Shoot dogs, help me?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
pete75
Posts: 16356
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by pete75 »

ossie wrote: 27 May 2023, 1:11am
pete75 wrote: 27 May 2023, 12:17am
The bullets they use are hollow point, commonly called dum-dum. They've been banned on the battlefield by the Hargue convention since about 1898. Soldiers are not allowed to fire them at each other , yet the police are allowed to fire them at us.
Hmm all I know about police training in Lithuania is from a former Lithuaninan police officer. What's your source?
Hollow point is used as I said to stop the round ending up half a mile away and injuring, killing other people in the process. It's the round that kills not the policy. Germany , Sweden and Poland use them amongst others.

Most fireams training is pretty standard where they shoot at the central body mass or torso. At your request here's a link to Lithuania running an international firearms instructors course . In the link is a video showing firearms officers in multiple scenarios aiming at a torso shaped target, no arms, no legs, a torso.

https://lpm.policija.lrv.lt/en/news/int ... nstructors
I'd rather take the word of someone who has been there and done it rather than some web link you've found.

In the UK there's never been a successful prosecution of a police officer for shooting a member of the public dead. Safe in this knowledge no firearms officer will give a damn about killing someone.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
ossie
Posts: 1793
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 7:52pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by ossie »

pete75 wrote: 27 May 2023, 11:35am
ossie wrote: 27 May 2023, 1:11am
pete75 wrote: 27 May 2023, 12:17am
The bullets they use are hollow point, commonly called dum-dum. They've been banned on the battlefield by the Hargue convention since about 1898. Soldiers are not allowed to fire them at each other , yet the police are allowed to fire them at us.
Hmm all I know about police training in Lithuania is from a former Lithuaninan police officer. What's your source?
Hollow point is used as I said to stop the round ending up half a mile away and injuring, killing other people in the process. It's the round that kills not the policy. Germany , Sweden and Poland use them amongst others.

Most fireams training is pretty standard where they shoot at the central body mass or torso. At your request here's a link to Lithuania running an international firearms instructors course . In the link is a video showing firearms officers in multiple scenarios aiming at a torso shaped target, no arms, no legs, a torso.

https://lpm.policija.lrv.lt/en/news/int ... nstructors
I'd rather take the word of someone who has been there and done it rather than some web link you've found.

In the UK there's never been a successful prosecution of a police officer for shooting a member of the public dead. Safe in this knowledge no firearms officer will give a damn about killing someone.
It's a link to the official Lithuanian Government website not 'some website', with visible proof and evidence of Lithuanian police firearms instructors teaching their own Police officers (plus those from Poland and Czech Republic ) on how to shoot someone properly. I'd think I'd take that over the word of an anon poster who has a mate in Lithuania.

Regarding your last sentence, if most folk had any idea of Police firearms selection, training or the process that follows a fatal shooting for the individual concerned I very much doubt they'd think they don't give a damn. You on the other hand probably wouldn't change your stance no matter what, which is your prerogative of course but it does make any sort of debate on the subject pretty pointless.
Carlton green
Posts: 3628
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Carlton green »

ossie wrote: 27 May 2023, 11:17am
Carlton green wrote: 27 May 2023, 7:53am
That does make me wonder what’s for the best and accountability for actions. Someone living in Ely might say that the place was a tinderbox and that the police threw a match into it. I’d say that the whole issue has layers of complexity; perhaps I’m getting old and soft - I prefer to think better educated through the ‘school of life’ - but throwing the book at people is a form of social suppression rather than social correction.
Oh I agree it's suppression however riots can be spontaneous, almost copycat. We can all remember the 2011 riots that started over the death of Mark Duggan. There were social complexities in Tottenham that led to the riot but the same complexities weren't present in other towns where it kicked off.

The subsequent sentences handed out were very harsh and designed as a national deterrent, which worked. We now have a new generation.

My thoughts on throwing the book at them were simply based on the current political and cost of living crisis where this could turn into a countrywide issue, especially if we have a hot summer. If it's a one off (and I agree we do get one off localised public order situations) then yes correction may be suitable. Most of the residents of Ely will feel extremely vulnerable now so without doubt a multi agency approach will kick in to try and repair things.
Thanks, another constructive response.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Carlton green
Posts: 3628
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Carlton green »

In the UK there's never been a successful prosecution of a police officer for shooting a member of the public dead. Safe in this knowledge no firearms officer will give a damn about killing someone.
Without any doubt in my mind there have been, and will be again, instances where it is genuinely necessary for a police officer to shoot somebody with death being the likely outcome. As such those officers have to cross both a personal threshold, one that mentally enables them to take another person’s life, and a career threshold because should they get things wrong then the repercussions on them could end their career path and future prospects. Besides our scrutiny such officers also deserve our tolerant support.

Of course there are question marks about arming the police and the appropriate use of arms. To my mind the Met police had no need at all to, as shown in the videos at the beginning of this thread, shoot dead two dogs and taser a man. In that case, to my mind, all we saw was a lack of professionalism and officers who are not worthy of wearing a constable’s uniform.

There’s a balance to be struck and currently too many people in positions of power are abusing it.

Here’s an example of someone (Cliff Richards) being treated appallingly by the Police and the Media. But for being a wealthy individual he’d have never had the funds to clear his name, but his reputation and future in show business was destroyed:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... high-court
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Stevek76 »

ossie wrote: 27 May 2023, 11:17am The subsequent sentences handed out were very harsh and designed as a national deterrent, which worked. We now have a new generation.
Very little evidence that harsh sentences ever work as a deterrent, and the claim for the ones here working is dubious assertion at best. Also misses the fuss in Bristol a couple of years ago for which similarly harsh* sentences are getting handed out, clearly those have done nothing deterrent wise?

*Some were probably merited but there have been a number of people with no previous record who clearly just got caught up in things, as can happen, particularly when younger, where restorative justice would have been far more appropriate and less likely to just create future criminals.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
pete75
Posts: 16356
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by pete75 »

ossie wrote: 27 May 2023, 1:02pm
Regarding your last sentence, if most folk had any idea of Police firearms selection, training or the process that follows a fatal shooting for the individual concerned I very much doubt they'd think they don't give a damn. You on the other hand probably wouldn't change your stance no matter what, which is your prerogative of course but it does make any sort of debate on the subject pretty pointless.


Your consistent stance is that the police can do no wrong. If you are or have been a police officer it's attitudes like yours which mean the police will face great difficulties if they are ever to regain widespread public trust.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
ossie
Posts: 1793
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 7:52pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by ossie »

pete75 wrote: 29 May 2023, 7:36pm
ossie wrote: 27 May 2023, 1:02pm
Regarding your last sentence, if most folk had any idea of Police firearms selection, training or the process that follows a fatal shooting for the individual concerned I very much doubt they'd think they don't give a damn. You on the other hand probably wouldn't change your stance no matter what, which is your prerogative of course but it does make any sort of debate on the subject pretty pointless.


Your consistent stance is that the police can do no wrong. If you are or have been a police officer it's attitudes like yours which mean the police will face great difficulties if they are ever to regain widespread public trust.
The police aren't perfect in any way, shape or form. My 'attitude' as you call it is to consistently and quietly argue your constant anti police rhetoric on here, where it's deserved and justified and on a point to point basis backed up, as in this case with evidence. Hopefully in the process you may learn something but I fully understand you will never change your view of the police.
Carlton green
Posts: 3628
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Carlton green »

ossie wrote: 29 May 2023, 8:38pm
pete75 wrote: 29 May 2023, 7:36pm
ossie wrote: 27 May 2023, 1:02pm
Regarding your last sentence, if most folk had any idea of Police firearms selection, training or the process that follows a fatal shooting for the individual concerned I very much doubt they'd think they don't give a damn. You on the other hand probably wouldn't change your stance no matter what, which is your prerogative of course but it does make any sort of debate on the subject pretty pointless.


Your consistent stance is that the police can do no wrong. If you are or have been a police officer it's attitudes like yours which mean the police will face great difficulties if they are ever to regain widespread public trust.
The police aren't perfect in any way, shape or form. My 'attitude' as you call it is to consistently and quietly argue your constant anti police rhetoric on here, where it's deserved and justified and on a point to point basis backed up, as in this case with evidence. Hopefully in the process you may learn something but I fully understand you will never change your view of the police.
Reasoned debate is always good and whilst people involved in the ‘conversation’ may or may not have fixed positions the ‘on looker’ still can benefit from what they ‘see’.

What’s good to see is the treatment of ex Met Officer Wayne Couzens and - whether her defence is at least partly valid or not - Samantha Lee was found guilty of gross misconduct and barred from policing for life by a disciplinary panel. A botched investigation by a relatively young officer or what?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -scapegoat
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
harriedgary
Posts: 147
Joined: 13 Dec 2022, 12:51pm
Location: Far Away From Intelligent Life

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by harriedgary »


Here’s an example of someone (Cliff Richards) being treated appallingly by the Police and the Media. But for being a wealthy individual he’d have never had the funds to clear his name, but his reputation and future in show business was destroyed:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... high-court
reputation? as a leader of the Devil Church?
:D
He's almost twice my age officially, but for the last 40 years has looked half my age. Ain't getting that young skin by a vegetarian diet alone.
Meanwhile a feckless 83 year old has another sprog, a billionaire family avoids prosecution for drug dealing on a world wide scale, and a person who isn't a US pirate claims nurses who are rushed off their feet dealing with actually sick people, had time to accurately tattoo his arms with where the gold is hidden as he laid asleep thinking about his wife. This mad world carries on :arrow:
Bored with earth, where is the mother ship please?
harriedgary
Posts: 147
Joined: 13 Dec 2022, 12:51pm
Location: Far Away From Intelligent Life

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by harriedgary »

I believe the shoot to stop A.K.A kill came more recently from the threat of potential suicide bombers. The idea that an ordinary person who has been shot somewhere in the upper chest/shoulder area, or possible in the upper leg, is going to be pissed with you is only partly true. They of course will be rather unhappy bunnies, but in not much state to attack you. They also should know that if they don't get medical attention, they will drop dead in a few hours. But at least they won't be shot dead to start with. A police officer is only ever supposed to use enough force to neutralise the immediate threat, not some future threat from a vengeful ex con stalking them in 20 years time.

Based on the main 2 videos, how would UK police like it, if we citizens decide when we are going about our lawful business, their police doggies are threatening our life? Nowhere do I recall signing up for a police state where wearing that uniform gives you greater rights than the ordinary person. It's supposed to be policing by consent, I feel many police quickly forget that after getting their badge.

If you all would like to follow up on this particular story, it's interesting to note how much variation in story, multiple witnesses give. Also there are multiple different videos taken of that shooting I've found. Some say the dogs didn't even bite the woman, some do. Some say the dogs attacked someone else, others don't. Some give details opposite to others. There was zero consensus. Even the various reporters around the world, where this story spread, gave different slants, some going to great lengths to report the shooting with details from other incidents where dogs have attacked humans - hardly impartial reporting even if in the name of background. Bit like mentioning how many black men have shot people, when reporting how Zimmerman killed a 17 year old in the belief they were some criminal. That sort of reporting adds bias to what should be factual stating of erm facts.
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, XX (XX.XX.XX) of no fixed address was charged on Tuesday, 9 May with:

- Being the person/owner of a dog that was dangerously out of control (with injury);

- Being in possession/custody of a dog whilst disqualified from owning or keeping a dog.
does that sound right? Not to me, That sounds like the usual cover our own backs. There is no way what happened can be called "dog that was dangerously out of control" Of course he may well have been banned, but that isn't excuse to shoot the dogs dead.
And it makes an absolutely mockery of how high the bar is for dangerous driving compared to careless driving, as we all know as cyclists. If everyone was charged with dangerously out of control dogs, there wouldn't be many dog owners left, as it's inevitable that many at least once will have a bark and warning lunge at a clear threat. Dogs are naturally defensive of "their pack"

To my mind this is the usual story of some homeless guy or someone just different, being castigated, and people's assessment being based solely on their readership of the daily flail, not actual facts. For all we know the guy had been minding his own business, and somebody tried sending him on his way, and then exaggerates what happened. Two eye witnesses claim the dogs never bit the woman but the woman tripped over the leads, a quite credible possibility. Without seeing video of that encounter I'm not prepared to condemn anyone at all. For someone on this forum however to decide that was enough evidence to call for the dogs execution lacks thought.
We all could be innocent people falsely accused, anyone of us.
dogs.jpg
someone just minding his own business...
Bored with earth, where is the mother ship please?
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Jdsk »

Philip Benstead wrote: 22 May 2023, 9:34pm Give me strength

.BBC News - Poplar: One million sign dog shooting petition against Met
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp6yx4zx9rzo


This show the level intellectual riger in the UK population?
The background, verdict and sentence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67527272

Jonathan
Carlton green
Posts: 3628
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Carlton green »

Jdsk wrote: 26 Nov 2023, 12:40pm
Philip Benstead wrote: 22 May 2023, 9:34pm Give me strength

.BBC News - Poplar: One million sign dog shooting petition against Met
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp6yx4zx9rzo


This show the level intellectual riger in the UK population?
The background, verdict and sentence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67527272

Jonathan
Thanks, what a mess of a situation … the whole thing makes me sad.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
User avatar
Cowsham
Posts: 4951
Joined: 4 Nov 2019, 1:33pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Cowsham »

slowster wrote: 23 May 2023, 10:02pm The police were called out in response to a complaint by a woman that the dogs had attacked her dog. One of the offences the owner has been charged with is being in possession/custody of a dog whilst disqualified from owning or keeping a dog, which probably goes some way to explain his refusal to comply with the police instructions and his attempt to leave the scene.
This was the first thing that caught my eye " disqualified ? " why? Never knew you could be -- was that because he's been bad to dogs in the past or had he a history of his dogs attacking other dogs / humans ?
I am here. Where are you?
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Tangled Metal »

In the neighbouring village there was a big RSPCA rescue. Over 100 dogs and cats looked after, or not in the end, by one woman with what was described as mental health condition. Seems she just wanted to rescue any animals she encountered that needed help. She had some form of compulsion that overrode her understanding that she was actually harming them. Something like ghost ppl who harm a vulnerable person so they can help them if that makes sense.

She had been banned and got a lifetime ban after this I think.

AIUI you can get bans for cruelty, neglect or because you were negligent in how you handied your dangerous dog. I think that is the potential reasons for a ban but no expert som it could be slightly wrong.
Post Reply