Cop shoots tiny chihuahua in owners yard on video

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    ded25b0cf47d173e3ba44b56a92a88b5.jpg


    I’m really trying to see it another way. Any other way..
    Nope


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Looks like the cop drew his sidearm from the get go.
    Now I just wanna know, if a cop arrives to a person’s home, an otherwise peaceful situation except for whatever violence or ******** he brings with him, begins to escalate things of his own accord and without any provocation, in fact while the homeowner is in retreat, pulls his weapon and without hesitation or warning shoots a dog or a child (or both as I’ve seen in another vid) does anyone here believe the homeowner would not be within his right to dispatch the shooter? I understand that if there are other deputies on scene that this would become a firefight, but seriously, who thinks the homeowner would be in the wrong?
    Sure, something for a judge and jury to decide... but this is a scenario that needs deciding before it happens. Not later at a hearing after people are dead. If law enforcement on the whole does not refine their policies, restrain their officers, start following the law and stop disregarding human rights and human life it’s a sure bet that we will see many more LEO funeral processions.
     

    cbbr

    Well-Known Member
    Silver Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 18, 2009
    179
    43
    Looks like the cop drew his sidearm from the get go.
    Now I just wanna know, if a cop arrives to a person’s home, an otherwise peaceful situation except for whatever violence or ******** he brings with him, begins to escalate things of his own accord and without any provocation, in fact while the homeowner is in retreat, pulls his weapon and without hesitation or warning shoots a dog or a child (or both as I’ve seen in another vid) does anyone here believe the homeowner would not be within his right to dispatch the shooter? I understand that if there are other deputies on scene that this would become a firefight, but seriously, who thinks the homeowner would be in the wrong?
    Sure, something for a judge and jury to decide... but this is a scenario that needs deciding before it happens. Not later at a hearing after people are dead. If law enforcement on the whole does not refine their policies, restrain their officers, start following the law and stop disregarding human rights and human life it’s a sure bet that we will see many more LEO funeral processions.

    I agree with your point. A lot of folks carry 24/7. And LEO or not, if you show up hot without a damn good reason you may scare one of those folks into reacting in a way that everyone involved will quickly regret.
     

    Saw

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Oct 6, 2008
    388
    16
    New Orleans
    Whoa dude. I don’t think we get to generalize all LEO as a whole yet. One bad egg maybe? Sure many other cases that get the publicity, but think of the daily interactions that go great.

    Interesting question you pose about the use of deadly force to dispatch the shooter. I’ll be the first to say you have to have a specific set of cirmcumstances met before I would say you are within your rights to dispatch the shooter. What specifically makes you think the homeowner here would potentially be within his right legally to use deadly force? Serious question and I’m not trying to be argumentative. I agree 100% that these are the scenarios that should be thought thru ahead of time to aid in correct decision making.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I agree with your point. A lot of folks carry 24/7. And LEO or not, if you show up hot without a damn good reason you may scare one of those folks into reacting in a way that everyone involved will quickly regret.

    A good reason according to whose perspective? If you are not the person who just shot 16 children at an orphanage but you match the description of said shooter, would the police have a damn good reason, from their perspective, to approach you hot?
     

    Old School

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2012
    625
    28
    DTR
    I would thing going onto someone property and shooting their dog would be against the law. It would be different if the dog came onto your property and you shot it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Gator 45/70

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    31   0   0
    I would thing going onto someone property and shooting their dog would be against the law. It would be different if the dog came onto your property and you shot it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Both are illegal,Now if your being attacked and in fear of your well being and life well???

    I have deer hounds that run across my land hunting,Legally I cannot start shooting dogs willy-nilly,But let one growl at me or the wife or attack one of my dogs.
    Three S's kick in.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Whoa dude. I don’t think we get to generalize all LEO as a whole yet. One bad egg maybe? Sure many other cases that get the publicity, but think of the daily interactions that go great.

    Interesting question you pose about the use of deadly force to dispatch the shooter. I’ll be the first to say you have to have a specific set of cirmcumstances met before I would say you are within your rights to dispatch the shooter. What specifically makes you think the homeowner here would potentially be within his right legally to use deadly force? Serious question and I’m not trying to be argumentative. I agree 100% that these are the scenarios that should be thought thru ahead of time to aid in correct decision making.
    Whoa what? I stand by my statement. Read it again:

    If law enforcement on the whole does not refine their policies, restrain their officers, start following the law and stop disregarding human rights and human life it’s a sure bet that we will see many more LEO funeral processions.


    And if you believe that law enforcement on the whole has all their **** together please explain how senseless, wrongful and otherwise unjustified shootings happen over and over again like it’s common place and maybe one in a hundred are SOMEWHAT rectified.
    What makes you think the homeowner does not have the right to return fire in a case like this or any case where a LEO acts beyond the law? And do you believe any LEO has the right to use deadly force any time he or she wants without the risk of immediate return of same? Do you believe cases such as this are isolated, few and far between or can be counted on one hand?
    I know I’m not the only person here who sees how nonchalant MANY LEO’s are about ending a life.
    Don’t comply with my orders, regardless of your innocence and I will shoot you repeatedly and cuff you while you are dying, and if I find out that I’ve mistaken you for a criminal and you were completely innocent, I will leave you cuffed and dying and find a reason to charge you anyway. I want someone to tell me this is never or rarely the case.
    When any LEO thinks it is ok to shoot someone or use any violent force against another person who is refusing to become a victim, attempting to explain to the cop that they have the wrong person or wrong house, refusing to lie face down on searing hot pavement because they know they’re not guilty of any crime, etc., Law enforcement agencies need to hit the reset button and take a look at why their officers believe it is ok.
    It is not ok. In many of the cases where law abiding citizens have killed a LEO or more defending themselves against unwarranted use of force, the civilian is not charged or the charges are dismissed. People are beginning to take notice of all these factors, regardless of how the media spins it. Sooner or later or now or yesterday people will and have begun to understand and decide that they can defend themselves. And they will.
    I’m just wondering how far things will go before Law Enforcement agencies will admit where faults lie and decide it’s in EVERYONE’S best interest to be responsible, hold their officers responsible and to stop abusing the rights and safety of so many people in their own interest.
     
    Last edited:

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I would thing going onto someone property and shooting their dog would be against the law. It would be different if the dog came onto your property and you shot it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    You have generalized a few laws and lumped them into one statement. Going onto someone's property to shoot their dog is illegal. However, it is not illegal to approach a residence set up in such a way where a reasonable person would view it as approachable. In other words, if there's no big fence or signs indicating otherwise, you can walk up to someone's front door. It is not illegal to use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend yourself against great bodily harm and/or death if you are somewhere you are legally allowed to be. So if you are approaching someone's front door and a great dane runs up and starts attacking you, you are not legally required to allow yourself to be mauled to death.

    If the cop had a legal reason to approach that homeowner and had been attacked by a great dane, I can't imagine how a reasonable person would question his shooting the dog. So the problem is not that the cop went on someone's property and shot their dog. The problem is the 4 pound dog did not appear to pose a threat of causing great bodily harm and/or death to the cop simply by barking at the cop.
     

    Danzing42

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 9, 2018
    3
    1
    laffy
    You have generalized a few laws and lumped them into one statement. Going onto someone's property to shoot their dog is illegal. However, it is not illegal to approach a residence set up in such a way where a reasonable person would view it as approachable. In other words, if there's no big fence or signs indicating otherwise, you can walk up to someone's front door. It is not illegal to use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend yourself against great bodily harm and/or death if you are somewhere you are legally allowed to be. So if you are approaching someone's front door and a great dane runs up and starts attacking you, you are not legally required to allow yourself to be mauled to death.

    If the cop had a legal reason to approach that homeowner and had been attacked by a great dane, I can't imagine how a reasonable person would question his shooting the dog. So the problem is not that the cop went on someone's property and shot their dog. The problem is the 4 pound dog did not appear to pose a threat of causing great bodily harm and/or death to the cop simply by barking at the cop.





    And there you have it,the mentality of an officer.

    Thinking they have the right to enter anyone's property without a verifiable
    reason or a warrant.

    No the home owner does not need signs saying do not enter,,No the owner
    of the dog does not have to speak to anyone,its his or her right not to,its
    called an amendment!

    When we allowed fire dept and police and any city or federal workers to not
    be held accountable and sued for their actions,that's when we went backwards
    in time.

    You wonder why no one wants to confront the police anymore?

    Traffic stops.why? Do we need them? Why? Their time would be better spent
    hunting crackheads and killers in my eyes.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    And there you have it,the mentality of an officer.

    Thinking they have the right to enter anyone's property without a verifiable
    reason or a warrant.

    Giving someone an opinion they never stated they had then attacking that made up opinion is a logical fallacy known as the straw man.

    No the home owner does not need signs saying do not enter,,No the owner
    of the dog does not have to speak to anyone,its his or her right not to,its
    called an amendment!

    When we allowed fire dept and police and any city or federal workers to not
    be held accountable and sued for their actions,that's when we went backwards
    in time.

    You wonder why no one wants to confront the police anymore?

    Traffic stops.why? Do we need them? Why? Their time would be better spent
    hunting crackheads and killers in my eyes.

    If you would like the cops to better spend their time by hunting crackheads and killers, stop breaking traffic laws so they can go after the crackheads and killers. Unless you're saying the cops should intentionally fail to enforce the traffic laws. I'm pretty sure there's a term for that. Oh, yeah, it's called malfeasance. And it's covered under LA R.S. 134. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it weren't illegal to create a list of laws for the cops to intentionally fail to enforce. What laws get to be on that list? And who decides what laws gets put on that list? Can anything get put on the list as long as there's a worse crime out there? In other words, can the cops just ignore misdemeanor theft? After all, their time would be better spent looking into felony theft, right? And why should the cops bother some poor kid for punching a woman when there are people out there shooting other people? Wait...I kinda like this idea. I'm beginning to agree with you. A cops job would be so much easier if he can ignore everything except for murder. I mean, that's really the only one that doesn't have a worse crime to compare it to, right?
     
    Last edited:

    machinedrummer

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 5, 2010
    3,685
    113
    Kingwood, Tx
    If one wants to not be held accountable according to the law then run and win a political seat or become a professional athlete (or college). I haven’t been pulled over in over 20+years but I do have to admit I do have a plan of total compliance no matter how I may feel I was treated like a hardened criminal for a traffic violation. We have gotten to that point. One will not win a case on side of the road. Yes sir have a nice day and everyone goes home. The ticket is the last thing I’m worried about. Extra holes in my body makes my nervous. I will start the encounter with a good attitude and see what happens from there. 99.9% it will probably go just fine. We don’t live in Mayberry anymore.
     

    FORman

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    May 3, 2012
    281
    16
    Lafayette LA
    If you would like the cops to better spend their time by hunting crackheads and killers, stop breaking traffic laws so they can go after the crackheads and killers. Unless you're saying the cops should intentionally fail to enforce the traffic laws. I'm pretty sure there's a term for that. Oh, yeah, it's called malfeasance. And it's covered under LA R.S. 134. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it weren't illegal to create a list of laws for the cops to intentionally fail to enforce. What laws get to be on that list? And who decides what laws gets put on that list? Can anything get put on the list as long as there's a worse crime out there? In other words, can the cops just ignore misdemeanor theft? After all, their time would be better spent looking into felony theft, right? And why should the cops bother some poor kid for punching a woman when there are people out there shooting other people? Wait...I kinda like this idea. I'm beginning to agree with you. A cops job would be so much easier if he can ignore everything except for murder. I mean, that's really the only one that doesn't have a worse crime to compare it to, right?

    D#%* Where is that like button?
     

    DBMJR1

    Madame Mayor's Fiefdom
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Jul 27, 2008
    2,313
    113
    New Orleans, La.
    This cop needs to lose his job. His firearm rights. His marriage. His kids. His pick up truck. Even his dog should leave him. This cop needs to end up on skid row, in a gutter, with an empty bottle of MD 20/20 next to him while he dies from a seizure in his own vomit.


    Now, . . . , Ask me how I really feel.
     

    Gator 45/70

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    31   0   0
    Giving someone an opinion they never stated they had then attacking that made up opinion is a logical fallacy known as the straw man.



    If you would like the cops to better spend their time by hunting crackheads and killers, stop breaking traffic laws so they can go after the crackheads and killers. Unless you're saying the cops should intentionally fail to enforce the traffic laws. I'm pretty sure there's a term for that. Oh, yeah, it's called malfeasance. And it's covered under LA R.S. 134. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it weren't illegal to create a list of laws for the cops to intentionally fail to enforce. What laws get to be on that list? And who decides what laws gets put on that list? Can anything get put on the list as long as there's a worse crime out there? In other words, can the cops just ignore misdemeanor theft? After all, their time would be better spent looking into felony theft, right? And why should the cops bother some poor kid for punching a woman when there are people out there shooting other people? Wait...I kinda like this idea. I'm beginning to agree with you. A cops job would be so much easier if he can ignore everything except for murder. I mean, that's really the only one that doesn't have a worse crime to compare it to, right?

    WHAT??? and lose their main income generator, Crack-heads and murderers don't pay diddle squat in keeping the lights on...Keep writing those tickets cause there are some real idiots out there behind the wheel!
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    WHAT??? and lose their main income generator, Crack-heads and murderers don't pay diddle squat in keeping the lights on...Keep writing those tickets cause there are some real idiots out there behind the wheel!

    My paycheck never changed based on the number of tickets I wrote.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Staff online

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,221
    Messages
    1,546,082
    Members
    29,168
    Latest member
    Lyle.lejeune2017
    Top Bottom