MAXS Murder - Page 2

LaPorte,

I did get your point on the other thread and I guess I wanted to say a couple things on the same thread and forgot to acknowledge your point.  It is a totally bizarre concept to do this. For Pete's sake build a kennel. 

Dawg

1 Head shot does the trick.  At 5 feet with a chained dog, there was simply NO Reason to empty a 7 shot clip, this cop was Sadisitic..his priors also indicate a pattern.

Dog was chained & tied out, & No real threat.  There are no excuses for this cop, he is a rogue  &  should now be a security guard at Wal Mart night shift.  He is an accident waiting to happen.

I feel for the family & this is no indictment of all cops. There are so many good ones. But there is a small minority of bad apples. They must be weeded. It harms police community relations.

My beef is if a regular citizen shot this dog in "self deffence" there would be issue there because a dog shot in the head is said to have been done in mallace. Obviously this guy was all over the place, spraying bullets every wich way. I wonder how many bullets actually hit the dog and how many flew off into the distance? He hit the dog in the head/fave at least one to blow teeth all over. Does this prove mallace on his end?

I have been told by LE if I ever needed to shoot a lose dog never to do so in the head or it looks bad on your part. Why is that when LE is suppossed to aim for the head? Obviously if you want instantanious death, you shoot for the head.

* One more observation. In both pictures on the pieces of the dogs jaw (muzzle) and the carcass in the truck, the TOP of the dogs mouth/nose appears to be missing. This indicates to me that if the dog were "attacking" the deputy, the deputy could have possibly shot himselfin the leg or foot. The angle of the shot would have been witht he gun pointed at a sharp angle downward, meaning the dog was relatively close. If so, how did the deputy escape injury from the dog and or his own bulletts?
For the top portion of the dogs mouth & nose to be blown off (if I am correct), the close downward angle has to be from 2 possibilities. 

#1.) The dog was attacking the deputy's lower 1/2 of the body. In which case, no bites or bullett wounds to the deputy were sustained.

 #2.) The dog was at the END of his tether and teh deputy got just close enough to continue to shoot the dog at CLOSE range.

Due to the curcumstacial eveidence that the deputy had no injury, Im betting the dog was shot repeatedly AFTER the deputy backed out of the reach of the dog. Id say it was a shooting out of anger. Because if a dog is biting me, Im not aiming for his MOUTH, which ismost likely located near my own body! Im aiming for center mass, (chest/abdomen area) as it is the biggest and easiest target to stop the dog from biting me.

There is something to think on folks.

Funk---The more you post, the more I am beginning to have some serious doubts about you really being a cop. Quite frankly I don't think you are. Maybe an MP? I find that even hard to believe.

We do not have circumstantial evidence to the officer's injury. We have hearsay and we barely have that as it comes 3 people down the line. Generally, "hearsay" evidence is not considered legal evidence and not admitted into court. There many exceptions to the "hearsay" rule. None of which apply to "this person told me off the record" that this person said  XYZ, so I am going to write a letter stating this for you to read and tell someone else. Circumstantial evidence would be blood, hair, fingerprints, paint transfer, etc.

How do you know the first shot is the shot that struck the mouth? Additionally, you should know that close range shooting, if done within 3 yards you do not "aim" you point shoot; especially during quick fire. You do not aim in point shooting. Quick, live fire shooting, under stress, within 3 yards, and your aiming? If the target is within 3 feet, you don't even point shoot, you cover the target with you muzzle and pull teh trigger. No sights or "aiming" involved. 

Dude, you don't know what your talking about.

I'm calling bullshit here. If you are a cop, you better go have a serious talk with your range master and brush up on the legal aspects of evidence class you took in the academy.

Get a real dog -

 OK genius -  CIRCUMSTANCIAL =  Pieces of the dogs jaw, mouth & blood.

CIRCUMSTANCIAL =  No bite to the deputy,no bullet to the deputy.

I never said the first shot hit the dog. WTF are you talking about?

I dont need you symantics on the terminology. I am well seasoned.

When you are pointing you weapn DOWNWARD, at a dog that is "biting you", it is quite possible that you would strike yourself. Read what I posted.

And as for shooting, I am qualified EXPERT in both military & law. I instruct foreign military on the use of weapons & special warfare. Dont preach to me about ballistics because my knowledge of the subject far superceeds yours. Im calling bullshit on you. You are very biased on this matter. The scenario I posted makes perfect sense. And in the real life action of it, would you shoot your own limb to get a dog off you? Well, perhaps you would but, most of us wouldnt. l make the statement publically here & now, again, he probably took a shot when the dog was close, then he backed away, got pissed and dispatched the dog out of anger. No single shot out of a 45 or 9mm would take off a huge portion of the dogs muzzle. There was more than one round that struck the dogs muzzle.

Hmm. 7 rounds, none of which hit the deputy. All at close range, yet since he didnt stop the animal, he felt the need to put 7 rounds in it. SO YOU are saying he did a "point & shoot" at close range while being bitten. Yet he didnt strike himself, while the weapon was pointing DOWN and the dog was biting his leg? Wow, maybe he used the weapon that fired the magic bullet in the Kennedy assasination.

Are you involved in this personally? DO you happen to know this bumbling deputy?

I was not talking about ballistics. I was talking about shooting, styles and tactics.

Ballistics would be refering to the actual bullet caliber, weight of the bullet, trajectory, etc. Has nothing to do with the mechanics of shooting.

Now I know you are not a cop.

GARD, net detective. Again your conlusions are wrong. Let me guess, 2 years out of the academy?

You yourself just said TRAJECTORY,,, as in what I posted, referring to the manner inw hich the dog was shot. Very much ballistics. Please bone up on your continuing education. Your gung-ho attitude paints the very obvious picture that you are new. Some day, you will understand that not all is black and white, and the thin blue line has 2 groups. One group of honest, thinking, compassionate and good cops. The other group are the ones that are marginal and poor officers. The greater good here is making right for the killing of the dog, not the deputy's job. It was out of malice.

You are very angry and re-affirm my belief that you are somehow connected. Did you actually take a psych. eval? Maybe you are a reserve officer...