is ignoring logic and reason, it is more a difference in what frame the incednet is seen.

Your side seems to assume that there is an issue of guilt implied and seeks to punish the guilty party.
The other side sees that an event happened and tries to reason out what motivated each party.

These are actually two different arguements which only seem to be opposite sides to a single arguement

At least that is what an outsider (myself) sees in what has been written.

I admit that i do not have enough knowledge to call my statements involate but i am rather confident in my statements thus far.

[strike wolf]

I think it's about time to put this thread to sleep.

[gdeangel]

I agree. I haven't said much of late since my view is stated pretty clearly above, but I want to just point out that someone has said here that they would have no problem shooting any one from this thread in the head to save his dog. I note also that this is the same person who, in FW regarding pedophiles, seemed to take the position that a pedophile has a right to life.

Those two contrasting positions say it all. There is a real problem with some people to appreciate the value of human life and respect for fellow man. An animal is a piece of property. Humane treatment of animals is meant to model the type of conduct that is required by people dealing with other people that is necessary for a civil society to function. I personally think that since the animal fanatics out there see things in almost the exact opposite terms (i.e., animals have something akin to a fundamental bill of rights), even though we can agree generally that humane treatment of animals is the way to go without question, and we might even agree that, eliminating all of the considerations that go into using a public resource for a private purpose, the extension of humane treatment in this story would be to have given an escort to the vet; however, you cannot eliminate those considerations. Nor can you eliminate the fact that the owner of this dog, like many here, was clearly someone putting the cart before the horse, more concerned with his pet than other people's safety, rule of law, and respect for the authority of law enforcement.

I personally like think such people are in the minority, but a vocal minority. And the day that such people give up their attempts to impose their own values as to what is basically a chattel on the rest of society (or go off and form their own society), or even in the individual case of trying to get someone fired or publicly shame them, it will be a great day for democracy. Perhaps from there we can get back the other elements of the human community spirit that have been flushed down the crapper by a world that is seemingly based on a "get all you can for yourself" model, that requires a willingness to cut your ties to friends and family and just go, that's why there are many people whose pets have become dearer to them than most of the people they know. Maybe that day will be the beginning of the end for "special interests" and freeing the hand of government to do what is needed to facilitate a successful society (I can say that - I'm a libertarian ).

And with that, I don't think there is anything more to say about this issue that hasn't been said above.

[Juan_Bottom]

I agree. I haven't said much of late since my view is stated pretty clearly above, but I want to just point out that someone has said here that they would have no problem shooting any one from this thread in the head to save his dog. I note also that this is the same person who, in FW regarding pedophiles, seemed to take the position that a pedophile has a right to life.

But if he had to choose between the pedophile, or the President and his dog, he'd pick his dog. They are completely different examples.

Humane treatment of animals is meant to model the type of conduct that is required by people dealing with other people that is necessary for a civil society to function.

But the cop killed the dog. And cops are judged by higher standards than the rest of us.

like many here, was clearly someone putting the cart before the horse, more concerned with his pet than other people's safety, rule of law, and respect for the authority of law enforcement.

We aren't agrgueing that he didn't. We are argueing that police do not have authority to kill pets.
I'm glad they were pulled over... the police were doing their job there, but that was the only thing I am glad about...

I personally like think such people are in the minority, but a vocal minority. And the day that such people give up their attempts to impose their own values as to what is basically a chattel on the rest of society (or go off and form their own society), or even in the individual case of trying to get someone fired or publicly shame them, it will be a great day for democracy.

Again, I'm no activist. In fact, I have no dog, he died a few years back. But I do have a ferret.... and 5 fish....
I have always been argueing that the cop killed a dog, a total abuse of power, and 'm certain that the publics trust in their local law enforcement has faultered as a result. But that's not the point...

[gdeangel]

Juan - You obviously were seriously concerned with the points I made in my post to pick it apart like that. Unfortunately, you have added nothing new to the discussion. I hope that people will read my post in its entirely. Your argument rests on a shaky leg of causation and a deliberate omission of the privileges, including the power to physically arrest individuals, albeit temporarily and informally, of a police officer enforcing the law and without regard for the safety and welfare of animals. I can understand your willful ignorance. It's the product of an ideal that the individual trumps all (i.e., let the individual decide when they are going too fast, or when the risk to others exceeds the benefit of getting an animal with a marginal chance of recovery to the vet 2 minutes faster) in which everything is apt to be characterized as a "right" derived from some "fundamental right", and therefore beyond reproach. Activist courts, both left and right, have gifted to us this way of thinking.

But if you were to put up for comment a law that changed the standards of police conduct to state that, in exercising authority, the police officer must also consider the welfare of animals, I stand behind my view that (1) the majority of people would consider it wrong if they thought about it enough, (2) the only reason such a law would ever pass is because of pressure by animal fanatics, and (3) the result of such a law would be to muddle up the standards by which police officers must conduct themselves that their ability to effectively respond real time to situations in the field would become even more unworkable than it already is.

[strike wolf]

*Stabs thread repeatedly*

Why won't you die?

Seriously this is the third or fourth time we've gone over this part of the debate. Nobody on either side is adding anything new, it's time for this thread to die.

[black elk speaks]

i think that if we could just kill juan, this thread would die too.

[Juan_Bottom]

You obviously were seriously concerned with the points I made in my post to pick it apart like that.

That doesn't mean I thought any of is was right. I take the Bible apart too.

Your argument rests on a shaky leg of causation and a deliberate omission of the privileges, including the power to physically arrest individuals, albeit temporarily and informally, of a police officer enforcing the law and without regard for the safety and welfare of animals.

I mentioned that if it was a highway the officer couldn't even detain them for 5 minutes, unless they had committed a felony. Also, you are ignoring the fact that this dog was killed by a cop. You are also ignoring the fact that the police made an informal apology, said the officer made a mistake, and dismissed the ticket. I have not once argued that the dogs life is more imortant than a humans. I have been saying that just because he is a cop doesn't mean he has authority to do whatever he wishes.

I can understand your willful ignorance.

About what? I feel this way about you. The cops apologized. They already lost the arguement, and dismissed the ticket to protect themselves in Civil.

It's the product of an ideal that the individual trumps all (i.e., let the individual decide when they are going too fast, or when the risk to others exceeds the benefit of getting an animal with a marginal chance of recovery to the vet 2 minutes faster) in which everything is apt to be characterized as a "right" derived from some "fundamental right", and therefore beyond reproach. Activist courts, both left and right, have gifted to us this way of thinking.

What? No!
It's the idea that just because you are a cop doesn't give you licence to do whatever you wish.

But if you were to put up for comment a law that changed the standards of police conduct to state that, in exercising authority, the police officer must also consider the welfare of animals,

He was in a position to consider the the welfare of the animal. That's the point. He had the power to(and was required to) help the dog.

the only reason such a law would ever pass is because of pressure by animal fanatics,

You're talking out of your butt. I don't know who you're addressing here. I am not an animal activist.

the result of such a law would be to muddle up the standards by which police officers must conduct themselves that their ability to effectively respond real time to situations in the field would become even more unworkable than it already is.

It's not entirely the responsiblity of police to police animals rights too. Let the ASPCA or whatever handle that. But that doesn't give police the authority to kill pets.

[pimpdave]

Do you people really think driving 95 is that dangerous? You must lead very conservative lives.

I take it you don't make your living as an actuary.


When the interstate highways were constructed in this country, they were designed to be able to travel at speeds as high as 100 - 120 mph. However, that design was intended for military convoys, should the USA ever be invaded. Also, the many long strips of straight pavement can serve as makeshift airstrips.

Point is, the highways were not designed to safely support individuals driving at those speeds, especially in congested areas. So, the speed limits were set as a matter of public safety.

The couple broke the law. They did so knowingly. Had they just driven a bit more conservatively, say just below 85mph, they probably could have gotten away with it. And they wouldn't have been delayed 20 minutes getting a ticket (and what the hell? How come it only takes 20 minutes to get a ticket in Texas? On the East coast, you can expect to wait AT LEAST 30 minutes before being released) and probably would have made it to the vet in time, or maybe not. The whole thing could have been an exercise in futility to begin with.

When I have to be somewhere at a certain time, and I'm worried about getting there on time, and I decide to speed, I don't let myself get to those speeds, because I KNOW getting pulled over is only going to ensure I'm late, and even more late than I would be speeding sensibly.

They shouldn't have been speeding. It's sad that the dog died, but this isn't a cut and dried "if/then" statement. There's no way of knowing that the dog would have lived long enough to receive treatment, or that the treatment would have even been effective.

I don't know why the ticket is being dropped. Probably just to appease the people who would rather murder a human than let a dying dog go to heaven.

And look, it's sad. The cop sounds like a dick. I've heard stories before about someone speeding due to extenuating circumstances, and getting an escort, or an offer to hop in the police cruiser to zip the rest of the way to the destination.

I think what I'm trying to get across here is that no one in this instance is innocent, and it's just a sad story. One of millions that happen every day, but don't get this much attention in this particular forum, or generate these kinds of emotional responses from those users that clearly have unresolved violent tendencies.

I love dogs, but if I'm going to break the law, regardless of the circumstances, I myself do so fully cognizant of the risks involved. If I hold myself to that standard, I don't find it unreasonable to hold others to it. Especially if I have to share the highway with them.

[Juan_Bottom]

They shouldn't have been speeding. It's sad that the dog died, but this isn't a cut and dried "if/then" statement. There's no way of knowing that the dog would have lived long enough to receive treatment, or that the treatment would have even been effective.

That's probalby, from a legal standpoint, moot. THe fact is that the cop denyed the dog treatment.

I don't know why the ticket is being dropped. Probably just to appease the people who would rather murder a human than let a dying dog go to heaven.

I think it's because the officer acted outside of his authority. So any money made on the ticket would be ill-gotten(in a very real legal sense, stolen). That would have subjected the station, state(?)/city(?), officer, and his wife open for a huge civil suit.

[black elk speaks]

They shouldn't have been speeding. It's sad that the dog died, but this isn't a cut and dried "if/then" statement. There's no way of knowing that the dog would have lived long enough to receive treatment, or that the treatment would have even been effective.

That's probalby, from a legal standpoint, moot. THe fact is that the cop denyed the dog treatment.

I don't know why the ticket is being dropped. Probably just to appease the people who would rather murder a human than let a dying dog go to heaven.

I think it's because the officer acted outside of his authority. So any money made on the ticket would be ill-gotten(in a very real legal sense, stolen). That would have subjected the station, state(?)/city(?), officer, and his wife open for a huge civil suit.

the officer did not act outside of his authority. you're just oblivious to the fact that the officer has no obligation to save the dog. especially in light of the fact that the RECKLESS driver was not rational enough to know that if he was speeding 20 miles over the speed limit that he might get pulled over, causing the death of his dog. everyone that thinks the cop did nothing wrong has already conceded that it was unkind of him to not make efforts to save the dog. can you compromise nothing?

[pimpdave]

They shouldn't have been speeding. It's sad that the dog died, but this isn't a cut and dried "if/then" statement. There's no way of knowing that the dog would have lived long enough to receive treatment, or that the treatment would have even been effective.

That's probalby, from a legal standpoint, moot. THe fact is that the cop denyed the dog treatment.

I don't know why the ticket is being dropped. Probably just to appease the people who would rather murder a human than let a dying dog go to heaven.

I think it's because the officer acted outside of his authority. So any money made on the ticket would be ill-gotten(in a very real legal sense, stolen). That would have subjected the station, state(?)/city(?), officer, and his wife open for a huge civil suit.

the officer did not act outside of his authority. you're just oblivious to the fact that the officer has no obligation to save the dog. especially in light of the fact that the RECKLESS driver was not rational enough to know that if he was speeding 20 miles over the speed limit that he might get pulled over, causing the death of his dog. everyone that thinks the cop did nothing wrong has already conceded that it was unkind of him to not make efforts to save the dog. can you compromise nothing?

Well, to that I would say that had I been that cop, I would have rushed it to the clinic. I also probably would have been saddened when it died on the way, or died anyway. But I tend to be fatalistic in things, despite my futile attempts to do good things in this life.

Juan has valid point. I didn't see it that way, and considering my ignorance of the law in such matters, should probably just stay out of this thread entirely. Thanks for pointing that out Juan, I can see your perspective, but since I don't know the standard of conduct expected by that particular police department, or how the law in general even applies, I can't really offer an opinion on it.

I guess this is why we have a court system. To address grievances...

[Juan_Bottom]

I will not concede that the officer was not responsible for the dogs death. Which, the police seem to have conceded. Why would I need to?

That's my only point, and what I feel this whole argument boils down to. 'Does an officer have the authority to deny treatment to the dog?' No.
Once the stop was made any danger of the speeders was over. And BTW, speeding is a lesser crime than killing a pet, I do believe.

causing the death of his dog.

He took responsability and pulled over. But he did not cause the death of his dog.

And BTW n00b, if you ever say anything like "kill Juan" again, I'll make it my personal mission to see to it that you never win another CC game again. Weather you only play singles on one map or not. Don't you come onto my favorite site demanding respect.

[Juan_Bottom]

or how the law in general even applies, I can't really offer an opinion on it.

Any time that any officer breaks a law while arresting, detaining writing citations or whatever, they are no longer acting as a legal authority. They are still cops(usually) but can face prosecution later for their actions. So any tickets they write, or monies collected are in a legal sense, stolen(since they acted outside of the law).
If the cop is married, and his wife helps him spend his paycheck, she then becomes an accessory, and is open for prosecution herself. Crazy, I know.... but awesome when you're trying to get payback....