It is only human nature that one's perspective influences how one reacts to situations and articles such as the ones discussed in this thread. You being a LEO makes it natural to give your fellow officers the benefit of the doubt when reading articles in the media and hearing stories such as these. That is understandable. However, you cannot always expect the common citizen that has has a different perspective to always come to the same initial conclusion you do and give the police officer the benefit of the doubt. When the article reads as the ones regarding the subject of the original post in this thread, I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the dog which died in the hot car and not to the police officer until I hear or learn some facts that counter what the article says.texanjoker wrote:mojo84 wrote:Texanjoker, do you think the chief would have punished the officer if he had done the proper thing? Since the chief said he left the dog in the car with the windows up, was in the station longer than he expected, the dog suffered heat stroke, then died and the officer was punished, I don't suspect the officer did what he should have done nor what you want to give him the benefit of the doubt of doing.
Logic has to apply sometimes in spite of the brotherly bond you officers share. Also, when a mere citizen criminal is being roasted on here, why not come to their defence and claim here we go again with the mere citizen subject bashing?
Mojo, calling for more info isn't backing somebody due to a "brotherly bond." It is wanting more info. Unfortunately in here people assume it means something it isn't. I won't jump on the bandwagon because of an article that didn't have enough fact. I wanted to know if the engine/ac was on as that made a world of difference between equipment failure or negligence. Now that I have learned more I can say that this officer bad. He is a disgrace to k9 handlers across the nation. Had he followed simple procedure the k9 would be alive today. They did the right thing by kicking him out of the unit. I am not sure why they didn't prosecute him, but I don't know their state statute. I would have supported him being prosecuted if he met their statute. Other facts I would like to know would be how long he worked a dog. A new handler may not be used to leaving the motor running, which could make negligence harder to prove. We also don't know why he was in the station. Had he responded to another officer needed help with a drunk would be different then writing a report. I can say that a 3 month suspension is probably a greater fine then what the court would have imposed. That jurisdiction may not prosecute anybody for this type of crime. As I stated before, I have personally seen an officer I knew prosecuted for just this.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “K9 dies in hot car.”
- Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:20 am
- Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
- Topic: K9 dies in hot car.
- Replies: 41
- Views: 6142
Re: K9 dies in hot car.
- Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:42 pm
- Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
- Topic: K9 dies in hot car.
- Replies: 41
- Views: 6142
Re: K9 dies in hot car.
Texanjoker, do you think the chief would have punished the officer if he had done the proper thing? Since the chief said he left the dog in the car with the windows up, was in the station longer than he expected, the dog suffered heat stroke, then died and the officer was punished, I don't suspect the officer did what he should have done nor what you want to give him the benefit of the doubt of doing.
Logic has to apply sometimes in spite of the brotherly bond you officers share. Also, when a mere citizen criminal is being roasted on here, why not come to their defence and claim here we go again with the mere citizen subject bashing?
Logic has to apply sometimes in spite of the brotherly bond you officers share. Also, when a mere citizen criminal is being roasted on here, why not come to their defence and claim here we go again with the mere citizen subject bashing?