Dog Dies While Cop Detains Owner

manic111 said:
.....
Click to expand...
It is disgusting as far as I'm concerned.

Watching the video knowing what's going on, maybe it's obvious to us that the driver is simply distressed. So lets give them the benefit of the doubt and say they have to be cautious at first, even so they look in the vehicle almsot immediately and would have to be retarded to not see what was going on (Unless he thinks the dog is faking it? :rolleyes:).

Does his lecture really have to be given at that very moment in time? Either he's an arrogant ****** and doesn't give a ****, or he's too stupid to think clearly and make such obvious decisions under pressure. Whichever it is, I don't think people like that have any business being in the police force.
 
wedgie said:
It is disgusting as far as I'm concerned.

Watching the video knowing what's going on, maybe it's obvious to us that the driver is simply distressed. So lets give them the benefit of the doubt and say they have to be cautious at first, even so they look in the vehicle almsot immediately and would have to be retarded to not see what was going on (Unless he thinks the dog is faking it? :rolleyes:).

Does his lecture really have to be given at that very moment in time? Either he's an arrogant ****** and doesn't give a ****, or he's too stupid to think clearly and make such obvious decisions under pressure. Whichever it is, I don't think people like that have any business being in the police force.
Click to expand...

That's where the insensitive/thoughtless part comes in. If you consider it to be disgusting behaviour, fair enough-that's just a difference of opinion. But like I say, I don't think that it would be fair on the cop to punish him, and certainly not to sue him.
 
The cop did right, the guy was in no state to drive with his panicking. The cop could have dealt with it a bit better (i.e. less rude) but what he said was true though. The guy could have risked other drivers.
 
manic111 said:
That's where the insensitive/thoughtless part comes in. If you consider it to be disgusting behaviour, fair enough-that's just a difference of opinion. But like I say, I don't think that it would be fair on the cop to punish him, and certainly not to sue him.
Click to expand...
Would you still class it as insensetive if the only thing different about the situation was that it was a person choking?
 
I'm afraid so. It would be considerably more insensitive, perhaps, and I would probably argue that the cop would deserve to be punished if it was a human choking, but that is more down to the law than anything; if you kill a dog, directly or indirectly, the law (correctly or otherwise) says that this is less bad than killing a human.

If there had been a choking human, it would again have been insensitive, but this time, it would have been far more punishable.
 
Don't you expect more from the people trusted with upholding the law? This is really the best you expect from them?

You have a right to expect the police to be able to make the correct decisions, the very fact that they are officers at all should mean they have already been deemed able.

Common sense should be something we all have.

No we shouldn't all go racing around and expect not to get pulled, but extreme circumstances do sometimes happen. Of anyone it's police that should understand this.
 
wedgie said:
Don't you expect more from the people trusted with upholding the law? This is really the best you expect from them?

You have a right to expect the police to be able to make the correct decisions, the very fact that they are officers at all should mean they have already been deemed able.

Common sense should be something we all have.

No we shouldn't all go racing around and expect not to get pulled, but extreme circumstances do sometimes happen. Of anyone it's police that should understand this.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you something: what if the situation had been the same, but the driver had been drunk?

Personally, I would say that the officer would be well within his rights to stop the drunk driver driving anywhere.

Now lets ask why drunk drivers get pulled over: is it simply because being drunk is wrong? No, it is because driving drunk is dangerous and causes you to act irrationally.

The policeman spent the vast majority of that video trying to calm the guy down. When he asked for the guy's license, he was given the wrong thing. The man in question acted irrationally, and in a way that suggested that he was in no fit state to drive - just like he would be if he was drunk.

At the very least, the officer had to calm the guy down before allowing him to drive again. He was certainly not calm enough to drive by the end of the video, and calming him down would have taken a good while. Yes, the policeman could have been more tactful, but I have already condemned him for being thoughtless and so I think that this fits in there.

In an ideal world the officer would have taken the dog to the vets in his own car. Again, not doing so was thoughtless, and he will probably end up in all sorts of hot water because of this.
 
May well have been easier if he was obviously drunk, may just be a case of detaining him to be dealt with later, then getting the dog to the vets.

I think I'd expect the officer to realise what was going on fairly quickly, then make the obvious decision that there is a more pressing matter to be dealt with. Stick the driver in the back of the police car and deal with him later if he's so unhappy with his driving.

There's any number of ways of dealing with things that make more sense than how it turned out. As the person in control of the situation I would have to hold the police officer to account.

This is just one of those occasions that falls within the shades of grey, sadly the police dealt with it as if it was black and white.
 
I agree with you, and that is a massive flaw in the legal, and policing system; unfortunately over the last 3000 years or so it is probably the best that we have come up with!

Shades of grey are surprisingly difficult to deal with in terms of making a law to deal with them; it will always end up being black and white, and there will always be a situation which makes people question whatever lines have been drawn.

However, taking into account the black and white laws by which the officer must guide himself, I believe that he did the right thing (but perhaps in the wrong way). Yes, in an ideal world it would have gone differently, but it didn't, and the officer should not be punished. Maybe the system, but not the officer.

I don't think that our views are that far apart, but unfortunately we seem to fall either side of the black/white line!
 
manic111 said:
I agree with you, and that is a massive flaw in the legal, and policing system; unfortunately over the last 3000 years or so it is probably the best that we have come up with!

Shades of grey are surprisingly difficult to deal with in terms of making a law to deal with them; it will always end up being black and white, and there will always be a situation which makes people question whatever lines have been drawn.

However, taking into account the black and white laws by which the officer must guide himself, I believe that he did the right thing (but perhaps in the wrong way). Yes, in an ideal world it would have gone differently, but it didn't, and the officer should not be punished. Maybe the system, but not the officer.

I don't think that our views are that far apart, but unfortunately we seem to fall either side of the black/white line!
Click to expand...
I don't think we are far apart, I'm certainly not sure anything along the lines of legal action should be taken against the police. When I say I would hold them responsible, I just mean I would have to hold that officer personally responsible, I don't know if I would be thinking in legal terms.
 
Personaly i would take the guy to court and try to get every penny i can from him. His actions caused the death of an animal that could have been prevented, or at the very least something could have been done to ease the dogs suffering.
 
Dist said:
Personaly i would take the guy to court and try to get every penny i can from him. His actions caused the death of an animal that could have been prevented, or at the very least something could have been done to ease the dogs suffering.
Click to expand...

By guy I assume you mean the owner of the dog?

As if he'd followed the speed limit, he may have got there on time.


As it it he broke the speed limit, and personally i but the lives of humans ahead of a dogs.
 
Tefal said:
By guy I assume you mean the owner of the dog?

As if he'd followed the speed limit, he may have got there on time.


As it it he broke the speed limit, and personally i but the lives of humans ahead of a dogs.
Click to expand...
Are you saying he was driving dangerously as well as speeding, or just assuming they mean the same?

If necessary then put him in the back of the police van and throw the book at him later, is it really beyond the realms of possibility to prioritize one over the other yet still deal with both?

Why does whatever action that is to be taken have to be done at that exact time at the expense of a life?
 
wedgie said:
Are you saying he was driving dangerously as well as speeding, or just assuming they mean the same?

If necessary then put him in the back of the police van and throw the book at him later, is it really beyond the realms of possibility to prioritize one over the other yet still deal with both?

Why does whatever action that is to be taken have to be done at that exact time at the expense of a life?
Click to expand...

Because speeding = dead people. No doubt about it. There would be corpses all the way to the vetinary surgury. fool!
 
Kami said:
You cannot speed like that, it's a difficult position for the cop to be put into but ultimately the preservation of human life is far more important than 1 dog. Although I'd personally find it heartbreaking, glad I didn't have to decide.
Click to expand...

No. A dogs life is absolutely equal to a humans life. Given the choice of saving my own dog or another human I would save my dog purely from a selfish piint of view. The inverse is also true, I would save one of my own family an not a strangers dogs given the black and white choice.
 
DampCat said:
Because speeding = dead people. No doubt about it. There would be corpses all the way to the vetinary surgury. fool!
Click to expand...

Come on... Look at the guy in the video, can you honestly say you'd feel safe having him tear up behind you at 100mph in his state?

I'm astounded by some of the views in this topic, I wouldn't be surprised if people called for the cop to be charged with murder and given 'the chair'...
I feel some are already painting him as a child murderer given the, 'if it was a dying child would he have done the same? Hmm...' comments...

How easy it is for everyone to judge the situation and know 100% what was going through the heads of those involved, despite none of us being there and just watching an online video with the full story provided to us...
I just don't know what sort of system people expect them to run?

ITS OUTRAGEOUS THAT THE POLICE DIDNT PROVIDE A FULL CONVOY TO HELP THE DOG GET TO THE VET!!! HOW DARE THEY!!! THEY COULD HAVE JUST GIVEN THE MAN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND LET HIM CARRY ON DRIVING!!
 
wedgie said:
Are you saying he was driving dangerously as well as speeding, or just assuming they mean the same?
Click to expand...

they are, if someone runs out and he hits them at that speed thats it end of the road for the victim.

If someone else does somthing unexpected or he ahs a blow out and numerus other things happen, hes not trained to drive at 100mph (and not in that state) so could make a stupid desiscion, crash take soemone else out.

There are speed limits for a reason.
 
ITS OUTRAGEOUS THAT THE POLICE DIDNT PROVIDE A FULL CONVOY TO HELP THE DOG GET TO THE VET!!! HOW DARE THEY!!! THEY COULD HAVE JUST GIVEN THE MAN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND LET HIM CARRY ON DRIVING!!
Click to expand...

Well the cop has been reprimanded in the states and critised by his commanding officer!

It's America....
 
Thunderbirdz said:
I wouldn't have stopped. The life of my dog is more important than a speeding offence. And speeding does not equal killing people, how stupid can you be.
Click to expand...

I don't know, how stupid can you be? When he's crying and paniced, he's not in a fit state to drive at those speeds... Accidents occasionally happen, although since this guy is a dog owner he's clearly the safest driver in the world... *cough*

Funnily enough, I imagine it's more fitting for the police to stop a potentially dangerous driver than rescue a dying animal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom