My one quibble is that cops are not above the law, they are the physical manifestations of the law. They are the actual human agents that turn law from the abstract to the concrete. Part of my thesis is that a cop is only a cop while he has his back covered by the establishment. The State is a cold, cruel master, but even it pays lip service to its myths and procedure (read: hierarchy of power). Once a cop truly abandons the establishment and goes into business for himself, then he is a criminal.

But don’t delude yourself that your subjective view of reality is decisive. It is not, nor is mine. Only the objective fact of State power matters. The law is not some ideal — the law is what the State decides.

Thanks for being patient with me. I owe you the same.

“Perhaps you are arguing that the results we often see are that police get a lot more leniency when they kill, but that is a lack of justice not the active bestowing a a “license to kill.””

I suppose I didn’t understand your overall thesis, I see now that you -cynically, of course – presumed the unjust nature of special treatment of police officers by the justice system, and argued it as a cold reality, rather than an acceptable, reasonable approach. I think our friend, Pogue, made the same mistake. To the degree that you are arguing that all cops will act in certain ways based on their overwhelming and irrational prioritizing of their own safety, and their security in the knowledge that they are essentially above the law (their license to kill), I agree with you.

“The simple fact is that whatever you feel about cops aside, ask yourself: if you were a cop would you NOT truly feel as though you could get away with significant criminal acts, at least to a much greater extent than a regular citizen?”

In trying to understand your way of “thinking,” Nick, I went back and found this post of yours above.

It is important to understand the difference between legal and criminal behavior. A police officer ceases to be a police officer when he commits a criminal act. A police officer who saw how easy it is to get away with crime and then decides to lead a life of crime under cover of the badge is a criminal, not a police officer. This is easy to understand and I think most reasonable people would agree.

The difficulty you appear to be having is understanding the definition of criminal behavior. Just because a police officer kills a human or a dog, this is not proof that he is a criminal. There are certain conditions that must be met; admittedly, these conditions appear less strict than those an ordinary citizen must meet, perhaps as a trade-off with the danger that police officers ostensibly face in the course of work.

Criminal behavior by police is determined by internal review, state prosecutors, legislators, judges, justices and juries — all State actors. The net effect is that the State reserves the right to kill any citizen as long as certain conditions are met under procedural (not necessarily substantive) due process. The death penalty is a prominent example, but “death by cop” is another.

This is a fundamental principle of the State, the monopoly on the use of violence in a given geographical area. This is the license.

“Can you explain what you mean when you say that police Officers are “licensed to kill” by the state? I don’t find there to be any truth to that statement whatsoever.”

Glad to explain. Read real slow. In the course of official duty, when there is no clear intent of direct personal gain or malintent by the officer, a police officer may at his discretion use lethal force against a citizen. There may be no explicit written policy regarding this, but case after case after case highlighted by this blog has demonstrated that even when an officer is brought under official review by his superiors, he will be exonerated. You do read this blog, right?

That being said, the context of my posts on this particular thread regards DOGS. If, as I have demonstrated above, police officers have de facto license to kill humans under certain specific conditions (line of duty, no direct personal gain, no malintent, subject to official review, etc.), then police officers have absolute de jure license to kill dogs. That is what I meant. It is irrefutable.

You don’t actually mean to say that “licensed to kill” means having an official certificate from the state, like a driver’s license?

“In short, Im rather confident you’ve pulled this concept out of your ass and will be unable to support it in any detail.”

Last refuge of the witless — an ad hominem, you are 100% wrong.

“Moreover, as you’ve pointed out, dogs are property (or at least they are not citizens or murder victims) so can police simply destroy property at will? Do they have a license to do that?”

One more time — in the course of official duty and with no clear intent to personally gain from their actions nor malintent, police officers have license to destroy, confiscate or seize property, subject to due process and/or official review. And again, as this blog demonstrates on a daily basis, in 99 or more out of 100 cases a police officer brought before a review board will be exonerated.

Again, the idea that they require a state-issued identification card as a “license” is so sophomoric as to make me cringe just to address the idea. The license is in the official condoning of their behavior through due process.

“Lastly, yes officers will do whatever it takes to stay safe, but that does not mean they should do so in every single situation even when the risks and odds and other facts make it so unlikely that their safety is even at risk.”

I was not discussing the “should” aspect of police behavior. That is subjective and completely dependent on the point of view of the commentor. I was discussing the “is” aspect. You wrote it yourself, “officers will do whatever it takes to stay safe.” Period. Fact. The state has imbued police officers with the power to use their discretion in these situations. There is not thing one a citizen can do, except to organize and demand change.

“it certainly doesn’t mean they are legally allowed to do this or have a “license” to.”

Yes it does. It most certainly does. See above explanations.

Now, why did you waste so much personal time of yours and mine posting such inanities when you could have been organizing a society of dog-owner activists to effect change? Is it too daunting a challenge?

Oh yes, it’s much easier to plug one’s head in the sand. That’ll make the problem go away.

Can you explain what you mean when you say that police Officers are “licensed to kill” by the state? I don’t find there to be any truth to that statement whatsoever. They can not kill indiscrinately and sya that because the state gave them a gun blah blah blah. They can still be prosecuted for murder and the statute applies exactly the same to their actions and the jury gets the same instructions as in any other murder case. Perhaps you are arguing that the results we often see are that police get a lot more leniency when they kill, but that is a lack of justice not the active bestowing a a “license to kill.”

In short, Im rather confident you’ve pulled this concept out of your ass and will be unable to support it in any detail.

Moreover, as you’ve pointed out, dogs are property (or at least they are not citizens or murder victims) so can police simply destroy property at will? Do they have a license to do that? Lastly, yes officers will do whatever it takes to stay safe, but that does not mean they should do so in every single situation even when the risks and odds and other facts make it so unlikely that their safety is even at risk, and it certainly doesn’t mean they are legally allowed to do this or have a “license” to.

Wrong, Pogue. False dilemma. Dogs are legally different from humans. The standard for shooting a human is presumably higher than that of a dog, though I will admit that in practice, from the postings on this blog, the line is considerably blurred.

And frankly, if the girlfriend flashed the cop to divert his attention, then she is an accomplice and is willingly placing herself in harm’s way. If she did it under duress, then she’s the victim of her criminal boyfriend.

You have not demonstrated that the relative (to be perceived by a cop in a split second) danger of the diversion is relevant to the likelihood of a shooting occurring. There are lots of variables, but from the officer’s POV, he is going to eliminate as many variables as he can as quickly as he can — toy dog, tits or snarling beast.

“Part of my work involves residential service, so I often venture onto private property owned by complete strangers that have household pets that bark/growl/defend its property. And my first thought isn’t to grab my hammer from my toolbelt and bludgeon the poor creature to death.”

This is irrelevant to the point I made — you are not licensed to kill by the state. Police officers are, and they will use any means at their disposal. You lack that means, and so you must tolerate any dog you encounter except for the one that tears at your throat.

You and I and everyone under the sun can have empathy for dog owners whose dogs are killed by police officers. That and $2.00 is not going to change a freaking thing — only community action will.

Do you really know what I’m saying? Do you think I haven’t looked at this six ways from Sunday?

The problem is your example is ridiculous. If a criminal uses a toy poodle as a diversionary tactic, so by your logic the cop must shoot the diversionary tactic, then equally, if a criminal uses his girlfriend to flash the cops as a diversionary tactic, then the cops must shoot the diversion.

“Look out!!! Tits!!! *bang* Now where’s that sniper?”

You see, the threat level of the diversion does matter. Toy poodle = bodacious ta ta’s < charging pit bull.

You also have to realize that the “puppycide” that is often discussed here involves harmless dogs owned by innocent people. So it’s not that difficult for me to put myself in these shoes you speak of. Part of my work involves residential service, so I often venture onto private property owned by complete strangers that have household pets that bark/growl/defend its property. And my first thought isn’t to grab my hammer from my toolbelt and bludgeon the poor creature to death.
More than a few times I had gotten the address wrong. Imagine if I had, even in self defense, killed a family dog on someone’s private property that I had no permission to be on. I would be arrested.
But the cops, who often get the address wrong, are apparently free to fire at will.

“Sorry Mrs. Finklestein, we were told by some crackhead, that there was a drug dealer living at 3452 Oakdale Avenue… oh wait… this is Oakdale Drive… So sorry about that. Standard operating procedure, you understand. And BTW, you best close that bathrobe a little tighter if you know what’s good for you. It’s very distracting.”

Don’t get me wrong. I know what you’re saying. I just think you should have another look at it.

Cheers.

Pogue, no joke at all, although I purposely used a ridiculous example to demonstrate that breed is irrelevant. The context of my post was “dog as tactical diversion,” not “dog as primary weapon.” Is it really that difficult for you to put yourself in the shoes of the responding police officer?

The police determine the appropriate methods, not the citizens. Power always answers up the chain of command, never down. Police are going to preserve their own lives at all costs.

“As a dog owner, I do my best to inform anyone who would listen about “puppycide”. Thing is, if it’s not their dog, they kinda’ shrug it off.”

That’s predictable. It also explains both the prevalence of dog shootings by police and the lack of an organization to mitigate same.

Humans are LAZY.

Haha, SPECTRE. Nice.

It is important to remember that a dog can be dangerous not only as a primary weapon, but as a diversion for a human opponent. While that toy french poodle is trotting toward the officer, it may be distracting the officer from the sniper behind the kitchen counter.

“Quick, kill the poodle before we’re shot by SPECTRE. *bang* Wait, no sniper? Whew!! That was close. Sorry about yer dog Mrs. Finklestien. Standard procedure, you understand. BTW, next time, you better keep your killer calico in a cage or else.”

As a dog owner, I do my best to inform anyone who would listen about “puppycide”. Thing is, if it’s not their dog, they kinda’ shrug it off.
Besides, police officers are glorified in our culture. I’m normally one to defend the entertainment industry, but in the case of police/crime shows, isn’t it odd that all of the cops in shows like “Law&Order”, “CSI”, etc., are ALL portrayed as unsung heroes, underpaid, overworked, not respected ethical saints protecting the belligerent public that does everything to prevent them from doing their job? Not to mention the DA’s infallible motives.

Just sayin’.

Cheers.

I don’t let police search out of principle, and perhaps to illustrate to them, if the situation ever arose, that some people say no becuase they don’t want to be bothered, not because they are criminals.

While we’re here on the topic of police professionalism, RAdley, have you ever considered created a new category of your posts entitled “Puppycide?” I know it would be a huge pain to do and they would all overlap with other categories, but it seems to me like you must have hundreds upon hundreds of stories of police puppycide and it owuld be good to get them all in one place. Thanks

(from the dc examiner regarding the Toys For Tots case)

Two things. First, she’s worried about the story more than she’s worried about the crime. Glad she has her priorities straight.

Second, she needs to take a remedial math class, because I’m pretty sure there aren’t 400,000 cops in DC. O_o

In regards to the teen/dog search/dad cop story and the comments, I always tell my students this – The reason I don’t let them search is because I don’t know what they are looking for.

I could have completely innocent and legal items in my car that could arouse suspicion from a completely unrelated event that I am in no way involved in.

The teen did right. It’s a shame that he is being made out to be a whiner or a cry baby for asserting his right. The comments on those sites are shameful.

Let ‘em search? Give me a break!

An equally high percentage of households have a pet, frequently a dog.

Don’t the police KNOW this when they elicit a NO-KNOCK warrant from a judge?

Every police officer has been trained the the Tueller Drill, although they might know it as the “21 foot rule”. The premise, proved through research, is that someone armed with a knife can cover 21 feet and deliver a fatal stab wound faster than an average officer can draw and fire his holstered pistol.

Seven yards is the extreme outer limit of what most people consider conversational space. How often do you engage someone more than a room’s length away?

Almost any dog can cover 7 yards faster than any human, so the mere fact than an officer is able to recognize the dog, perceive it as a “threat”, draw, and fire a fatal shot, is pretty much proof than that the dog was not a threat. If it had been a fatal threat, then the officer would have at the very least been bitten severely, if not fatally.

Anyone who is actively involved in handgun sports (and darn few police officers fire their weapons more than the minimum requirement) knows that hitting a dog-sized rapidly moving target is extremely challenging.

The frontal kill zone of a charging dog, even a large dog, is about 3 inches wide by 4-6 inches high. Most cops can’t reliably hit a target that size at 7 yards in standing slow fire.

Any time an officer shoots and kills a dog at more than contact distance, and without any bite wounds, is prime facie evidence that the dog was not a deadly threat.

Police dogs in general are an incredible waste of time, money and resources and have more than a slight smell of Nazi Germany and Bull Connor. They’re plain offensive to a free people. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for them to be used in every day policing unless you’re wanting to intimidate and instill general terror.

A perfect fit for modern policing in America. It’s all about intimidation and terrorizing the citizenry.

Indeed there are. Scalia is living in a dream world. Those of us who truly want to bring professionalism to policing are hitting a wall because of extreme state overreach. As a potential recruit, let me just say that I would much rather see Radley Balko as a guest instructor than Judge Scalia. I’d pitch in for the fee myself.

My stabs at your questions are: a small fraction, roughly equal or perhaps slightly greater in the latter, roughly equal depending on what neighborhood one lives in.

Your last two sentences are a fairly succinct defense of anarchism. I applaud that.