http://theultimateanswertokings.blogspot.com/2009/07/cops-and-dogs.html

Since there’s no way to defeat the State head-on, perhaps accelerating it is its only weakness?

I agree with your positions 95% of the time. I tell people I want universal health care, I want more bailouts, I want UN control of our country — I want these things and more so the crash of the system and society will be on an accelerated path. If this doesn’t wake people up, then we should just his the reset button on the planet.

It’s refreshing to know that I am guilty of using the same kind of shorthand that I accuse others of.

BamBam, in no way do I endorse police tactics. I am an anarchist, and as such profess non-violence. I am merely making true statements about reality.

In a Statist world, where there are individuals selected by the State to enact and enforce its policies, certain realities such as puppycide are a given and are immutable.

The only perfect solution is to destroy the State, which would require a sea-change in humanity from fear and superstition to trust and reason — an admittedly difficult goal. Another reasonable but imperfect alternative is to decentralize power to the smallest possible unit (in my preference, the individual, though the family, clan, tribe or municipality may be viable).

Til then, the puppycide posts will come rolling in on schedule, morality notwithstanding.

Of course, I may be wrong. Cynical, care to weigh in? You’re a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a vest.

This language is consistent with the legal and ethical understanding of proportionality. For example, it is entirely reasonable to shoot and kill and imminent threat. It is not reasonable to shoot someone for speeding. With this understanding, LEOs frequently present the need for puppycide in the context of immediate threat to officer’s life. Of course, this context is only reasonable in certain situations: feeling imminent threat when merely knocking on the door suggests a lack of common sense and/or training. As Radley has documented a lot of the imminent threat context is entirely generated by the LEOs themselves.

Reality dictates that you are close to being right. However, morality dictates something almost opposite.

Manslaughter? Reckless endangerment? Animal cruelty? Vandalism? Please. If there is even a hint of mitigation or “judgment”, he is completely off the hook.

A police officer might resort to shooting a TV or radio that was blasting so loud he couldn’t hear anything else. I could see that. Not so much with wind chimes.

The difference is between animate and inanimate objects. A dog is animate and therefore unpredictable, and therefore can be considered a diversion.

None of this matters anyway, because a police officer can always say that he used his judgment in discharging his weapon. As soon as he does that, the three other questions are asked:

1. Was he acting in official capacity?

2. Was he acting for personal gain?

3. Was he acting solely out of malice?

If the answers are all “no,” then the State will defend him. Your charges of reckless endangerment will not stand.

So the police can pull their weapons and shoot loud radios? Or wind chimes? Or TV’s? Anything that might “distract” them? Is “distraction” the new bullshit excuse of the week?

The police should be required to justify every discharge of their weapon on the basis of imminent harm to themselves or others, or be guilty of reckless endangerment.

Whole thread brought me to mind of Rudyard Kipling, “Power of the Dog.”

http://kipling.thefreelibrary.com/Power-of-the-Dog

All the police need is a microscopic crack in the door and they’re golden.

I’m all ears.

Oh. And, of course, there’s that other reason that motivates much of their activity: “Because they can”.

Good point Eric. And The Agitator does excellent work publicizing the proliferation of SWAT raids and the military mindset of police forces nationwide, especially as regards the drug war, which it is becoming increasingly obvious is close to the root of the evil, which is in fact Statism itself.

However, I agree with Cynical in CA that even when a dog can’t physically threaten an officer in a raid or pursuit situation, it can act as a distraction which would either allow a suspect to escape or harm the officer. Therefore it’s not the shooting of Mayor Calvo’s dogs that disturbs me, it’s that the police conducted a raid in that situation to begin with.