• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Biddeford PD shoots and kills pitbull

carry for myself

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
544
Location
Maine
http://www.wgme.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wgme_vid_8538.shtml


this makes me wonder. are pittbulls dangerous to us? or are stupid owners dangerous to us. i used to train dogs in scarborough, and i've never once seen a "vicious" pit bull that had a educated owner, and i've sustiend worse bites from poodles. than from that breed. so.....is it the whole "gangster owner" thing that causes them to go bad? human stupidity ? or something else?

anyone have any "dog encounter" stories?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
This is not really about pit bulls or poodles or Chihuahuas. It is about cops, their lack of tactics, and their perception of the need to charge into every situation without considering alternatives to bull-in-a-china-shop behavior. There is nothing that indicated the cop could not have retreated back into his vehicle and used the PA to call the dog's owner to restrain the animal, or the radio to request Animal Control to restrain the dog.

Someone was where their restraining order said they were not supposed to be. There is nothing to indicate they were committing any violence or mayhem at the moment. But the cop felt he needed to bust in right then, right there, and do "something" - and got himself needlessly bitten by a dog that was, at worst, territorial and at best responding correctly to behavior threatening to "his" pack.

stay safe.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
We do not know the circumstances of what the officer was responding to. The report says he was responding to a domestic violence violation of bail conditions. For all the officer knew, or all we know, it could have been a man intent on killing his wife breaking into a house. The officer may have been responding in a hurry because a hurry was necessary. I'm not so quick to bash the officer in a situation like that. The known facts are that the officer stepped out of his car and was subsequently bit, that means that the dog was not controlled and was at large. This poses a threat to not only the officer, but any other person that may have been in the vicinity. Moral of the story is that owners need to control their dogs.
 

mark-in-texas

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
319
Location
Richmond, Tx
NO......that bit bull was going to night school, trying to turn his life around, he was a good dog at heart; just ran with the wrong pack.....Have they shown pics of his mama crying on the news yet?..... <sarcasm off>
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
It is about cops, their lack of tactics,

and their perception of the need to charge into every situation without considering alternatives to bull-in-a-china-shop behavior.

There is nothing that indicated the cop could not have retreated back into his vehicle...


But the cop felt he needed to bust in right then, right there, and do "something" -

...got himself needlessly bitten ...


a dog that was, at worst, territorial and at best responding correctly to behavior threatening to "his" pack.

Heckuva analysis.

I guess this one is wrapped up.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Heckuva analysis.

I guess this one is wrapped up.

Why, thank you very much.

It's nice to see you returning with a change in attitude - and a much better one, I'm pleased to say.

Do you and boyscout399 have some additional, non-public information that would show why there was a need to go rushing in as opposed to trying to figure out a way to avoid shooting the dog? Or is your (both, individually) analyses somehow missing as much as I admitted in mine?

For all the officer knew, or all we know, it could have been a man intent on killing his wife breaking into a house. The officer may have been responding in a hurry because a hurry was necessary.

For all the officer knew, or all we know, it could have been a man on his knees at the front door crying his eyes out, holding two dozen red roses and a 5-pound box of chawklits, begging to be taken back.

stay safe.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
Why, thank you very much.

It's nice to see you returning with a change in attitude - and a much better one, I'm pleased to say.

Do you and boyscout399 have some additional, non-public information that would show why there was a need to go rushing in as opposed to trying to figure out a way to avoid shooting the dog? Or is your (both, individually) analyses somehow missing as much as I admitted in mine?



For all the officer knew, or all we know, it could have been a man on his knees at the front door crying his eyes out, holding two dozen red roses and a 5-pound box of chawklits, begging to be taken back.

stay safe.

Right, and since we do not know the circumstances, why are you assuming the officer was in the wrong? It could have been either of those scenarios. If it was my version, wouldn't it have justified going in hot. An officer has to prepare for the worst case scenario. He was responding to a DV call, which could have been someone getting killed, justifying a needed quick response. Hindsight is 20/20, but you've got to put yourself in the perspective of the officer responding to a DV call needing to get there quickly. He was attacked and he responded to the attack. If this was an armed civilian or an open carrier who disposed of the attacking dog, I'm sure your attitude would be different. Why is the fact that he's a cop mean that he can't protect himself from an attacking dog at large?
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
Odd that they are saying it didn't happen that way, but are not giving the alternate explanation. The dog didn't bite the LEO -after- he shot it.

I've seen dog owners claim their dog is nice, won't bite and the dog is jumping up on me, scratching my legs. Well, I don't want to be scratched and infected by their dog.

To me, letting the dog out was their mistake and if it got shot from biting the LEO, it's a good shoot.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Right, and since we do not know the circumstances, why are you assuming the officer was in the wrong? It could have been either of those scenarios. If it was my version, wouldn't it have justified going in hot. An officer has to prepare for the worst case scenario. He was responding to a DV call, which could have been someone getting killed, justifying a needed quick response. Hindsight is 20/20, but you've got to put yourself in the perspective of the officer responding to a DV call needing to get there quickly. He was attacked and he responded to the attack. If this was an armed civilian or an open carrier who disposed of the attacking dog, I'm sure your attitude would be different. Why is the fact that he's a cop mean that he can't protect himself from an attacking dog at large?

Never said he could not protect himself from the mean doggie. Just suggested that there were other ways of accomplishing that besides shooting it.

Why are you taking the position that whenever the cops are called they need to be there most ricky-ticky fast with guns drawn and ready to blaze away to save society from something foul and awful? I'll bet you cry when the cops call off a car chase - even if it never got to be over 45mph.

you've got to put yourself in the perspective of the officer responding to a DV call needing to get there quickly
You do realize that those are two distinct and separate thoughts that you have strung together, don't you? Not all DV calls are someone getting killed or maimed, and not all DV calls need to be responded to code-3 in uder x minutes.

I'm asking why it was not possible for the cop to consider some alternative tactics. You are insisting that there is no possibility of an alternative response. Makes me sort of glad you are not my neighborhood cop.

stay safe.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
http://www.wgme.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wgme_vid_8538.shtml


this makes me wonder. are pittbulls dangerous to us? or are stupid owners dangerous to us. i used to train dogs in scarborough, and i've never once seen a "vicious" pit bull that had a educated owner, and i've sustiend worse bites from poodles. than from that breed. so.....is it the whole "gangster owner" thing that causes them to go bad? human stupidity ? or something else?

anyone have any "dog encounter" stories?

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Over the line LEO bashing
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I thought I'd drop out after mentioning that there was a (somewhat) respectful disagreement of options and priorities going on underneath a news article with little information to support either side.

But then we have a real cop-basher enter the fray to oppose the cop-liker. It's time to throw the yellow flag and cite

(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc).

I'm not going to press the little triangle-shaped button yet. But I'm thinking about it.

stay safe.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
Never said he could not protect himself from the mean doggie. Just suggested that there were other ways of accomplishing that besides shooting it.

Why are you taking the position that whenever the cops are called they need to be there most ricky-ticky fast with guns drawn and ready to blaze away to save society from something foul and awful? I'll bet you cry when the cops call off a car chase - even if it never got to be over 45mph.

You do realize that those are two distinct and separate thoughts that you have strung together, don't you? Not all DV calls are someone getting killed or maimed, and not all DV calls need to be responded to code-3 in uder x minutes.

I'm asking why it was not possible for the cop to consider some alternative tactics. You are insisting that there is no possibility of an alternative response. Makes me sort of glad you are not my neighborhood cop.

stay safe.

Correct, not all DV calls require code 3, but who's to say this one didn't require that. There's just not enough information yet to form an opinion of whether or not this cop was acting appropriately, so saying he could have used other methods without knowing all the facts is poor speculation. Condemning the shooter before knowing how it went down is not responsible. Perhaps the two attacks happened too fast for the officer to retreat and he was forced to draw and fire.

I have not insisted that the officer acted appropriately or that there were no other possible solutions. Re-read my posts, I consistently said we don't know the circumstances, so we can't judge, then I offered possibilities of why it could have been justified.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
The dog owners claim that the officer is NOT telling the truth.

The dog owners were at the scene of the shooting....


Watch the video at the link in the OP. It is NOT evident that the dog required shooting.
 

DWCook

Activist Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
432
Location
Lenexa, Kansas
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "WAIT FOR MORE INFORMATION" how about we stop with making up circumstances that COULD HAVE happened. I understand the video shows a bit more information on whether or not to shoot it but lets not jump conclusions here and appoint this LEO the dirty finger. The fact that none of us were there is enough for us to stand down. If the dog attacked first and wasnt caught on camera then circumstances change. Lets not sit here and call this LEO a dirty crook until full evidence and proof is there.

Im sure none of you guys throwing out your word against the LEO wouldnt appreciate either if you caused damage to defend yourself and then ended being blamed after the fact. Wait for the evidence and proof to be provided before we start throwing our pitch forks out for blood.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
Why are you taking the position that whenever the cops are called they need to be there most ricky-ticky fast with guns drawn and ready to blaze away to save society from something foul and awful? I'll bet you cry when the cops call off a car chase - even if it never got to be over 45mph.

You are insisting that there is no possibility of an alternative response. Makes me sort of glad you are not my neighborhood cop.

Tweeeeet!!!

The referee pulls out the yellow card, holding it up for all to see. The infraction is excessive use of strawman arguments--in combination with irrelevant thesis and genetic fallacy enhancements. Unnecessary roughness to logic.

Off to the penalty box goes SM. The Red team will have to play one striker short now . . .
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
The dog owners claim that the officer is NOT telling the truth.

The dog owners were at the scene of the shooting....


Watch the video at the link in the OP. It is NOT evident that the dog required shooting.

The dog owners claims may be completely invalid. How many times has the Robber's grandmother got on TV and said, "he was turning his life around. He was a good boy"
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
The dog owners claims may be completely invalid. How many times has the Robber's grandmother got on TV and said, "he was turning his life around. He was a good boy"

Yes, their claim might be invalid.

But, the difference here is that the owners aren't simply stating "our doggie wouldn't do that." The owners are stating "We were there when this happened, and the officer's story is false."

It remains to be seen which version of events is closest to "truth," and it also remains to be seen which version will prevail in the justice system.
 
Last edited:
Top