PDA

View Full Version : NC-Cops show up to question family about neighborhood runaway, shoot and kill family dog.




Anti Federalist
12-30-2011, 04:45 PM
Do not call the cops.

Do not let cops on your property.

Do not talk to cops.



Wake deputy kills dog while searching for runaway teen

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10544187/

Raleigh, N.C. — A Wake County sheriff’s deputy shot and killed a couple’s 3-year-old dog Wednesday night while searching for a runaway teenager.

John and Linda Super say two deputies came to their home on King Circle, looking for a 15-year-old neighbor who had run away and had often spent time with them.

One of the couple’s dogs, Elvis, forced his way out the front door and ran outside as the couple talked to the deputies, they said. One of the deputies shot Elvis twice, including once in the back of the head, killing him, according to the Supers.

“All we’ve got is a dead dog and a lot of questions that need answers,” Linda Super said. “(Elvis) came running out, never bothered a soul, never opened his mouth, never woofed or nothing when he came out the door.”

Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison said the deputy, Roderick Belfield, said the dog was barking and running towards him. Belfield will not be punished for shooting the dog.

“Nobody wants to shoot a dog, but things like this are going to happen,” Harrison said. “Please put yourself in the deputy’s position. If you had been standing there, what would you have thought when the dog comes out charging towards you?”

Harrison said he is investigating whether Belfield or the other deputy, Kenneth Edward Kay, used profanity while subduing John Super, who was upset after the shooting. John Super says the deputies were rough with him.

One of the runaway teen's guardians said Elvis was "vicious" and had lunged for the deputy, something the Supers dispute.

“(Elvis) was my fourth child,” Linda Super said. “He was like the center of our lives.”

As for the missing teen, he was found safe and is staying with his biological mother.

Anti Federalist
12-30-2011, 09:59 PM
bump for somebody looking for this story.

flightlesskiwi
12-30-2011, 10:07 PM
heroes all, i tell ya.

encountering these stories outside of RPF is, well.... interesting. i like that RPF is my little safe haven of sanity.

from another source (comments are directed at this story):


Interesting thread...there really isn't near enough information in the story to make such a strong judgement either way. If the dog really was just a sweet little pooch that only wanted to lick the man to death, then certainly the deputy handled the situation incorrectly. But you certainly can't take the dog owners' word for it. Every pet owner thinks their pitbull is just the sweetest little thing until it kills the 8 year old girl next door. If I felt threatened by a dog I would kill it without hesitation and just do my best to reconcile after the threat was mitigated.

Also, dogs aren't human, so although you can apply the law to treat the dog as property of the owner, you can't apply the law or pass judgement as if the dog were human. In other words, you can't assume that just because the deputy was quick to dispatch the dog, that he would also be overly quick to deal with a human threat...that argument doesn't fly. Apples to oranges.

oh and:


I have no problem with killing the dog if the cop felt threatened. If I felt threaten by a dog, I would kill it.


to which an apt response was made (thank gravy):


how do you define "threat?" I'm serious here. You've got a miniature poodle that is coming at you. It might bite you. A threat so you would then shoot it in front of the owners and the other cop in the yard? What about a black lab? In your calculation, what is a threat requiring you to use lethal firepower? Or do you just not care because it's just property (on the owner's land property) where you are standing to ask questions about a missing person case? One final question, if you are over at your friend's house and they have a boxer like the one in this story, and you happen to be carrying a taser, and a club, and a gun...and the dog comes at you like the dog in this story---are you going to shoot it? Are you honestly going to shoot it? Let's say you know this dog is a cherished family pet, the kids love it, the wife loves it. For whatever reason it comes at you and you think it's out for blood. You going to shoot it? Yeah, the owner's were not responsible or the dog just had a bad day...but are you going to shoot your friend's dog because you are too scared to use your club, or your pepper spray, or your taser? I'd really like to know.


oh, just to repeat, because i think it's so damn amusing:


Also, dogs aren't human, so although you can apply the law to treat the dog as property of the owner, you can't apply the law or pass judgement as if the dog were human. In other words, you can't assume that just because the deputy was quick to dispatch the dog, that he would also be overly quick to deal with a human threat...that argument doesn't fly. Apples to oranges.

flightlesskiwi
12-30-2011, 10:19 PM
by the way... for those who think they'd be able to do the same (puppycide) if they felt threatened by Fido, read this:

http://www2.wnct.com/news/2011/dec/01/2/81-year-old-man-arrested-shooting-neighbors-dog-ar-1668189/


STANTONSBURG, N.C. (WNCT)- An 81-year-old man says he should have never been arrested for shooting his neighbor's dog. Greene County Animal Control charged William Minshew with felony animal cruelty. He shot his neighbor's boxer-bulldog two days before Thanksgiving when he says the dog tried to attack him.

Anti Federalist
12-30-2011, 10:24 PM
by the way... for those who think they'd be able to do the same (puppycide) if they felt threatened by Fido, read this:

http://www2.wnct.com/news/2011/dec/01/2/81-year-old-man-arrested-shooting-neighbors-dog-ar-1668189/

Two sets of laws.

One for me, and one for thee.

lib3rtarian
12-30-2011, 11:10 PM
This is all a prelude to the police state that is coming, and the cops know it themselves and it has gone into their head. Soon, we will see them shooting people the same way. Just imagine the amount of shit which needs to be undone in this society to make it free and livable again.

Dr.3D
12-30-2011, 11:15 PM
I'm afraid I may die, defending my dogs.

GunnyFreedom
12-31-2011, 12:27 AM
SOM*&^%$#@

NC used to be the least likely to hear about this kinda ^%^%$%^%

Now it's creeping up.

How the frell do you legislate against something like this?

"Any police department that has a dog shooting with no injury to the officer is required to bring trained nonlethal animal handlers to every single call made by the department for no less than one year from the last date of a dog shooting."

Yeah, like that'll pass. :rolleyes:

Can't do anything about it until 2013 now anyway. Send me to the Senate and I'll introduce it and fight for it. Whether it gets heard or not. :mad:

GunnyFreedom
12-31-2011, 12:42 AM
Two sets of laws.

One for me, and one for thee.

Isn't that a direct and blatant violation of Art 4 Sec 4 US Constitution?

I mean, I'm spinning my wheels trying to come up with a solution, but the problem is if gov were functioning properly this would be handled by the judiciary not the legislature. But gov is not functioning the way it is supposed to. I've got a hammer, and the problem needs a screwdriver. :(

Anti Federalist
12-31-2011, 12:48 AM
Isn't that a direct and blatant violation of Art 4 Sec 4 US Constitution?

I mean, I'm spinning my wheels trying to come up with a solution, but the problem is if gov were functioning properly this would be handled by the judiciary not the legislature. But gov is not functioning the way it is supposed to. I've got a hammer, and the problem needs a screwdriver. :(

Yes, it is.

And like so many other things, it is blatant and nobody cares.

Frustrating as hell isn't it?

I've got no real good answers, Gunny, I really don't.

Lafayette
12-31-2011, 12:49 AM
SOM*&^%$#@

NC used to be the least likely to hear about this kinda ^%^%$%^%

Now it's creeping up.

How the frell do you legislate against something like this?

"Any police department that has a dog shooting with no injury to the officer is required to bring trained nonlethal animal handlers to every single call made by the department for no less than one year from the last date of a dog shooting."

Yeah, like that'll pass. :rolleyes:

Can't do anything about it until 2013 now anyway. Send me to the Senate and I'll introduce it and fight for it. Whether it gets heard or not. :mad:

Personally i think you should stroll into the state capital building with a copy of the constitution wrapped around a lead pipe and just start smacking the crap out of your fellow legislators, though some how i don't think that would get the point across.

Just keep fighting the good fight Gunny, we support you no matter what.

Pericles
12-31-2011, 01:38 AM
I'm afraid I may die, defending my dogs.

Which is much better than to die attacking a dog trying to defend his master.

Pericles
12-31-2011, 01:42 AM
Isn't that a direct and blatant violation of Art 4 Sec 4 US Constitution?

I mean, I'm spinning my wheels trying to come up with a solution, but the problem is if gov were functioning properly this would be handled by the judiciary not the legislature. But gov is not functioning the way it is supposed to. I've got a hammer, and the problem needs a screwdriver. :(

Root cause is DAs and prosecutors. Start sending out of control LEOs to prison, and see how quickly this stops. Just thinking at the moment a state level special prosecutor for DAs who do not apply the law to government employees.

Danke
12-31-2011, 01:52 AM
"Was the dog on a leash?" Rael

Dr.3D
12-31-2011, 01:56 AM
Which is much better than to die attacking a dog trying to defend his master.

True!

My dogs and I have a pact. I have their backs and they have mine. Nothing in this world can change that.

GunnyFreedom
12-31-2011, 01:56 AM
Root cause is DAs and prosecutors. Start sending out of control LEOs to prison, and see how quickly this stops. Just thinking at the moment a state level special prosecutor for DAs who do not apply the law to government employees.

Hmmmm. Like a special independent IAB for DA's who apply the law unequally between citizens and government employees? If a DA demonstrates a tendency to apply the law one way to citizens, and some other way (a different legal standard) to police and all gov employees, then that DA is in violation of....

Would have to create a whole new crime. A felony of some sort (class E maybe) justified by...

I suppose Art 4 Sec 4 US Constitution could well be cited as justification since it applies directly to the states

GunnyFreedom
12-31-2011, 02:01 AM
No need to create some whole new dept or special prosecutor, just make the application of different legal standards a felony and empower the SBI to investigate and arrest DA's. I don't really like "pattern of behavior" as a legal standard though, but not sure there is another way to do it. I could live with standard of behavior in this instance though if there was no other way. "So you want to be a DA huh? Guess what, you want the power to throw people in prison, then you have a responsibility to keep justice or you go to prison yourself."

Hmm.

There is the seed of an idea here that could actually work.

Anti Federalist
12-31-2011, 02:16 AM
No need to create some whole new dept or special prosecutor, just make the application of different legal standards a felony and empower the SBI to investigate and arrest DA's. I don't really like "pattern of behavior" as a legal standard though, but not sure there is another way to do it. I could live with standard of behavior in this instance though if there was no other way. "So you want to be a DA huh? Guess what, you want the power to throw people in prison, then you have a responsibility to keep justice or you go to prison yourself."

Hmm.

There is the seed of an idea here that could actually work.

The problem, as I see it with that, is that would take prosecutor's discretion away from "good" prosecutors.

Think of the issues with "mandatory sentencing".

redbluepill
12-31-2011, 02:19 AM
“Nobody wants to shoot a dog, but things like this are going to happen,” Harrison said. “Please put yourself in the deputy’s position. If you had been standing there, what would you have thought when the dog comes out charging towards you?”

Umm, I wouldn't be a f***** p**** and pull my gun out.

redbluepill
12-31-2011, 02:24 AM
This is how you "protect" and "serve"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mvIWFXbHNo

GunnyFreedom
12-31-2011, 03:07 AM
Harrison lambasted me on local television over HB375 (http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h375&submitButton=Go). He really didn't like that bill. I got the Ron Paul treatment on that one, just like the Constitutional Tender Act.

aGameOfThrones
12-31-2011, 05:46 AM
One of the couple’s dogs, Elvis, forced his way out the front door and ran outside as the couple talked to the deputies, they said.

Dog tries to run away as teen... dog gets shot.


“Nobody wants to shoot a dog, but things like this are going to happen,” Harrison said. “Please put yourself in the deputy’s position. If you had been standing there, what would you have thought when the dog comes out charging towards you?”

So you don't want to shoot dogs, but you're still going to shoot dogs. If I were the deputy my first thought is not to shoot the f**king dog! Since I as a citizen have been around unfamiliar dogs and never shot them, that's what I would have done.

These "heroes" are too quick to shoot.



Harrison said he is investigating whether Belfield or the other deputy, Kenneth Edward Kay, used profanity while subduing John Super, who was upset after the shooting. John Super says the deputies were rough with him.

Oh great... Profanity!



One of the runaway teen's guardians said Elvis was "vicious" and had lunged for the deputy, something the Supers dispute.

Next time your teen runs away and you need help from me to find him, well, you can go f**kyourself.




As for the missing teen, he was found safe and is staying with his biological mother.

Why didn't the kid get shot? Didn't the kid escape through the front door too(probably a window)?

GunnyFreedom
12-31-2011, 06:09 AM
The problem, as I see it with that, is that would take prosecutor's discretion away from "good" prosecutors.

Think of the issues with "mandatory sentencing".

Oh I agree, and if they weren't abusing prosecutorial discretion by serving up one law for the mundanes and another law for the prison guards we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

I can't think of another viable approach. If a DA is going to use their discretion to serve up two sets of law by class of citizen, then that is a discretion they do not deserve. They will all claim that they do not participate in such abuse, but police impunity would demonstrate otherwise.

So if not that, what else do you do?

GunnyFreedom
12-31-2011, 06:14 AM
Dog tries to run away as teen... dog gets shot.



So you don't want to shoot dogs, but you're still going to shoot dogs. If I were the deputy my first thought is not to shoot the f**king dog! Since I as a citizen have been around unfamiliar dogs and never shot them, that's what I would have done.

These "heroes" are too quick to shoot.



Oh great... Profanity!




Next time your teen runs away and you need help from me to find him, well, you can go f**kyourself.





Why didn't the kid get shot? Didn't the kid escape through the front door too(probably a window)?

Best I can tell from the article, the teen was never at that house. The whole visit was pointless.

Pericles
12-31-2011, 10:09 AM
No need to create some whole new dept or special prosecutor, just make the application of different legal standards a felony and empower the SBI to investigate and arrest DA's. I don't really like "pattern of behavior" as a legal standard though, but not sure there is another way to do it. I could live with standard of behavior in this instance though if there was no other way. "So you want to be a DA huh? Guess what, you want the power to throw people in prison, then you have a responsibility to keep justice or you go to prison yourself."

Hmm.

There is the seed of an idea here that could actually work.

Most states have a felony crime of "official oppression" of some sort under color of law. Using that type of statute against a DA that refuses to prosecute police lawbreaking might be an approach. The core problem is that prosecutors have become unaccountable to anyone, and the system only works when everyone is held accountable.

flightlesskiwi
12-31-2011, 10:49 AM
Most states have a felony crime of "official oppression" of some sort under color of law. Using that type of statute against a DA that refuses to prosecute police lawbreaking might be an approach. The core problem is that prosecutors have become unaccountable to anyone, and the system only works when everyone is held accountable.

ain't that the truth!!

asurfaholic
12-31-2011, 11:14 AM
Serious question -

If I am on my property, and a cop rolls up and for whatever reason approaches me, prompting my dog to come over to see what's going on, and the cop shoots it. What would be the likely scenario if I pulled a gun that was concealed on my person and shot the cop? Is there enough reasonable evidence that I was acting in defence of my home and family, protecting them from a lethal threat? I know the state would do everything in its power to charge me with murder, but has there been any similar cases of this happening, and the defence winning?


From my knowledge the difference between returning to the house to retrieve a gun to shoot the cop, and actually being armed in the first place could be the differnce between 1st degree murder and 2nd degree. 1st degree requires proof of forethought and preplanning, while 2nd degree is more along the lines of a crime of passion. So, I know if a cop shoots my dog and I go get my gun, and return to retaliate, I would have a very difficult time in court.

But, if I am armed, and return fire immediately, could I possibly get away with it, assuming I survive the cops who come to arrest me?

phill4paul
12-31-2011, 11:25 AM
Serious question -

If I am on my property, and a cop rolls up and for whatever reason approaches me, prompting my dog to come over to see what's going on, and the cop shoots it. What would be the likely scenario if I pulled a gun that was concealed on my person and shot the cop? Is there enough reasonable evidence that I was acting in defence of my home and family, protecting them from a lethal threat? I know the state would do everything in its power to charge me with murder, but has there been any similar cases of this happening, and the defence winning?


From my knowledge the difference between returning to the house to retrieve a gun to shoot the cop, and actually being armed in the first place could be the differnce between 1st degree murder and 2nd degree. 1st degree requires proof of forethought and preplanning, while 2nd degree is more along the lines of a crime of passion. So, I know if a cop shoots my dog and I go get my gun, and return to retaliate, I would have a very difficult time in court.

But, if I am armed, and return fire immediately, could I possibly get away with it, assuming I survive the cops who come to arrest me?

I think you could make a reasonable case based on the fact that an officer, without stating intentions, began firing on your property and that you feared for your safety. It would be COSTLY. IF you survived the aftermath.

aGameOfThrones
12-31-2011, 11:46 AM
Serious question -

If I am on my property, and a cop rolls up and for whatever reason approaches me, prompting my dog to come over to see what's going on, and the cop shoots it. What would be the likely scenario if I pulled a gun that was concealed on my person and shot the cop? Is there enough reasonable evidence that I was acting in defence of my home and family, protecting them from a lethal threat? I know the state would do everything in its power to charge me with murder, but has there been any similar cases of this happening, and the defence winning?


From my knowledge the difference between returning to the house to retrieve a gun to shoot the cop, and actually being armed in the first place could be the differnce between 1st degree murder and 2nd degree. 1st degree requires proof of forethought and preplanning, while 2nd degree is more along the lines of a crime of passion. So, I know if a cop shoots my dog and I go get my gun, and return to retaliate, I would have a very difficult time in court.

But, if I am armed, and return fire immediately, could I possibly get away with it, assuming I survive the cops who come to arrest me?



Look at this example:

Cop shot dead after threatening man's dogs with stun gun (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?309330-Cop-shot-dead-after-threatening-man-s-dogs-with-stun-gun&highlight=freemansburg)

I would also think this...

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1

Pericles
12-31-2011, 11:55 AM
I think you could make a reasonable case based on the fact that an officer, without stating intentions, began firing on your property and that you feared for your safety. It would be COSTLY. IF you survived the aftermath.

Depends on where you are and when it happens - in Texas:

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTYdog. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property dog:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property dog cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.



Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

flightlesskiwi
12-31-2011, 02:38 PM
oh hohohohhooh!! how the DHS agent commenting on this story fails to see his ignorance:

(the "postal employee" comment was in response to someone saying their father had been put in the hospital by a german shepherd in the course of their postal career and started carrying pepper spray and a bat. to which someone replied that is was amaaaaazing that the guy managed to retire without killing any dogs...)


Because his old man probably couldn't carry a firearm in the course of his duties as a postal employee.

And there is no "proportionality" when it comes to deadly force. If a guy comes at me with a knife, a brick, or a club, swing at my person, I don't have to use my taser, my spray or my own baton before going to a firearm. I can go straight there as the totality of e circumstance dictate.

Deadly force is deadly force, and dogs can do terrible damage to a human being. Sheesh, you'd want the cop to call animal control while the family pets gnaws on his arm.

hooray for the force continuum!!! hazaaah for the myth of police protection!!!