

Every 98 minutes, a cop kills a dog - help fund the documentary - ck2
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1850434439/puppycide-the-documentary

======
k3n
It's funny that the banner story this seems to be based on is "Cisco" out of
Austin, TX. I don't have time to dig up all the relevant links at the minute
(still at work), but I remember that there was a lot more to this story than
meets the eye.

For one, the officer approached the wrong house. Two, the dog apparently
charged the officer in an aggressive manner. Three, the dog -- despite claims
from the owner of being "gentle" \-- had previously been reported to animal
control several times for behavioral issues.

So, this is not near as cut & dry as the sensationalistic kickstarter would
lead you to believe; please do your own research before forming any opinions.

Don't take my word for all this though:

1\. [http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/dog-had-history-
with-a...](http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/dog-had-history-with-animal-
control)

2\. [http://www.kvue.com/news/Animal-Control-report-shows-
Cisco-h...](http://www.kvue.com/news/Animal-Control-report-shows-Cisco-had-
recently-charged-stranger-148105355.html)

------
yohann305
Lots of police officer are just regular people like you and I and they love
dogs and would never do any harm unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to do so.

The real problem lies in dog owners not taking care of their pets the way they
should.

~~~
jlgreco
> _The real problem lies in dog owners not taking care of their pets the way
> they should._

Failing to train your dog to never bark or otherwise become excited when
somebody kicks in your front door in the middle of the night is _" not taking
care of their pets he way they should"_?

One example, of _many_ :
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor%...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor%27s_residence_drug_raid)

~~~
k3n
If you're being raided in the middle of the night, there's basically 1 of 2
scenarios:

1\. You're a bad -- and presumably dangerous -- person.

2\. There's been a clerical error and they never should have raided your house
in the first place.

For scenario 1, a dog is a weapon. It doesn't really matter how big or mean
the dog is, it can be a distraction just long enough for you to reach for a
weapon. If the officers feel threatened by the dog when they enter, then I'm
fully supportive of them putting it down in the interest of their own safety.

For scenario 2, it's sad that happens, but there is always going to be cases
of mix-ups like that. I can't blame the officers enacting the raid in this
situation either, as they actually believe they're executing for scenario 1.

~~~
glenra
Scenario 3: You're thought to be doing something illegal but not in the least
bit dangerous, like growing marijuana. And the cops do a midnight raid _just
because they can_ on the pretext that you might "destroy evidence" if they
merely came up and knocked on the door at a civilized hour like civilized
people.

The vast majority of no-knock raids are simply not justifiable in terms of
risk to the officers or risk to the public. It's more a question of "if you
have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" when the PD has an otherwise
bored SWAT team lying around that needs a little practice.

~~~
k3n
I think it's very presumptive to think that because someone is "just" growing
marijuana, that they aren't dangerous. Yes, many times they are, but that's no
guarantee.

I do agree a lot about no-knock raids, though I'm not sure what alternatives
there are. It seems you're trying to say that they really no functional
purpose, which I'd disagree with; every single person I know that has dealt
with drugs would flush them in an instant if the police showed up and politely
knocked. I've personally witnessed it.

Point being, that you've helped to reiterate, is that there is not a problem
of officers wantonly shooting dogs; rather, it's symptomatic of larger issues
in law enforcement.

~~~
glenra
> _I think it 's very presumptive to think that because someone is "just"
> growing marijuana, that they aren't dangerous._

I think it's _more_ presumptive to think that they _are_ dangerous, absent
strong evidence to think so.

> I'm not sure what alternatives there are.

One alternative is to regard a man's home as his castle. Police have no
business breaking in merely because they suspect somebody possesses the wrong
_plant material_. If drugs get flushed, so be it - there is no moral
imperative that says the cops _have_ to be able to make their case at all,
much less based on what they find doing a search.

The alternative is _patience_. Stake the place out. Come bother the homeowner
when they are arriving or leaving or checking the mail. Reserve "no-knock" for
hostage situations, kidnappings, and apprehending people who are actually
_known_ to be dangerous - it should be a very last resort, not a first resort.

The vast majority of no-knock raids serve no purpose except to help the police
feel good about themselves.

> _Point being [...] that there is not a problem of officers wantonly shooting
> dogs; rather, it 's symptomatic of larger issues in law enforcement._

Why not both? Let's conclude there is a problem of officers wantonly shooting
dogs _and_ there are larger issues in law enforcement.

------
buckbova
Not the type of propaganda I'd like to fund.

"Puppycide" \-- really?

------
michaelfeathers
If people can be tased, surely police can use something non-lethal on dogs.

