Evidence 101

EVIDENCE 101...Wherever you go, there you are...







Monday, October 7, 2013

Yuri Strikes Again!

I am trying to get caught up on my posting. Seems the fence is falling down. Oy. Fargo updates all about Halloween and . Halloween decorations are going up in phases at the Harry Potter house. Work is well, interesting.  I am still getting hammered on Amazon which is getting so old. So long are the days of giving a review. Now you aren't entitled to how you liked a book and why. I don't mind a good debate. It's not a debate any more, but people trying to push their book on people. I guess they don't like it when they get a negative review. Why not just erase me? That's the strange thing. So...we are moving on to the other topics. I have some very interesting ones. 

We will start with the brilliant and ever mind provoking...Yuri!   You can check out his blog by clicking on his name. He really is hilarious, and he interacts family with politics with cooking with whatever pops in his mind. It's a fun read and some things he brings up are truly researched. He's my Encyclopedia. 

So without further re-introduction...HERE WE GO! I will put my two cents worth in red.

Welcome back, Yuri! Interesting developments in law enforcement. Here is his new update on our Colorado debate which was a little heated last time...
*******************************************************************************************

Last November, Officer Robert Price responded to a loose dog call.  He and two other officers tried to catch Chloe.Chloe's owner was visiting Commerce City for the Thanksgiving holiday, so she was not known to the people in the neighborhood.

Here is how the scene ended.

Officer Price was charged with aggravated animal cruelty based on the video taken by a 12 year old boy from across the street.His trial concluded this last week with a verdict of not guilty.

 http://www.9news.com/news/article/357994/339/Officer-acquitted-of-animal-cruelty-charges?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cbc%7Clarge

This article briefly mentions the prosecution's and defense's main arguments.


In even briefer words:

Prosecution:
    1) Video doesn't show aggressive dog.
    2) You messed up the reporting process.

Defense:
    1) Video doesn't show everything.
    2) Uhmm.

Um. Yeah. All strange.

Questions:

1) Did the prosecutor overcharge Officer Price? If so, why? Here's my take...why go to criminal charges. Take care of it internally, pay the owner off, do some company wide department police-animal-procedural training. It's like they don't know what to really do with it all, but it looks bad, it feels bad, and it still ended bad. 

2) Are Tazers effective animal control devices? Sometimes, sometimes not. 

3) What happened to the office of Dog Catcher? Yeah. The whole thing was strange. 

4) What happened to tranquilizer guns, like we used to see on Mutual of Ohama's Wild Kingdom? I don't know if we are allowed to have such big elephant guns. LOL. The only ones that had those in Wyoming were biologists from the Game and Fish. They were used for grizzlies or other big dangerous things. I don't think they are appropriate for small animals. But who knows? Maybe they will issue butterfly nets and tranq guns to cops. Then, on the other hand, this case still baffles me. I find no reason for the dog in the garage to have gotten shot. Other videos we are seeing, I can see how it happened. 


Thank you so much Yuri! Your brain fascinates me. Ready for another matter of importance!


Let's here it from you...what do you have to say about all this?

4 comments:

Tennessee Grammie said...

Tragic in many ways, for the dog, for the officer and for the owners. Having been a volunteer at an animal shelter, I have first hand experience that large BLACK dogs frighten many people. Looking at the officer's body language from the beginning it is obvious that he was afraid of the dog. The dog was also frightened. The good that came out of this is that all the police officers went through some animal training. What wasn't brought up on the news report is that the owner of the dog shared responsibility in the death of their dog because, regardless of the circumstances, it was running around loose. Sad, but in this case if I had been on the jury, I too would have found the officer "not guilty" of animal cruelty.

Mad Jack said...

I would have found the officer guilty. Bluntly, fuck 'em all. Cops kill dogs because they enjoy it; they know they'll never be punished for it and it's one more way they can hurt the mere civilians.

RussianBear said...

I saw a dog that was cornered, that was vocalizing and trying to get away. I saw a scared animal. I saw an officer with one hand on a catchpole struggling to control the dog. Another officer, used his pistol instead of helping with the catch pole.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Officer Robert Price's tools were a tazer and a pistol. The old nightstick could have been of use here. Let it bite the nightstick and get control of its head that way.

I think bringing charges was a way for the city to shield itself from liability to the owner, by taking the stance that this was a criminal act by an individual and not the result of department policy and practice. Instead of closely examining their training and procedures, Officer Price is thrown under the bus, with a charge they cannot prove.

End Result:

1)Public is placated with show trial.

2) No re-training of officers required or issuing of kevlar bite sleeves.

3) Owner is not made whole.

4) 10 months of paid leave for the Officer involved.

My conclusion is the whole thing stinks of incompetence.

Momma Fargo said...

Yuri, I would have to agree with you on this case. Perhaps, the officers were not "animal people" (meaning they are scared of dogs or don't know how to handle them) and should have called animal control. I don't know. I do know that I don't think it was handled well. I don't think the charge was warranted because they couldn't prove a crime (intent). They could prove incompetence and/or bad decision making, thus a civil liability for the city.