Anti, what the ever loving fuck are you talking about? Watch the video and then watch it again. The officer commands the dog to attack him. You can clearly see him point at the man and hear him issue a command at 1:04. I think it was stupid of him to kick the dog for criminal liability reasons, but I think he was justified in doing so in a black and white world.

If you think what went down in this video is appropriate, then I wish you'd never become a police officer and you are part of what's wrong with the law enforcement in this country. Your job is also to protect people man, not just to arrest people. That guy had no fucking weapon. Can you honestly tell me he posed any real threat to those 20+ officers who had two K-9's and 20+ firearms? The reality is what I see all the time in law enforcement. They come in with this billy bad ass military mindset that people WILL listen to them or they WILL suffer their wrath. YOU WILL COMPLY, right Anti-209?

Re: your last question, I already answered it in my post, but you omitted it from the quote. You tell me, you're a cop. If you responded to a call and I said well, I told the guy to move his quad and he got angry. So he started yelling at me and pointing and moved toward me, to within about 4 feet. I felt threatened at that point (even though me and my 20 friends standing around have sidearms on our hip and he doesn't), so I sicked my 100 lb trained attack dog on him. He kicked my dog, so I tazered him. Who would go to jail? If he was black, he might.

The three elements to self defense in California:

1. Reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully,

2. Reasonably believed that you needed to use force to prevent that from happening, and

3. Used no more force than was necessary to prevent that from happening.

Even if you COULD justify 1 and 2 based on what that guy did in the video (extremely questionable), you're going to sit here and tell me as a cop that the scenario in that video, if acted out among common citizens, would not CLEARLY violate # 3? How is sicking a trained 100 lb attack dog on a guy who is yelling a reasonable use of force? More importantly, THE COP IS WEARING A FUCKING GUN AND HAS 20 OTHER COPS AROUND HIM WITH GUNS!!!! Do you really believe he genuinely felt afraid of that unarmed man in that scenarior? I highly fucking doubt it, which calls into question # 1 above.

I don't think he felt threatened at all. I think him and his buddies were simply angry because that guy wasn't doing as he was being ordered to do and move his ATV.

I also have another question for you. How come a DIFFERENT officer from the one the man was approaching sicked the dog on him. The confrontation was between the man and an officer who had his tazer drawn already. If the man with the tazer felt threatened enough to resort to violence, why didn't he simply issue the man a warning or two (I'm going to taze your ass if you don't get out of my face) and then act on that warning if the man didn't back up?

Anyway man, I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on this issue. Probably no point in debating it. I don't think for a second you're magically going to go, "Oh, I see your point!" My girlfriend is a correctional officer and we just had a similar debate last night in which she tried to rationalize peace officers lying in their reports to cover their ass. When she got to the end of her logical rope of justifying that crap, she resorted to the position of "They're just people like you, they make mistakes too." It became obvious we couldn't discuss this in the future because like you, she works in law enforcement and is extremely entrenched in her view.

Last edited by [LoD]Vermithrax; 04/11/14 04:18 AM.