Suspect in PlayStation 3 robbery killed

[Echoecho]

lol

wow man

you talk too much

lmao omg

well I read a lot too. Just calling them as I see them.

[Joe Camacho]

Please tell me, where in the article does it say that he "allowed" the dog to attack?

Stop and don't embarrass yourself. I know what I typed. The article says the dog was shot, so unless you believe they shot a napping dog, it attacked. And the very act of having the dog makes you responsible for it's actions or lack of control. If you are not ready to take responsibility for the risks of having a dangerous dog and violent theft, don't make them yours.

Embarrass myself? You are doing a good job yourself.

Well dude, you said that he "ALLOWED" the dog to attack them. YOU. TYPED. THAT. HE. ALLOWED. THE. DOG. TO. ATTACK. THEM.

The guy had a dangerous dog and allowed it to attack police.

What is "allowing"? Not having him attached to a chain in the back of his backyard? Do he has to make his dog were a mask so he can't open his mouth? He can't have a dog that *you* consider dangerous inside his *own* house?

And I don't say he isn't responsable for what the dog does, I say that he can't have CONTROL over the dog and that is why, when an animal under your care injures a person, you pay CIVIL RESPONSABILITY, you don't go to fucking JAIL. And even worse, get SHOT TO DEATH.

The dog was shot, and he was mistakingly shot. But it was his own fault. If we go by what the police state, he is the one responsible, not the police since according to them, it was an honest mistake. It is mentioned that "officers considered the arrest a high-risk situation".

Yes, because he attacked the people to which he stole the PS3, but it was an ARREST, when you try to arrest someone, you want him, you know? ALIVE. When you KILL someone, you want GOOD reasons to KILL him, So he stole 2 PS3s, and he had a dog in his house, HANG HIM.

He wasn't a murderer, he just hit the guys he stoled the PS3s from, hell, he didn't even use a GUN to steal those consoles. You can have reasons to suspect that he might behave violently or RESIST the arrest, but you NEED TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO NOT COMPLY. "HELLO, SURPRISE DEATH ARREST!", it doesn't make sense man.

Did I ever say a PS3 controller is a deadly weapon? Yes, they can back that up. And also, please make some schematics and a presentation of the exact circumstance. Lighting, visibility, reaction of the suspect, timing, etc. With that said, I could kill or maim someone with a booby trap in my home with the flip of a control for one. I could spray them, blow them up. The possibilities are endless. And again keep in mind "officers considered the arrest a high-risk situation". And like I've said several times already: for all we know, it might have been dark and what's to say what looks like a gun or not?

Dude, he stole TWO PS3s, not fucking Fort Knox. HE ISN’T FUCKING LEX LUTHOR. HIS HOUSE ISN’T BOWSER’S CASTLE. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Man, this is so much fun.

And you brought the “deadly weapon” into the conversation, you said that they can draw if they see a deadly weapon. Ok, they can draw, but not SHOOT, but you disregarded this from my other post, so lets work with what you gave me.

No, you know what? I won’t do nothing until you explain me how “allowing” a dog attack someone warrants to kill the owner when carrying something that might be a gun, but it doesn't LOOK like a gun, it doesn't BEHAVE like a gun, well hell, I'm going to shoot old ladies to death, those purses, THEY ARE GUNS.

But at NIGHT, when I might confuse them with GUNS.

[Echoecho]

Stop playing lawyer. I'm not going through all that nonsense. You can argue the semantics of dog-ownership responsibility till the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that the owner is responsible. Not "ALLOWED" would mean keeping it constrained or trained to obey.

And for the 1000th time: We are arguing conjecture. Except that you don't seem to be able to tell it apart from facts.

The only point here is that the police went in prepared for "a high risk situation", he didn't answer, his dog attacked, he got shot with something in his hand under exact circumstances neither of us seem to know. Police mistake, but not police accountability.

And the only reason I mention booby traps and other bizarre threats is the fact that police have encountered them and are trained never to underestimate a threat. These two things together can be dangerous for slow witted violent thieves with dangerous dogs when the police comes around expecting a "high risk situation".

[Joe Camacho]

Stop playing lawyer. I'm not going through all that nonsense. You can argue the semantics of dog-ownership responsibility till the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that the owner is responsible. Not "ALLOWED" would mean keeping it constrained or trained to obey.

And for the 1000th time: We are arguing conjecture. Except that you don't seem to be able to tell it apart from facts.

The only point here is that the police went in prepared for "a high risk situation", he didn't answer, his dog attacked, he got shot with something in his hand under exact circumstances neither of us seem to know. Police mistake, but not police accountability.

Wait wait WHAT?

So now we are playing with our IMAGINATION?... The same reason you FLAMED DEMIOS?

I don't know but if that was the guy who stole the stuff he got what he deserved so fuck him.

So the punishment for stealing is death? look I understand he assaulted someone. Death? I'm sorry but you are a fucking fool. No one deserves death unless their crimes are grave enough (rapists and murderers IMHO).

I'm a fucking fool yet you are arguing in favor of this guy without knowing the details? Were you there?

Here is what we know here.

The guy and his buddy beat someone up to steal expensive stuff.
The guy didn't answer his door when the police arrived.
The guy had a dangerous dog and allowed it to attack police...

What you display as "facts" (That he "allowed" a "dangerous dog" to "attack" the police) are now "Conjecture"? Ok, cool, so why only YOUR conjecture is the one that's valid? Why isn't Demios good enough for you? In this train of thought, they have the same value.

Dude, I don't play lawyer, this is what I do.

[Echoecho]

Ok sure, my interpretation of the fact that the dog got shot may be conjuecture, but it does not diminish the fact itself. A dog is not a thinking person and is predictable. Hence we can reasonably interpret that as the dog attacking. Hence I interpreted that as it's owner allowing it to do so by failure of stopping it. Yes, that is right. Speaking of lawyers, a court will consider a suspect responsible for his dog, no excuses, not consider it as a random act of god that happened to be there. The mere act of having it is just more evidence against him.

Dude, I don't play lawyer, this is what I do.

Keep at those books.

[corronchilejano]

FACT: Armed SPECIALLY TRAINED Police Offices (meaning at least 2).
FACT: A guy and a dog

FACT: Police in the US are NOT allowed to open fire unless they have been attacked before (or, under COMPELLING and IRREFUTABLE proof that they in fact are in danger).

FACT: They stormed into the room, and shoot the guy.

FACT: The guy was unarmed.
FACT: Dogs only protect their homes and masters.

And then SARCASM

"If this boy would've come to the door, opened the door, we probably wouldn't be talking," the sheriff said Sunday.

[Echoecho]

Is that a fact?

Other than this one where are those facts listed?:

FACT: Police in the US are NOT allowed to open fire unless they have been attacked before (or, under COMPELLING and IRREFUTABLE proof that they in fact are in danger).

True, but they are not held accountable for reasonable mistakes when in potentially dangerous situations.

[corronchilejano]

Is that a fact?

Other than this one where are those facts listed?:

FACT: Police in the US are NOT allowed to open fire unless they have been attacked before (or, under COMPELLING and IRREFUTABLE proof that they in fact are in danger).

True, but they are not held accountable for reasonable mistakes when in potentially dangerous situations.

Read the article ONCE again. The sheriff hismelf SAID they were special agents for that kind of situations. AT LEAST THREE where suspended. It was a guy with a german shepperd, and they have yet to find any other weapons other than, *cough*, the good-all-around playstation controler.

Oh, and if you've EVER had a dog, you'd know what I'm talking about (and I'm not really a dog lover).

[Demios]

Fact: Phonymike was the only one to laugh and he hates me, you guys suck.
Fact: Echoecho is an idiot. Thread over.

[SquareHead]

Fact: Phonymike was the only one to laugh and he hates me, you guys suck.

Check 1st page again.

[Demios]

Fact: Phonymike was the only one to laugh and he hates me, you guys suck.

Check 1st page again.

I skimmed through and I saw people state stuff about it, but no laffs.

[Jikmo]

WHAT? That rocks. I'd only be sorry for his mother or parents, but he won't be missed otherwise. It was filth. God, if only I had a license to kill filth.

A few guesses as to how many people would consider you filth? Especially after your recent comments. Imagine being killed for doing something as small as the types of things they usually give very minor prison sentences for. And don't tell me you've never made a mistake, how many times have you pirated something?

There aren't many people who a good deal of people wouldn't consider "filth". You're advocating the murder of the majority of people in the world simply because they're not entirely well liked.

[Echoecho]

WHAT? That rocks. I'd only be sorry for his mother or parents, but he won't be missed otherwise. It was filth. God, if only I had a license to kill filth.

A few guesses as to how many people would consider you filth? Especially after your recent comments. Imagine being killed for doing something as small as the types of things they usually give very minor prison sentences for. And don't tell me you've never made a mistake, how many times have you pirated something?

There aren't many people who a good deal of people wouldn't consider "filth". You're advocating the murder of the majority of people in the world simply because they're not entirely well liked.

I'm not advocating it. What power do I have to make any of this happen anyways? I'm simply not caring when it happens due to fortune. Much like filth would not give two craps if and when they trample over good people to get what they want. Which they do.

And also, hang on there buddy. Back up. You're comparing software piracy to beating the crap out of someone and running off with their stuff.

[Joe Camacho]

Ok sure, my interpretation of the fact that the dog got shot may be conjuecture, but it does not diminish the fact itself. A dog is not a thinking person and is predictable. Hence we can reasonably interpret that as the dog attacking. Hence I interpreted that as it's owner allowing it to do so by failure of stopping it. Yes, that is right. Speaking of lawyers, a court will consider a suspect responsible for his dog, no excuses, not consider it as a random act of god that happened to be there. The mere act of having it is just more evidence against him.

Dude, I don't play lawyer, this is what I do.

Keep at those books.

I have never said that he wouldn't be responsible, not just good enough excuse to SHOOT HIM TO DEATH.

Then again, you will disregard this post too, so do what you see fit.

And also, hang on there buddy. Back up. You're comparing software piracy to beating the crap out of someone and running off with their stuff.

Why? You are saying that someone that stole less than 1500 dlls in merchandise deserves to be Shot to death. So why can't we use extremes too? Jail? What is that? Community Services? No man, you need to KILL him without a fair trial.

Fact: Phonymike was the only one to laugh and he hates me, you guys suck.
Fact: Echoecho is an idiot. Thread over.

[sweener2001]

the police were in the wrong.

[Echoecho]

I have never said that he wouldn't be responsible, not just good enough excuse to SHOOT HIM TO DEATH.

Then again, you will disregard this post too, so do what you see fit.

heyzeus, and they said _I_ talk too much. I disregard it because I'm not bored enough to defend stuff I never said.

Any idiot with a brain knows the police aren't supposed to execute someone for battery and theft. The only thing I said from the beginning (and repeated several times) is that I'm glad the police mistake happened because that was not a nice man.

But of course not. Some boneheads hear a "gamer" got shot and they automatically assume anyone who craves a PS3 is just an innocent game-addict, or some crap like that.

[Demios]

This thread was over when I announced that you, Echoecho, are an idiot.