I ended up posting a link to an article from my local newspaper on Facebook
earlier today due to the fact that Bismarck, ND's police department has finally
'gotten with the times' and had an officer shoot a private citizen's dog while
executing a search warrant.  Somebody I'm friends with ended up replying to
that a little while later stating that 'it was too bad, but the owner's
should've been able to control their dog', which I found unbelievably
shortsighted, ignorant, and bordering on brainwashed with deferrence to
perceived authority.  I immediately began writing a small rant about my
disagreement with this, and it turned out concise enough so that I think the
thoughts stand on their own as a thread to discuss.  Figured that I'd post it
here and see what y'all might think about the issue in general, as well as the
points I made and opinion that I have, personally.

-=-=-=-=-

As a former law enforcement officer on an assist/protect/defend mission to
residential communities and military airfields and armories in Germany, I wrote
this just a little bit ago regarding law enforcement's decision to use
potentially lethal force on man's best friend in Bismarck recently. It's a
comment on an old post that may not be seen by many of you, but I think this
line of thought holds its own in a post all to itself. So without further ado,
here's what I think about any line of thought that the dog being shot was a
justifiable decision and that it was the owner's responsibility to control
their pet on their own home turf during a court mandated breach of individual
sovereignty:

If they were executing a warrant, they were trying to convey a sense of
authority and jurisdiction on the private property of the owner, and the dog's
home turf. There is a lack of common consideration and courtesy shown in such
situations that is purposely cultivated by law enforcement to surprise and
shock the property owner. This is to try to prevent the property owner from
establishing defenses, hiding contraband, or getting up the nerve to compose
resistance to the execution of the aforementioned warrant. Of course the
animal, being loyal, protective, and instinctively territorial, takes this as a
serious and legitimate threat to its own safety, that of the owner, and the
sanctity and sovereignty of the 'home turf'. It tries to do the only thing that
it understands as reasonable in the face of this threat and attempts to 'serve
and to protect' its owner, itself, and the home territory. Then cowardly law
enforcement officers, rather than do their own mission of protecting and
serving the public (which courts have said they have no legal obligation to
actually do, anyway), end up 'playing it safe', which superiors recommend and
state that they will back their officers in doing, thus using potentially
lethal force on a loyal and justifiably/instinctively defensive and upset
family pet and companion.

Another hideous reminder of the social decay of authority, government, and
industry in America.

-=-=-=-=-

-The opinions expressed are not necessarily an advocation of any of the
aforementioned ideologies, concepts, or actions.  We still have the freedom of
speech, for now, and I enjoy using it in a satirical or ficticious manner to
amuse myself-

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a
revolutionary act." --  George Orwell

--- SBBSecho 2.14-OpenBSD
 * Origin: telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ (1:282/1057)