Police Allow Dog to Die

[black elk speaks]

Well, to that I would say that had I been that cop, I would have rushed it to the clinic. I also probably would have been saddened when it died on the way, or died anyway. But I tend to be fatalistic in things, despite my futile attempts to do good things in this life.

Juan has valid point. I didn't see it that way, and considering my ignorance of the law in such matters, should probably just stay out of this thread entirely. Thanks for pointing that out Juan, I can see your perspective, but since I don't know the standard of conduct expected by that particular police department, or how the law in general even applies, I can't really offer an opinion on it.

I guess this is why we have a court system. To address grievances...

to be fair, I would have done the same. but to be even more fair, were i the driver, i would not have belly ached to the cop about my dying dog or pleaded with him to let me go. it just doesn't work with police.

officer: tap tap
traffic offender: i know i was speeding officer, my dog is about to die
officer: you were driving recklessly
traffic offender: yea, i know, can you just come with us to the pet doc and write me up there
officer: don't you care that you could have caused an accident and killed yourself or other people?
traffic offender: my dog, sir... can we just hurry this up?

how should it have gone?

maybe like this:
officer: tap tap
traffic offender: i know i was speeding officer, my dog is about to die and i was in a panic. here is my license and registration. i am really worried about my dog, what ever i can do to minimize my delay, please let me know
officer: you were driving recklessly
traffic offender: i wasn't thinking clearly officer. i will drive more carefully the rest of the way, i promise you.

the dog still would have died, but the officer would have likely been more certain that ~ahem~ reckless driver was simply a little panicked about his dog and would have been more rational about his driving for the rest of the futile trip to the vet.

[black elk speaks]

I will not concede that the officer was not responsible for the dogs death. Which, the police seem to have conceded. Why would I need to?

That's my only point, and what I feel this whole argument boils down to. 'Does an officer have the authority to deny treatment to the dog?' No.
Once the stop was made any danger of the speeders was over. And BTW, speeding is a lesser crime than killing a pet, I do believe.

causing the death of his dog.

He took responsability and pulled over. But he did not cause the death of his dog.

And BTW n00b, if you ever say anything like "kill Juan" again, I'll make it my personal mission to see to it that you never win another CC game again. Weather you only play singles on one map or not. Don't you come onto my favorite site demanding respect.

i'll take your points any time. the officer is responsible for protecting people and upholding the law. i will now give you the opportunity to go and look up the law in texas that the officer broke by detaining the reckless driver. when you find the statute, and post links to it for every one to read where johnny law is responsible to protect and serve the canine populous of texas, i will then grovel for your forgiveness and declare you the one true king of this thread.

and n00b? you have been here three months. you're a n00b too.

[KoolBak]

I was in this situation a few years back; my doberman escaped the house and immediately ran across the road and was nuked by a car which proceeded to speed off. He was incredibly pig headed; this was apparently bound to hapen ;o(

Anyway, I got my broken bleeding screaming dog from the road, bandaged him up quickly to quell the worst bleeding (it was horrific) bundled him into my truck and was off. I drove slightly more quickly than usual but by no means drove recklessly or endangered anyone....it was extremely difficult to manage. I wanted to haul ass.

Driving is a priviledge; driving wisely is a requirement. Someone hurts my child because of his damn pet, it will be the last thing he ever does.

Cops put their lives on the line for you every day - support them, eh? I am now 2 cents poorer.

And no, my avatar is not the dog in question; he is our current, calm, well mannered dobie ;o)

[black elk speaks]

I was in this situation a few years back; my doberman escaped the house and immediately ran across the road and was nuked by a car which proceeded to speed off. He was incredibly pig headed; this was apparently bound to hapen ;o(

Anyway, I got my broken bleeding screaming dog from the road, bandaged him up quickly to quell the worst bleeding (it was horrific) bundled him into my truck and was off. I drove slightly more quickly than usual but by no means drove recklessly or endangered anyone....it was extremely difficult to manage. I wanted to haul ass.

Driving is a priviledge; driving wisely is a requirement. Someone hurts my child because of his damn pet, it will be the last thing he ever does.

Cops put their lives on the line for you every day - support them, eh? I am now 2 cents poorer.

And no, my avatar is not the dog in question; he is our current, calm, well mannered dobie ;o)

thanks for that.

i remember when my wife was in labor. driving to the hospital, i didn't break the speed limit, in fact i was making every effort to be as calm and aware of the road as possible. i didn't want to crash because i was irrational and put my wife and baby in jeopardy.

[KoolBak]

lol....ditto.....twice

Thanks for refreshing those poingant moments! lolol

I enjoy your posts BES.....but I cant help seeing Black Oak Arkansas when I read your name

[Juan_Bottom]

i will now give you the opportunity to go and look up the law in texas that the officer broke by detaining the reckless driver. when you find the statute,

You dumb S-O-B. What the f*ck did I just say?
How many times do I have to say it? The officer was correct to pull them over, to even detain them.
But he wasn't right to detain the dog. He denied the dog treatment, which possably killed the dog. That's where he broke the law. The owners clearly wanted to get the dog some medical attention, which the officer denied to them. Killing a dog is legally a worse crime than speeding, no? The speeding, recklessness, whatever, doesn't even enter into it. It's the excuse that the officer, and you, can use for killing the dog.

Didn't the police apologize and dismiss the ticket? Again, probably to avoid ill-gotten gains. Argue with that you dumb bastard.

and n00b? you have been here three months. you're a n00b too.

Yes and no. Take a look at my profile. I stood back and earned any respect that I have. I never demanded it. Now everybody knows me, I start each day with a dozen PMs, I'm in two good clans(one of which I lead), and I do have a kick-ass record.

i'll take your points any time.

I said I would make it my mission to be sure that you never won again. Not that I would give you my points. Sooner or later you're going to stop playing 1Vs1 classic.

Driving is a priviledge; driving wisely is a requirement. Someone hurts my child because of his damn pet, it will be the last thing he ever does.

There's a big fuss going on in IOWA now where they are argueing that driving is a right since you have the right of speedy travel. I haven't heard much about it on Lawspeak on WTPRN in a while now... but when a decision is reached they'll share it.... Wouldn't that trip you out? I was trippin' when they had the discussion.

[Xayath]

You dumb S-O-B. What the f*ck did I just say?

First off, "flame wars" are a different forum (looking at you too black elk), i am not a mod or any such but even i can recognise bad manners from you two. Not saying any comment was unprovoked but even then most of us are adults, that means we attack their arguments not they themselves.

But he wasn't right to detain the dog. He denied the dog treatment, which possably killed the dog.

This cannot be proven either from what is in the article or what can be inferred. I am not saying that he did not deny treatment and thus killing the dog, or that the dog was hopeless. I am rather saying that the claim cannot be justified as FACT. The driver claimed that the detainment killed the dog. You might well be right, but you might also be wrong.

Didn't the police apologize and dismiss the ticket? Again, probably to avoid ill-gotten gains.

Please read

"This was not our finest hour," said San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams. "It was not handled right by our officer, but whether there was a violation of our policy that is subject to punishment, I don't know."

Simply this is not a admission of guilt, in court this would be closetest to a plea of "no contest", i.e. "[The San Marcos Police Deptartment] states that [it] is innocent of the stated charges but cannot prove such." This sort of statement is used when a group cannot determine whether or not one of its constituents is guilty of a charge. The Police did state that the officer did not handle the situation correctly but did not state that the officer was responcible for the dogs death. I again am not saying he is not responcible by this statement, i am rather saying that the statement you have made is not factual according to only the evidence put forth so far.

Yes and no. Take a look at my profile. I stood back and earned any respect that I have. I never demanded it. Now everybody knows me, I start each day with a dozen PMs, I'm in two good clans(one of which I lead), and I do have a kick-ass record.

Here i am not saying any thing about the respect that you have earned, i am stating that your comment calling him a n00b earlier was not in the best taste, and while he did respond in kind challenging your status i would have to state that he is only playing by your rules. You challenged his status he challenged yours. Futhermore, why did you call him a n00b in the first place, i am wondering what RISK has to do with an ethics debate.

You have made some great points in this thread, but remember this is a discussion not a flame board. If they are sinking to name calling and taunting should you do so also.

I hope i made sense and please take these comments with the intent they were made, simple curiosity.

[Juan_Bottom]

Simply this is not a admission of guilt, in court this would be closetest to a plea of "no contest", i.e.

Rule # one when you get into trouble..... keep your mouth closed. The police did back down, and battened down the hatches. It seems clear that they are protecting themselves. That's all.

that means we attack their arguments not they themselves.

I will admit that I am getting very flustered with everybody because everyone is either qouting me, and then argueing with someone else's ideas, or completely ignoring me, yet at the same time saying nothing is wrong with the situation.

The Police did state that the officer did not handle the situation correctly but did not state that the officer was responcible for the dogs death.

Infering what we can; He did detain a sick dog for 20 minutes. It looks real bad for him.....

[Xayath]

More stuff than i want to quote you want to see read previous

anyways, with rule one we are talking about today's press where saying nothing is even more like admiting guilt. Again i like my fence here and i am staying on it.

Thank you for taking my comment in the spirit it was given. I think that they dont see a problem be cause they are seeing from both a posteri reasoning and from a post - temporial stance. I.e. They know that it happened and are trying to reason out why it might have been justified. Again i am guessing. Now untill there is more than the claim of the driver that
(a) the dog had not died already

The dog had started choking at home, then threw up and went limp.

this tells me that the dog had been in asphixia for at least 3 minute and with a five pound dog that is more than enough time for the brain to go into oxygen debt.

(b) That the dog died soley because of the delay, and there was intent on behalf of the officer. What he said does not directly mean that the delay was solely meant to kill the dog. Hypothetical situation: The police pulls them over. Asks for licensence and reg. they start to complain. The officer analyzes the situation and comes to the conclusion that the couple is overstating the problem (it happens) and in addition to that wireless tech used by officers to run your licences is not instantaneos. Already i see 14 minutes just from the routine stop, ecspecially if his comp and conn are slow. i am going on too long on this.

unless both conditions are met i can only see him guilty of acting rudely, which in this case is rather serious and he should be penalized.

However, interms of ill gotten gains, one if he acted outside the law and is considered not a cop for the issue of the dog it would not change the collection of the ticket as that process had started before the cop had even seen the dog. As i see it the ticket is valid so long as the reason it is issued is valid. Otherwise, pandora's box is left to ignorant masses.

In terms of logic, only what can be proven can be seen as universally relavant. Until you can prove intent it would first not be murder, animal slaughter at best. that is a lot to prove and i do not see how it is possible. i believe that both extremes i have seen are taking this further than it should go. But i am only my self and what will be will be.

[Juan_Bottom]

anyways, with rule one we are talking about today's press where saying nothing is even more like admiting guilt. Again i like my fence here and i am staying on it.

I know what you are saying here about spin... but I have gone to jail before. The more you say, the more that can be used against you in court/the more you can be charged with. I would ignore the fact that the police have chosen to be silent on this, if they hadn't also dismissed the ticket. That's my only hang-up here.

They know that it happened and are trying to reason out why it might have been justified.

I'll give you a maybe on that. I'm leaning a bit towards the idea that most people believe that the police are always correct, and know more than they do.

However, interms of ill gotten gains, one if he acted outside the law and is considered not a cop for the issue of the dog it would not change the collection of the ticket as that process had started before the cop had even seen the dog. As i see it the ticket is valid so long as the reason it is issued is valid. Otherwise, pandora's box is left to ignorant masses.

Ill-gotten gains is actual, and almost without limit. The cop would revert to a being a citizen, and citizens can't charge others monies for crimes. Even if the person did break the law. It's a crazy system, I know.

Until you can prove intent it would first not be murder, animal slaughter at best.

That's why in one of my first posts I said if the dog was a person it would be involuntary manslaghter. I wasn't trying to compare a dogs life with a persons, I was trying to put the cops actions/crime into context.

this tells me that the dog had been in asphixia for at least 3 minute and with a five pound dog that is more than enough time for the brain to go into oxygen debt.

I choked on a corn dog once... I could breath in... but only barely... I often wonder how long it woulda taken...
I do agree though.... 3 minutes would probably have been more than enough time to kill the dog.

(b) That the dog died soley because of the delay, and there was intent on behalf of the officer. What he said does not directly mean that the delay was solely meant to kill the dog.

Where I see the problem being, and where the cop gets himself into trouble, is where the people in the car told the cop that the dog was dieing, and he ignored them. If they were distraught enough to drive 90mph, then certainly they were distraught enough to relay this message to the officer. And then to this you add the 20 minutes of waiting... and this to me shows intent.

Plus, if he was a state trooper, on a state highway, then he can only pull them over and hold them if the crime they committed was a felony, or if they were driving a business truck. Which 30 miles over may be a felony there I don't know. But I'm not thinkin' so because the officer made no attempt at an arrest. Any way, this is prolly irrelevant because this doesn't sound like a state trooper.

unless both conditions are met i can only see him guilty of acting rudely, which in this case is rather serious and he should be penalized.

His rudeness could be his undoing in court too... where emotions do often dictate outcomes. He made those two sit for 20 minutes in their car while (possibly?) watching their dog slowly die (suffering?)... and yet they were powerless to get aid for it. And if he really said "get another dog" then his rudeness will probably cost him his job. It's the ol' Wal*Mart trick.

(a) the dog had not died already

This is a really good question, but!!!! If the cop never checked to see, then he could still probably lose his job, and the police are still in trouble.
Also, it'd be hard to tell just when the dog did die. I wonder if by now, they could ever prove undenyably who killed the dog?
In civil I really think that this is an open and shut case.

Anyway one thing has been buggin' me..... dash cam/recorder?

[black elk speaks]

i will now give you the opportunity to go and look up the law in texas that the officer broke by detaining the reckless driver. when you find the statute,

You dumb S-O-B. What the f*ck did I just say?
How many times do I have to say it? The officer was correct to pull them over, to even detain them.
But he wasn't right to detain the dog. He denied the dog treatment, which possably killed the dog. That's where he broke the law. The owners clearly wanted to get the dog some medical attention, which the officer denied to them. Killing a dog is legally a worse crime than speeding, no? The speeding, recklessness, whatever, doesn't even enter into it. It's the excuse that the officer, and you, can use for killing the dog.

Didn't the police apologize and dismiss the ticket? Again, probably to avoid ill-gotten gains. Argue with that you dumb bastard.

and n00b? you have been here three months. you're a n00b too.

Yes and no. Take a look at my profile. I stood back and earned any respect that I have. I never demanded it. Now everybody knows me, I start each day with a dozen PMs, I'm in two good clans(one of which I lead), and I do have a kick-ass record.

i'll take your points any time.

I said I would make it my mission to be sure that you never won again. Not that I would give you my points. Sooner or later you're going to stop playing 1Vs1 classic.

Driving is a priviledge; driving wisely is a requirement. Someone hurts my child because of his damn pet, it will be the last thing he ever does.

There's a big fuss going on in IOWA now where they are argueing that driving is a right since you have the right of speedy travel. I haven't heard much about it on Lawspeak on WTPRN in a while now... but when a decision is reached they'll share it.... Wouldn't that trip you out? I was trippin' when they had the discussion.

i have reported this post as abusive since you seem to like arguments ad hominem. what i was suggesting is where you actually go and look up the statutes that requires the officer to save the life of an animal that is on deaths bed. the issue of morals aside, if it is written somewhere in the officers mission statement, or state law, then you win. otherwise, you are just complaining about the situation for the sake of complaining. you are asserting your opinion as fact. your arguments are false based on the premise that the officer broke a law that does not exist.

personally i don't care how many threads you post in each day or how many clans you participate in. i still find you aggressive in that you feel the need to force your opinions as fact. i find it every bit as offensive as you seem to find the officer's actions concerning the dog. you are overbearing and prone to tantrum.

your 40 something win rate doesn't scare me and your less than 1200 points isn't much worth me seeking you out for a fight, but if you want to set up a game, i will consider playing it. if i do not enjoy the parameters, then i will not. i more rather enjoy games with multi player assassin games. i just happen to not be so patient for them to load.

if only you would stop asserting your opinion as fact, then i think you and i would not be at odds on the matter. you come across as such an ass when you stomp your feet like that i think you should ask around, people might tent to tell you that you are not as popular as you might think. i certainly feel obligated to tear you down.

[Juan_Bottom]

For the love of Odin, it doesn't matter that he is a cop, it's irrelevant. What's relevent is that he denyed treatment to a dog. I'm not saying he personally had to save it, I'm saying it's not his choice whether someone else's pet lives or dies. I keep having to dumb down my arguement for you.


Congrats on reporting us , that was brilliant. Seriously, Clapper prolly already saw it. But anyways I think you'll find CC to be pretty lax.

[black elk speaks]

For the love of Odin, it doesn't matter that he is a cop, it's irrelevant. What's relevent is that he denyed treatment to a dog. I'm not saying he personally had to save it, I'm saying it's not his choice whether someone else's pet lives or dies. I keep having to dumb down my arguement for you.


Congrats on reporting us , that was brilliant. Seriously, Clapper prolly already saw it. But anyways I think you'll find CC to be pretty lax.

wow.

i didn't report us. i reported you for being abusive.

what you don't get is that the driver was driving recklessly and was a danger to himself and others on the road. regardless of the situation of the dying dog, mr. law is obligated to the other people on the road and to protect the driver from his own recklessness. weighing the dog vs. captain irrational the driver, it is my opinion that the cop possibly saved the driver's life. i don't think that the driver ever suggested that he had been irresponsible and would commit to only going the posted speed limit. he instead justified his recklessness by proposing that the ticket wait while he receive police escort to the vet.

now, this is my opinion. it contradicts yours. let it be and let this stupid thread die like a dog in a reckless driving case.

[TheProwler]

I agree. I haven't said much of late since my view is stated pretty clearly above, but I want to just point out that someone has said here that they would have no problem shooting any one from this thread in the head to save his dog. I note also that this is the same person who, in FW regarding pedophiles, seemed to take the position that a pedophile has a right to life.

If you are referring to me, then show me where in Flame Wars I discussed child molesters. You are confused. And you are trying to confuse the issue.

[TheProwler]

Do you people really think driving 95 is that dangerous? You must lead very conservative lives.

I take it you don't make your living as an actuary.


When the interstate highways were constructed in this country, they were designed to be able to travel at speeds as high as 100 - 120 mph. However, that design was intended for military convoys, should the USA ever be invaded. Also, the many long strips of straight pavement can serve as makeshift airstrips.

I hope you don't make your living as an actuary. Because missing peripheral information can be detrimental when analyzing statistics and performing risk assessments.

The automobiles on the road at the time the interstate highways were constructed were vastly inferior to today's in terms of handling and braking. There is no comparison.

Today's automobiles can safely travel at 95 mph. Lets try to keep the discussion relevant to the situation.

[gdeangel]

Two points that need to be rebutted here...

1) Nowhere does the law draw a black and white distinction between when and how police can act. First, you can't even begin to appreciate this if you trow out the window the fact that this was a traffic stop by a police officer. Now, if your ready to acknowledge that the fact that it was a cop matter, there is certainly nothing that says cops can't detain someone unless they are committing a felony. Last time I checked, DUI (at least the first time) is not a felony, at least in some states. Clearly the copy can keep the person he just pulled over for DUI from continuing to drive after giving the ticket. Furthermore, the authority of all police to act versus individual rights is universally defined by mushy standards like unreasonableness, and in that inquiry, it is not subjective reasonableness of the person in question that matters, rather the reasonableness according to the objective standard of the society. The objective reasonableness depends heavily on the facts, such as what has been mentioned time and time above... road condition, traffic, state of mind of the driver, driver experience, condition and age of the vehicle, as well as the marginal improvement of the chances of survival for the dog (such as the dog's appearance, the distance to the vet), and for some of these, a major factor to the police officer who has to make this call on the side of a road during a traffic stop will be the demeanor and credibility of the driver.

2) Sorry prowler about the child molester point. At least then we seem to be in agreement that eliminating pedophiles should be one of the highest priorities of law enforcement. Can we widen the common ground to say that catching pedophiles is more important mission for police than escorting dying dogs to the vet?

I'm going to start a poll on unsafe speeds... because there is also a fundamental disagreement here about whether or not 95 MPH is reckless. I urge anyone who is still reading this topic and has a strong viewpoint to weigh in.

[TheProwler]

Wow, I just skimmed over the last few pages....I don't have time to read all that today...

But I did notice a few times that people keep saying the driver was risking lives and I will say again that you are making assumptions when you say this...the highway might have not been busy and for all we know he was slowing down when he was near other cars...

The cop had the power to help possibly save the dog's life and he did not...if fact, he decided to force it to suffer and die by detaining the people in the car. He is a bona fide prick and anyone who defends his actions is suspect of falling into the same category.

[TheProwler]

2) Sorry prowler about the child molester point. At least then we seem to be in agreement that eliminating pedophiles should be one of the highest priorities of law enforcement. Can we widen the common ground to say that catching pedophiles is more important mission for police than escorting dying dogs to the vet?

Sorry if this seems a little condescending, but you are arguing very poorly.

What you are trying to get, at in an indirect way, is to say "The cop should have been investigating pedophiles instead of escorting the people to the vets."

Thanks. So then you should agree that if the highway had a relative small amount of traffic, the cop should not have even wasted his time writing a ticket. Once he saw that the couple did not have a child in the car and did not see other evidence of child molestation, he should have said "On your way! I gotta catch me a pervert!" Or are you saying issuing traffic tickets is more important than catching pedophiles?

So police need to determine what is of number one importance and focus their efforts entirely on that cause?? Is that what you really think? Do you really want to argue that with me? Look, this guy was a traffic cop. He was one step up from writing parking tickets. He is probably a stupid person. Your argument is dismissed unless you want to pursue it further.

Look, that cop did a lot of harm with his decision. Do you know how much that article alone damaged the public perception of the police? What a great PR story it would have been if he had escorted them to the vets.

[Xayath]

Currently there is not enough proof that the officer acted in order to prevent the dog from recieving medical atttention. I am not say that he did or did not. But, all that we have is the accused (the boyfriend) claiming that the dog died and only inferance not confirmed fact that the officer acted to delay the part from treating the dog. Occam's Razor people, do not over complicate the problem if a simple alternative applies.

Hypothetical Explaination:

*Cop pulls people over who were going fast enough to warrant arrest.
*Cop begins to issue ticket and decide whether the driver warrants arrest.
*The couple keeps interupting the process with statements about how their dog needs medical attention
*With no other evidence but their attitude and a dog that does not move, in case of choking a cop who are all trained in first-aid knows that either (a) the dog has past the reasonable amount of time in which medical aid can be reasonable (b) the cop doesn't recieve information that the dog was choking and due to the badgering nature of the driver the officer concludes that the couple are overstating the problem.
*In the course of giving the ticket and due to both the driver constantly interuppting and a average (SLOW) computer, and remeber how the article mentioned other officers maybe just maybe he was trying to get clearance to escort/allow them to continue without arrest, the time of the stop reaches 14 min, this is not unreasonable with the limits of todays tech, and finally the cop finishes and lets the car go.

Remember in order for the cop to have acted as you say you must assume that he is inhierantly vindictive rather than the simpler thought the driver didnt communicate correctly.

Not saying it was the drivers fault, but with the amount of illigitimate accusations against the police i have a gut reaction to when ever some one claims victim.

So far the most likely event is that the incedent was the result of misunderstandings on both sides and an officer who allegedly made an uncivil remark. There is alot of conjecture and supposition and i have to wonder if this is a case where truth is in the eye of the beholder.

[TheProwler]

Nobody can deny that the cop made an insensitive, unprofessional, and cruel remark. It is fairly safe to assume that he knew it was offensive and hurtful.

Nobody can deny the fact that the Police Chief admitted the cop acted inappropriately.

Nobody can deny the fact that having the ticket withdrawn is an admission of guilt on behalf of the police department.

I don't get the impression that the author of the article was trying to elicit an emotional response. The shocking behaviour of the cop was enough to do that without any editorial assistance.

[Curmudgeonx]

Nobody can deny the fact that having the ticket withdrawn is an admission of guilt on behalf of the police department.

Let us be particular with our language here: guilty of what?

[Xayath]

First, again occam's razor
It is more indicitive of a method of appeasement than anything else.

I second cur's statement. even if it is an admission of guilt there are two "transgressions".

More info is needed

[black elk speaks]

Nobody can deny that the cop made an insensitive, unprofessional, and cruel remark. It is fairly safe to assume that he knew it was offensive and hurtful.

Nobody can deny the fact that the Police Chief admitted the cop acted inappropriately.

Nobody can deny the fact that having the ticket withdrawn is an admission of guilt on behalf of the police department.

I don't get the impression that the author of the article was trying to elicit an emotional response. The shocking behaviour of the cop was enough to do that without any editorial assistance.

points one and two are fair.

point three is baseless. more likely they wanted the bad press to go away. personally, i think that they should have made the ticket stick, they got the press anyway.

the article left out a lot of facts. i think that they did so because no one but a bunch of bored internet losers would care enough to write 10 pages in debate about this issue.

[TheProwler]

Nobody can deny that the cop made an insensitive, unprofessional, and cruel remark. It is fairly safe to assume that he knew it was offensive and hurtful.

Nobody can deny the fact that the Police Chief admitted the cop acted inappropriately.

Nobody can deny the fact that having the ticket withdrawn is an admission of guilt on behalf of the police department.

I don't get the impression that the author of the article was trying to elicit an emotional response. The shocking behaviour of the cop was enough to do that without any editorial assistance.

points one and two are fair.

point three is baseless. more likely they wanted the bad press to go away. personally, i think that they should have made the ticket stick, they got the press anyway.

the article left out a lot of facts. i think that they did so because no one but a bunch of bored internet losers would care enough to write 10 pages in debate about this issue.

Haha, "bored internet losers"?? Not all of us are bored.

About point three...if they were not guilty, they would have made the ticket stick and they would have played the "protecting public safety" card and they would have supported their officer. But I suspect the facts would not allow the "protecting public safety" card to carry much weight (desolate highway or whatever). The police department would not admit to wrongdoings so easily unless they know they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Xayath]

About point three...if they were not guilty, they would have made the ticket stick and they would have played the "protecting public safety" card and they would have supported their officer. But I suspect the facts would not allow the "protecting public safety" card to carry much weight (desolate highway or whatever). The police department would not admit to wrongdoings so easily unless they know they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Or they knew how Peta gets when it thinks it has sand in its vagina