I always think about the time some friends of mine and I broke into a very old graveyard in Queens (cough*statute of limitations*cough) by lying on our backs and shimmying under the steel wall (it was that or over the razor wire). Suddenly this pack of feral dogs came running up to us, barreling out of the woods, snarling and barking–we figured later they were living with some homeless people in the back of the graveyard, which was all overgrown with trees (earliest graves were in the 1600s). We weren’t getting out the way we came in. OK, some were Lab mixes so I guess I have to take that back; some Pit Bulls; some mystery mutts. My two male friends were paralyzed, and obviously we weren’t all wearing Kevlar and carrying stun guns. I was not a large person at 18.

I stepped forward and said with all my South Carolina conviction “BAD DOGS! BAD! YOU STOP! Stop right there! You all just stop there and stop making trouble! YOU ARE BEING BAD!” They all stopped, some sat down in case I was going to ask, and then they ran away. Maybe they should train cops in yelling “bad dog.” Though, to be fair, in most of these cases the dog is being good: defending their owner’s property from strangers who smell like they are angry, scared, and mean to do bad things. That’s the dogs’ job.

We’ve found that in a good portion of incidents, the person responsible was under the influence of some sort of drug or alcohol. While I am very anti-prohibition, I think that even the most libertarian of us can agree that being under the influence while operating and working around heavy machinery is a very bad idea.

I am writing this in response to the previous poster who suggested just such a policy for police officers when THEY are involved in an accident or incident. I think that is a great idea, and I think that we will all find that in a very good portion of these incidents, that drugs and/or alcohol will be found to be a contributing factor, just like at my company.

Of course, the next step would be ensuring that the discovery of such would be a terminal offense, and with the current culture of cover-ups and protecting brothers in arms in our police establishments, this might be a bit difficult.

The last paragraph is the reasonw hy I think we need to have private, uaffiliated investigation firms with some sort of immunity from police interference in their investigation.

How often do they suffer any negative consequences for doing so?

(Another rhetorical question.)

It’s so odd to me. The reactions of these officers. It’s not a reaction any normal person would have! I myself have gone door to door canvasing for a charity event and never in my mind would I think of getting out of my car until I confirmed that the owner was present and in control of their dog(s) and then gave me a sign that I was WELCOME. Delivery drivers are trained better to handle dogs then cops are. Maybe because the driver knows he doesn’t get to shoot the dog if he misjudges the situation?

Normal people do not assume they have the right to roam freely on another person’s property; even in the course of doing business! Why do cops assume they can go anywhere and do anything they please at any time? (I know. I know. Rhetorical question.) *sigh*

I guess if you keep hearing (and you keep telling yourself) that you’re putting your life on the line every day, eventually you’re going to find a reason to try to prove to yourself that it’s so.

Or, perhaps those law enforcement “professionals” resorting to firing off their six-shooters in wild west fashion are nothing short of depraved adrenaline junkies getting their rocks off killing someones pet.

http://www.klbjfm.com/podcasts/Episodes.aspx?PID=100

April 17, 2012 Pt 2, about halfway through.