Police Allow Dog to Die

[black elk speaks]

in point one, you stated that the cop was insensitive to the situation involving the dog. i think that is why they let the ticket go. the officers statement was the reason, not direct cause of the dog's death. either by natural causes or by neglect on the part of the dog owner, the dog was caused to die by nothing that the officer did. the 20 minutes of detainment (yes I believe that the article said that the dos was dead by the time that the traffic stop was over) was not even enough time to save the dog. at what point do you consider that the dog will not survive and put aside your irrational need to get to the vet?

[Xayath]

No, it didnt.

Gonzalez said Stephens then talked with two other officers on the scene and didn't allow him to leave for 20 minutes. Missy was dead by then, Gonzalez said.

even though there seems to be an affirmative quote earlier this quote shows that the substaintiation for saying the dog died in the car is only the statement of the driver. And that in a properly run court would be called hear-say.

Not saying the dog didnt die as stated but that the article does not give real evidence as to when the dog died.

[black elk speaks]

No, it didnt.

Gonzalez said Stephens then talked with two other officers on the scene and didn't allow him to leave for 20 minutes. Missy was dead by then, Gonzalez said.

even though there seems to be an affirmative quote earlier this quote shows that the substaintiation for saying the dog died in the car is only the statement of the driver. And that in a properly run court would be called hear-say.

Not saying the dog didnt die as stated but that the article does not give real evidence as to when the dog died.

i would infer from that statement that the dog did die in the car.

[Juan_Bottom]

Remember in order for the cop to have acted as you say you must assume that he is inhierantly vindictive rather than the simpler thought the driver didnt communicate correctly.

I disagree for the reason I already gave. Someone who is worried enough about their dieing dog to barrel through traffic going 90 mph like a bat out of hell is certainly going to communicate themself clearly.


The only relevant question is what did the officer do for the dog? If he detained a dieing dog without trying to help it, then he killed it. Kinda like locking a dog in a cage and not feeding it or something.

I don't get the impression that the author of the article was trying to elicit an emotional response. The shocking behaviour of the cop was enough to do that without any editorial assistance.

Agreed.

Nowhere does the law draw a black and white distinction between when and how police can act.

Yeah, actually all over it fdoes. For instance, cops can't kick you in the balls for littering. I think you didn't mean to put it this way though, aye? So I won't say anymore.

Now, if your ready to acknowledge that the fact that it was a cop matter, there is certainly nothing that says cops can't detain someone unless they are committing a felony.

State Highway, state trooper(most crimes are felonies on highways anyways). My auntie is a lawyer and she taught me this one day after we got pulled over in WI. Cop straight up let us go.

as well as the marginal improvement of the chances of survival for the dog (such as the dog's appearance, the distance to the vet),

I really don't think that that matters. Cops aren't vets, and in any rate, they have no right to revoke anyone's pet's life.

[strike wolf]

Remember in order for the cop to have acted as you say you must assume that he is inhierantly vindictive rather than the simpler thought the driver didnt communicate correctly.

I disagree for the reason I already gave. Someone who is worried enough about their dieing dog to barrel through traffic going 90 mph like a bat out of hell is certainly going to communicate themself clearly.

I agree with everything except this posts. I would say that if a guy is willing to go that fast because of his dying pet then he is most likely in a very distressed situation and due to emotional overload could have trouble communicating clearly.

[Juan_Bottom]

Wouldn't the cop ask something like, 'why were you speeding, or why do you think you need to go that fast?'

I can't imagine that they were so overcome with distress that they ccouldn't/wouldn't ask for help.

[strike wolf]

Wouldn't the cop ask something like, 'why were you speeding, or why do you think you need to go that fast?'

I can't imagine that they were so overcome with distress that they ccouldn't/wouldn't ask for help.

I would think that the guy would stutter a little while trying to say it and it would be hard especially at first for the officer to understand. Though i will agree that if the officer after a minute wasn't able to put 2 and 2 together than he was pretty pathetic excuse for an officer as they should be used to people who are in a heightened state of distress.

[chosen1]

This incident would be an example of the abscence of Common Sense. I'm sure if that officer had been reasonable, he would have attempted to help the family and forget the measly ticket.

[Xayath]

A persons personal inferance based off of the unsubstainciated claim of another is not fact.
Again not saying you are wrong but the evidence points nowhere as of yet.

Second an emotionally charged person for whatever reason is more likely to miscommunicate something than a calm person. Emotion when strong enough clouds judgement. Many anger management specialists tell their patiences to not drive if they are not calm. Fear/worry/concern is just as powerful and much more primal to human nature than anger.

Anyways remember that saying something does not make it true. For all we know the dog could have been dead before the couple entered the highway.

More information is needed.

[black elk speaks]

Wouldn't the cop ask something like, 'why were you speeding, or why do you think you need to go that fast?'

I can't imagine that they were so overcome with distress that they ccouldn't/wouldn't ask for help.

maybe, maybe not. if the driver was so upset at his dogs imminent demise that he felt the need to drive recklessly (in my state, and most others, i believe 20 miles over the speed limit is considered reckless) willing to put himself and others at risk for the sake of his dog, then one may speculate that the driver was not is a state of mind to be driving at all, mush less be clear about why he thought that such a risk should grant him access to break the law.

come to think of it, it is possible even that the officer's remarks were only partially heard and that he actually meant (or actually said, but like you the reckless driver only heard what he wanted to hear) "why would you drive so fast and risk killing yourself and others on the road, you can buy another dog, you can't replace another human being."

i am sorry juan, that you are so bent on finding each and every flaw with the system of government that you live in that you are delusional about this case.

[Xayath]

but like you the reckless driver only heard what he wanted to hear) "why would you drive so fast and risk killing yourself and others on the road, you can buy another dog, you can't replace another human being."

i am sorry juan, that you are so bent on finding each and every flaw with the system of government that you live in that you are delusional about this case.

Elk, i made a mention of this to Juan and now i guess you didnt read it.
Remember in responcible discussions one should only attack their opponent's idea's not the person themselves. Juan i hope seems to be following this.
A child attacks the person and only periphially the argument, an adult only attacks the logical and argumentational inconsisitencies of the opposition.
I am not saying anyone here is a child but merely cautioning that emotion can cause you to lash out without due consideration.
Your opposition may be a jackass but if his argument is valid then his behavior doesnt matter. By attacking the person you are saying that you dont have enough justification behind you argue their points.
and the itializied portion doesnt make it any better.

Frankly, i would say that both you and Juan need to apologise for personal attacks against each other, The Flame Wars are next door. Lets have some real debating here.

I hope no one believes i am trying to be parental or anything but i believe that if we are calm and concise about our arguments everyone will get something from this and we can start to show Washington D.C. that people who disagree with each other can politely discourse.

Thank you for your time and have a great day
Xayath

[black elk speaks]

sure, i suppose that you are right. this debate is pretty much over anyway, the last 5 pages have been so redundant. i am pretty confident that this whole thread was created just as a place where juan could bash our justice system. just about all of his posts (that i have read) seem to do just that. i don't think that there is any chance for a logical conclusion on this issue, so i respectfully decline to post here again.

till the next thread juan, adios.

[got tonkaed]

i wish i would have gone out on a limb and said 10 pages at the start of this thread, id look like a genius.

[jonesthecurl]

Everyone, specifically including Juan, Black Elk, Prowler and Xayath (yes, X, I know you entered the fray to summarise all the other posts in the hope that would stop it - but it didn't work) : shut up. you are repeating yourself. Even when you all point out that the others are repeating themselves.
Um, I was gonna say more, but that really is all I have to say.

[TheProwler]

Problem is, when someone tells me to "Shut up"....well, I just have to say something...

By the way, genius, when you say "Everyone" you don't need to provide a list of "specifically included" people.

I'm glad that was all you had to say. Next time try to think of something worth reading.

[Xayath]

Good night everyone i do not see this as remaining a calm discussion so i am bowing out.
*walks out and goes to bed by a camp fire underneath the starry night sky, Xayath finds his peace in the oblivion of sleep*