Man kills dog, cops kill man.

[280plus]

The gun Jackson was carrying had been reported stolen in a 2006 burglary in Elliott, the chief said.

I thought this could use some emphasis. It's not like we lost a model citizen here. I know I don't miss him.

[SomeKid]

FF, yes I have.

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/007/chapter21/s21.4.html

(iv)   Taunting law enforcement dogs. Consistent with section 602(a) of the act (3 P. S. §  459-602(a)), it is unlawful for a person to willfully and maliciously taunt, torment, tease, beat, kick or strike any dog, including a search and rescue or accelerant detection dog, used by any municipal, county or State police or sheriffs department or agency, fire department or agency or handler under the supervision of the department or agency, in the performance of the functions or duties of the department or agency or to commit any of the stated acts in the course of interfering with a dog used by the department or agency or any member or supervised handler thereof in the performance of the functions or duties of the department or agency or the officer or member or supervised handler. A person convicted of violating any of the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree.

For once the media told the truth. It is a felony. Taunting an animal is a felony. Doesn't that sound a bit absurd to anyone else?

[280plus]

In my state a K9 is considered to be just as much an LEO as it's human counterparts. Making it a felony to taunt or otherwise harm them is a deterrent that will keep most honest people honest. I think that's the idea. Most peeps would be less apt to eff with the dog if they know they face a felony charge for doing so.

[SomeKid]

In my state a K9 is considered to be just as much an LEO as it's human counterparts. Making it a felony to taunt or otherwise harm them is a deterrent that will keep most honest people honest. I think that's the idea. Most peeps would be less apt to eff with the dog if they know they face a felony charge for doing so.

But is it right to make nonviolent acts like taunting or teasing a FELONY?

[xavier fremboe]

In my state a K9 is considered to be just as much an LEO as it's human counterparts. Making it a felony to taunt or otherwise harm them is a deterrent that will keep most honest people honest. I think that's the idea. Most peeps would be less apt to eff with the dog if they know they face a felony charge for doing so.

But is it right to make nonviolent acts like taunting or teasing a FELONY?

Hmmm.  Well, in this case having it as a felony statute didn't do any good, but if the deterrent effect keeps some other rocket surgeon from getting himself shot, perhaps it does some good.

Assuming it's 'good' to keep people stupid enough to draw on uniformed police alive...  I'm sure that the officers would have preferred the encounter ended with no deaths.

[taurusowner]

xavier nailed it.  Discharging a firearm around a police officer while not in a range setting is going to attract return fire.  The dog part is irrelevant.

[The Annoyed Man]

Again, I'll play SomeKid's game.

 I honestly don't think that "tease police dog = felony" is meant to bust kids calling a dog names, but rather to safeguard both dog and citizen. Some seem to think it's funny to come just shy of abusive behavior with an animal: when the animal reacts badly to this (by attacking to defend itself from a perceived threat), the citizen gets hurt and the dog (often) gets put down. By making it a felony to engage in this behavior with a police dog, the state protects it's interest (costs a fair amount to train and keep a police dog), and protactes it's citizens ("Dude... doing that's like a felony! Leave the dog alone!").


 Any other games you'd like to play?

[SomeKid]

Strings, so protecting a government investment is an acceptable reason to strip people of their rights to you?

[The Annoyed Man]

When it's combined with protecting them from their own stupidity? To my eyes, yes.

 There are lots of laws on the books that have no other purpose than protecting governmental interests. In this case, there are MANY interests that are being protected: the government's investment, the emotional investment of the dog's handler, the safety of the public...

 Which of those do you think should be thrown under the bus?

[Josh Aston]

Strings, so protecting a government investment is an acceptable reason to strip people of their rights to you?

Consider it protecting your tax dollars.  The dogs aren't cheap to begin with and their training certainly isn't either. 

If it was me though I wouldn't make it a felony, I'd just write a law saying that if you taunt the police dog you are responsible for whatever happens to you.  You get chewed up, you don't get to sue. 

Those dogs are already wound up way too tight, provoking them is not a smart thing to do.  They will attack you if they think you're making a threatening gesture toward their handler, so keep your distance when talking to a K-9 handler, even if he does have the dog on leash.

[SomeKid]

When it's combined with protecting them from their own stupidity? To my eyes, yes.

 There are lots of laws on the books that have no other purpose than protecting governmental interests. In this case, there are MANY interests that are being protected: the government's investment, the emotional investment of the dog's handler, the safety of the public...

 Which of those do you think should be thrown under the bus?

So, it is acceptable to pass laws, for your own good. Is that a good summary of what you are saying?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

does paddy have children?

[Hawkmoon]

OK, everyone is running way off topic. This thread was not originally posted to be about whether it was or wasn't a good shoot.

The thread was about whether we could do the same things the cops did (kill someone who killed our dog), and what you all think of it being a felony (you know, lose gun rights, voting privs, etc) simply to taunt a dog when doing the same to a human cop is perfectly legal.

"Kill someone who killed our dog"?

Even setting aside for the moment the minor factoid that the two homo sapiens present were both police officers approaching a suspect ... even setting that aside, if the guy who "just killed my dog" is standing there with a smoking and presumed loaded gun pointed in my direction, you'd better believe I'm going to draw and open fire. Whether or not I "kill" him will be a function of how well I hit what I'm aiming at, but you can pretty well figure I'm going to be aiming for center of mass, possibly followed by a head shot (Mozambique drill).

[Hawkmoon]

Strings, so protecting a government investment is an acceptable reason to strip people of their rights to you?

Please point me to the clause in the U.S. or any state's Constitution guaranteeing any citizen a "right" to taunt a plice dog ...

[SomeKid]

Strings, so protecting a government investment is an acceptable reason to strip people of their rights to you?

Please point me to the clause in the U.S. or any state's Constitution guaranteeing any citizen a "right" to taunt a plice dog ...

Please point to me the clause that allows the government to regulate facial expressions. In case you forgot, the constitution limits the government, it is not supposed to merely allow us certain things.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

was there some federal law i missed?  and did they overlook the section about all powers not enumerated here go to the states? been a while since  i studied the constitution  they still teach it?

[SomeKid]

was there some federal law i missed?  and did they overlook the section about all powers not enumerated here go to the states? been a while since  i studied the constitution  they still teach it?

Or to the people. Do try to quote the entirety of the 10th next time, won't you?

That said, since you think the states have the power to do it, do you think it is right that it is a felony to taunt or tease a certain animal?

[K Frame]

Strings, so protecting a government investment is an acceptable reason to strip people of their rights to you?

OK, that's more than just a little hyperbolistic.

What "right" is being stripped?

Your "right" to be a complete and total pratt to an animal?

[wmenorr67]

I would reason to guess that if someone is charged with a felony under that statue that would be the least of their worrie.

But to answer your question SomeKid in this instance to tease a Police Dog or others in that catagory to be a felony I agree with.

The animals are not to be F***ed with and to tease them could get you hurt.  Sort of along the lines of assault on a Police Officer.  That will get you hurt and felony charges also.

[SomeKid]

Strings, so protecting a government investment is an acceptable reason to strip people of their rights to you?

OK, that's more than just a little hyperbolistic.

What "right" is being stripped?

Your "right" to be a complete and total pratt to an animal?

Peaceful assembly, just to grab an easy one. If you aren't attacking the dog, and are only making faces, it is peaceful.

wm, assault and teasing are two very different things. Do you think they deserve the same punishment?

[wmenorr67]

Teasing a trained attack animal to the animal is assault.

[K Frame]

At the point you being trying to intimidate or threaten another individual or entity by taunting them in a manner designed only to elicit a negative response, you can no longer claim "peaceful assembly."

[SomeKid]

At the point you being trying to intimidate or threaten another individual or entity by taunting them in a manner designed only to elicit a negative response, you can no longer claim "peaceful assembly."

I think that is a stretch, simply being offensive does not constitute assault, at least not here, but so be it. What of free expression (or whatever excuse artists have used even when creating filth that offends half the country)?

[K Frame]

The only stretch here is your willful desire to not comprehend that a dog is not a human being, and dogs will not react in the same manner as a human when confronted.

The law isn't in place to protect idiot humans, it's in place to protect the dog, it's handlers, and the police against idiot humans who are compelled to act like idiots and get themselves into a situation that won't end well for them. Normally with such idiot humans the first response after they've discovered the error of their ways is to sue.

However, to put this to a test, I would be more than happy to allow you to taunt my dog to see just how far you can exercise your "rights" before he turns your face into tomorrow's pile of feces.

On the other hand, I'm getting really tired of these types of "arguments."

Don't like the law? Stop being a whiny little punk and being a crusade to change it to your liking.

When you have succeeded, come back and we can revisit this discussion.