Ammo For Sale

« « A first | Home | Cartoon on guns » »

Rule Four

Be sure of your target and what’s behind it. Police officer sees woman playing with dog. Presumes dog is attacking since it is a politically incorrect dog. Officer shoots the dog and the woman.

14 Responses to “Rule Four”

  1. Chas Says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “No problem. It was one of our Marxist/warrior/hero/government agents. Nothing needs to be done. Now, if it was a CCW holder, we’d have to ban all private gun ownership to protect the public from such outrageous and irresponsible misbehavior.”

  2. BWM Says:

    Rule 5 should be don’t shoot shit that don’t need to be shot.

  3. SPQR Says:

    Another example of poor police training.

  4. Joe Mama Says:

    Wait for it in 5….4….3….2….1….”a ruling by the La Marque police Use of Force Board determined the Officer acted within police policy in the incident”.

  5. Huck Says:

    “Wait for it in 5….4….3….2….1….”a ruling by the La Marque police Use of Force Board determined the Officer acted within police policy in the incident”.”

    I have no doubt that that’s exactly what will happen.

  6. Beaumont Says:

    Sadly, in our present society, you can’t assume that any badge-toter is competent to perform as a law enforcement officer unless you know them personally and can attest to that fact. The moral of the story? IMHO, get involved in your community. Support the good cops and let the morons know that they’re being watched.

  7. ErnestThing Says:

    Actually witnesses say the woman was “hollering,” which is something that will make people think you’re being attacked no matter they type of dog. Still agree that officer shouldn’t have just started unloaded “toward” the mass of dog and human.

    Perhaps we should just be happy she wasn’t being held hostage or something.

    “Don’t worry ma’am! I’ll save you!” *BANG*BANG*BANG*BANG*BANG*BANG*BANG*BANG*

  8. mikeb302000 Says:

    This story proves the frequently heard theory that concealed carry guys are safer than the police.

  9. Anon Says:

    So, I’m wondering…..would returning fire have been legitimate self defense?

  10. Nylarthotep Says:

    So, I’m wondering…..would returning fire have been legitimate self defense?

    You are kidding right? (I have problems identifying anonymous sarcasm at times.)

    There’s no way in hell shooting back at an identifiable LEO will ever be considered legitimate.

  11. Tomcatshanger Says:

    “There’s no way in hell shooting back at an identifiable LEO will ever be considered legitimate.”

    It’s good to know we live in such a just, free society, without the double standards and ruling class of those living under a police state have to tolerate.

  12. JKB Says:

    Regardless of what you see on TV, it is never a good decision to fire at two individuals grappling even one is a dog. You separate them, the shoot the attacker. I can’t help but wonder if the lack of blood wouldn’t be a good indication that deadly force wasn’t necessary.

    Also, where was this officer’s tazer?

  13. Jim Says:

    I live about 10 miles from LaMarque. If you want to more closely track the story, keep a watch on the Galveston County Daily News site.

    http://www.galvnews.com

    You might have to hunt for the stories, but they’ll be there. Also, much of GCDN’s online content allows (registered) comments. Given that Galveston is a tradtional lefty city, and Galveston County is strongly conservative, some of those comment threads are ……. interesting.

    As for the LaMarque P.D., let’s just say they’re not the place that other officers aspire to for career progression. Fact is, their City Council only a month or so back allowed the Cheif to be free of regular patrol duties in his own right. LaMarque is not an affluent community, and it shows in their lack of budgetary support for things like officer training and development.

    I drive very, very carefully through LaMarque.

    Jim
    Sunk New Dawn
    Galveston, TX

  14. bob r Says:

    “There’s no way in hell shooting back at an identifiable LEO will ever be considered legitimate.”

    Has been, is, and will be considered “legitimate” under some circumstances by any _thinking_ person.

    Based on the linked story it _may_ very well be that in this case it would have been legitimate to have shot the “identifiable LEO”. If things happened exactly as described then I most certainly would consider it legitimate and if it was me there with bullets coming toward me and/or my dog there is a very good chance the “identifiable LEO” would be being “identified” by her next of kin.