Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

/rant on

whoa whoa whoa let's step back from the Kool Aid and think

I'm an animal lover to the rafters but charging this guy for hitting a dog and leaving the scene is preposterous.

Attempted Murder - Goodness what is that one smokin

to make the person who hit the dog take the leap of faith that that dog might be a police dog is absurd even if there is police officers present.

I hit a dog on the road the other day, damn thing darted out in front of me and I ran it over. I'm not about to swerve for any animal if it means that I may go off the road and either hit a tree, overturn or go down a ditch. My LIFE is much more important than an animals.

To make the driver say, OH That dog I hit mi ght be a police dog so I should stop and go back - Heck no. I had not inkling that the dog I hit was a police dog nor do i think that anyone out there would put two and two together.

Police presence on scene where the dog was hit, well how many times is there a police dog on a basic call. I think about 1% of the time.

I'm all for taking care of the animals, I wish that cruelty laws were more strict. But to take this to the extreme and charge the guy with all these charges that are being leveled is absurd.

Animals are animals, plain and simple.

So to take this absurd argument that if we hit a dog we should possibly relate that that dog is a police dog to the next extreme, driving down a country road, I hit a horse and kill it and I do not stop. Am I to put a correlation that that horse might be a police horse because horses are often used by police departments? I think not.

/OK rant off

Posted

/quote in previous post

Police K9s *are* officers. They are referred to as the handler's "partner". They work for, and in conjunction with, the police. I'm glad to hear that the K9 should pull through.

I agree that, at a minimum, the driver should be charged with a hit and run. He hit an officer and left the scene. /end quote

Above is my point. He hit an officer. Heck, I've hit a dog and never thought about it being an officer yet we are supposed to want to charge this guy with hitting an officer. No way.

Posted

To comment on what Ruffems said...

As I said in the end it does not matter that the dog was a police dog, the essence remains the same. Obviously the only reason this dog got media attention is because it was part of a K9 unit.

You have a moral and as CHP said very likely a legal obligation to stop in these circumstances. It will almost always be an accident and potentially unavoidable.

So say you are parallel parking and you accidentally hit the car in front or behind you. Nobody sees it. Your car has no/minimal/damage you don't care about. The other car has some obvious damage. Do you simply shrug your shoulders, tell yourself oh well, and drive off and find another spot?

When you hit that dog the other day did you eventually stop and check on it? Were you driving on such a precarious twisting mountain road that it would have been impossible too? Something tells me you were not unless you have a seriously large problem with a lot of stray dogs roaming around where you are that they can appear in any environment. I assume you had the ability to safely stop and check VERY VERY soon after you struck the animal (say within 100 feet or so), just as the person who struck the police dog did. They did not, did you?

Your last thing is pretty silly. So if a person hit a HORSE they would pretty much have to stop, I doubt they would have much of an option. Especially the ones our city uses, your car would be totaled and you would be lucky to escape injury, if not death. Of course I would not expect you to equate this random horse with some kind of police horse, but really that is beside the point as I have said.

Posted
Above is my point. He hit an officer. Heck, I've hit a dog and never thought about it being an officer yet we are supposed to want to charge this guy with hitting an officer. No way.

You are driving along a city street. You accidentally clip an on duty uniformed officer who was on foot patrol. You realize that you might have hit something (there is damage to your side view mirror), maybe even a person, but instead carry on. The officer is uninjured but gets your plate. You get a knock at your door later that day and you are charged with varying offenses, including hitting an officer.

Now, while I don't for sure if the dog was "marked" that it would identify it as a police dog, but in the end it was an officer on duty.

Obviously the above scenario would not apply if the cop was off duty. At least the hitting an officer part I believe. If the above scenario applied to a plain clothed officer on duty (and not obviously a cop) would you still be charged with hitting an officer? I dunno, but think about it.

Posted

I'll give the failure to stop at an accident scene but to charge this guy with striking a police officer or attempted murder is absurd.

Yes I am sure he heard a thump and all that but there is no way that he should be charged with anything other than leaving the scene.

Attempted murder charges - no way.

Posted
I'll give the failure to stop at an accident scene but to charge this guy with striking a police officer or attempted murder is absurd.

Yes I am sure he heard a thump and all that but there is no way that he should be charged with anything other than leaving the scene.

Attempted murder charges - no way.

If police dogs are officially made officers (which I don't know if they are everywhere, nor specifically here) then why would striking a police officer be absurd?

Attempted murder? I agree that is silly. People who are more versed in the law can tell me, but attempted = some intent to me. This again was likely an accident, it is about decisions made following it.

If police dogs truly are officers here, then the person should be charged with fail to remain AND striking an officer. Refer again to my human police officer examples.

Just because a person may not know/ignorant/failed to realize something, doesn't exclude them from being charged with full charges.

It is like saying "Well ya I stole that thing, but I had no idea it was worth THAT much. Why do I have to be charged now with a greater theft charge?"

Thems the brakes, live a learn.

Posted

Just so ya know. Police K9's are in fact officers and if they are injured by a criminal or what not they will and have been charged with assulting an officer. Now on the other hand to go to jail for life for accidently killing the dog seems alittle much and i am sure the judge does take that into consideration. But the reasoning behind the dog= officer thing is to keep criminals from just blasting the viscous dog away and thinking they are safe.

Guest CHP medic
Posted

Hey VS you're exactly right about (aboot) intent. There must be some sort of intent for there to be an assault on anyone, including an officer. I still see the only crime being hit and run. There is no (at least in CA) specific law pertaining to striking an officer with a motor vehicle, outside of assault with a deadly weapon, which again requires intent.

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...