Utah officer shoots dog
-
/.ㅤ — 1 year ago(March 26, 2025 05:23 AM)
That's ****ed up but the dog was super out of control and it's the owner's fault entirely. The owner also had a **** load of opportunities to regain control of the dog.
The owner gave control of the dog to someone else? Why????? The dog didn't seem to trust that person much at all and that person has no idea how to restrain a dog.
These were ghetto trash ******* hanging out at a corner store like crack dealers. That was a poorly trained dog with a ****ty leash and a retard handler.
Can the cops just walk away when there's an aggressive dog that bit one officer, then broke off it's leash and is running around in public now? No.
The cop should have shot the owner too, but alas there is no such thing as true justice.
My password is password. -
P.Error — 1 year ago(March 26, 2025 05:44 AM)
That's ****ed up but the dog was super out of control and it's the owner's fault entirely. The owner also had a **** load of opportunities to regain control of the dog.
It's the guardian's reckless mistake for allowing his dog with that behavior to be in a vulnerable position where he could be shot. There's no doubt about that.
But it's the officer's fault for shooting the dog. Moreso.
Can the cops just walk away when there's an aggressive dog that bit one officer, then broke off it's leash and is running around in public now?
They should, yes.
Dogs are there to protect you from all intruders. That includes cops. It's unfair for cops to bypass this by simply shooting the dog - and being allowed to - if said dog is a deterrent impeding their arrest.
What I vehemently hate about the law so much is that it's manipulated and tweaked in such a way to unfairly benefit authorities and not the criminal for purposes of convenience.
For example, a man was serving one "life sentence" in prison. He appeared to have a stroke and was was pronounced dead by a medic there. He was taken to a hospital where he was revived.
Naturally, he found a loophole that should be sound. He was declared DEAD by a doctor which objectively means
one life sentence
has been served. He was revived which is a second life. But, the Supreme Court would then rule on this and say if you are declared dead and then revived, you still have to serve your original life sentence.
There's no way this ruling naturally makes sense other than
We don't like criminals having loopholes, so we're going to unnaturally cover those bases.
A dog attacking is just that - a loophole to prevent one's arrest. But, the law covers that too. They say an officer can just easily shoot the dog attacking him. It's bullocks.
Never lose your desire. -
/.ㅤ — 1 year ago(March 26, 2025 06:57 AM)
You're going to risk injury or death in a scuffle with belligerent police who already shot your dog, but you're scared to post where you live on a board with 20 people?
Thanks for playing.
My password is password.