• gramathy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re jealous, dogs actually protect and serve

      • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, if jealous they’d try it themselves. Nah, this is the guy who does a mediocre job, then thinks the people who actually do it well are just doing it to make him look bad.

    • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/jun/16/doj-police-shooting-family-dogs-has-become-epidemic/

      I believe the DOJ report is linked somewhere in that article, if not I’ll dig it up if requested.

      Cops in this country kill so many dogs each year that a specialist at the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) community-oriented program services office says it has become an “epidemic.” The DOJ estimates that around 25 to 30 dogs are killed by cops every day, with some numbers as high as 10,000 per year. The totals could, in fact, be higher, since most police agencies do not formally track officer-involved shootings involving animals.

        • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          My first reaction to that final quoted sentence is “well they are callous with human life, why wouldn’t they be with a dog?”

          But my second reaction is, “Don’t they have to account for every on-duty weapon discharge??” You’d think putting “shot dog” as the reason you fired your weapon would be trackable.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It also implies that the same cop has killed a dog more than once. Which would get you fired in pretty much any other situation. But of course, cops are always immune from that sort of thing.

          • MightEnlightenYou@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, they don’t have to account for every discharge, in fact no one in the US has any idea how many times police fire their weapons.

        • bedrooms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I believe in most countries that number is close to zero. No way majority of the 10,000 dogs are life-threatening, and yet the US police disagree and shoot. Tells so much about US police’s justification on shooting at people.

      • Instigate@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        10,000 dogs per year and yet we still don’t have a real-life John Wick bringing down the Police mafia. Damn.

    • Ibaudia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not about logic, it’s about being forced to submit to authority under threat of death. Some people think that system makes them safer, because they don’t believe it will ever be used against them.

    • Sightline
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Both cops and military are taught you can shoot someone running away if you reasonably believe they will harm others.

      • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        this is so far from the truth. stfu about shit you know nothing about. shooting at a fleeing ‘suspect’ or ‘combatant’ is a big no no.

        • Sightline
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          1.5.7. Escape. Deadly force is authorized when it appears necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner, provided there is probable cause to believe such person(s) committed or attempted to commit a serious offense, that is, one that involves immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, and would pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to DoD forces or others in the vicinity. Source: AFI 31-117

          Here’s the DoE’s version:

          (5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

      • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Downvoted for being right despite the people below not understanding hors de combat.

        Fleeing does not mean surrender. Being injured enough to not be able to fight, essentially unconscious is another. You can also shoot someone if you reasonably believe they’re commiting perfidy. These are protected by the Geneva convention and war crimes themselves.

        https://lieber.westpoint.edu/down-not-always-out-hors-de-combat-close-fight/

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy

        https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule47

          • Sightline
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            1.5.7. Escape. Deadly force is authorized when it appears necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner, provided there is probable cause to believe such person(s) committed or attempted to commit a serious offense, that is, one that involves immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, and would pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to DoD forces or others in the vicinity. Source: AFI 31-117

            Here’s the DoE’s version:

            (5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

            I have multiple DD-214’s FYI.

    • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you’re running away to plan on killing or seriously harm more people, then yes lol.

      Also half the reason the law works is due to fear of injury or isolation. It’s the underlying threat to every law and social norm for humanity.

      Edit: and let’s not kid that isolation isn’t just physical harm lol.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        K, but that’s not what we are talking about here. These aren’t just people that are out to hurt others. Nobody has a problem with police officers dealing people that are a danger because they’re shooting at people.

  • some pirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    -The agent shoot an innocent suspect

    Judge: who cares lmao

    -He killed the dog too

    Judge: this is unacceptable, take their badge

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      its weird because I thought shooting dogs was literally why people join police gangs like the fbi

  • iBaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    “ The other involved an agent in California who fatally shot a family dog that he said bit him during a “family dispute” while he was off duty; he got a five-day suspension.”

    Wait, he killed his own dog? Psycho.