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

Junto
20 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

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/

 

Are you incapable of understanding standard English sentences?  I CLEARLY stated that I - NOT YOU - I - NOT YOU - was never implying that you would ever sic a dog on an 80 year old lady.  Repeat for - I am stating you WOULD NOT do this.  It is a rhetorical statement to prove the point that while you claimed you would have all the cause in the world to sic a dog on a man like in the video you won't watch - my point was if the situation was an 80 year old lady - YOU WOULD NOT SIC A DOG ON HER. The point being Tag, that siccing the dog was not the only option available to these officers - OR YOU in the hypothetical situation involving an 80 year old lady.  You would assuredly simply cuff her.

Share this post


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

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.

Sorry Tag 'The Technical', I realize that literally as defined by law murder and shooting a kid for reaching for his wallet wouldn't be the same thing.  Imagine for one second - that I am literally the guy that probably agrees with 99% of the things you agree with and you and some of the other people here are treating my words and analogies and arguments as if I'm something I'm not.  The biggest Trump supporter on this site is also the biggest BLM supporter?  You have jumped the shark....NOT LITERALLY TAG - NOT LITERALLY HAVE YOU JUMPED A SHARK... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
On 7/28/2020 at 9:36 AM, 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.

Rhetorical Question Alert Tag, Spec and whoever else cannot read. 

"a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer."

Share this post


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

Are you incapable of understanding standard English sentences?  I CLEARLY stated that I - NOT YOU - I - NOT YOU - was never implying that you would ever sic a dog on an 80 year old lady.  Repeat for - I am stating you WOULD NOT do this.  It is a rhetorical statement to prove the point that while you claimed you would have all the cause in the world to sic a dog on a man like in the video you won't watch - my point was if the situation was an 80 year old lady - YOU WOULD NOT SIC A DOG ON HER. The point being Tag, that siccing the dog was not the only option available to these officers - OR YOU in the hypothetical situation involving an 80 year old lady.  You would assuredly simply cuff her.

OK lets start over, do you remember Graham V Connor? The reason SCOTUS determined that you must know what the officer was facing and dealing with AT THE TIME of the situation was to specifically ensure monday morning quarterbacks with a wealth of after information were not capable of charging that officer with excessive use of force. In other words your opinion that they had other options is over ruled by the reasonable officer at the time rule that is in place. When you have 100's of hours to pour over a video and sit back in the comfort of your chair in an air conditioned room, you will come up with a plethora of pinata's worth of options. The problem? You aren't on the streets in the situation at the time of the action.

You know who could have stopped this whole crap show? That's right the guy on the moped deciding he would comply instead of acting like a clown. He made the decision, HE decided that this event would happen. The rest are along for the ride at that point. Simple response is to comply, officers are not there to degrade you, humiliate you, harm you, or kill you. They are there to investigate a crime and if you decline to act appropriately then you may get caught up in a cacophony of crazy.

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


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

Sorry Tag 'The Technical', I realize that literally as defined by law murder and shooting a kid for reaching for his wallet wouldn't be the same thing.  Imagine for one second - that I am literally the guy that probably agrees with 99% of the things you agree with and you and some of the other people here are treating my words and analogies and arguments as if I'm something I'm not.  The biggest Trump supporter on this site is also the biggest BLM supporter?  You have jumped the shark....NOT LITERALLY TAG - NOT LITERALLY HAVE YOU JUMPED A SHARK... 

Kid heh? In some combat zones I have been to 12 year olds are the shock troopers. A kid needs just 5-10 lbs of pressure on the index finger to kill. But hey why don't we cascade a few wonderful pics of the child when he was an angel at the age of 5 in front of the camera.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


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

Rhetorical Question Alert Tag, Spec and whoever else cannot read. 

"a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer."

In other words a strawman.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
1 minute ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

OK lets start over, do you remember Graham V Connor? The reason SCOTUS determined that you must know what the officer was facing and dealing with AT THE TIME of the situation was to specifically ensure monday morning quarterbacks with a wealth of after information were not capable of charging that officer with excessive use of force. In other words your opinion that they had other options is over ruled by the reasonable officer at the time rule that is in place. When you have 100's of hours to pour over a video and sit back in the comfort of your chair in an air conditioned room, you will come up with a plethora of pinata's worth of options. The problem? You aren't on the streets in the situation at the time of the action.

You know who could have stopped this whole crap show? That's right the guy on the moped deciding he would comply instead of acting like a clown. He made the decision, HE decided that this event would happen. The rest are along for the ride at that point. Simple response is to comply, officers are not there to degrade you, humiliate you, harm you, or kill you. They are there to investigate a crime and if you decline to act appropriately then you may get caught up in a cacophony of crazy.

My issue Tag, is not whether or not you, other police or other commenters here on this thread agree if it was legal or ok to do this.  I am simply arguing that I believe going forward it should be used LESS and/or differently to the point where we never see a video like this. Not assigning criminality to these officers - although I have a big problem with what they did. 

The answer to the question "What would happen if they did not have a dog with them?' is they would have still handcuffed the guy and hauled him to jail.  I wouldn't normally also state, yes, a million other universes and this guy pulls a gun, a knife or a fish from his waistband - but we all know that this situation almost always ends with those three officers handcuffing the guy without the dog (if no dog is present). 

Share this post


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

Kid heh? In some combat zones I have been to 12 year olds are the shock troopers. A kid needs just 5-10 lbs of pressure on the index finger to kill. But hey why don't we cascade a few wonderful pics of the child when he was an angel at the age of 5 in front of the camera.

Wow - You are losing your mind.  Kid = young men that much younger than me Tag.  Do I have to get clinical and literally type everything out like a medical paper?  That 'kid' is a 'kid' to me because he is that much younger than me.  If everytime someone you pulled over for not coming to a complete stop twitched out on you and you shot them first, and looked later for a weapon - your perfect record wouldn't be perfect.  ***Not saying you shoot every person you pull over for the dense ones.***

Share this post


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

In other words a strawman.

Clearly not.  Everyone here knows, and I have stated over and over, that it was obvious you WOULD NOT shoot the lady.  That is the point I was making. No one shoots the 80yr old lady Tag.

Share this post


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

Wow - You are losing your mind.  Kid = young men that much younger than me Tag.  Do I have to get clinical and literally type everything out like a medical paper?  That 'kid' is a 'kid' to me because he is that much younger than me.  If everytime someone you pulled over for not coming to a complete stop twitched out on you and you shot them first, and looked later for a weapon - your perfect record wouldn't be perfect.  ***Not saying you shoot every person you pull over for the dense ones.***

No the term KID has a perspective, that perspective indicates that the person is not responsible for their actions. You use words to intentionally paint the officer in a bad light.

Kid, old lady, what about invalid? Use that one yet?

Share this post


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

My issue Tag, is not whether or not you, other police or other commenters here on this thread agree if it was legal or ok to do this.  I am simply arguing that I believe going forward it should be used LESS and/or differently to the point where we never see a video like this. Not assigning criminality to these officers - although I have a big problem with what they did. 

The answer to the question "What would happen if they did not have a dog with them?' is they would have still handcuffed the guy and hauled him to jail.  I wouldn't normally also state, yes, a million other universes and this guy pulls a gun, a knife or a fish from his waistband - but we all know that this situation almost always ends with those three officers handcuffing the guy without the dog (if no dog is present). 

Your argument is based on never having done law enforcement, will never do law enforcement (you hope) and will never be put in a situation where you have to defend your life and others against a unreasonable person. When that day comes you may change your tune and wished you had a K9 in your back pocket. Incidentally, why do people own large dogs? Is it to be nice and fluffy and stinky? Or is it as a means to protect their home and property?

I was personally involved in a fight on a bus with a guy whacked out on synthetic MJ, he was super human in his strength, aggressive, and willing to take any punishment while fighting 4 of us. I wished we had a dog at that time. Instead we tased him, and he fought the entire 5 second ride, finally got him cuffed to the front were dragging him out and he kicked me and a sergeant, and got thrown off the bus. That 8 minute brawl was 4 grown men fighting another grown man. But hey lets limit the options officers have! Because it's not fair!

Edited by Taggart Transcontinental
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


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

No the term KID has a perspective, that perspective indicates that the person is not responsible for their actions. You use words to intentionally paint the officer in a bad light.

Kid, old lady, what about invalid? Use that one yet?

I'm sorry my words and your words mean different things to each of us.  A male's brain does not stop forming until ~26 years old.  I, having once been a young male, as well as you - know for a fact that we didn't always think or do things correctly - especially under stressful situations.  We as a society still expect trained professionals to anticipate some actions like nervousness to effect an individual, especially a young 'man' who is asked to retrieve his license at a time most people find to be fearful/stressful/nervous, etc.  

Edited by Junto

Share this post


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

I'm sorry my words and your words mean different things to each of us.  A male's brain does not stop forming until ~26 years old.  I, having once been a young male, as well as you - know for a fact that we didn't always think or do things correctly - especially under stressful situations.  We as a society still expect trained professionals to anticipate some actions like nervousness to effect an individual, especially a young 'man' who is asked to retrieve his license at a time most people find to be fearful/stressful/nervous, etc.  

And we do, however fast movements may get you shot. That's just how it is. I don't know what is in the heart and mind of that individual and neither do you. People jump for guns, and others jump for their wallet. That split second how can you tell?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1150706/WARNING-GRAPHIC-Police-officer-shot-dead-Vietnam-veteran.html

This guy right here exercised all the discretion and calm you think officers should demonstrate, he died for that reason. When that old man went into the truck he would have been shot if I had been involved.

This is what we face every day, you have no idea if or when it's coming, you just have to deal with it, but hey he was a vietnam vet, so all is good right? Some little old man.

That deputy died because he was unwilling to act. You know why? He was reprimanded the week prior because of a use of force incident.

Edited by Taggart Transcontinental
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


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

Your argument is based on never having done law enforcement, will never do law enforcement (you hope) and will never be put in a situation where you have to defend your life and others against a unreasonable person. When that day comes you may change your tune and wished you had a K9 in your back pocket. Incidentally, why do people own large dogs? Is it to be nice and fluffy and stinky? Or is it as a means to protect their home and property?

I was personally involved in a fight on a bus with a guy whacked out on synthetic MJ, he was super human in his strength, aggressive, and willing to take any punishment while fighting 4 of us. I wished we had a dog at that time. Instead we tased him, and he fought the entire 5 second ride, finally got him cuffed to the front were dragging him out and he kicked me and a sergeant, and got thrown off the bus. That 8 minute brawl was 4 grown men fighting another grown man. But hey lets limit the options officers have! Because it's not fair!

100% right, and I am not arguing that.  I am saying above and beyond that - call it whatever you want - I feel like, as others have pointed out who actually watched the video - this man did not deserve the treatment he got from those officers.  The fact that *it* is more than likely is legal is an issue I am addressing by commenting that I wish it was *not* so easy for police to use dogs in this manner.  The fact that this opinion is met by you in a manner so hostile to me floors me.  

I am not asking you to fight meth'd out maniacs, and unfortunately you are forced to interact and fight/engage with them.  One reason I didn't want to be a cop.  I've wrestled many 6'4, 260lb men Tag - I know how fun that is (***Not really fun - it was scary***).  I am 100% cool with you employing the tools society allows for you to bring them into compliance - or sometimes deadly force. I am not 100% with the use of dogs in all scenarios - like the one in the video you won't watch.  

 

ETA - *'s

Edited by Junto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
1 minute ago, Junto said:

100% right, and I am not arguing that.  I am saying above and beyond that - call it whatever you want - I feel like, as others have pointed out who actually watched the video - this man did not deserve the treatment he got from those officers.  The fact that *it* is more than likely is legal is an issue I am addressing by commenting that I wish it was *not* so easy for police to use dogs in this manner.  The fact that this opinion is met by you in a manner so hostile to me floors me.  

I am not asking you to fight meth'd out maniacs, and unfortunately you are forced to interact and fight/engage with them.  One reason I didn't want to be a cop.  I've wrestled many 6'4, 260lb men Tag - I know how fun that is (***Not really fun - it was scary***).  I am 100% cool with you employing the tools society allows for you to bring them into compliance - or sometimes deadly force. I am not 100% with the use of dogs in all scenarios - like the one in the video you won't watch.  

 

ETA - *'s

That word right there means NOTHING to me. Feelings get you killed. There is reason, logic and policy. Feelings mean death in this line of work.

Share this post


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

That word right there means NOTHING to me. Feelings get you killed. There is reason, logic and policy. Feelings mean death in this line of work.

*SIGH* Which is why it is best to ask these things, and have these feelings from the safety of our computers and discuss what should and should not be used and how they should be used when they are needed.  Police are not allowed to shoot jaywalks as someone else stated - because as a society we have agreed on that.  I am simply saying I want a little more K9 control.  You scoff at the end results of the K9 attack in this video, but if I was the cop (see, you can't say I am attacking you or accusing you now)...if I was the cop and I tackled this guy and stabbed him with a 1inch knife until he went into a coma - I would be brought up on charges.  The end result would be the same though Tag.  Either way this guy *gets* his neck ripped apart.  I do not believe for a minute most Americans realize police dogs are used in this manner like in the video you won't watch.

Edited by Junto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
1 hour ago, Junto said:

*SIGH* Which is why it is best to ask these things, and have these feelings from the safety of our computers and discuss what should and should not be used and how they should be used when they are needed.  Police are not allowed to shoot jaywalks as someone else stated - because as a society we have agreed on that.  I am simply saying I want a little more K9 control.  You scoff at the end results of the K9 attack in this video, but if I was the cop (see, you can't say I am attacking you or accusing you now)...if I was the cop and I tackled this guy and stabbed him with a 1inch knife until he went into a coma - I would be brought up on charges.  The end result would be the same though Tag.  Either way this guy *gets* his neck ripped apart.  I do not believe for a minute most Americans realize police dogs are used in this manner like in the video you won't watch.

Those that are not doing the job should really have no say as to what is appropriate for LEO's to use as a means of force, unless they are elected to office. Do you not realize that all of these items are best practices, and have evolved over the past 100 years of policing. Additionally, simple compliance will get you every where, don't want to be a chew toy? When an officer says I have a k9 and will be releasing him soon then do what you are told. It's not like the dog was just popped out of a can and suddenly he was out. The K9 gave ample warnings.

Share this post


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

: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:

Yes, everybody understands your point, and it's clear many disagree.

As for the tossing of insults and treating posters like children, go back to page one and re-read your very first response to Taggart. I don't mean your opening post, nor do I mean your responses to others before responding to Taggart. I'm talking about the first time you responded to Taggart, specifically. It's pretty clear who started the insulting back-and-forth, and it wasn't Taggart.

B) 

 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


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

Those that are not doing the job should really have no say as to what is appropriate for LEO's to use as a means of force, unless they are elected to office. Do you not realize that all of these items are best practices, and have evolved over the past 100 years of policing. Additionally, simple compliance will get you every where, don't want to be a chew toy? When an officer says I have a k9 and will be releasing him soon then do what you are told. It's not like the dog was just popped out of a can and suddenly he was out. The K9 gave ample warnings.

But ultimately the police departments operate within the law created by the governed, and not by those enforcing the law. No problem saying that law enforcement should have a heavily weight hand in the discussion, but ultimately it is still regular people/law makers and law enforcement coming together to argue/debate/ decide what should and shouldn't be used.  I'm saying basically I want whatever needs to occur for changes to be made as described by me above - that is all I hope and am arguing / asking for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
On 7/28/2020 at 9:36 AM, 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.

 

20 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

Yes, everybody understands your point, and it's clear many disagree.

As for the tossing of insults and treating posters like children, go back to page one and re-read your very first response to Taggart. I don't mean your opening post, nor do I mean your responses to others before responding to Taggart. I'm talking about the first time you responded to Taggart, specifically. It's pretty clear who started the insulting back-and-forth, and it wasn't Taggart.

B) 

 

Monty, his response was asinine because yes, in fact, police are expected to get hands on with people - it happens millions of times a day.  Tag hasn't even taken the time to review the video and yet jumped all over me with his attitude and argument of authority because he's a reserve deputy - so my opinion, and all the nuance wrapped up in what I was trying to say meant nothing.  He said 'nuh uh' - I used an example which he and others here are either too incredibly dumb to realize or on purpose being willfully ignorant about - that in a scenario - 100% hypothetical - an 80 year old lady would not be held down and fed to dogs like this guy.  Also, hypothetically, if the three officers were not also holding a K9 tool in their pockets (not literally for some of those here), if they were just 3 200lb cops with all that training and weapons - they would have certainly apprehended him easy enough.  They didn't try Monty.

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
7 minutes ago, Junto said:

 

Monty, his response was asinine because yes, in fact, police are expected to get hands on with people - it happens millions of times a day.  Tag hasn't even taken the time to review the video and yet jumped all over me with his attitude and argument of authority because he's a reserve deputy - so my opinion, and all the nuance wrapped up in what I was trying to say meant nothing.  He said 'nuh uh' - I used an example which he and others here are either too incredibly dumb to realize or on purpose being willfully ignorant about - that in a scenario - 100% hypothetical - an 80 year old lady would not be held down and fed to dogs like this guy.  Also, hypothetically, if the three officers were not also holding a K9 tool in their pockets (not literally for some of those here), if they were just 3 200lb cops with all that training and weapons - they would have certainly apprehended him easy enough.  They didn't try Monty.

Yes, as I already said, I understand your position. And I'm sure that goes for everybody else reading along. But even if you believe his response "was asinine", the fact remains that you tossed personal insults at Taggart first, before he tossed any personal insults at you. You even re-posted them just now, proving my point.

B) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
5 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

Yes, as I already said, I understand your position. And I'm sure that goes for everybody else reading along. But even if you believe his response "was asinine", the fact remains that you tossed personal insults at Taggart first, before he tossed any personal insults at you. You even re-posted them just now, proving my point.

B) 

 

Fair enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magic Rat
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Junto said:

 

Monty, his response was asinine because yes, in fact, police are expected to get hands on with people - it happens millions of times a day.  Tag hasn't even taken the time to review the video and yet jumped all over me with his attitude and argument of authority because he's a reserve deputy - so my opinion, and all the nuance wrapped up in what I was trying to say meant nothing.  He said 'nuh uh' - I used an example which he and others here are either too incredibly dumb to realize or on purpose being willfully ignorant about - that in a scenario - 100% hypothetical - an 80 year old lady would not be held down and fed to dogs like this guy.  Also, hypothetically, if the three officers were not also holding a K9 tool in their pockets (not literally for some of those here), if they were just 3 200lb cops with all that training and weapons - they would have certainly apprehended him easy enough.  They didn't try Monty.

I agree with your original point.  The use of the dog looks excessive to me and the situation should have been handled more reasonably and professionally.  Taggart is VERY defensive of law enforcement and I disagree with him about half the time on the subject.  However, he is no longer a reserve deputy.  He put in enough time, education and work to be promoted.  This is after putting in over 25 years in the US Army. I believe that deserves respect.  I don't think we should trivialize his experience.

Law enforcement is a sensitive subject right now and I can certainly understand an officer or deputy's prickly attitude when he has seen so much crap piled on the police lately.  I also think that talking down to one is not going warm him to your point of view.  I understand your passion on this subject as well but I think you ought to lighten the hell up.

Edited by Magic Rat
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
2 minutes ago, Magic Rat said:

I agree with your original point.  The use of the dog looks excessive to me and the situation should have been handled more reasonably and professionally.  Taggart is VERY defensive of law enforcement and I disagree with him about half the time on the subject.  However, he is no longer a reserve deputy.  He put in enough time, education and work to be promoted.  This is after putting in over 25 years in the US Army. I believe that deserves respect.  I don't think we shouldn't trivialize his experience.

Law enforcement is a sensitive subject right now and I can certainly understand an officer or deputy's prickly attitude when he has seen so much crap piled on the police lately.  I also think that talking down to one is not going warm him to your point of view.  I understand your passion on this subject as well but I think you ought to lighten the hell up.

As Monty pointed out, my first post really set the bar here and I wish I hadn't come off like that.  I appreciate your comments and agree with what you said.

  • Agree (+1) 1

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...