Cop shot dog, owner blamed police

[Msmith]

There are wrong in so many levels in this story.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by fire_lm

1) The officer had the right to enter the back yard after noticing a weapon possibly related to the shooting: PROBABLE CAUSE

2) If the officer is entering the backyard reference a SHOOTING call, he WILL have his gun out. Now tell me, if you have a pit bull jumping at you, do you think you would have time to put your gun away and pull out your pepper spray before the dog attacks you? Not likely.

Probable cause is only one component to a warrantless search or seizure. You can't just say "probable cause" and then go kicking doors in. For the purposes of this discussion, because the backyard is contained within the curtilege of the home, it is essentially considered part of the domicile and thus the officer's entry isn't dissimilar from breaking a door in.

Next time you might want to re-consider hitting the caps lock key sans a more intelligent rebuttal.

[OMG! Ponies!]

Originally Posted by fire_lm

1) The officer had the right to enter the back yard after noticing a weapon possibly related to the shooting: PROBABLE CAUSE

2) If the officer is entering the backyard reference a SHOOTING call, he WILL have his gun out. Now tell me, if you have a pit bull jumping at you, do you think you would have time to put your gun away and pull out your pepper spray before the dog attacks you? Not likely.

Does that change the fact that the Police Dept should reimburse the citizen for the destruction of his property?

[wutamess]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Again - they weren't shooting in the back. Nothing was going on at that point, the people were inside.

"The incident occurred about 6:30 p.m. on March 25, according to a Sheriff's Office incident report. After receiving a 911 call from a neighbor reporting gunfire coming from the backyard, the deputy arrived and noticed a plastic "cannon-type device" in the yard through the wooden fence, the report said."

It's a shame your ignorance is being guided by your reading comprehension.

[bowener]

Dumbass cop being a dumbass cop.

[MOhillbilly]

one less dumbass without a pitbull doesnt bother me.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by wutamess

"The incident occurred about 6:30 p.m. on March 25, according to a Sheriff's Office incident report. After receiving a 911 call from a neighbor reporting gunfire coming from the backyard, the deputy arrived and noticed a plastic "cannon-type device" in the yard through the wooden fence, the report said."

It's a shame your ignorance is being guided by your reading comprehension.

Really, you're calling out my reading comprehension?

When they arrived, there was nothing going on. All parties seem to agree that there was nobody in the backyard when the officer entered it and that the man in question came outside when the first shot was fired by the officer.

They were not shooting in the back when the officers arrived. If you believe the officer's report (that he saw the spud gun through the fence), they knew this. Even if you don't believe the officer's report (and I don't), they would've come upon a quiet house and not into the middle of a raging gunfight.

So is the cop telling the truth? Did he see the potato gun and nobody else in the back yard? If so, WTF was he doing not going to the front to announce what he was up to. At that point he would've known that this wasn't a drug war. Was the cop full of shit? Did he really just walk into a privacy fence illegally and in direct contrevention of standard policy and procedure? In that case, his dipshittery rules the day.

In either event, there was simply no excuse for the officer's conduct here.

It's a shame you continue to dodge the main point on sieze on the minutiae; it's pretty much what the pack of rube cops here want you to do.

[wutamess]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Really, you're calling out my reading comprehension?

When they arrived, there was nothing going on. All parties seem to agree that there was nobody in the backyard when the officer entered it and that the man in question came outside when the first shot was fired by the officer.

They were not shooting in the back when the officers arrived. If you believe the officer's report (that he saw the spud gun through the fence), they knew this. Even if you don't believe the officer's report (and I don't), they would've come upon a quiet house and not into the middle of a raging gunfight.

So is the cop telling the truth? Did he see the potato gun and nobody else in the back yard? If so, WTF was he doing not going to the front to announce what he was up to. At that point he would've known that this wasn't a drug war. Was the cop full of shit? Did he really just walk into a privacy fence illegally and in direct contrevention of standard policy and procedure? In that case, his dipshittery rules the day.

In either event, there was simply no excuse for the officer's conduct here.

It's a shame you continue to dodge the main point on sieze on the minutiae; it's pretty much what the pack of rube cops here want you to do.

So he see's the potato gun through the fence (that the neighbors heard going off and called about previously) and you want him to go back around to the front to knock on the door to ask the residents "what the problem is"?
Riiiiiiight.

Cops WERE CLEARLY IN THE WRONG!

[rockymtnchief]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

When they arrived, there was nothing going on. All parties seem to agree that there was nobody in the backyard when the officer entered it and that the man in question came outside when the first shot was fired by the officer.

...So is the cop telling the truth? Did he see the potato gun and nobody else in the back yard? If so, WTF was he doing not going to the front to announce what he was up to.

#1 I assume most shootings are finished by the time the police arrive. Therefore, they still have to investigate the complaint.

#2 If he did see the gun, as he claims, shouldn't he go straight for the evidence? If he goes to the front door, the guys buddy has a chance to hide or disassemble the spud gun.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by wutamess

So he see's the potato gun through the fence (that the neighbors heard going off and called about previously) and you want him to go back around to the front to knock on the door to ask the residents "what the problem is"?
Riiiiiiight.

Cops WERE CLEARLY IN THE WRONG!

That's what the law says he HAS to do!

And even if there is a plain view exception, hell yes that's what I want him to do. You knock on the door and tell them - hey, I have a report that you two have been firing a potato gun around here. What's going on? Y'know why? Because then you don't have a cop creating a problem where there wasn't one.

You're fine with a police officer opening the fence to someone else's property and just walking in? What if they see an illegal firearm hanging in a gun-rack through the window? Is it okay to just walk right in the front door? Can they kick that bitch in? Your backyard as contained by a privacy fence is part of your domicile and you're okay with the guy seeing a spud gun through a tiny crack in the fence and just walking in?

So warrants and procedural due process just don't matter in your world? How much of your privacy are you willing to cede to guys that say crap like "these knuckleheads should've been inside reading a book"....protect and serve indeed.

Oh, and again, the officer is full of shit. If this dog is so aggressive that he lunged at an officer who came through the fence, there's no way that officer was going to be able to see a spud gun through a privacy fence without alerting the dog. It was revisionist garbage put forward by the cop and his enabling boss to cover his ass.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by rockymtnchief

#1 I assume most shootings are finished by the time the police arrive. Therefore, they still have to investigate the complaint.

#2 If he did see the gun, as he claims, shouldn't he go straight for the evidence? If he goes to the front door, the guys buddy has a chance to hide or disassemble the spud gun.

This is a potato gun, not crack cocaine.

It was obviously not being used when the officer arrived. Thus, there really isn't a reason for him to enter the backyard. Knock on the door, and investigate the complaint.

As an aside, the quotation at the bottom of the article is very telling.

[Iowanian]

Pit Bull GOOD
Cop BAAAAAAAAAAD!

You should start a website dubbing him the "WTC KILLER"

WhiskeyTangoCanine Killer.

Stuntaz out.

[DeezNutz]

The fact that it's a pit is irrelevant. Any number of dogs would react aggressively if a stranger came onto their property.

The dog did not bite, and the unbelievable stupidity displayed by the quotations from the officers/department obviates any type of credibility that the officers might have had.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by rockymtnchief

#2 If he did see the gun, as he claims, shouldn't he go straight for the evidence? If he goes to the front door, the guys buddy has a chance to hide or disassemble the spud gun.

So if a cop sees an an unlicensed firearm in your window, should he be allowed to kick your door in and grab it when you're not home?

As a nation we have valued personal liberty over the possibility of losing evidence. We are not a police state. Situations like the one you have described above are quite common but rarely fatal to a case. If it's something like a real gun, then the cop can arrest the individual and conduct the search incident to the arrest. They could do a protective sweep to find anyone on/near the place that could be hiding evidence. There are additional laws in place designed to eliminate tampering with evidence.

If it's something as simple as a spud gun and these kids want to litigate, then you show the pieces of the spud gun along with officer testimony, the kids still get their fine.

The law is designed in a manner whereby we put up with some of these evidentiary issues in exchange for our liberties. So we don't have cops shooting our dogs our kicking in our doors. Because as I said earlier, this 'tip' from the neighbors was only borderline accurate. It takes very little imagination to conjure up a situation where these guys have done nothing wrong and didn't give the cops such an easy out (fortunately for wutamess and other apologists).

I'm pretty much okay with that, but to each their own.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

The fact that it's a pit is irrelevant. Any number of dogs would react aggressively if a stranger came onto their property.

The dog did not bite, and the unbelievable stupidity displayed by the quotations from the officers/department obviates any type of credibility that the officers might have had.

Exactly!

This is Buford T. Justice and his bass ackwards buddies covering for their own stupidity and potential illegality.

And guys like Wutamess are biting on it.

It's really unbelievable.

[Al Czervik]

"We will not wait until the dogs are chomping on one of the limbs of our officers to shoot," Normand said.
The sheriff said Reimer should take responsibility for his own actions - creating an illegal incendiary device that frightened neighbors and drew the attention of law enforcement.

"We wouldn't have been there in the first place had those two knuckleheads not been on YouTube trying to fabricate a cannon as opposed to reading a book," Normand said.


Pretty much does it for me.....Stupid shit kicking douchebag created the whole situation....