Police Allow Dog to Die

[Anarkistsdream]

When my dog died a few years ago I was sad for about a month, then I got another dog and a week later that new dog was "my dog" and I liked it as much as I liked my first one. Yeah, I was upset about the death of my dog, I liked that dog, but I am not emotionally scarred because of it. I got over it. The people driving recklessly will get over it. However, if they were to kill a son or husband or mother while trying to save the life of a poodle...

So, because this is how you feel on it, it is right?

Piss off.

[TheProwler]

Exactly what I mean by self-centered and egotistical. We humans are the ones destroying the Earth. We humans are the devious psychopaths and sociopaths that commit unspeakable crimes. I do not like every human. I do not like every dog. But I like a higher percentage of dogs than I do humans. My dogs would risk their lives to save me if I were in trouble. I would do the same for them.

Wow, good for you and your dog.

Question: What other animals should we allow this certain leniency/goodwill towards with respect to highway traffic laws? A dying cat? How about a ferret? A hamster?

Of course. Let people make the decision if it is important enough to them to speed. And if you catch them, give them the fuckin' ticket, say "bye Bye", and go have a donut. Don't delay them like some power-tripping cunt.

I hope these people sue the f*ck out of this cop and take his money and cause him some pain and suffering. The simple fact that the police said they will not collect on the ticket is an indication of some guilt of misconduct.

95 mph!!! My God!!! How dangerous!!!!

Wow, some people are so uptight.

[Juan_Bottom]

The problem here is that the police officer elected to let the dog die. He had a choice, and it is his duty to be responsible. Two wrongs don't make a right. In my book, it's murder.

If it were a person, that would be involuntary manslaughter.

But it wasn't a person, it was an animal. What other animals/pets should be awarded this type of sympathy by police officers? Can you provide a list?

I was going with the human view thst so many who preceded me used. And no, I can't. Heck, some endangered animals would surely qualify. But of course dogs are a shoe-in.
They live a long-time, have personalities, show affection, and most importantly, are potty trainable.

My point being that an officer of the law killed a dog to teach a lesson.

And for you sue nuts...
I think that makes the ticket-ill gotten gains.
So his wife is sue-able too. Serious.

[strike wolf]

Ok here's the deal. Should they have been driving 95? No. Should the police have pulled them over? Yes. Should the police officer take his time making them wait while there was a dying animal in the back seat? No.

The police officer should have escorted them to the vet making sure that they drive at a safe speed where they were not endangering any lives. Let them drop the dog off in the emergency room and then give them the ticket.

[darvlay]

Wow, good for you and your dog.

Question: What other animals should we allow this certain leniency/goodwill towards with respect to highway traffic laws? A dying cat? How about a ferret? A hamster?

Of course. Let people make the decision if it is important enough to them to speed. And if you catch them, give them the fuckin' ticket, say "bye Bye", and go have a donut. Don't delay them like some power-tripping cunt.

I hope these people sue the f*ck out of this cop and take his money and cause him some pain and suffering. The simple fact that the police said they will not collect on the ticket is an indication of some guilt of misconduct.

95 mph!!! My God!!! How dangerous!!!!

Wow, some people are so uptight.

I don't deny he acted like a power-tripping cunt and exhibited very little sympathy towards the dog or the dog-owners but I don't agree that going 150 Km/h (stop pretending to be an American) is insignificant nor do I think it's fair to assume the Officer should be able to recognize if the dog is, in fact, dying.

[darvlay]

My point being that an officer of the law killed a dog to teach a lesson.

What conjecture. How do you know the Officer knew the dog was dying or was about to die other than the fact the drivers said so?

[pimpdave]

I think it's hilarious the way every asshole on the planet thinks they know how to do a cops job better than cops themselves.

It was a fucking dog.

[darvlay]

My point being that an officer of the law killed a dog to teach a lesson.

What conjecture. How do you know the Officer knew the dog was dying or was about to die other than the fact the drivers said so?

Also, what signs did the dog show of sickness other than he was lying in the back seat? The article does not speak to this.

[gdeangel]

The problem here is that the police officer elected to let the dog die. He had a choice, and it is his duty to be responsible. Two wrongs don't make a right. In my book, it's murder.

Murder? So let's lock him up and/or execute him over this DOG!!!!

People who think like that, and the scary thing is there are a enough of them to actually get laws passed along those lines, should be shipped off to la la land.

There are vets that make house calls. There are also animal ambulances. What do you think the maximum speed is that a professional animal ambulance driver will hit to get Fido to the vet safely? The last person who is qualified to judge the social cost benefit of hitting an unsafe speed is the owner of the dog. Particularly when you're dealing with the la-la types who think animals are equal or more important than people. It was a call for the cop to make. End of story.

And to all of you animal lovers who say 95mph is no big deal, why don't you all get together and go racing 95mph with each other on the highway tonight (let us know where, so we can stay off the road), and tomorrow I'd be glad to venture there will be a few less la-la types out there.

[Juan_Bottom]

My point being that an officer of the law killed a dog to teach a lesson.

What conjecture. How do you know the Officer knew the dog was dying or was about to die other than the fact the drivers said so?

I used to do payoffs for HUD. And since the dog did die, that's all you need for it to hold up in court. It was the officers responsibility.

[darvlay]

My point being that an officer of the law killed a dog to teach a lesson.

What conjecture. How do you know the Officer knew the dog was dying or was about to die other than the fact the drivers said so?

I used to do payoffs for HUD. And since the dog did die, that's all you need for it to hold up in court. It was the officers responsibility.

Elaborate for me - what was the officer's responsibility? What do payoffs for HUD have to do with this? (Bear in mind that I am Canadian)

[Juan_Bottom]

Murder? So let's lock him up and/or execute him over this DOG!!!!

I didn't say that, though yeah, cruelty to animals can land you in prison, ask Vick.

There is a difference between killing a dog, and killing a human. I never said that I couldn't tell the differance.
What I did say, is that the officer killed the dog, by denying treatment.

I also said that the cop did it to teach the driver a lesson. That was probably illegal on a federal, as well as local level. Cops aren't judges, and cannot take the law into their hands.

[Juan_Bottom]

What do payoffs for HUD have to do with this? (Bear in mind that I am Canadian)

When someone had to take out a mortgage to pay for medical blls, lawsuits, court costs, credit debt, whatever, it was my job to pay out. I've seen a million cases. I worked as a settlement agent all through the housing boom.

Elaborate for me - what was the officer's responsibility?

I was answering your previous post. It was the officer duty to see if the dog was sick. If he didn't, or ignored the woman saying it was, then he killed the dog. If the dog was jumping around licking everyone though... that's different.

[TheProwler]

They live a long-time, have personalities, show affection, and most importantly, are potty trainable.

Haha, that's a funny way of putting it.

You know, we are not talking about someone driving through a school zone at noon hour or at 3:30 p.m.. We don't know what the degree of risk really was. I think it was probably way lower than the paranoid drivers here think.

But this is what we have: Two adults who calculated the risk versus the degree of concern they had for their dog and they decided to break the law and try to save their dog.

If we look at extremes, we could imagine two brilliant parents who decided to drive 5 mph over the speed limit in their sport-tuned Mercedes on a desolate highway with no other car in sight to rush their dying child to a doctor.

We could look at two slightly retarded people driving fast and recklessly through a children's play zone in their 1975 huge station wagon with bad springs to rush their dying goldfish to a fish doctor.

I tell you, this is the same thing. The slightly retarded people feel pain the same way the brilliant people feel pain. They might make worse decisions, due to mental or emotional stress and lack of mental capacity. But they are no less important that anyone else. And their pain is real to them. It does not make logical sense to punish them for being stupid.

Help them first. Then try to explain to them the implications of what risk they were taking later. After the crisis is over, the explanation of how they exercised poor judgment would be much more accepted than when their animal is dying. They would also be more apt to listen to the advice of someone who showed them compassion than someone who showed them a total lack of empathy.

In the big picture, that cop did a lot more harm than good.

[pimpdave]

I also said that the cop did it to teach the driver a lesson. That was probably illegal on a federal, as well as local level. Cops aren't judges, and cannot take the law into their hands.

If that IS the case, then my previous comment should probably be ignored.

I only just now finished reading the article, and although that doesn't spell it out, it is not very far from the imagination that they Officer Stephens indeed was trying to teach them a lesson.

Now, while there might not be anything criminal in what the Officer did (I wouldn't know), I am certain that couple can sue the shit out of the Officer for "being a colossal dick head", which is fancy legal terminology for "wrongful death".

[TheProwler]

My point being that an officer of the law killed a dog to teach a lesson.

What conjecture. How do you know the Officer knew the dog was dying or was about to die other than the fact the drivers said so?

Also, what signs did the dog show of sickness other than he was lying in the back seat? The article does not speak to this.

Nor does it speak to the volume of traffic. Yet you blindly criticize the people for speeding and jump to the conclusion that they were risking other people's lives.

Oh, and I am as Canadian as it gets. But I am old enough to be quite familiar with the Imperial system of measurement.

[Juan_Bottom]

On a side note, I would venture to say that these are regularly some real responsable people anyway. The fact that they were taking there dog for treatment evidences this to me.
But like I said, that doesn't have any bearing on the question at hand really.

[Anarkistsdream]

They live a long-time, have personalities, show affection, and most importantly, are potty trainable.

Haha, that's a funny way of putting it.

You know, we are not talking about someone driving through a school zone at noon hour or at 3:30 p.m.. We don't know what the degree of risk really was. I think it was probably way lower than the paranoid drivers here think.

But this is what we have: Two adults who calculated the risk versus the degree of concern they had for their dog and they decided to break the law and try to save their dog.

If we look at extremes, we could imagine two brilliant parents who decided to drive 5 mph over the speed limit in their sport-tuned Mercedes on a desolate highway with no other car in sight to rush their dying child to a doctor.

We could look at two slightly retarded people driving fast and recklessly through a children's play zone in their 1975 huge station wagon with bad springs to rush their dying goldfish to a fish doctor.

I tell you, this is the same thing. The slightly retarded people feel pain the same way the brilliant people feel pain. They might make worse decisions, due to mental or emotional stress and lack of mental capacity. But they are no less important that anyone else. And their pain is real to them. It does not make logical sense to punish them for being stupid.

Help them first. Then try to explain to them the implications of what risk they were taking later. After the crisis is over, the explanation of how they exercised poor judgment would be much more accepted than when their animal is dying. They would also be more apt to listen to the advice of someone who showed them compassion than someone who showed them a total lack of empathy.

In the big picture, that cop did a lot more harm than good.

[Grooveman2007]

The bottom line in this story is what is more important, the life of a dog, or the life of a human?
I-35 outside San Antonio is a terrible section of road in dire need of resurfacing (as of April) and midnight is not very late in a big city, 3 AM is one thing but at midnight people are just heading home. Driving 95 mph on a somewhat crowded highway that has a surface comprable to the moon is just fucking stupid. The cop did the right thing, he prevented the man and his girlfriend from hurting themselves and others.

When my dog died a few years ago I was sad for about a month, then I got another dog and a week later that new dog was "my dog" and I liked it as much as I liked my first one. Yeah, I was upset about the death of my dog, I liked that dog, but I am not emotionally scarred because of it. I got over it. The people driving recklessly will get over it. However, if they were to kill a son or husband or mother while trying to save the life of a poodle...

I can only imagine they emotional damage they would cause to the family.

Face it you guys, a person in infinatly more important than a dog.

Exactly what I mean by self-centered and egotistical. We humans are the ones destroying the Earth. We humans are the devious psychopaths and sociopaths that commit unspeakable crimes. I do not like every human. I do not like every dog. But I like a higher percentage of dogs than I do humans. My dogs would risk their lives to save me if I were in trouble. I would do the same for them.

And why so much drama about someone going 95 mph? Big deal. You can't live in a bubble. You know, if you go for a walk, you might get hit by a bus. So do you never go for a walk? A big part of life is taking calculated risks. Driving 95 mph is not necessarily dangerous. Period.

Most car accidents involve shitty drivers and distracted drivers, not speeders who are concentrating on what they are doing.

Have you ever gone for a drive just for fun? Roll down the windows and enjoy a cruise? Well, you were risking people's lives by doing that - some kid chasing a ball into the street could have been killed because you wanted to enjoy a pleasure ride. Feeling guilty? You shouldn't. Calculated risk.

Just for everyone here, I am going to drive 100+ mph today. Will I put people's lives at risk? Sure, to some degree. But way less than the dipshit driving his oversized SUV 60 mph while chatting on his cell phone and watching his GPS for the next cutoff. Calculated risk.

I seriously think you must be bad drivers if you think 95 mph is that unsafe.

95 mph is unsafe when the people around you are going 60. What if there's something in the road, some tread from a semi that had a blowout, a muffler from a junk car? What if they can't swerve because of other traffic and they hit the object? What if they overcorrect? How 'bout all the times he surley looked at the dog, and his frantic girlfriend? The dog alone was a greater distraction than some guy on his cell phone. Human ambulances rarley go faster than 80 for exactly these reasons.

And yes, everything is a calculated risk, but that doesn't give him the right to greatly increase the risk for others.

This incident could've easaly ended in a deadly crash, all over some dog.
I can't believe you could possible think that it is okay to risk the lives of others over some mutt.

[Anarkistsdream]

Just because you aren't a dog person you would never understand.

Just like I'm not a football person, and can't understand the stupid things people do that get them hurt there...

People who are passionate about things are going to do all they can to save them... You at least have to see that.

[darvlay]

Nor does it speak to the volume of traffic. Yet you blindly criticize the people for speeding and jump to the conclusion that they were risking other people's lives.

Oh, and I am as Canadian as it gets. But I am old enough to be quite familiar with the Imperial system of measurement.

I haven't criticized anyone, blindly or otherwise, I just raised some other questions for everyone to consider. You're being shrill, defensive and emotional.

[gdeangel]

What a model of efficiency HUD is. So let me get this straight... little poor Aunt Sally calls up the police about her sick dog, who are out in the projects trying to bust the crack dealer down the hall and find the guy whose been hocking stolen goods, including guns, from somewhere in the neighborhood, as well as respond to the domestic disturbance four blocks away, but forget about the job they are supposed to be in position to do, they have to go on down and stick a thermometer up Fido's but to make sure he's not dying? Or better yet, they've got to call in a squad car to drive Fido to the vet where he can run up a tab that Aunt Sally has no chance of affoding, cause, after all, she can't even afford rent for herself, and, at the end of the day, everybody's happy that Fido pulls through, except that now Aunt Sally's got to take out a HUD mortgage so she can pay the vet?? And HUD is going to advance the money... and/or if the cop as you characterize it is "responsible", I don't get it either... what is HUD doing, advancing money for Aunt Sally to hire a lawyer and sue the police department.

This is just absolutely all ludicrous.

I also said that the cop did it to teach the driver a lesson. That was probably illegal on a federal, as well as local level. Cops aren't judges, and cannot take the law into their hands.

You should go back to law school buddy. Police have a broad range of discretion when enforcing the law. Police have the power to detain on probable cause. Here, there was a clear indication that the driver continued to be prepared to break the law to get to the vet faster. You might like to read this: http://www.flexyourrights.org/traffic_stop_scenario. How many of these things do you think this driver did? Do you think the driver demanded to be formally arrested or let go ... something that the officer had the right to do here IMHO. Was the driver willing to gamble an arrest record, maybe losing his own job, to save Fido... or now just trying to cost this cop his job? To determine whether there is grounds for an arrest, given the amount of stuff out there a 20 minute stop is not unreasonable. The police had a responsibility to determine whether this person had a valid license, if they had any out of state warrants, whether they were on drugs since, I'm afraid to say, the driver was impaired - since they demonstrated a failure to appreciate that a sick dog is not a reason to endanger other motorists (or even themselves).

Also, the average traffic stop seems to come in around 11 minutes http://www.wvdcjs.com/trafficstops/reports/OverviewStatewideFindings.pdf (see top of page . So 20 minutes in this case is not that far outside the range of typical values. Hardly "punishment". More like depriving these folks of a benefit they thought they were entitled to get out of their lawbreaking behavior. And, ironically, when the dog had died and there was no longer an incentive for the perps to go speeding off at 95 MPH once out of sight, the arrest was no longer appropriate to protect the public.

But don't worry Mr. ACLU lawyer... if they choose to fight the ticket, which I doubt they will, they will get their day in court, and hopefully the judge, who does have lots of latitude in prescribing punishment, will order these la-la's to put in some community service in the local hospital where they can see what happens to people in high speed accidents first hand.

[TheProwler]

Nor does it speak to the volume of traffic. Yet you blindly criticize the people for speeding and jump to the conclusion that they were risking other people's lives.

Oh, and I am as Canadian as it gets. But I am old enough to be quite familiar with the Imperial system of measurement.

I haven't criticized anyone, blindly or otherwise, I just raised some other questions for everyone to consider. You're being shrill, defensive and emotional.

I reviewed your posts. You are correct, you didn't criticize anyone of anything. Other than trying to insinuate that I am trying to make people think I am American by stating speeds in mph.

In fact, you indeed did raise questions. Many questions. And then more questions. And then a few more. And then one or two more.

So make a point.

If your point is "There is not enough information to reach any conclusions." then just say it.

That would be a lot more efficient than raising questions. Many questions. And then more questions. And then a few more. And then one or two more.

[darvlay]

So make a point.

1. There is not enough information to draw any valid conclusions on whether the Officer acted out of spite or not;
2. The article was poorly written and aimed towards getting emotional responses from readers;
3. Comparing a dog to a human in this scenario is illogical as laws and police procedures are not written by the Humane Society; and
4. A dog is no more "important" than a cat, a bird, or any other animal; and
5. A pet dog is no more "important" than a pet cat, pet bird, pet hamster, or any other companion animal.

[Neoteny]

I imagine it would have been nice to have the police officer escort them to the clinic. He obviously didn't have anything else to do. The ticket would still stand, safety would have been a higher priority, the dog may or may not have lived, and we wouldn't be arguing about the constitutional status of dogs. Seriously though, they're like little people.