|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MS: Mississippi investigator shoots family dog
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
... "Muzzi said the police officer who shot the dog apologized to Muzzi and told him that he felt threatened and didn't see the leash, but later on, Cleveland Police Chief Charles Bingham told Muzzi and his wife Bethany that the investigator saw the leash but had the right to shoot the dog since he felt threatened. The Muzzis were shown videos of the incident as it happened. The cameras did not capture the investigator shooting the dog. They could only hear the dog bark, and they heard the officer open fire in a span of 4 seconds in the background, Muzzi said. Bingham told Muzzi that the police department would pay for Miller's vet bill and buy another dog for his family. ..." ... |
| Comment by:
jac
(6/24/2015)
|
Cops shoot dogs like this because they can get away with it. Something to laugh about back at the police station. They would shoot you or me with the same reckless abandon except they can't be sure that they would get away with it.
Don't tell me that a yellow lab was any danger to this cop. Just another sadistic sick bast ard cop that became a LEO to push his weight around. Not to "serve and protect".
There needs to be some consequences before these incidents decrease. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
