APD Shot and killed buddy's dog

[VMI77]

I can't help but think that if the dog had not been there to "take a bullet" we might be talking about a dead man instead of a dead dog.

Anything is possible, but I think that is a stretch. How often do LEO draw their weapons? How often do citizens draw to defend themselves and how few are actually shot?

Anygunanywhere

Supposedly, about 11% of those shot by LEO's are shot by mistake.....and the corresponding number for CHL's is something like 3%.

That's a most interesting statistic that I am not familiar with, although I am very familiar with its subject.

Please provide the source so it can be fact checked.

I wasn't ignoring you, I've been out of town until today, with no internet access. I don't believe any statistics, really, even the ones that are credible....at best, they are a snapshot of something removed from a larger context, and always incomplete. That's why I said "supposedly." I would have provided the source originally, but I couldn't remember where I'd seen the number and when I posted, didn't have time to look it up.

[philip964]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/2 ... tle=Killer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like more training is needed or this may get bigger. According to this article dogs are shot during drug busts, just because.

Social media is allowing rare instances to be brought together and looked at together all at once. Phone cameras, in car cameras and security cameras are recording it. People like me, who consider our dog to be a member of the family are getting unnecessarily agitated.

[matriculated]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/2 ... tle=Killer

Sounds like more training is needed or this may get bigger. According to this article dogs are shot during drug busts, just because.

Social media is allowing rare instances to be brought together and looked at together all at once. Phone cameras, in car cameras and security cameras are recording it. People like me, who consider our dog to be a member of the family are getting unnecessarily agitated.

Oh how right you are.

Click click: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... ycide.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Excaliber]

I can't help but think that if the dog had not been there to "take a bullet" we might be talking about a dead man instead of a dead dog.

Anything is possible, but I think that is a stretch. How often do LEO draw their weapons? How often do citizens draw to defend themselves and how few are actually shot?

Anygunanywhere

Supposedly, about 11% of those shot by LEO's are shot by mistake.....and the corresponding number for CHL's is something like 3%.

That's a most interesting statistic that I am not familiar with, although I am very familiar with its subject.

Please provide the source so it can be fact checked.

I wasn't ignoring you, I've been out of town until today, with no internet access. I don't believe any statistics, really, even the ones that are credible....at best, they are a snapshot of something removed from a larger context, and always incomplete. That's why I said "supposedly." I would have provided the source originally, but I couldn't remember where I'd seen the number and when I posted, didn't have time to look it up.

If you don't have time to look up the source, it would be appreciated if you'd refrain from wasting ours by posting unsupported statistical garbage that even you don't believe anyway.

Tossing a highly controversial but unsupported statistic into an already heated debate inevitably sheds much more heat than light, and causes those of us who care about leaving unrefuted misinformation on the Forum to spend time hunting down its roots instead of on more productive endeavors.

In my book, going silent, for whatever reason, and failing to respond to an immediate request from a moderator for a reference right after posting that statistic does not enhance a member's credibility either.

Let's use this experience as an opportunity to improve our Forum submissions. My request to all would be to provide a link to the source of any statistic cited so the rest of us can easily do the homework to assess its value.

I'd even like to see it elevated to a Forum rule.

Mods? Charles?

[Dragonfighter]

<SNIP>

Let's use this experience as an opportunity to improve our Forum submissions. My request to all would be to provide a link to the source of any statistic cited so the rest of us can easily do the homework to assess its value.

I'd even like to see it elevated to a Forum rule.

Mods? Charles?

...to a point. There are things cataloged in my Swiss cheese brain that though I am fairly certain of, have long lost any semblance of citations for. If this IS made a rule, the forum may fall very quiet unless there is a qualifier, such as "IIRC" or "I can't recall where...", etc. Oh wait, that happens already.

Rather than ask for another rule, why not just encourage posters to cite information where they can (as you did above) and otherwise everyone take it for what it's worth. We should not get our boxers twisted because someone stated something they may not have immediately vetted six ways to Sunday. We all have the ability to accept or ignore what one posts. We all have the ability to call out a poster for employing argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies. We all have the ability to employ reason to correct errors.

If it's a waste of time, skip it.

[atouk]

Social media is allowing rare instances to be brought together and looked at together all at once. Phone cameras, in car cameras and security cameras are recording it. People like me, who consider our dog to be a member of the family are getting unnecessarily agitated.

I'm not so sure it's unnecessary.

The penalty for shooting a police dog is pretty hefty. I think the penalty for police shooting a family pet should be the same, unless they're stopping an actual deadly force attack. Lets get back to a country that really supports Liberty and Justice for All.

[sjfcontrol]

Seems to me that implementing a new rule to require documentation of stated "facts" would constitute "growth" of the rule base. This is the logic behind the expansion of tax regulations, and government growth in general.

Some rules are necessary, and I believe already in place. The internet in general is a place where there are few "rules", and I like it that way. I agree with DragonFighter that statements can be challenged if someone disagrees with them. I think that's all that is necessary. More rules, more laws, more regulation, who needs it? At this rate, someday they'll even have 1500 page laws, and even want to prevent talking on cell phones while driving... oh, wait...

[WildBill]

Seems to me that implementing a new rule to require documentation of stated "facts" would constitute "growth" of the rule base. This is the logic behind the expansion of tax regulations, and government growth in general.

Some rules are necessary, and I believe already in place. The internet in general is a place where there are few "rules", and I like it that way. I agree with DragonFighter that statements can be challenged if someone disagrees with them. I think that's all that is necessary. More rules, more laws, more regulation, who needs it? At this rate, someday they'll even have 1500 page laws, and even want to prevent talking on cell phones while driving... oh, wait...

Down with rules!

[Excaliber]

You folks have made good points and on reconsideration I agree with you.

I withdraw the rule suggestion.

I would still strongly encourage citing sources for statistics if the intent is to advance the discussion rather than to just stir the pot.

[matriculated]

Seems to me that implementing a new rule to require documentation of stated "facts" would constitute "growth" of the rule base. This is the logic behind the expansion of tax regulations, and government growth in general.

Some rules are necessary, and I believe already in place. The internet in general is a place where there are few "rules", and I like it that way. I agree with DragonFighter that statements can be challenged if someone disagrees with them. I think that's all that is necessary. More rules, more laws, more regulation, who needs it? At this rate, someday they'll even have 1500 page laws, and even want to prevent talking on cell phones while driving... oh, wait...

Down with rules!

Mutiny in the making?

[Excaliber]

Seems to me that implementing a new rule to require documentation of stated "facts" would constitute "growth" of the rule base. This is the logic behind the expansion of tax regulations, and government growth in general.

Some rules are necessary, and I believe already in place. The internet in general is a place where there are few "rules", and I like it that way. I agree with DragonFighter that statements can be challenged if someone disagrees with them. I think that's all that is necessary. More rules, more laws, more regulation, who needs it? At this rate, someday they'll even have 1500 page laws, and even want to prevent talking on cell phones while driving... oh, wait...

Down with rules!

Mutiny in the making?

Nope.

Just honest feedback, which I sincerely appreciate.

[WildBill]

Nope.

Just honest feedback, which I sincerely appreciate.

[sjfcontrol]

Seems to me that implementing a new rule to require documentation of stated "facts" would constitute "growth" of the rule base. This is the logic behind the expansion of tax regulations, and government growth in general.

Some rules are necessary, and I believe already in place. The internet in general is a place where there are few "rules", and I like it that way. I agree with DragonFighter that statements can be challenged if someone disagrees with them. I think that's all that is necessary. More rules, more laws, more regulation, who needs it? At this rate, someday they'll even have 1500 page laws, and even want to prevent talking on cell phones while driving... oh, wait...

Down with rules!

Mutiny in the making?

Never thought of myself as a fire-bomb throwing anarchist! Usually more of a

[matriculated]

Seems to me that implementing a new rule to require documentation of stated "facts" would constitute "growth" of the rule base. This is the logic behind the expansion of tax regulations, and government growth in general.

Some rules are necessary, and I believe already in place. The internet in general is a place where there are few "rules", and I like it that way. I agree with DragonFighter that statements can be challenged if someone disagrees with them. I think that's all that is necessary. More rules, more laws, more regulation, who needs it? At this rate, someday they'll even have 1500 page laws, and even want to prevent talking on cell phones while driving... oh, wait...

Down with rules!

Mutiny in the making?

Nope.

Just honest feedback, which I sincerely appreciate.

J/k Excaliber. I wouldn't engage in fomenting a budding mutiny, scout's honor.

BTW, your final conclusion based on the feedback is the one that makes the most sense. I think that strong pressure on statistic-citing posters to provide sources should be adequate.

[matriculated]

Seems to me that implementing a new rule to require documentation of stated "facts" would constitute "growth" of the rule base. This is the logic behind the expansion of tax regulations, and government growth in general.

Some rules are necessary, and I believe already in place. The internet in general is a place where there are few "rules", and I like it that way. I agree with DragonFighter that statements can be challenged if someone disagrees with them. I think that's all that is necessary. More rules, more laws, more regulation, who needs it? At this rate, someday they'll even have 1500 page laws, and even want to prevent talking on cell phones while driving... oh, wait...

Down with rules!

Mutiny in the making?

Never thought of myself as a fire-bomb throwing anarchist! Usually more of a

I don't know. I detect a very subtle, almost subliminal anarchist message in your writing. We should talk. Not that I'm an anarchist or anything...

(Enter Keith B to get thread back on topic in 3...2...1...)