# Sacramento K-9 takes down suspect



## valb (Sep 2, 2004)

The video is a bit dark, but you can clearly see the
good dog!!

Sacramento CHP Chase Ends in Dramatic Standoff With Driver Holding Gun to Head | KTLA


----------



## TommyB681 (Oct 19, 2012)

A lot of departments think K9's arent cost-effective...seem useful to me lol


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

That guy didn't have a shirt on, right? That had to hurt...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Oh boy.

I'm all for police K9s, they often are the less lethal way to help control a dangerous situation.

However...

I know I'm probably going to get in trouble here....yes clearly a dangerous situation for the man and the police involved.

But why did they send the K9 in for a bite *after* the man had tossed his gun away over the roof of the car and put his hands in the air as ordered by the police?

Ugghhhh.

The man was having some kind of mental break down, wanting to commit suicide. Too many people who need help with mental health issues ending up in jail.....

I just cannot celebrate in this particular instance. A very sad situation all around.


----------



## valb (Sep 2, 2004)

You're not in any trouble from me, I see what you
are saying.

Was there hesitation to send the dog while the
guy still had the gun? I don't know. I'm just glad it
all ended relatively safely for everyone.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> But why did they send the K9 in for a bite *after* the man had tossed his gun away over the roof of the car and put his hands in the air as ordered by the police?


I can appreciate why some might wonder this and think it might be a bit over the top......

However, as you suggested the individual was rather unstable and presented a very unpredictable situation going forward after he tossed the gun....who knows..maybe he had another gun on him or other weapon ??? Plus, the rantings of this guy may have included much which dictated their use of the dog....

Better that he suffered a few dog bites than a funeral I guess...

As the CHP officer stated " “Officers used extreme caution and restraint in not having to fire any rounds to take him into custody.”....had shots been fired by the officers to subdue this drunken and deranged individual...you know what you would be reading in the newspapers today...and it would only make the current situation this country is dealing with worse.

If you read the entire article..." He had refused to obey commands after throwing the gun away, authorities told KTXL."...I'm guessing this is what prompted the use of the K-9. 

Unfortunately, this is just another example of the times we live in....wish it wasn't so....but it is the reality we have to acknowledge.


SuperG


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I didn't read the article I watched the video.

I didn't suggest the individual was rather unstable, I said "clearly a dangerous situation" so no hemming or hawing from me in that respect.

Slippery slope, better a beating then a funeral, better a year of solitary confinement, better a 1000 lashes? Who gets to decide? Lack of deadly force cannot justify every action taken by authorities.

Acceptance that this is the better way won't solve the underlying problems.

I think the police would rather not have to deal with mentally ill people in the first place.

Then you have to ask, why are law enforcement and the courts most often mental health of only resort? (Rhetorical question)

We are going to pay, one way or the other.







SuperG said:


> I can appreciate why some might wonder this and think it might be a bit over the top......
> 
> However, as you suggested the individual was rather unstable and presented a very unpredictable situation going forward after he tossed the gun....who knows..maybe he had another gun on him or other weapon ??? Plus, the rantings of this guy may have included much which dictated their use of the dog....
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I just cannot watch things like this unfold without a knot in my stomach.

Mostly because there is a better way, ounce of prevention.

I can't celebrate the dog biting a mentally ill, drunk man who is raising his arms in the air. Yes he was very dangerous, yes it was an unpredictable situation but after he does comply, gun tossed away, pants dropping down to his thighs (sheesh normally I think that "style" is goofy, in this case it's put his pockets out of reach and he can't really run), hands in the air and then the dog flies in for a bite. 

I wonder how long it took to out the dog as well.

Like I said, a sad situation all around.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I didn't suggest the individual was rather unstable,
> 
> 
> Acceptance that this is the better way won't solve the underlying problems.
> ...


I used "unstable" in the sense that the individual was as you cited earlier.." The man was having some kind of mental break down, wanting to commit suicide."

" Acceptance that this is the better way won't solve the underlying problems."...I guess I don't subscribe to the notion that law enforcement is responsible for the underlying problems....they just get to deal with the fallout...after the fact....it gets dumped in their laps and they get the ugly jobs.

"I think the police would rather not have to deal with mentally ill people in the first place." agreed....but reality dictates otherwise.

"We are going to pay, one way or the other."...we already are paying....and not just $$$$$...human lives are being destroyed...it's a sad situation.

"I can't celebrate the dog biting a mentally ill, drunk man who is raising his arms in the air. Yes he was very dangerous, yes it was an unpredictable situation but after he does comply, gun tossed away, pants dropping down to his thighs (sheesh normally I think that "style" is goofy, in this case it's put his pockets out of reach and he can't really run), hands in the air and then the dog flies in for a bite. " Once again, as the article stated... ." He had refused to obey commands *after *throwing the gun away, authorities told KTXL."....one has to take this into consideration.

I only celebrate that lives were not lost. They talked him out of blowing his own head off...which is a success....some might argue otherwise...but the cops did deal with his suicidal actions and diffused the situation...one does have to acknowledge that was a victory all on it's own.

It's an ugly world out there at times.....it's sad but a reality.

SuperG


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

As far as I know the police treat an armed person acting in this manner as a danger to himself or others regardless of the reason (since reason is not in play here). The person is acting in a life threatening manner. Later, they will have the opportunity to sort out what caused this and do the appropriate thing for this person. 

At that point (2+ hours) with this man, doing anything other than using the dog may have been a bigger problem. He may have had another weapon on him. I have seen a person (od'd on crack) in an emergency room push 5 cops off of him like they were toys. Tasing a person on drugs can also kill them. 

There's something psychological about a dog attacking a person that normally causes them to focus all their attention on the dog.LOL It's not like well, only 2 cops have a hold of me and I'm not cuffed yet and think I can take 'em. Can't manipulate a dog, can't bluff him, can't say "ok, I give up" and then pull a fast one. It looks like the dog didn't come off until the cuffs were on.... that is probably protocol with these situations.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Last paragraph, not necessarily true. Remember the guy who jumped the fence to the White House (2nd guy last year not the first). He fought off the first dog and injured it. 



Stonevintage said:


> As far as I know the police treat an armed person acting in this manner as a danger to himself or others regardless of the reason (since reason is not in play here). The person is acting in a life threatening manner. Later, they will have the opportunity to sort out what caused this and do the appropriate thing for this person.
> 
> At that point (2+ hours) with this man, doing anything other than using the dog may have been a bigger problem. He may have had another weapon on him. I have seen a person (od'd on crack) in an emergency room push 5 cops off of him like they were toys. Tasing a person on drugs can also kill them.
> 
> There's something psychological about a dog attacking a person that normally causes them to focus all their attention on the dog.LOL It's not like well, only 2 cops have a hold of me and I'm not cuffed yet and think I can take 'em. Can't manipulate a dog, can't bluff him, can't say "ok, I give up" and then pull a fast one. It looks like the dog didn't come off until the cuffs were on.... that is probably protocol with these situations.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

SuperG said:


> I used "unstable" in the sense that the individual was as you cited earlier.." The man was having some kind of mental break down, wanting to commit suicide."
> 
> " Acceptance that this is the better way won't solve the underlying problems."...I guess I don't subscribe to the notion that law enforcement is responsible for the underlying problems....they just get to deal with the fallout...after the fact....it gets dumped in their laps and they get the ugly jobs.
> 
> ...



I know it's an ugly world my friend, else I wouldn't make the comments I have thus far.

I think we (human beans...) make it a lot uglier then it has to be.

Let's not forget the man who was taken down is suffering (as Lisa cautiously pointed out earlier).

When we forget that the _balance_ is lost. Things have changed since 9/11 and not for all the right reasons. Tip toe, tip toe that's probably as far as I can take it here.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Btw, from the video he tossed the gun away and had raised his hands in the air per police orders so at that point the video shows him complying with police.....


----------



## Saphire (Apr 1, 2005)

No, he was not complying. He continued to walk forward towards the officer giving the verbal direction. These officers have no idea if he has another weapon. I've been on the other side of video, it does not always show everything.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

There are two options here. The police shoot him and he dies or the dog goes in and he lives. I think the safest route for everyone was used.


----------



## Saphire (Apr 1, 2005)

SuperG said:


> I used "unstable" in the sense that the individual was as you cited earlier.." The man was having some kind of mental break down, wanting to commit suicide."
> 
> " Acceptance that this is the better way won't solve the underlying problems."...I guess I don't subscribe to the notion that law enforcement is responsible for the underlying problems....they just get to deal with the fallout...after the fact....it gets dumped in their laps and they get the ugly jobs.
> 
> ...


Having a brother who is a police officer and who came close to dying at the hands of someone who was mentally ill, who has more rights? The police officer to stay alive or the mentally ill person who may not know what they are doing?
In this case, the mentally ill man stabbed one officer and slashed the neck of another before being shot dead. The 1st two officers didn't want to hurt him as they had identified he was not stable. They almost paid with their lives. 
Mental illness and lack of resources to help those suffering with it is indeed sad but you cannot expect law enforcement to not protect themselves because of it.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

at :21 seconds into video he complied with "hands in the air".

WHILE the office is saying to get down on the ground the dog is entering the frame at :22 seconds.

He was slow to comply with "Hands in the air", from about :17 - :21 so about 4-5 seconds to comply. Upon raising his hands he did stop walking.

It "looked" like he was bending his knees and leaning forward to get on the ground, or avoid the dog. Hard to say since the dog was so fast.

I understand this happened after a long stand off of him not complying.



Saphire said:


> No, he was not complying. He continued to walk forward towards the officer giving the verbal direction. These officers have no idea if he has another weapon. I've been on the other side of video, it does not always show everything.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

So you are saying that I don't think officers have the right to protect themselves if being attacked by an armed man (mental health problems or not)? I haven't said that anywhere here, just to be clear. 

The video doesn't lie, it shows his hands in the air.

The reporters also stated the man was 'surrendering' and they were there when it all happened.




Saphire said:


> Having a brother who is a police officer and who came close to dying at the hands of someone who was mentally ill, who has more rights? The police officer to stay alive or the mentally ill person who may not know what they are doing?
> In this case, the mentally ill man stabbed one officer and slashed the neck of another before being shot dead. The 1st two officers didn't want to hurt him as they had identified he was not stable. They almost paid with their lives.
> Mental illness and lack of resources to help those suffering with it is indeed sad but you cannot expect law enforcement to not protect themselves because of it.


----------



## Saphire (Apr 1, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> So you are saying that I don't think officers have the right to protect themselves if being attacked by an armed man? I haven't said that anywhere here, just to be clear.
> 
> The video doesn't lie, it shows his hands in the air.
> 
> The reporters also stated the man was 'surrendering' and they were there when it all happened.


And he continued to walk forward. That is not complying.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

sorry for citing you earlier, I misinterpreted. 



llombardo said:


> There are two options here. The police shoot him and he dies or the dog goes in and he lives. I think the safest route for everyone was used.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

No he stopped and then started leaning down. 

The dog was sent in fast.......



Saphire said:


> And he continued to walk forward. That is not complying.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I'm not saying these situations are easy, for anyone involved.

We had a man have a mental break in a hospital, already diagnosed, there trying to get help.

Security and police had to get involved and he ended up in jail too.

I'm not sure what it's like in Canada but here in the U.S. this is a really big problem that started back in the 80s and it's only getting worse.


----------



## Saphire (Apr 1, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I'm not saying these situations are easy, for anyone involved.
> 
> We had a man have a mental break in a hospital, already diagnosed, there trying to get help.
> 
> ...


It's a huge problem here as well. Unless you are at the receiving end, it's very difficult to say what you would do. My strong will to live is what kept me from following my dad and brothers footsteps in policing. I would shoot alot of people, therefore not a good career choice for me. I am still in the law enforcement field but inside the jail I have no weapons. I can tell you at 47 yrs old I wish that were different. I am currently 6 months out of a serious assault and still not 100%. A person who has mental health issues and having an episode is very dangerous, strong and sometimes appears unstoppable. It's not something you forget. 
Video misses alot even when you think it's all there, it is not.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

That's not good. It being a problem in Canada as well. 

I would venture to say it's worse here though.....

I don't think the video is doctored up to make it look one way or the other. 

The dog was sent really fast and that happened with another incident recently (except no dog, shots fired, really fast upon police command) when a man tried to comply and the office mistook his actions as aggressive. 

A couple more thoughts, watching the whole video I thought the police did a very good job trying to de-escalate. Right before the dog comes in frame I'm thinking, how well the police are doing in a very tense situation. I cannot imagine what it's like, the pressure, the gravity of the situation. Yet that is what police are trained to cope with too. I see both sides.

Whether he was too slow in complying in the end or not, he was *finally* complying and then the dog is sent in. So maybe next time, he'll keep his gun handy, so he can shoot the dog or even much worse an officer?

If complying means he's going to be attacked anyways? Yeah, different ways to perceive this depending on which side someone maybe on.

Personally, it looked like to me, the man wanted the police to shoot him, he wanted to be dead. Which is just awful for him AND the police. Now he's going to end up in jail, probably not get the care he needs rinse and repeat. 




Saphire said:


> It's a huge problem here as well. Unless you are at the receiving end, it's very difficult to say what you would do. My strong will to live is what kept me from following my dad and brothers footsteps in policing. I would shoot alot of people, therefore not a good career choice for me. I am still in the law enforcement field but inside the jail I have no weapons. I can tell you at 47 yrs old I wish that were different. I am currently 6 months out of a serious assault and still not 100%. A person who has mental health issues and having an episode is very dangerous, strong and sometimes appears unstoppable. It's not something you forget.
> Video misses alot even when you think it's all there, it is not.


----------



## mmgermany (Aug 31, 2014)

People that do not/cannot/will not behave get THEMSELVES into terrible situations...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

There but for the grace of God go I.

Whether I be the police officer or the man having a mental breakdown. 

It's all the same really, isn't it?

Unless you've been a police officer it's hard to imagine what it must be like for them.

Unless you've dealt with serious mental illness it's hard to imagine what it must be like for them.




mmgermany said:


> People that do not/cannot/will not behave get THEMSELVES into terrible situations...


----------



## mmgermany (Aug 31, 2014)

I continue to pray that each time my husband leaves for work as a police officer that he returns home safely.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Being a police officer is a very hard and dangerous job.

Police are increasingly being placed into situations they should not be in because society fails in other ways.

I would think long and hard and then again if I were young and looking at LE for a career. 

When someone is in a suicidal state they aren't making rational clear minded choices. I've dealt with depression and it really 'skews' reality. We lost a member here recently, due to suicide. You have to consider how much pain a person has to be in in order to seriously contemplate, let alone take their own life. 

The only reason I even dared post some of the things I did here about this *particular* police incident is because the man had mental health issues.

It's time to stop taking sides.



mmgermany said:


> I continue to pray that each time my husband leaves for work as a police officer that he returns home safely.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

My X (Vietnam vet) had a psychotic break one day. Apparently to him I was "Charlie". That's what he called me. He took me outside at gunpoint and made me kneel down and place my hands behind my head. He said I had to die and he was going to give me a moment to get right with God because he knew Viet Cong were Godless people. He had a shotgun in contact with my left temple the whole time. This was in a rural area and no one around but us.

A miracle happened and for no reason his boss (also a vet) and his wife appeared from around the corner in their car. He saw the scene, stopped his car about 35 feet away. I saw him push his wife down to the floorboard. He opened his door and stood behind it.

He asked "What's going on G___?" "G" didn't seem to hear or see anything but me. I barely got the words out (I was shaking so bad, my bladder had let go a moment before) "it's Vietnam". He ordered "G" "Put down your weapon soldier" "G" said "after I kill this prisoner". "H" said "I am your commanding officer and I order you to put down your weapon now and come with me. I need you elsewhere". "There is an interrogation team on it's way for this prisoner". 

He did obey and they took him away. A couple of points here. If there had been any witnesses the police would have responded. What would have happened? Most likely "G" would have been dead and probably myself first. He was mentally ill period. In the aftermath police found 7 guns loaded and at various locations by doors and windows inside the house. He had a hunting knife strapped to his belt. 

He was psychotic. The police would have had no choice. They use a dog when they can because it is safer, less deadly. When you have been on this side of a situation it becomes clear. The police in my opinion have every right to take control of any situation with any means possible. One comment said he could not have reached a weapon with his pants down. If a person is combative and out of their minds, they can bite (Aids who knows?). I will never have a problem with law enforcement using a dog or anything else their experience tells them they need to with a person who is not in their right mind. It's brutal but it happens all the time. Many times there are no miracles and no choices for them.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

....and thank you mods, for your patience with me. I'm not going to push any further. 

As for the dog, he did what he was trained to do.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I'm only commenting on this particular incident.

In general:

If a person (mental issues or not) points a gun at, a knife, swings a bat, lunges suddenly at a police officer they (police officers) have every right to defend themselves.





Stonevintage said:


> My X (Vietnam vet) had a psychotic break one day. Apparently to him I was "Charlie". That's what he called me. He took me outside at gunpoint and made me kneel down and place my hands behind my head. He said I had to die and he was going to give me a moment to get right with God because he knew Viet Cong were Godless people. He had a shotgun in contact with my left temple the whole time. This was in a rural area and no one around but us.
> 
> A miracle happened and for no reason his boss (also a vet) and his wife appeared from around the corner in their car. He saw the scene, stopped his car about 35 feet away. I saw him push his wife down to the floorboard. He opened his door and stood behind it.
> 
> ...


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Saphire said:


> Having a brother who is a police officer and who came close to dying at the hands of someone who was mentally ill, who has more rights? The police officer to stay alive or the mentally ill person who may not know what they are doing?
> In this case, the mentally ill man stabbed one officer and slashed the neck of another before being shot dead. The 1st two officers didn't want to hurt him as they had identified he was not stable. They almost paid with their lives.
> Mental illness and lack of resources to help those suffering with it is indeed sad but you cannot expect law enforcement to not protect themselves because of it.


 I believe we are in complete agreement.


SuperG


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

You guys.

I knew I was in for it....

Where did I say that police don't have the right to protect themselves?

OR...

Are you agreeing that it's o.k. for police officers to use excessive force?

see how that works.

And...that's why this forum has the rules it has. LOL!






SuperG said:


> I believe we are in complete agreement.
> 
> 
> SuperG


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Meanwhile. 

The video doesn't show much on the dog's technical performance.

Plus-

Since everyone who has posted (to my knowledge) is not a Police K9 handler how can the dog's performance be judged?

Just sayin'


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I knew I was in for it....


Oh..please do not take that viewpoint.....everything which has taken place in this thread has been civil and presented in a proper way.

I do not find anything wrong with opinions differing at times.....especially when they are aired with civility.

You see, if one person does not take one side of the fence expressing their opinion chances are there will no discourse whatsoever...hence I believe it is healthy to have discussion which includes differing opinions.

As I have said for years....." what good does talking to mirrors provide?"

I respect your position and hopefully you respect others' positions as well....


SuperG


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> You guys.
> 
> I knew I was in for it....
> 
> ...


I have no problem. You said that you can see both sides. I was explaining why I feel the way I do. I felt the same until my experience. It seems like everything is on camera now and a lot of people are critical of LE lately. My goodness, it's OK to feel compassion for these people, I wish I had more than I do now. I guess the term "excessive force" is the big question.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Too late.

No one (meaning me since I'm the lone ranger here) has explicitly nor implied that police (or anyone for that matter) does not have the right to defend themselves from physical attack.

The leap was made though.

Civil or not, the implication is clear and meant to discredit the opposing point of view through imputing a negative. (not quite ad hom, but in that vein)

and in edit, I don't take it personally though. It's a common tactic, specially on the 'net.



SuperG said:


> Oh..please do not take that viewpoint.....everything which has taken place in this thread has been civil and presented in a proper way.
> 
> I do not find anything wrong with opinions differing at times.....especially when they are aired with civility.
> 
> ...


----------



## Saphire (Apr 1, 2005)

SuperG said:


> Oh..please do not take that viewpoint.....everything which has taken place in this thread has been civil and presented in a proper way.
> 
> I do not find anything wrong with opinions differing at times.....especially when they are aired with civility.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

On this site it tends to be mostly supportive. Myself included many times. I knew I was going to probably be on my own with my very first post in this thread. 

Yet, in bold, that's why we should be careful to view each incident on it's own. Not glump it in with the overall mood. (IMHO if this was done, carefully, IRL then we probably wouldn't be seeing the trend. Since it wasn't incidents that aren't related are being treated as though they were)

(check out my Taylor Swift and Police video in the chat subforum if you haven't seen it  I like that video because it shows a policeman enjoying life)

Soooo anyone have any comments on the dog in the video. I'm trying stay out of trouble here!






Stonevintage said:


> I have no problem. You said that you can see both sides. I was explaining why I feel the way I do. I felt the same until my experience. It seems like everything is on camera now *and a lot of people are critical of LE lately*. My goodness, it's OK to feel compassion for these people, I wish I had more than I do now. I guess the term "excessive force" is the big question.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Too late.
> 
> No one (meaning me since I'm the lone ranger here) has explicitly nor implied that police (or anyone for that matter) does not have the right to defend themselves from physical attack.
> 
> ...


Okay....if you choose to feel that way....that's okay.

The opinions I voiced were not meant to "discredit" your view...just simply to air my opinion. I'm glad you do not take it personally because a difference in opinions which manifests itself in someone taking it "personally" most always ends up negative. 

I look at it this way....difference in opinions in the form of healthy debate offers 2 benefits. 

1.) An opportunity to test one's beliefs in an arena where it might be challenged...which is good...

2.) Ultimately, civil debate either strengthens one's position or it becomes tempered due to input from an opposing opinion. Either is good.


SuperG


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

It's a common debate tactic. 

I did not say police officers are not allowed to defend themselves so why bring it up?

The video shows the man complying with 'hands up' about one second later the dog is on him.

It is possible, it does happen, that police react incorrectly, or perhaps the handler misunderstood, misread something. Police aren't always perfect.

However, they are very, very reluctant to admit mistakes for multiple reasons.



Saphire said:


> Well said.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

There's no 'feelings' involved. 

It's debate tactic that's commonly used. 

I think you're the one getting a wee bit emotional here, if you me ask me.

See how that works?

BTW- You want to start a thread about debating in Chat? Tactics, logical fallacies, how they are used and such? 

We're all going to get in trouble here shortly with the mods....maybe....skirting on the edge.




SuperG said:


> Okay....if you choose to feel that way....that's okay.
> 
> The opinions I voiced were not meant to "discredit" your view...just simply to air my opinion. I'm glad you do not take it personally because a difference in opinions which manifests itself in someone taking it "personally" most always ends up negative.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ace GSD (May 30, 2014)

I agree on Gwen that the K-9 dog was unnecessary to take down the suspect BUT on the same time its a good way to send a message to those dumb criminals especially the ones that has firearm. If you dont want to get hurt then dont be stupid like that guy.

EDIT: Now that guy also learn his lesson not to wave his gun around the next time he get stopped by police.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Super G.... for you! 

:rose:


----------



## Saphire (Apr 1, 2005)

I was not looking to discredit you at all. 
There is growing support for the mentally ill and alot (not saying you) feel that almost all cases were excessive use of force. I honestly hate the term. The pendulum has swung full side in the favor of mentally ill, criminals and inmates regardless of circumstances. It's VERY difficult now for LE to do their jobs without that term being thrown at them. I know because I have been there, daily. If I touch the elbow of an inmate and ask him to come with me, that is a use of force followed by a mountain of paperwork and reports to justify. 
There is so much more behind the scenes than the average person knows.

Again, I am sorry if I have offended you. It was not my intention.

Cathy


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> On this site it tends to be mostly supportive. Myself included many times. I knew I was going to probably be on my own with my very first post in this thread.
> 
> Yet, in bold, that's why we should be careful to view each incident on it's own. Not glump it in with the overall mood. (IMHO if this was done, carefully, IRL then we probably wouldn't be seeing the trend. Since it wasn't incidents that aren't related are being treated as though they were)
> 
> True. First I thought the post was about compassion for the mentally ill. Then I thought it was about LE excessive force. "It took on a life of it's own and started slithering around like a snake" LOL Now, if it's about the dog - I would hate to make any guesses unless much better video or a report by the handler is made available. It's hard to see everything that might be going on.


----------



## Saphire (Apr 1, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> It's a common debate tactic.
> 
> I did not say police officers are not allowed to defend themselves so why bring it up?
> 
> ...


Your very right. Nobody is perfect and yes we make mistakes. In LE the pressure to accept those is very different. I have made mistakes in my career, and I continue to but I learn from them. I've always taken the discipline when it happens. It's how I sleep at night.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

My friend, do you really think something like that would offend me?

No way.

Heck no.

I've always enjoyed a good debate, I'm not the best at it, but am familiar with some of the 'rules of the road' so to speak. 

Plus after all I've been through lately, this isn't registering on a personal level at all, it's just an internet discussion with a person who I know is a good person and has very good tastes in dogs. 



Saphire said:


> I was not looking to discredit you at all.
> There is growing support for the mentally ill and alot (not saying you) feel that almost all cases were excessive use of force. I honestly hate the term. The pendulum has swung full side in the favor of mentally ill, criminals and inmates regardless of circumstances. It's VERY difficult now for LE to do their jobs without that term being thrown at them. I know because I have been there, daily. If I touch the elbow of an inmate and ask him to come with me, that is a use of force followed by a mountain of paperwork and reports to justify.
> There is so much more behind the scenes than the average person knows.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

:thumbup: That's the way it goes. Depends on the perspective being posted.

The dog is fast and doesn't hesitate, that's for sure. 

BTW - did you check out the video I mentioned by chance? 



Stonevintage said:


> True. First I thought the post was about compassion for the mentally ill. Then I thought it was about LE excessive force. "It took on a life of it's own and started slithering around like a snake" LOL Now, if it's about the dog - I would hate to make any guesses unless much better video or a report by the handler is made available. It's hard to see everything that might be going on.


----------



## Saphire (Apr 1, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> My friend, do you really think something like that would offend me?
> 
> No way.
> 
> ...


I would agree with the "good taste in dogs" part....jury is out on the rest. ?


----------



## Nigel (Jul 10, 2012)

We only see the end, was he beginning to comply at other times only to back out? Was there a chance of another weapon? Too many possibilities dealing with someone like this, best to get him under control as soon as the opportunity presents itself, don't give him the chance to back out or risk injury to the officers.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

You got the important stuff in order, dogs. Me too!

 



Saphire said:


> I would agree with the "good taste in dogs" part....jury is out on the rest. &#55357;&#56838;


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

It's possible he did.....



Nigel said:


> We only see the end, *was he beginning to comply at other times only to back out?* Was there a chance of another weapon? Too many possibilities dealing with someone like this, best to get him under control as soon as the opportunity presents itself, don't give him the chance to back out or risk injury to the officers.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> :thumbup: That's the way it goes. Depends on the perspective being posted.
> 
> The dog is fast and doesn't hesitate, that's for sure.
> 
> BTW - did you check out the video I mentioned by chance?


Arrgh! I was just about to have lunch. Funny but kinda gross. At the very end they said it was staged.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Sorry about lunch!

No matter what I like the sense of humor.  




Stonevintage said:


> Arrgh! I was just about to have lunch. Funny but kinda gross. At the very end they said it was staged.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

I like this oldie.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> There's no 'feelings' involved.
> 
> It's debate tactic that's commonly used.
> 
> ...


Oh..that's fine...if you think I am getting a bit emotional....but...now you have done it...I'm telling Mom on you !!!


SuperG


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Super G.... for you!
> 
> :rose:



I bet it's one of those squirting type flowers....

SuperG


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

SuperG said:


> I bet it's one of those squirting type flowers....
> 
> SuperG


LOL!! 


Nah, I'd never do that to you! :angel: :wild:

(btw I was serious about the debate discussion in chat. Start a little debate club but more formal rules would apply and of course the rules of the site regarding topic content.)

StoneVintage, One of my fav. pictures too.


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

*Good dog*

And people wonder why I want a protection gsd living in crazy town sacramento *shakes head*


----------



## Steve Strom (Oct 26, 2013)

BARBIElovesSAILOR said:


> And people wonder why I want a protection gsd living in crazy town sacramento *shakes head*


That's not it. People are a little worried about how you define 'Protection"


----------

