Mills police officer only charged with animal cruelty after K9 left in hot car & died

[xBiffx]

I read it, you posted it while i was looking at their site. So thanks for that.

But here's where you and I differ. Trust.

When you have a statute, I'm not sure where trust comes in.

 

[ch33zw1z]

When you have a statute, I'm not sure where trust comes in.

You trust the LEO's to tell the truth about what happened. You trust the prosecutor to have a brain. For the sake of arguement assume you can't afford a lawyer, you trust your public defender to give a shit.

You trust the facets of government that are supposed to be honest and uphold the law to actuallly do that.

 

[MrPickins]

I'd be charged with vehicular homicide of either a police service animal or an LEO, since we don't know how WY see's the K9 yet...right?

It wasn't your hypothetical though...

Do you have any precedent with which to back that claim?

Seems to me like you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions.

 

[xBiffx]

You trust the LEO's to tell the truth about what happened. You trust the prosecutor to have a brain. For the sake of arguement assume you can't afford a lawyer, you trust your public defender to give a shit.

You trust the facets of government that are supposed to be honest and uphold the law to actuallly do that.

How is this any different in any other situation? If you want to turn this into a tinfoil hat parade while everyone is wearing anarchy symbols and chanting "fuck da police", go right ahead. I doubt its going to get anyone to listen to you though. We have enough of those threads already.

 

[ch33zw1z]

How is this any different in any other situation? If you want to turn this into a tinfoil hat parade while everyone is wearing anarchy symbols and chanting "fuck da police", go right ahead. I doubt its going to get anyone to listen to you though. We have enough of those threads already.

It's not different from any other situation, you asked where trust came in and I replied.

Was your question rhetorical?

I'm not sure where this is going. You looked at the statutes and posted them, great. You asked where trust came in, I explained.

it's great to look at what's on paper and say "this is what should happen". But that doesn't that's what will happen.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Do you have any precedent with which to back that claim?

Seems to me like you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions.

Maybe I am, you want to test it out?

 

[zinfamous]

Any regular citizen responsible for the death of a K9 unit is usually charged with murdering a police officer.

This

 

[xBiffx]

This

Again, murder?

 

[LTC8K6]

So if there was a K9 police dog sitting behind my car, and I backed over the dog because I could not tell he was there, I would be charged with murder of a police officer?

 

[xBiffx]

So if there was a K9 police dog sitting behind my car, and I backed over the dog because I could not tell he was there, I would be charged with murder of a police officer?

Who do you trust? :whiste:

 

[zinfamous]

Again, murder?

If a citizen is charged with murder in such a death, is it always actually murder? Could it be construed as accident/self defense? Probably, but I doubt that is what they are ever charged with.

It's murder. I think that is what people are getting at. Accident or not, a citizen would be charged with murder in nearly all cases.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So if there was a K9 police dog sitting behind my car, and I backed over the dog because I could not tell he was there, I would be charged with murder of a police officer?

no, you'll be fine. that's not even cruel....it's not like he was baked alive or anything.

 

[MrPickins]

Maybe I am, you want to test it out?

I'm not the one making claims with no evidence to back them up.

How about you provide an example of were a person was charged with murder for the accidental death of a K9 unit.

 

[xBiffx]

It's murder. I think that is what people are getting at. Accident or not, a citizen would be charged with murder in nearly all cases.

Bullshit, and I've already shown why. Also, murder is never an accident, not even for killing a human being, let alone a dog. Of course they can be charged with anything, its what sticks that matters. Murder wouldn't stick in cases of an accident.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm not the one making claims with no evidence to back them up.

How about you provide an example of were a person was charged with murder for the accidental death of a K9 unit.

hasn't happened, right?

You'll be fine, what could go wrong.

first it's assumptions I'm making, now it claims. If I'm so wrong, then you'll be out in no time.

 

[MrPickins]

hasn't happened, right?

You'll be fine, what could go wrong.

What I'm hearing is that you have no evidence whatsoever for your claims.

It seems we can safely disregard your contributions to this thread thus far.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In Texas killing a police dog is not considered murder.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm

Sec. 38.151. INTERFERENCE WITH POLICE SERVICE ANIMALS. (a) In this section:

(1) "Area of control" includes a vehicle, trailer, kennel, pen, or yard.

(2) "Handler or rider" means a peace officer, corrections officer, or jailer who is specially trained to use a police service animal for law enforcement, corrections, prison or jail security, or investigative purposes.

(3) "Police service animal" means a dog, horse, or other domesticated animal that is specially trained for use by a handler or rider.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly:

(1) taunts, torments, or strikes a police service animal;

(2) throws an object or substance at a police service animal;

(3) interferes with or obstructs a police service animal or interferes with or obstructs the handler or rider of a police service animal in a manner that:

(A) inhibits or restricts the handler's or rider's control of the animal; or

(B) deprives the handler or rider of control of the animal;

(4) releases a police service animal from its area of control;

(5) enters the area of control of a police service animal without the effective consent of the handler or rider, including placing food or any other object or substance into that area;

(6) injures or kills a police service animal; or

(7) engages in conduct likely to injure or kill a police service animal, including administering or setting a poison, trap, or any other object or substance.

(c) An offense under this section is:

(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(1);

(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(2);

(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(3), (4), or (5);

(4) except as provided by Subdivision (5), a state jail felony if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(6) or (7) by injuring a police service animal or by engaging in conduct likely to injure the animal; or

(5) a felony of the second degree if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(6) or (7) by:

(A) killing a police service animal or engaging in conduct likely to kill the animal;

(B) injuring a police service animal in a manner that materially and permanently affects the ability of the animal to perform as a police service animal; or

(C) engaging in conduct likely to injure a police service animal in a manner that would materially and permanently affect the ability of the animal to perform as a police service animal.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 979, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1331 (S.B. 1562), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2007.

 

[ch33zw1z]

What I'm hearing is that you have no evidence whatsoever for your claims.

It seems we can safely disregard your contributions to this thread thus far.

So you aren't going to test my claims/assumptions?

Just think, if you're right....you can come back and tell me I'm wrong...

 

[MrPickins]

So you aren't going to test my claims/assumptions?

Just think, if you're right....you can come back and tell me I'm wrong...

Again, I'm not the one making a claim. The burden of proof lies on you.

If what you say is true, you'd surely be able to find some precedent.


You can do that, right?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Again, I'm not the one making a claim. The burden of proof lies on you.

If what you say is true, you'd surely be able to find some precedent.


You can do that, right?

Nope, can't do it. I was hoping you could actually prove me wrong. You're so adamant that I thought it would be easy.

 

[xBiffx]

Nope, can't do it. I was hoping you could actually prove me wrong. You're so adamant that I thought it would be easy.

It was easy.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It was easy.

Yep. Rest assured knowing that when you accidentally kill a k9 nothing legally negative will happen to you!

 

[xBiffx]

Yep. Rest assured knowing that when you accidentally kill a k9 nothing legally negative will happen to you!

I doubt I'll rest assured after killing a dog. :|

 

[MrPickins]

Yep. Rest assured knowing that when you accidentally kill a k9 nothing legally negative will happen to you!

So now you're changing the goalposts?

First it was a murder charge, now it's something "legally negative will happen to you".

 

[ch33zw1z]

So now you're changing the goalposts?

First it was a murder charge, now it's something "legally negative will happen to you".

I never said murder....vehicular homicide.

Does it matter? It's very clear to me now that I'll be fine if ever in that situation.. Thanks guys!