Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Junto

More video released of Black Indiana man getting mauled by police dog (WARNING: GRAPHIC)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Taggart Transcontinental
22 minutes ago, Junto said:

He was a young man who might not have the knowledge that his being nervous and his quickness to comply would almost get him killed.  Again - in the military, the ROE would never allow them to murder a guy in case the thing they yelled for him to retrieve might be something else.  If my mother reaches for her license too fast - does she deserve to be shot too?

Law enforcement is not the military. We don't have ramp ROE and all that nonsense that we did in the military. I spent 26 years in the Army. Policing is different. I don't carry the 40lbs of body armor I had in the Army either.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
17 hours ago, Hieronymous said:

The guy is a dirtbag, but he didn't deserve that.  

I do agree that setting the dog on him was completely unnecessary.

They already had him down on the ground and all they had to do was to sit on him and cuff him at that point.

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
2 hours ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Yeah yeah yeah. Like I said when you read the full report then you have a right to criticize the officers. Do you know what standard is to be applied to determine if an officer used excessive force?

I will take care of it since you don't know...

 

Let me say it slower for you.  My argument isn't whether or not current laws or policies would declare this incident excessive or not.  My argument is the use of force as displayed in the video the police department released - not the lawyers which you wrongfully stated/assumed earlier - the police department - the argument/my issue is that the use of force which you won't watch should never be allowed as we see it on the video.  The idea that it might or might not pass muster with other cops or the DA isn't the point for what I am saying Tag.  Cops should never hold a man down and sic a dog on his face and neck - which is EXACTLY what happens in the video you won't watch. You are so fast to throw insults and slurs at me continually, and assume the worst immediately, and you never address the actual video and that incident (which you refuse to watch).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
2 hours ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

Most men carry their driver's license on them in a wallet, not their vehicle. Never make any sudden moves when an officer has you stopped and always keep your hands where the officer can see them, preferably on the steering wheel or out the drivers window. They even teach that in driver's ed before you can get a driver's license.

 

You are talking to a grown man like I am stupid - just like Tag.  It is insulting.  Of course you shouldn't make sudden moves - that doesn't then give police carte blanche to mow down people that are moving too fast.  In my entire life I have never ever had an interaction with a police officer that was anything but respectful and all parties walked away without incident.  Young, nervous teens might, MIGHT be so nervous as to forget for one second that this cop they are dealing with is so amped up and scared from all the stories and videos he has seen that everyone and every stop starts to appear similar or possibly the worst.  We expect police, in their tough job, to still not shoot teenagers who reach for their license as instructed.

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
2 hours ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Law enforcement is not the military. We don't have ramp ROE and all that nonsense that we did in the military. I spent 26 years in the Army. Policing is different. I don't carry the 40lbs of body armor I had in the Army either.

Again Tag, I'll say it slowly.  I-know-law-enforcement-is-not-the-military.  I know this.  The analogy or point I was making is that troops, in an actual war zone, are still not allowed to shoot people because they are scared of what might happen.  But, now listen Tag, listen, BUT, our police - which are being militarized at an alarming rate aren't seemingly held to a standard similar to the military - and I am saying maybe - MAYBE - between shoot them all, and don't shoot until your lying there bleeding out, there could be some more compromise and additional training, rules and regulations on the use of, say, K9's like in the video you won't watch.

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

I do agree that setting the dog on him was completely unnecessary.

They already had him down on the ground and all they had to do was to sit on him and cuff him at that point.

 

No no no.  Tag has already told us that he has no obligation to cuff him at that point (even though he has no idea what point we are talking about because he refuses to watch the video).

You, and everyone else reading this thread should clearly see that Tag has absolutely no problems A) commenting directly about something he won't even look at, and B.) 100% is for the use of dogs as was shown in the video (he won't watch) - which myself, you and and everyone else who watches that video has an issue with.  Every time I engage in argument/discussion about said particular issue - literally holding a man down with his arms out and letting a dog rip his face/neck a part - Tag then resorts to calling me names and insulting me.

Edited by Junto
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

Mod Note:  Please do not bring up or call out members who are not participating in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Junto said:

You are talking to a grown man like I am stupid - just like Tag.  It is insulting.  Of course you shouldn't make sudden moves - that doesn't then give police carte blanche to mow down people that are moving too fast.  In my entire life I have never ever had an interaction with a police officer that was anything but respectful and all parties walked away without incident.  Young, nervous teens might, MIGHT be so nervous as to forget for one second that this cop they are dealing with is so amped up and scared from all the stories and videos he has seen that everyone and every stop starts to appear similar or possibly the worst.  We expect police, in their tough job, to still not shoot teenagers who reach for their license as instructed.

It's only insulting to you because you certainly seem to ignore a lot of obvious things/factors.

I have been around too and have dealt with the police many times on both sides, a lot more than you, obviously.

I have ridden with the police here in this city as well as out in another country where my uncle was a deputy.

You have no clue as to what it's like to be a policeman. None. You wouldn't last a month here as one in my city with your approach.

I noticed that you completely ignored the video that I had posted where the LMPD officer gets himself shot because he did what you thought should be done?

 

Edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
1 hour ago, Junto said:

No no no.  Tag has already told us that he has no obligation to cuff him at that point (even though he has no idea what point we are talking about because he refuses to watch the video).

You, and everyone else reading this thread should clearly see that Tag has absolutely no problems A) commenting directly about something he won't even look at, and B.) 100% is for the use of dogs as was shown in the video (he won't watch) - which myself, you and and everyone else who watches that video has an issue with.  Every time I engage in argument/discussion about said particular issue - literally holding a man down with his arms out and letting a dog rip his face/neck a part - Tag then resorts to calling me names and insulting me.

:dramaqueen:

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
4 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

It's only insulting to you because you certainly seem to ignore a lot of things and need to have it explained to you.

I have been around too and have dealt with the police many times on both sides, a lot more than you, obviously.

I have ridden with the police here in this city as well as out in another country where my uncle was a deputy.

You have no clue as to what it's like to be a policeman. None.

 

Lol, wow - thanks for explaining that - I needed that explained to me too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
5 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

:dramaqueen:

He literally said that, and literally said he 100% disagrees with your comment I replied to - and you resort to that.  You and Tag are really showing your true colors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto

:dead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
41 minutes ago, Junto said:

He literally said that, and literally said he 100% disagrees with your comment I replied to - and you resort to that.  You and Tag are really showing your true colors.

Oh brother.  :rolleyes:

 

:crybaby2:

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
44 minutes ago, Junto said:

Lol, wow - thanks for explaining that - I needed that explained to me too.

 

No problem! :thumbsup:

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specs
21 hours ago, Junto said:

Wow. So you would use the dog on the 80yr old lady too - because you aren't required to wrestle? Some people aren't in the right state of mind to comply - we don't issue death sentences bringing them into compliance.Your either full of something typing out your reply or deserving of something else for believing it.

Nice ad hominem.

Maybe that 80-year-old should have complied with the officer holding the dog? 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin
12 minutes ago, Specs said:

Nice ad hominem.

Maybe that 80-year-old should have complied with the officer holding the dog? 

It always seems to boil down to that one, simple constant, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Specs said:

Nice ad hominem.

Maybe that 80-year-old should have complied with the officer holding the dog? 

You mean nice rhetorical question?  Because obviously he wouldn't use the dog on the 80 year old.  I swear the reading and mental comprehension of some of you is like on a 3rd grade level. The reserve deputy claims he never has to put hands on any one to bring them into compliance - so I am pointing out the idiocy of that statement by using an over-the-top example of how he would in fact put hands on people like the 80 year old lady and NOT use the dog on her.  You assume way too much and it causes you to misjudge the point I am making.

Edited by Junto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Howsithangin said:

It always seems to boil down to that one, simple constant, doesn't it?

What is that? - many here's inability to discern rhetorical and analogy with ad hominem attacks is astounding. You literally read my post and thought 'wow, Junto is attacking Tag by saying he would literally sic a dog on an 80 year old lady?'

Edited by Junto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto

:horse:

 

To recap my entire intention and message:

Here is a video of what I believe to be an example of why dogs should not be used like they were in the video.  Not saying never ever ever.  Not arguing whether or not it is legal to sic the dog.  Not arguing chambered rounds, shooting the legs/gun, not arguing whether or not cops have a difficult job.  My whole deal is that incidences like this one and the previous one a few weeks ago cause me to feel that we should be more limiting on the use of dogs as tools for law enforcement.  That is/was it.  

:horse:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specs
45 minutes ago, Junto said:

You mean nice rhetorical question?  Because obviously he wouldn't use the dog on the 80 year old.  I swear the reading and mental comprehension of some of you is like on a 3rd grade level. The reserve deputy claims he never has to put hands on any one to bring them into compliance - so I am pointing out the idiocy of that statement by using an over-the-top example of how he would in fact put hands on people like the 80 year old lady and NOT use the dog on her.  You assume way too much and it causes you to misjudge the point I am making.

I apologize that you are unable to see how you were attacking anyone that did not agree with you. 

Your postings showed that you truly believed that someone with a badge might use a dog on an 80-year-old.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
6 minutes ago, Specs said:

I apologize that you are unable to see how you were attacking anyone that did not agree with you. 

Your postings showed that you truly believed that someone with a badge might use a dog on an 80-year-old.

 

I'm sorry rhetorical questions and statements are difficult for you to process.  Also, I apologize that you are unable to see the hateful comments leveled at me for daring to just utter an opinion or use the above questions and statements to argue for my beliefs, and my continued arguing as anything other than, uh, arguing - and never at any point was anyone here in this thread ever, ever, ever actually suggesting Tag would use a dog on an 80 year old lady or that RRWanger would actually gun down my mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
5 hours ago, Junto said:

Again Tag, I'll say it slowly.  I-know-law-enforcement-is-not-the-military.  I know this.  The analogy or point I was making is that troops, in an actual war zone, are still not allowed to shoot people because they are scared of what might happen.  But, now listen Tag, listen, BUT, our police - which are being militarized at an alarming rate aren't seemingly held to a standard similar to the military - and I am saying maybe - MAYBE - between shoot them all, and don't shoot until your lying there bleeding out, there could be some more compromise and additional training, rules and regulations on the use of, say, K9's like in the video you won't watch.

Quite the pretentious comments. Specially coming from someone that does not know the law. You talk to me like I am some amateur and you are the all knowing expert in the field. The problem here is you just stayed at a holiday inn express and know not a damn thing of what you are attempting to talk about. You smack of the protestors demanding a complete defunding of law enforcement, tossing around their idiotic talking points like a militarized police force. You have never done a traffic stop. You have never pulled up on a suspicious call,  nor a domestic call or even a free for all. (more than 6 people in a street fight). These are all things I have done and more. I do them daily, yet you act as if I know nothing of which I am speaking while you attempt to act as if you are some moral authority on the situation.

Use of force is a continuum ranging from presence to deadly use. I don't have to climb the escalator to get to the top nor am I required to stay at the top once I reach there. I apply it daily in all actions I do representing my Sheriff.

Just yesterday I was sent on a call to back up local PD and child protective services. They got information that the mother of 2 children was in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl (both Black) and the CPS wanted to take the children away immediately. PD and CPS were there for about 40 minutes attempting to coerce the mother to surrender the kids before I got there. I talked to CPS, the Investigator, the mother and grandparents of the family. I determined that it was not prudent to attempt to seize these children since CPS didn't have any court order at the time, and the mother was absolutely right since she was the custodian of the children. I also determined that the kids were in a good home provided for by the grandparents and they were there also watching over the kids. So in the end the mother allowed CPS to do a welfare check on the kids, and we all left. That was a use of force, however we backed down because until we have enough proof to prove she is engaged in that illicit relationship we don't need to be creating more insanity in this world.

This kind of stuff happens every day all around the nation. But you know we are militarized and going to drive a tank through their house to get the kids out.

You sit here and talk like you are some "reasonable" person, demilitarize this, no crowd control equipment when facing rioters etc. All sounds reasonable until you are in it getting pelted with explosive devices that have nails in them. Then suddenly you would be wanting that uparmored vehicle, or that military style body armor and helmet.

So thanks for the opinion, I will take it under advisement.

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
8 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Quite the pretentious comments. Specially coming from someone that does not know the law. You talk to me like I am some amateur and you are the all knowing expert in the field. The problem here is you just stayed at a holiday inn express and know not a damn thing of what you are attempting to talk about. You smack of the protestors demanding a complete defunding of law enforcement, tossing around their idiotic talking points like a militarized police force. You have never done a traffic stop. You have never pulled up on a suspicious call,  nor a domestic call or even a free for all. (more than 6 people in a street fight). These are all things I have done and more. I do them daily, yet you act as if I know nothing of which I am speaking while you attempt to act as if you are some moral authority on the situation.

Use of force is a continuum ranging from presence to deadly use. I don't have to climb the escalator to get to the top nor am I required to stay at the top once I reach there. I apply it daily in all actions I do representing my Sheriff.

Just yesterday I was sent on a call to back up local PD and child protective services. They got information that the mother of 2 children was in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl (both Black) and the CPS wanted to take the children away immediately. PD and CPS were there for about 40 minutes attempting to coerce the mother to surrender the kids before I got there. I talked to CPS, the Investigator, the mother and grandparents of the family. I determined that it was not prudent to attempt to seize these children since CPS didn't have any court order at the time, and the mother was absolutely right since she was the custodian of the children. I also determined that the kids were in a good home provided for by the grandparents and they were there also watching over the kids. So in the end the mother allowed CPS to do a welfare check on the kids, and we all left. That was a use of force, however we backed down because until we have enough proof to prove she is engaged in that illicit relationship we don't need to be creating more insanity in this world.

This kind of stuff happens every day all around the nation. But you know we are militarized and going to drive a tank through their house to get the kids out.

You sit here and talk like you are some "reasonable" person, demilitarize this, no crowd control equipment when facing rioters etc. All sounds reasonable until you are in it getting pelted with explosive devices that have nails in them. Then suddenly you would be wanting that uparmored vehicle, or that military style body armor and helmet.

So thanks for the opinion, I will take it under advisement.

I would wait for specs and co. to point out all the ad hominem garbage in your post but that won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Junto said:

What is that? - many here's inability to discern rhetorical and analogy with ad hominem attacks is astounding. You literally read my post and thought 'wow, Junto is attacking Tag by saying he would literally sic a dog on an 80 year old lady?'

I think you are having an argument in your head and attributing it to me. You do realize I never said anything of the sort about an 80 year old. In fact i stated very specifically that I would not go down that idiot path with you. You are merely sending out strawmen and then claiming I am toppling them.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/police-brutality-race-numbers/

Quote

Everyone from the Hollywood elite to NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem… from the mainstream media to teachers at schools across the country… seem to want to declare that police are racists.

 

Edited by Taggart Transcontinental

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
10 hours ago, Junto said:

He was a young man who might not have the knowledge that his being nervous and his quickness to comply would almost get him killed.  Again - in the military, the ROE would never allow them to murder a guy in case the thing they yelled for him to retrieve might be something else.  If my mother reaches for her license too fast - does she deserve to be shot too?

Here is another thing, you toss these words around like they have no meaning. That demonstrates your bias. Murder is a premeditated act. It requires more than just being at a traffic stop and shooting. Manslaughter, or criminal negligence is the proper term depending on the state where the act is committed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...