Lucky...

You're answer Belgian, a guy who claimed to be an aircraft structural expert and tried to school me, a person who's worked that for 15 years, aircraft all my life; he's claimed to have built 1 acft - likely BS. So just keep the ad hominem going, back slapping a fellow conservative and ignore the signage of the dogs. Isn't it fun how conservatives are revisionists?

No, I'm going from known info, you assume facts here; can you provide anything that I am assuming other than is reported? On the front end, after they fully exonerate her the family will decide whether or not to sue. Just because the dept decides to hook up an officer as the generally always do, that isn't the final word. Furthermoe, that is after teh fact and administrative, I'm talking as the event unfolded; illustrate how her actions were responsible and how she used all available resource in order. She found reason after she used poor discretion, I'm not all surprised that you skim over the fact that she decided not to ignore the signage and go ahead and breach the door. If a private person did that and was mauled the homeowner would be in the right. Here it is ok that the officer ignored the signage w/o. as was reported, anything but a cancelled 911 call and she was in the right to ignore the sign. The discussion here is about the events and our perception AT THE TIME, not how the cops will cover each other's ass administratively as the generally always do. I don't care that the dept will exonerate her, this is not an FAA / DOT matter wher the report is generally objective, this will be a typical police coverup, so why not address the event and the ognorin of the signage?

From a guy who assumes that, "Exigent circumstances" more than likely existed. I think we’ve suddenly degraded to filling in our own blanks as far as the facts go. All we know is that she showed up, entered thru the gate marked with a warning for dogs and she killed one as they charged. No info was given as to whether she tried any other method of entry or caution. I go with the facts, you go with your own made-up version of the facts. You wrote: “911 call made. 911 call canceled. Department policy is to respond anyway. "Exigent circumstances" more than likely existed. It's up to the investigators to determine that.“ Initially it is up to the discretion of the officer to determine if exigency exists, then the department investigates the outcome; surprise - they virtually always find the officers in the right. Of course juries will sometimes overrule that in a civil sense, very rarely criminally. The initial discretion is up to the officer, scrutinized later by various authorities. You say proper discretion was used, but as usual, no supporting evidence or explanation.

or maybe she is one of the girls in this video. http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/school_dances_sure_have_changed Perhaps she suffered the horror of being raped, and their are some (like Sarah Palin) that would deny her the right to have an abortion. But first charge her for the rape kit.

But you can think outside teh box and outsmart it. If there were no answer from a 011 callback, I would be more aggressive as a responder too, but that would be more a last response than a 1st one.

This is not really a right/wrong issue, it's a matter of good discrretion vs poor discretion. Most laypeople don't grasp that. And over-aggressive responders can kill people/animal unneccesarily and get sued, occassionally tried. I think the jury would wonder about the response technique too.

Silly answer. If there was no dog and a woman was getting beaten inside, what was the cop going to do? She should have read the sign, called inside. No answer, enter the property. People don't come out to secure the dogs, enter property. People come out right away, she get's to establish everything is ok and the dog lives. The outcome could have been very different without any added risk to anybody, with just some thought and common sense. +1

Is it? I thought they just required some astronomical insurance policy. But the should be, as well as rotties and other aggressive breeds. Look/listen for signs of exigency. If none exist, have 911 call thru, if no answer, then that is a sort of sign of exigency there - up the ante. Right, so before it gets to that, have 911 call back and tell them teh officer need to gain immediate entry or they will be forcced to gain it however they have to. Or had 911 call in and go from there.

Around here the police respond to fire calls in addition to the FD. I have to say that I find no fault with the cop's response in this case. I agree, there were no imminent signs of peril according to what was reported. The signage should have made a reasonable person believe that there would be dogs in there; I see her actions, based upon the report, very irresponsible. I think you misread what I wrote. Not at all, you say her actions of entering a gate marked with notice of dogs to be responsible, I say they were not; the shooting of the dogs is virtually incent to that; the irresponsibility occurred when the gate was opened. Many dog owners won't even warn people of a dog, here they dod, this shifts the burden to the people entering. Granted, this is not a typical situation and she has cause to access teh house, but if there were no sounds or signs of struggle present and contact had not been attempted, it's clear to me that she used poor discretion and the result supports that.

And having been an emergency responder faced with an aggressive seeming dog-I took the fucker out, gained entrance-stopped the fire in the laundry room (no visible signs of fire until we kicked the door in, and saved the guys house. I had an EFFECTIVE means of non lethal response to deter the animal unlike tasers or spray which MAY work. Sorry, but my EXPERIENCE with Fido the wonder mutt trumps your OPINION. Right, exigency existed. Here, none did according to the media rendition; AKA all the info we have. But what you have is an example of kicking all doors down will eventually render an emergency, the US Const kinda warns against that. This will be the issue for a jury as to the reasonableness of thje officer knowing she could have had 911 call the party back, report her there and have them contain the dogs and allow immediate entry. What kind of dept reports with just 1 officer, let alone a female, assuming she was alone? But your post is mere bravado IMO, no judgment as to trying more amicable approaches like calling 911 to call in, if no response then that ups the ante.

Yes, and it shoud be. Here we go again; more assumptions from the expert of none. The media typically reports everything or sensationalization, here ther was none. That doesn't mean none were present, but we have to go from the data we have and nothing has been suplied so we have to go with that. Well, they weren't investigators, that's sensationalizing, she was the investigating officer. And yes, it his his/her discretion, but that's why the 1983 statutes allow for officers to be personally sued; piss poor discretion. Why would you argue a moot point? I doubt any police dept would then just ignore, most would respond with less than guns drawn or kicking down doors absent exigency; that's the issue here - was proper discretion used?

Now let's have another look at that thread title..... Since women are entirely unreasonable, they've been unable to establish one for them.

This doesn't change what I said. By law only the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether the law is repugnant to the Constitution or not. If you think it is, follow the procedure to have it struck down as everyone else is doing. Failure to follow this procedure and just ignoring the law because you think it's repugnant will make you a criminal. You can ask those who refused to pay income tax because they thought the law was unconstitutional. I bet they have some valuable experience to share. I don't think you understand the concept. Let me give an example. Say the Federal Government passed a law that banned publication of any material unless it had been reviewed and approved for publication by a representative of the government. That law is obviously in direct violation to the Bill of Rights. Citizens have no duty to obey that law regardless of whether the SCOTUS has had a chance to look it over. Good luck with that. You *MIGHT* win in several years, but for teh mean time you're fucked. Shall we look at Loving v Virgiania? The D's were tried and convicted, sentenced to 1 year with the option to voluntarily be deported from Virginia for 25 years, they did and went to DC and appealled. It took 9 years for teh SCOTUS to fix that. Your model is idealistic and unrealistic.

Interesting. This is something I have never heard from anyone who is pro gun restrictions. Indeed they do not like the laws, but they work through the system to change the laws using the legitimate tactics. It is typically gun owners writing things like "you will only get my guns after I'm shot dead", basically saying that they consider it fine to disobey the laws they don't like, and they are going to decide for themselves which laws to obey. So much for "law-abiding gun owners" Not that you'd understand, but: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." - Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison Case law is often trumped. Sure, we often follow staae decisis, but it can be reversed in a second.

Exactly. Look at how the cowards slam their own unions, play for the corporations, etc. The average Joe in America is spineless and will submit in a second when ordered. I think 10% of teh people would never give up their guns while 90% would gladly comply. Oh and Heller could go bye-bye in 15 seconds flat, so don't think anyojne has non-abridgeable rights.

This is not an issue of breed, it's an issue of the officer ignoring the signage and not responding properly. Absent exigent circumstances, the appropriate procedure should have been to find another way to check for welfare.

I don't see this as relevant, a secured dog in a fenced yard with signage on the closed and latched gate is sufficient for all condions with the reasonable man standard.

Next on News At Six-Woman and two children severely beaten as police wait outside for Animal Control officers to arrive. The problem is that there were no signs of imminent danger reported in the article. Imminency trumps all, without a warrant, whatever, but a cancelled call should be responded to, absent present signs of danger, in a lesser priority in that issues like dogs present should be handled differently. 1 scream coming from the house trumps that, but that wasn't present here as reported.

Around here the police respond to fire calls in addition to the FD. I have to say that I find no fault with the cop's response in this case. I agree, there were no imminent signs of peril according to what was reported. The signage should have made a reasonable person believe that there would be dogs in there; I see her actions, based upon the report, very irresponsible.

Considering the SCOTUS implements the exclusionary rule to dissuade polcie misconduct, I agree. Obvioulsy this is not a case of the exclusionary rule, but IMO it could be a highly inappropriate reaction.

I thought it was murder? Damn, I can never keep up with with what the fruits-n-NUTS crowd is calling it this week. Leave it to Mike to poke fun at and trivialize the sufferring of indefensable animals. I come here to revel in the humans I get to share this planet with. No, actually I did it to poke fun at YOU and your wildly over-the-top stereotypes - but thanks for playing, you won the baby seal sausage platter! WHat stereotypes? I was just saying that people who don't feel for these animals are sociopathic; is that a stereotype?

Agreed. Tea baggers, strict constitutionalists and tie dye are all antiquated concepts that fundies hang on to as if they apply today.

But if the rich suck it up so fast that that outspeeds the population growth, there goes your cash influction increase.

I think you aren't factoring the reserve's expansion/contraction of the money supply, amongst other variables. There's an essentially unlimited supply of water, money is limited and controlled. I think those who stash cash end up stagnating the economy, of course an oversped economy can lead to inflation, but then int rates can be increased to combat that and the then the dollar wins. I still can't understand how people can doubt the Clinton fiscal initiatives and implementations, but they still do.

Considering that the dollar is worth a little more than half of what it was just 20 years ago, how do you consider that low? Hell, it's worth 2/3 of what it was when Clinton left office, we don't have to go back that far.