byron
.308 Win
State trooper charged with animal cruelty after hitting horse
WENY News is the ABC, CBS & CW affiliate serving the Twin Tiers region of New York and Pennsylvania.
www.weny.com
Nudging it isn't even appropriate. Get out of the damn cruiser and lead it. If it won't move, park your cruiser with the lights on, and go to the nearest house. "I think your horse is in the road, and I need help to remove it." It's not the first time an animal got loose. No farmer wants to have any of their killed because it got loose.Why? I getnudging it gently to get it out of the road, but seriously this is sick. People are twisted.
I don't think he'd be standing. He'd probably be hitting them with a car before the perp shoots them.That officer would be the one to stand outside a school while children are being shot
I give you good odds he yelled "stop resisting" every time he hit the horse.I guarantee that during the trial, my lawyer would have that horse being a Kentucky Derby contender, as well as having a deep emotional connection to the entire family.
Where do they find not just one moron, who thinks it's a good idea to hit the animal with a car REPEATEDLY, but then a second one, who thinks that KILLING the animal is the solution ??? Seriously ??!! What town is this ? Would they run over a dog in the road too ? These two should NEVER have been given a badge, much less a gun of any kind. Their authority should be limited to deciding whether to use paper or plastic bags.
He'd be one of the Denver cops who fired *into* the crowd because he thought he saw a gun.I don't think he'd be standing. He'd probably be hitting them with a car before the perp shoots them.
My first instinct is to grab a pitchfork and torch.
BUT, as we have learned many times, sometimes additional context can completely change a story. Say, for example, the horse was wildly bucking and approaching a group of 30 children or something, and hitting it with a vehicle was the only way to stop it in time. Then, it was suffering, so they put it down.
Obviously, I'm spitballing some wild ideas here. I have to, the story certainly doesn't provide any context. So, let's leave it at I have my pitchfork and torch out of the safe and ready for action, but the torch ain't lit just yet.
I grew up in horse country.Over the years some horses have gotten loose around here a few times.
(2 different farms near my house)
Anyways, all ended peaceably. The horses ended back where they belong unharmed.
The Genesee County Sheriff's Dept. was involved a couple of times.
Everything ended well each time.
Obviously, it can be done.
If that was the case he wouldn't be charged.
You could be arrested for being black on a Friday night. Even if you're not black, and it's Saturday. Don't conflate charges with guilt. There's a reason we go by "innocent until proven guilty."
Hell, I was once arrested for a crime I didn't commit. By the time it made it to court, everyone knew it. The DA offered an ACD - adjournment in contemplation of dismissal - and I turned it down. Told them to dismiss the case outright or proceed with the trial that they knew was bullshit. Aaaaand they dismissed the case.
I'll give you that from the very limited amount of information we have, things don't look good. But I'm not willing to throw anyone - cop or not - under the bus until I see some evidence.
It you don't see the difference in benefit of the doubt given to state troopers as opposed to ordinary citizens, you are not living in a real world.
Sure there is. Despite that, there are probably hundreds or even thousands of cases where cops were charged despite that benefit of the doubt, and later found not guilty. Is your position really that all such examples were actually guilty because they were charged?
We saw a similar thing on the other forum back in the day. Everyone was ready to put the cop in a cell and throw away the key. Then additional info came out and a whole lot of people had to backpedal the shit they said.
Let's be clear: one of us is saying "he was charged, therefore he is guilty." The other is saying "I'll wait for some facts before passing judgment." Do you really feel the former position is the most reasonable?
The same exact thing happened to me.Hell, I was once arrested for a crime I didn't commit. By the time it made it to court, everyone knew it. The DA offered an ACD - adjournment in contemplation of dismissal - and I turned it down. Told them to dismiss the case outright or proceed with the trial that they knew was bullshit. Aaaaand they dismissed the case.
Cops point guns at people all the time without enough justification to shoot.It you don't see the difference in benefit of the doubt given to state troopers as opposed to ordinary citizens, you are not living in a real world.
Yes, in the real world when it gets to that point, they are guilty as hell.
Also, legal acquittal doesn't mean actual innocence. Stop dancing around different standards for LEO's
Actually, if you look, I'm advocating for equal standards for LEOs. Specifically, "innocent until proven guilty."
You just keep on convicting people in your mind based on their charges. Clearly, I'm not going to open your eyes to how foolish your position is.
If my position was foolish, you would address my point instead of weaving around it.
I think I've been clearly addressing your point, but maybe I have you wrong. I believe your point is that since police tend to give each other more benefit of the doubt than they do normal citizens, the fact that he has been charged makes it more likely that he is guilty of a crime. Is that correct? If not, please state your point as clearly and concisely as possible.
If so, I don't disagree - it is probably more likely that he is guilty. But "probably more likely" doesn't translate to "I don't need to see any evidence or additional context"... for me, at least. I've learned that there's often much more to the story than is presented in the media.