Law and Order 2 - Page 99 - Politics and Economics

Well, clearly the answer to that hinges on whether you believe that a duty exists to protect people from suicide.

My personal feelings is that it varies, although I don't quite know how to properly articulate that variance into legislation.

I don't think that it's the governments duty to stop terminally ill adults from deciding to end their own lives, but I feel I can say with a great degree of confidence here that had this young man, had he not been shot, gotten some mental health counseling and a bit of perspective on the situation, would have almost 100% of the time been extremely pleased the police booted in his door and took the gun away and forced him into counseling.

Does that fact matter? I don't know.

There is a missing variable here. How often does someone that is "suicidal" actually commit suicide? I mean are they more or less likely to die when the police come?

I don't think deploying a SWAT team is an appropriate mental health crisis technique. The mother will have to live with the knowledge that when she should have called a suicide hotline, she called the police instead.

10-31-2012 , 03:33 PM

#2452

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...-police/nSrz7/

Quote:

In fact, every single case found in multiple departments, the officer was exonerated.

10-31-2012 , 03:43 PM

#2453

vaya

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 15,156

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...-police/nSrz7/

The real story here is the untold thousands brave of mail carriers, FedEx/UPS drivers, delivery men, meter readers, etc. that encounter these dangerous beasts every day unarmed and somehow make it out alive

10-31-2012 , 07:56 PM

#2454

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,574

Cops should be charged with murder when they kill people's dogs. If you hit a cop's dog it's "assaulting a police officer", so it's only right they be charged with murder imo.

10-31-2012 , 08:00 PM

#2455

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

If you hit a cop's dog it's "assaulting a police officer"

Cite?

10-31-2012 , 08:00 PM

#2456

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,574

If I kick your dog what do I get charged with?

10-31-2012 , 08:20 PM

#2457

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

If you don't injure him, this:

Quote:

O.C.G.A. 16-12-4 (2010)
16-12-4. Cruelty to animals

(a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) "Animal" shall not include any fish nor shall such term include any pest that might be exterminated or removed from a business, residence, or other structure.

(2) "Conviction" shall include pleas of guilty or nolo contendere or probation as a first offender pursuant to Article 3 of Chapter 8 of Title 42 and any conviction, plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or probation as a first offender for an offense under the laws of the United States or any of the several states that would constitute a violation of this Code section if committed in this state.

(3) "Willful neglect" means the intentional withholding of food and water required by an animal to prevent starvation or dehydration.

(b) A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals when he or she causes death or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering to any animal by an act, an omission, or willful neglect. Any person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; provided, however, that:

(1) Any person who is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment not to exceed 12 months, a fine not to exceed $5,000.00, or both; and

(2) Any person who is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this subsection which results in the death of an animal shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months nor more than 12 months, a fine not to exceed $10,000.00, or both, which punishment shall not be suspended, probated, or withheld.

If you injure or cause death, this:

Quote:

16-11-107. Destroying or injuring police dog or police horse

(a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) "Accelerant detection dog" means a dog trained to detect hydrocarbon substances.

(2) "Bomb detection dog" means a dog trained to locate bombs or explosives by scent.

(3) "Firearms detection dog" means a dog trained to locate firearms by scent.

(4) "Narcotic detection dog" means a dog trained to locate narcotics by scent.

(5) "Narcotics" means any controlled substance as defined in paragraph (4) of Code Section 16-13-21 and shall include marijuana as defined by paragraph (16) of Code Section 16-13-21.

(6) "Patrol dog" means a dog trained to protect a peace officer and to apprehend or hold without excessive force a person in violation of the criminal statutes of this state.

(7) "Police dog" means a bomb detection dog, a firearms detection dog, a narcotic detection dog, a patrol dog, an accelerant detection dog, or a tracking dog used by a law enforcement agency. "Police dog" also means a search and rescue dog.

(8) "Police horse" means a horse trained to transport, carry, or be ridden by a law enforcement officer and used by a law enforcement agency.

(8.1) "Search and rescue dog" means any dog that is owned or the services of which are employed by a fire department or the state fire marshal for the principal purpose of aiding in the detection of missing persons, including but not limited to persons who are lost, who are trapped under debris as a result of a natural or manmade disaster, or who are drowning victims.

(9) "Tracking dog" means a dog trained to track and find a missing person, escaped inmate, or fleeing felon.

(b) Any person who knowingly and intentionally destroys or causes serious or debilitating physical injury to a police dog or police horse, knowing said dog to be a police dog or said horse to be a police horse, shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or a fine not to exceed $10,000.00, or both. This subsection shall not apply to the destruction of a police dog or police horse for humane purposes.

10-31-2012 , 09:13 PM

#2458

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,574

ok so this

Quote:

Any person who knowingly and intentionally destroys or causes serious or debilitating physical injury to a police dog or police horse, knowing said dog to be a police dog or said horse to be a police horse, shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or a fine not to exceed $10,000.00, or both. This subsection shall not apply to the destruction of a police dog or police horse for humane purposes.

Should happen to cops that shoot dogs. But of course it never will, cause they are higher class, and are never held accountable and can do no wrong. Funny.

10-31-2012 , 09:15 PM

#2459

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Are you honestly stating there's NO JUSTIFICATION EVER to shoot a dog?

10-31-2012 , 09:26 PM

#2460

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Oh right, here we go again.

10-31-2012 , 09:27 PM

#2461

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Any call for responsibility = total ban on the activity in question.

Dbl does it every time. Search for the posts on high speed chases.

10-31-2012 , 09:34 PM

#2462

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

pvn read his post FFS.

This wasn't "A call for responsibility" by any possible reading.

It was an unequivocal statement that a felony charge "Should happen to cops that shoot dogs."

Had he stated "These shootings should be investigated more thoroughly" I would've absolutely agreed.

Had he stated "These shootings should be investigated more thoroughly and they should be charged when found to have shot a dog unjustifiably" I would have also agreed.

It's these ironclad rules he attempts to institute in the name of "consistency" I argue against.

10-31-2012 , 09:56 PM

#2463

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,574

A police dog is set on me by a cop and I shoot it, I'm charged. I shot a dog that was about to attack me.
A cop shoots a dog that's about to attack him, he's not charged with anything.

Hey I bet a person could get in trouble for actually setting his dog on a cop. .... do I say sicking? Sicking his dog on a cop? idk wtf the correct word is but you know what I'm saying imo.

10-31-2012 , 10:03 PM

#2464

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

LirvA, in these instances you must think of the dog as a weapon (in both scenarios).

If the cop isn't legally justified in arresting you (or using a dog is unreasonable force to accomplish arrest) you should be acquitted.

It's the same in your reverse scenario. If you have just cause to believe the cop in question is an imminent threat to you and is not acting within the confines of his legal duties, you would be allowed to do this.

10-31-2012 , 10:06 PM

#2465

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Now I have to get back to work, it's Halloween, we're ensuring all the pedophiles are in bed with the lights out.

11-01-2012 , 02:22 AM

#2466

Aptronym

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 361

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

It's these ironclad rules he attempts to institute in the name of "consistency" I argue against.

I think they should institute the following rule, and it should be ironclad:

"No tasering 10-year old kids for refusing to wash your cop car"

11-01-2012 , 06:20 AM

#2467

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

If that article is true that guys insane.

11-01-2012 , 06:36 PM

#2468

thekid345

banned

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,616

I have a legal question

I was detained at the border going from the USA into Canada, this was at the Peace Bridge.

I was told to pull over and that my vehicle would be randomly searched, along with a drug dog and nothing was found.

They said they had reasonable suspicion to search my car because 4 years ago a small amount of cannabis and a pipe was found. During that incident my pipe was given back and I was allowed into Canada. After this incident I decided to never bring cannabis over the border, and I never had a issue with border patrol again

Anyways after 3 grueling hours of nonsense questions by the Border Patrol Authority including a drug dog search, the most inhumane exp I have ever had occured.... I was strip searched. They said they could strip search me b/c I had text messages on my phone of me looking for cannabis in the states.

My question is can I sue the border patrol for commencing a strip search even tho i had nothing on me??? What legal action can I take if any???

11-01-2012 , 06:42 PM

#2469

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

you want to sue canada? good luck.

11-01-2012 , 06:45 PM

#2470

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

This will take me a bit.

This was the US Border Patrol, right?

11-01-2012 , 07:13 PM

#2471

thekid345

banned

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,616

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

This will take me a bit.

This was the US Border Patrol, right?

No I believe it was the Canadian Border Patrol ( CBP). As the incident took place on my way into Canada

Last edited by thekid345; 11-01-2012 at 07:23 PM.

11-01-2012 , 07:21 PM

#2472

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

I got no idea then bro.

11-01-2012 , 07:45 PM

#2473

vajennasguy

adept

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 800

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekid345

Lol, you tried to bring pot across the border into Canada? Wrong way bro.

11-01-2012 , 09:04 PM

#2474

thekid345

banned

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,616

Quote:

Originally Posted by vajennasguy

Lol, you tried to bring pot across the border into Canada? Wrong way bro.

No I brought nothing over, I did get caught bringing half a gram of pot into Canada once but it was 4 years ago and they even let me in lol

11-01-2012 , 09:06 PM

#2475

fredd-bird

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 19,337

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekid345

No I brought nothing over, I did get caught bringing half a gram of pot into Canada once but it was 4 years ago and they even let me in lol

Canada weed >>>>>>>>>> America weed

He was pointing out your fail.

Page 99 of 235

First

49 79 89 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 109 119 149 199

Last

...

Page 99 of 235

First

49 79 89 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 109 119 149 199

Last