|
|
|
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 |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
