• be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      My first reaction to that final quoted sentence is “well they are callous with human life, why wouldn’t they be with a dog?”

      But my second reaction is, “Don’t they have to account for every on-duty weapon discharge??” You’d think putting “shot dog” as the reason you fired your weapon would be trackable.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It also implies that the same cop has killed a dog more than once. Which would get you fired in pretty much any other situation. But of course, cops are always immune from that sort of thing.

      • MightEnlightenYou@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, they don’t have to account for every discharge, in fact no one in the US has any idea how many times police fire their weapons.

    • bedrooms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I believe in most countries that number is close to zero. No way majority of the 10,000 dogs are life-threatening, and yet the US police disagree and shoot. Tells so much about US police’s justification on shooting at people.