Although, you could have been a bit quicker on weapon dog no:2, it got too close to the officers for my liking.
I won't embed the video in deference to any readers who aren't, like me, totally fed up with these things on our streets and don't want to see them shot dead, but you can see it here and there are other closer videos floating around YouTube.
The only 'shocking' thing is that it took them so long to finally act. Oh, and the display of ignorance from the onlookers:
A 25-year-old woman who witnessed the situation unfold told the Mirror: 'It didn't seem proportionate. It is beyond belief.
'It was so shocking. I didn't realise it was a proper gun until the dogs were just lying completely out on the ground. There was blood coming out of them.
'I've never seen anything like that. You hear of these things happening in America but not here. Whatever had happened, it's not an excuse for it to end like that.'
It's debatable who has the lower IQ, the deceased mutts or the 'poor puppy!' crowd...
The Metropolitan police has defended its officers after a suspect was Tasered and two dogs were shot in front of screaming witnesses.
“This is never an easy decision for any officer to take, but police have a duty to act where necessary before any further injury is caused. The Met’s directorate of professional standards will review the circumstances of the incident.”
Before hopefully buying them all a beer.
Shame the owner, and the bystanders, weren't shot too. What's the point of giving plod guns?
ReplyDeleteThe officers will now be investigated for months and months, possibly suspended or at least grounded during that time whilst the vermin dog owner receives counselling.
ReplyDeleteJaded
I expect the onlooker thinks the police should have reasoned with the dogs, got them to agree to go to voluntary therapy.
ReplyDeleteThis gets my support although it isn't the dogs fault it is how they are brought up.
ReplyDeleteThe part I found interesting was 'police have a duty to act where necessary before any further injury is caused' How does that line up with the incident a few years ago when a kid was drowning, plod wouldn't go in and they stopped others from doing so. Seems that duty is only when it is in their benefit.
Dear oh dear Lord T. Stop reading the Daily Mail. Firstly they were pcso not real police. Secondly the child has been under water for quite some time. Lastly onlookers could not pin point exactly where he had gone in.
ReplyDeleteTwo completely different scenarios and two different results
Jaded
I saw this on the Fail website this morning and thought, "Ah. One for Julia".
ReplyDeleteonly to arrive here and found that you had already posted it.
Quick work, Mon Amie.
Well done to those officers. It's speculation, but I don't think that it's the first time that owner has used his dogs as weapons.
ReplyDelete"Shame the owner, and the bystanders, weren't shot too."
ReplyDeleteIf he'd taken a potshot at Ms 'I'm filming you!' who could blame him?
"The officers will now be investigated for months and months..."
The Met were actually quick to exonerate their officers, but now the snowflakes and professional agitators have petitioned the IPC, it probably will.
"I expect the onlooker thinks the police should have reasoned with the dogs, got them to agree to go to voluntary therapy."
Not sure there's any evidence she can think...
"This gets my support although it isn't the dogs fault it is how they are brought up."
Given he's now been charged with having a dog while banned (and pleaded guilty), if only these banning orders were monitored and enforced, it could all have been avoided.
"I saw this on the Fail website this morning and thought, "Ah. One for Julia"."
I must see how many posts I've got on this blogtag now!
"It's speculation, but I don't think that it's the first time that owner has used his dogs as weapons."
Social media did a good job in unearthing his past indiscretions with dogs, and you're spot on!