Shoot dogs, help me?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Carlton green
Posts: 3626
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Carlton green »

PedallingSquares wrote: 23 May 2023, 10:12pm The majority of the Police force aren't fit to be anything other than mobile traffic wardens(in their very expensive motors) let alone armed Police.You only have to watch any of the docu-soaps featuring the Police to see that every force is full of arrogant, overweight, unkempt, little-big-men/women who hide behind a uniform and badge and know little about the law but think they are the law :roll:
Little wonder they are generally hated and get no support from the public.
I don’t share your bald view of the Police but my observation of them is that the spectrum of accepted behaviour from them includes stuff that shouldn’t be there, and that society sometimes looks the other way when it should demand application of existing conduct standards. Police men are hated by some and it has long been so, yet many others respect the force - which IMHO is how it should be, and be so on merit. There’s good and less so in every profession and the less so ruin the acts and reputation of all. It’s natural to have polarised views - it’s a mechanism for managing the complexity of the world around us - but they’re not always helpful.

Psamathe and I often disagree and have done so over quite a number of years, but in this instance I’d recommend his cutting, objective and sharp analysis of events.
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.
Stradageek
Posts: 1651
Joined: 17 Jan 2011, 1:07pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Stradageek »

Interesting thread, just a few observations:

Killing a dog because it might be a threat is the same logic that resulted in the Iraq war and Israel's regular assassinations of 'potential' problem persons.

The latest incident in Wales appears to be showing once again the standard police response to any misbehaviour by its officers is to lie, impunity is assumed as the Johnson/Braverman axis has demonstrated.

That said I'm not a fan of dogs but wouldn't go as far as to join the mythical EDEN organisation :)
tenbikes
Posts: 462
Joined: 11 Jan 2009, 6:41pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by tenbikes »

Underlying problem:

Fire arms officers volunteer for the task.

They are trained that should they actually pull the trigger, they should shoot to kill. One would hope they are trained to only pull the trigger as a last resort but....

So, they volunteer for a role that they know from the outset that the end game is that they are expected to shoot to kill. No fancy 'Hollywood ' wounding/disabling shots. Just kill shots.

That's what they volunteer for.

There are many incidents that point to them having itchy trigger fingers. I remember them killing a guy with learning difficulties who had a chair leg in a carry bag. He never even took it out of the bag......police said they believed it to be a gun. Even if it had been a gun, hanging by his side in a carrier bag, it was totally without threat at that point.

When you volunteer to kill, that's what you want to do. Obviously.

But someone has to volunteer for this role because there are some very evil folk in the world. Sadly innocent animals like cows and dogs are used for on-going training......
Stradageek
Posts: 1651
Joined: 17 Jan 2011, 1:07pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Stradageek »

I also remember Julian Sayarer meeting a guy in the US who wanted to be a policeman. When asked why he said - without any hint of humour - that he wanted to be able to kill people and get away with it :(
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Tangled Metal »

Psamathe wrote: 24 May 2023, 12:01am You can't go around shooting dogs because you don't like dogs that look like "fighting breeds" - with no proper examination or anything.]

You can't go around shooting dogs because that breed might have a "pard bite".

You can't go around shooting dogs because you think the owner might have them for "macho reasons".

You can't go around shooting dogs because there are un-confirmed un-investigated reports (as I said before, dog fights tend to look far worse than they really are and if owners step in to try and stop it that makes things worse and owner likely to get hurt).

You can't go around shooting dogs because the owner is banned from owning dogs - the dogs are re-homed after behavioural checks and suitable homes found.[/b

When owner lets dogs go in the 1st video they don't "go for" the Officers - them move towards them but not "attack".

It was the Police Officers who escalated the situation. They were either deliberately aggravating the dogs or were just way out of their depth. Owner was happy to walk away and his dogs were calm and walked away with him. Police didn't need to escalate like they did. They were not adequately equipped to handle the situation e.g. only single officer with just one dog control pole - but 2 dogs - it was never going to work!

And then with one dead dog and the other securely attached to a control pole, the Officer releases the dog who tried to run back to the owner (away from the gunman) only to get shot as well. Why not keep the dog on the grasper pole? Why in Gods name release the dog? - total incompetence.

Reported:
The Met Police, who were involved in the incident, said: "The Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards have conducted a thorough review of the incident, including all of the available body-worn footage, and are satisfied that there are no concerns around officer conduct.”

Ian


I never said shoot dogs because they're a fight breed. I just take the view that there is no justification for fighting breeds and should be left to die out as a legal breed type. Just like Brachycephalic dog breeds in certain countries wise enough to ban the breeding of and owning of such dogs.

You can shoot dogs deemed to be dangerous without alternative viable options if you're the police, however you'll expect scrutiny on your actions. Probably as much scrutiny as shooting a human. That's what's happened and there's an independent review going on as it's right. Until that reports we don't know what happened across the whole incident. That video made public brought attention but also skewed things towards an instant assumption the police were wrong in their decisions. I say that video doesn't prove that assumption and that's what is wrong with these petitions and video releases.
pete75
Posts: 16356
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by pete75 »

tenbikes wrote: 24 May 2023, 10:03am Underlying problem:

Fire arms officers volunteer for the task.

They are trained that should they actually pull the trigger, they should shoot to kill. One would hope they are trained to only pull the trigger as a last resort but....

So, they volunteer for a role that they know from the outset that the end game is that they are expected to shoot to kill. No fancy 'Hollywood ' wounding/disabling shots. Just kill shots.

That's what they volunteer for.

There are many incidents that point to them having itchy trigger fingers. I remember them killing a guy with learning difficulties who had a chair leg in a carry bag. He never even took it out of the bag......police said they believed it to be a gun. Even if it had been a gun, hanging by his side in a carrier bag, it was totally without threat at that point.

When you volunteer to kill, that's what you want to do. Obviously.

But someone has to volunteer for this role because there are some very evil folk in the world. Sadly innocent animals like cows and dogs are used for on-going training......
I know someone who was a police officer in Lithuania. She told me she'd fired her gun twice whne on duty. Neither time did she kill the person but shot to disable. She cannot understand why our police always try to kill whoever they shoot at.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
tenbikes
Posts: 462
Joined: 11 Jan 2009, 6:41pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by tenbikes »

They shoot to kill because a wounded person is likely to be very pissed off with whoever has shot them!
pete75
Posts: 16356
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by pete75 »

tenbikes wrote: 24 May 2023, 9:56pm They shoot to kill because a wounded person is likely to be very pissed off with whoever has shot them!
Hmmm well my aquaintance from Lithuania didn't seem to encounter any problems by shooting to disable. It's more likely they shoot to kill becaus ethey know they can get away with it, so care little about doing it.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Psamathe »

Tangled Metal wrote: 24 May 2023, 6:58pm ... That's what's happened and there's an independent review going on as it's right. Until that reports we don't know what happened across the whole incident. That video made public brought attention but also skewed things towards an instant assumption the police were wrong in their decisions. I say that video doesn't prove that assumption and that's what is wrong with these petitions and video releases.
In general (i.e. not specifically related to this case) I think release of public recorded video has become crucial if us getting any knowledge of how the Police have been behaving. e.g. recent Cardiff riot where Police and Crime Commissioner insisted no Police involved prior to riot starting and Social Media rumours were lies. Had it not been for private CCTV released to the press, that is where the story would have stayed. It's only through the private CCTV recording that questions were asked and despite video evidence Police continued to try and cover themselves with lies until somebody in Police realised they have to admit to something ...

Police, over a fair number of incidents have lost a lot of public trust (I no long trust them and my mis-trust has gradually sunk to "rock-bottom"). Without such public video evidence I believe we'd just be getting lies and cover-ups.

Specific to the dog video it absolutely demonstrates the dogs were calm, looking to owner for guidance and not out to attack.

Ian
Carlton green
Posts: 3626
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Carlton green »

pete75 wrote: 25 May 2023, 2:08am
tenbikes wrote: 24 May 2023, 9:56pm They shoot to kill because a wounded person is likely to be very pissed off with whoever has shot them!
Hmmm well my aquaintance from Lithuania didn't seem to encounter any problems by shooting to disable. It's more likely they shoot to kill becaus ethey know they can get away with it, so care little about doing it.
It’s far more clean cut and convenient to shoot to kill.

The Met Police have an appalling reputation and have done for a long time, does anyone remember the ‘murder’ of de Menezes?

In this instance it’s completely clear that provision for capturing the dogs was not there and that the tasering of the victim and the shooting of his dogs was completely unnecessary. That the Met have reviewed their video evidence and declared all was well should make every one of us shudder, both at their misjudgment and at the thought that any person - maybe even one of us or a close friend - could have such inappropriate action taken against them and done so without any redress on the culprits.

I’d suggest that people need to remove their blinkers and start to be concerned.

I note Psamathe’s post directly above and he’s absolutely right - and that comes from someone who usually has firmly differing views to him.
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.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 10977
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Bonefishblues »

Psamathe wrote: 25 May 2023, 10:31am
Tangled Metal wrote: 24 May 2023, 6:58pm ... That's what's happened and there's an independent review going on as it's right. Until that reports we don't know what happened across the whole incident. That video made public brought attention but also skewed things towards an instant assumption the police were wrong in their decisions. I say that video doesn't prove that assumption and that's what is wrong with these petitions and video releases.
In general (i.e. not specifically related to this case) I think release of public recorded video has become crucial if us getting any knowledge of how the Police have been behaving. e.g. recent Cardiff riot where Police and Crime Commissioner insisted no Police involved prior to riot starting and Social Media rumours were lies. Had it not been for private CCTV released to the press, that is where the story would have stayed. It's only through the private CCTV recording that questions were asked and despite video evidence Police continued to try and cover themselves with lies until somebody in Police realised they have to admit to something ...

Police, over a fair number of incidents have lost a lot of public trust (I no long trust them and my mis-trust has gradually sunk to "rock-bottom"). Without such public video evidence I believe we'd just be getting lies and cover-ups.

Specific to the dog video it absolutely demonstrates the dogs were calm, looking to owner for guidance and not out to attack.

Ian
It is an act of stupefying stupidity for the police to try to deny things like this. Have they not woken up to the real world and the proliferation of surveillance - even though they themselves increasingly rely on it?
pete75
Posts: 16356
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by pete75 »

Carlton green wrote: 25 May 2023, 10:34am
pete75 wrote: 25 May 2023, 2:08am
tenbikes wrote: 24 May 2023, 9:56pm They shoot to kill because a wounded person is likely to be very pissed off with whoever has shot them!
Hmmm well my aquaintance from Lithuania didn't seem to encounter any problems by shooting to disable. It's more likely they shoot to kill becaus ethey know they can get away with it, so care little about doing it.
It’s far more clean cut and convenient to shoot to kill.

You may think that, I'm sure those killed wouldn't.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Jdsk »

Current College of Policing notes on where to shoot people:
https://www.college.police.uk/app/armed ... e-firearms

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Jdsk »

Psamathe wrote: 25 May 2023, 10:31am n general (i.e. not specifically related to this case) I think release of public recorded video has become crucial if us getting any knowledge of how the Police have been behaving. e.g. recent Cardiff riot where Police and Crime Commissioner insisted no Police involved prior to riot starting and Social Media rumours were lies. Had it not been for private CCTV released to the press, that is where the story would have stayed. It's only through the private CCTV recording that questions were asked and despite video evidence Police continued to try and cover themselves with lies until somebody in Police realised they have to admit to something ...

Police, over a fair number of incidents have lost a lot of public trust (I no long trust them and my mis-trust has gradually sunk to "rock-bottom"). Without such public video evidence I believe we'd just be getting lies and cover-ups.

Specific to the dog video it absolutely demonstrates the dogs were calm, looking to owner for guidance and not out to attack.
Video evidence is very interesting. Of course there's extensive discussion in this forum of filming other road users.

One aspect that's worth considering is how the ability to replay many times and to slow the action affects our interpretation of people's thoughts and intentions. There's an early study from the USA in a legal setting where it appears to cause witnesses to over-interpret intent. This seems plausible.

Jonathan

PS: I'm particularly interested in this because of the need to reduce brain injury in rugby. Intent is currently relevant in some versions of the assessment schema used by officials.
Last edited by Jdsk on 25 May 2023, 11:37am, edited 1 time in total.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 10977
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Bonefishblues »

Jdsk wrote: 25 May 2023, 11:29am
Psamathe wrote: 25 May 2023, 10:31am n general (i.e. not specifically related to this case) I think release of public recorded video has become crucial if us getting any knowledge of how the Police have been behaving. e.g. recent Cardiff riot where Police and Crime Commissioner insisted no Police involved prior to riot starting and Social Media rumours were lies. Had it not been for private CCTV released to the press, that is where the story would have stayed. It's only through the private CCTV recording that questions were asked and despite video evidence Police continued to try and cover themselves with lies until somebody in Police realised they have to admit to something ...

Police, over a fair number of incidents have lost a lot of public trust (I no long trust them and my mis-trust has gradually sunk to "rock-bottom"). Without such public video evidence I believe we'd just be getting lies and cover-ups.

Specific to the dog video it absolutely demonstrates the dogs were calm, looking to owner for guidance and not out to attack.
Video evidence is very interesting. Of course there's extensive discussion in this forum of filming other road users.

One aspect that's worth considering is how the ability to replay many times and to slow the action affects our interpretation of people's thoughts and intentions. There's an early study from the USA in a legal setting where it appears to cause witnesses to over-interpret intent. This seems plausible.

Jonathan

I'm particularly interested in this because of the need to reduce brain injury in rugby. Intent is currently relevant in some versions of the assessment schema used by officials.
I was reading your post and just about to make a similar point wrt slo-mo replays in rugby in particular, and the influence they seem to exert on outcomes (last statement not evidence-based, but a strong feeling)

Slo-mo great for the 'was the player in touch?' type queries, not so good for other matters, IMHO.
Post Reply