[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: No charges to be filed in New Year’s Eve dog shooting in Taylor
Source: The News Herald
URL Source: http://www.thenewsherald.com/news/n ... 02-54b4-865c-5d7582dae614.html
Published: Jan 3, 2017
Author: Dave Herndon
Post Date: 2017-04-23 15:13:47 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 1879
Comments: 9

After an investigation into a shooting involving a 43-year-old resident and a loose dog, the Taylor police have determined there won’t be any charges filed against the man.

Police say the man was acting in self defense when he opened fire on the dog at about 11:30 a.m. Dec. 31.

Police, and Animal Control were called to the 22000 block of Mary Street to investigate the shooting.

The man told them that he saw two dogs in his yard as he was trying to go to his car. He said he tried to backtrack into the house when one of the dogs started to charge at him. The dog was aggressive, showing its teeth and growling. When he realized he couldn’t get back to the house before the dog would be near enough to bite him, he pulled out his handgun and fired a single shot at the dog.

The gun was legally registered.

After the shooting the man called police himself to report what happened.

Officers arrived and found the man shaken and crying.

The dog’s owner arrived shortly after. Apparently, a neighbor knew the dog and its 31- year-old owner and called her to the scene. Neighbors helped the woman load the dog in her car so she could take it to a local emergency vet.

The dog lived, and was expected to make a recovery. It was scheduled for surgery to remove a damaged eye Jan. 2.

Witnesses told police that the dogs had been loose in the neighborhood for at least an hour before the shooting.

The man at a neighboring house told police that prior to the shooting, the same dogs had come to his yard barking and growling at him and his dogs, which were fenced in his yard.

That man’s wife had gone to the store, so he kept an eye on the yard to make sure everything was ok for when she got home. He did not see the actual shooting though.

According to city records, Animal Control officers had previously warned the owners of the two pit bulls in question regarding the dogs getting out of their yard on more than one occasion.

The dogs reside at a home on Brian Street.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Gatlin, Justified (#0)

Witnesses told police that the dogs had been loose in the neighborhood for at least an hour before the shooting.

The woman should be charged for public endangerment and never allowed to own dogs again.

A few months in prison would be appropriate. This man was in serious danger as a result of her neglect.

According to city records, Animal Control officers had previously warned the owners of the two pit bulls in question regarding the dogs getting out of their yard on more than one occasion.

Well, well, well... Yet another "escape". How does this happen so routinely in so many of these stories?

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-04-23   15:24:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Tooconservative, Gatlin (#1)

Pit stories keep adding up. Its the breed not the training. The training can lesson the issue but it still can not remove the natural state of the dog which is to attack and kill with out fear or reason.

I think it was last year when I looked up the statics on dog mauling's and pits were like 80% of dog mauling's. Which is more than all other dog breeds combined.

Justified  posted on  2017-04-23   16:56:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Justified (#2)

Pit stories keep adding up. Its the breed not the training.

It may be the case that there is a certain instability in the breed making it, say, 10% more likely to attack indiscriminately without warning. So that would account for the greater number of pit bull attacks but it would merely mean that dogs of that breed are statistically more likely to cause trouble. And the other 90% would be stable dogs. But if we can't tell the difference and weed out this hypothetical difference, then all of them have to be considered potentially dangerous.

I guess my point is that not all pit bulls have to be dangerous for pit bulls to be a dangerous breed. It's almost beside the point. Even if 90% of all pit bulls were harmless (and perhaps they are), that fact would not help the victims of ongoing pit bull attacks or give us any more confidence that pit bulls are a safe dog breed.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-04-23   17:03:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Tooconservative (#3)

Not all pitbulls are super aggressive. Some have it trained or beaten out of them. But they are so far worst than other dogs that its becoming an epidemic. Where labs use to be the choice of people to own a dog now its becoming pit mixes which have shown to be unstable for human pet. I believe they are but 7% of the dog populations but cause like 70% of the problems. In this I say they must be insured for liability of damages and owners be held responsible for any damage done with prison time.

Justified  posted on  2017-04-23   17:11:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Tooconservative, Justified (#3) (Edited)

It may be the case that there is a certain instability in the breed making it, say, 10% more likely to attack indiscriminately without warning. So that would account for the greater number of pit bull attacks but it would merely mean that dogs of that breed are statistically more likely to cause trouble. And the other 90% would be stable dogs. But if we can't tell the difference and weed out this hypothetical difference, then all of them have to be considered potentially dangerous.
That’s good rational and exactly the same rational Deckard uses when considering that “1% of law enforcement officers (LEOs) are bad” and “the other 99% would be good LEOs . But if he can’t tell the difference and weed out the bad ones, then all of them have to be considered potentially dangerous. C'est ça - [Am I right]?

Where do I get the 1%. Statistics show less than 1 percent of LEOs run afoul of the law. “We’re finding the numbers are pretty constant,” said Neal Trautman, executive director of the National Institute of Ethics and author of How to be a Great Cop.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-04-23   18:09:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Gatlin (#5) (Edited)

That’s good rational and exactly the same rational Deckard uses when considering that “1% of law enforcement officers (LEOs) are bad” and “the other 99% would be good LEOs . But if he can’t tell the difference and weed out the bad ones, then all of them have to be considered potentially dangerous. C'est ça - [Am I right]?

He has a certain point with some of them, like the one who killed the old librarian. Some of them are almost serial killers. Some are known to be rapists and child molesters.

I know you think Deckard is posting every last case here on LF but I know he posts only a tiny fraction. He doesn't often post the rape or drug or corruption or child molesting articles. But he could put a dozen a day in our sidebar and never run out. There is a lot of police abuse in this country, plain and simple.

Where do I get the 1%. Statistics show less than 1 percent of LEOs run afoul of the law. “We’re finding the numbers are pretty constant,” said Neal Trautman, executive director of the National Institute of Ethics and author of How to be a Great Cop.

You find almost exactly the same claims made for the numbers of priests who molest children.

Should I assume that you are satisfied that the risk is small so no one needs to do anything? Or that maybe we just shouldn't prosecute them at all, which is often the stance you take with some pretty lousy cops?

It's easy for me to be highhanded about this since my position is consistent with regard to prosecuting both.

When we give trusted professions so much power and so much access, we should expect a lot more of them, not a lot less.

And a dog is just a dog. None of that applies to them. Dangerous dogs should be destroyed. If breeds are unstable, we should put an end to them, with much the same attitude we have toward people keeping wolves or wolf/dog hybrids as pets.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-04-23   18:27:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Justified (#4)

But they are so far worst than other dogs that its becoming an epidemic.

I am satisfied that they should be declared undomesticable. Too many members of the breed can be unpredictably and suddenly violent. And they are capable of extremely fierce and dangerous attacks, even against a large physically capable man.

I think Ottawa/Toronto were right to ban them. And the Quebecois are following suit.

They require all pits to be neutered and, if in public, on a leash with a muzzle. And no bringing any new pit bulls into the Ottawa province. Even so, after 10 years, Toronto is only down to 20% of the number of pits that they had when the ban started around 2006. We'll have to see if the numbers decline further.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-04-23   18:32:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Tooconservative (#6) (Edited)

That’s good rational and exactly the same rational Deckard uses when considering that “1% of law enforcement officers (LEOs) are bad” and “the other 99% would be good LEOs . But if he can’t tell the difference and weed out the bad ones, then all of them have to be considered potentially dangerous. C'est ça - [Am I right]?

He has a certain point with some of them, like the one who killed the old librarian. Some of them are almost serial killers. Some are known to be rapists and child molesters.

Yes, he does have a point on that one and you are correct about others. But they are the bad 1%. There always will be the bad 1% in law enforcement….just as there are in all professions. You will never get rid of the 1%. The 1% [varying at times of course] has always been there since the inception of law enforcement. Oh, of course you should continue to expose and purge the 1% bad LEOs. But there will always be different ones turning bad to replace them or new ones coming into the profession to replace them. It will not, and it cannot change. It has to be an acceptable thing that should be worked on to keep it minimized. There will never be a cadre of 100% letter perfect officers in law enforcement nationwide. It is a statistical impossibility.
I know you think Deckard is posting every last case here on LF but I know he posts only a tiny fraction. He doesn't often post the rape or drug or corruption or child molesting articles. But he could put a dozen a day in our sidebar and never run out. There is a lot of police abuse in this country, plain and simple.
A dozen day would be nothing. Oh, it would look impressive to the ignorant and uninformed, but given an intelligent and logical consideration….it would be nothing when considering relativity. The last I read is there are “more than 900,000 sworn LEOs now serving in the United States. That means the bad 1% of LEOs total 9,000 LEOs. But of course not all of the bad 1% will do something wrong each day. So, just for sake of discussion. that 1% of the 9,000 bad LEOs do something wrong each day….that is a total of 90 bad LEOs doing bad each day. That means out of the 900,000 LEOs. if he posted 90 articles in the side bar of bad LEOs that do terrible things that day….that would be only that would .000001% of the total 900,000 LEOs serving in the U.S. [Lots of zeros there, I hope I got the right number….I think I did].

Now if Deckard, or you, posted in the side bar each day that 90 LEOs did something wrong, the unintelligent and uninformed would automatically think….OMG, we are doomed and our LE is going to Hell in a handbasket. But what would those same folks think if Deckard, or you, posted in the side bar each day that .000001% of the LEOs did something wrong. They probably would react with a …ho hum. And if you posted in the side bar each day that 9 LEOs did something wrong and stated that was only 0000001% of the total LEOs….what do you think their reaction would be?

Do you think you can post 9 articles every day where different LEOs violated procedures, broke a law or did something the public objectively perceived as wrong?

Where do I get the 1%. Statistics show less than 1 percent of LEOs run afoul of the law. “We’re finding the numbers are pretty constant,” said Neal Trautman, executive director of the National Institute of Ethics and author of How to be a Great Cop.

You find almost exactly the same claims made for the numbers of priests who molest children.

Yes.
Should I assume that you are satisfied that the risk is small so no one needs to do anything? Or that maybe we just shouldn't prosecute them at all, which is often the stance you take with some pretty lousy cops?
No, that is a wrong assumption. Yes, the risk is small and I firmly believe it will never be made any smaller than the 1%. Of course I would like for it to be….but in reality, it can not be.

I definitely do not feel that no one needs to do anything. I feel the bad LEOs should be ferreted out. If it is a minor offense [however that may be defined]. then I feel they should be retrained and returned to duty. If it is a major offense [again however that may be defined] then I believe they should be fired….and if the offense was an unlawful one, they should be prosecuted. I have never, never taken the stance that lousy cops should not be prosecuted. I will never do that. If you read it that way, I either did not state my position clearly [for which I now apologize] or you read it the wrong way.

What I do, and I am usually given a hard time for doing it….is to strive for justice for the accused LEO and fight to see that the LEO is not convicted in the court of LF opinion by some trashy fake news, yellow journalism article or Deckard’s hate all cops postings which are biased against the LEO from the beginning.

It's easy for me to be highhanded about this since my position is consistent with regard to prosecuting both.
Both? I miss the “both” part. I looked back and I cannot reference “both.” We have covered so much, that it may be staring me in the face and I still cannot see it. Anyway, I will press on.

When there is ample evidence to prosecute, then I am with you. But when have you last seen an article posted by Deckard where ample evidence was presented in the article to form a solid basis for prosecution? I don’t recall one….maybe you do. Oh, I continually see lots of conjectures, spins and personal opinions….but those don’t count.

When we give trusted professions so much power and so much access, we should expect a lot more of them, not a lot less.
Absolutely….”just like American mom and apple pie.” When has anyone expected less? Not I.
And a dog is just a dog. None of that applies to them. Dangerous dogs should be destroyed. If breeds are unstable, we should put an end to them, with much the same attitude we have toward people keeping wolves or wolf/dog hybrids as pets.
Agree.

In closing, I had to come back to this …

There is a lot of police abuse in this country, plain and simple.
Wrong….DEFINITELY wrong.

There are a lot of perceptions as to the police abuse in this country. And a lot of those perceptions have been wrongly created intentionally by different people for varied reasons….that is even more plain and simple, if you objectively place everything in proper perspective.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-04-24   0:11:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Tooconservative (#8)

It's easy for me to be highhanded about this since my position is consistent with regard to prosecuting both.

Both? I miss the “both” part. I looked back and I cannot reference “both.” We have covered so much, that it may be staring me in the face and I still cannot see it. Anyway, I will press on.

Okay, I do see the “both.” I wasn’t tying priests to cops….I was trying to tie cops to cops.

I agree with you.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-04-24   2:03:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com