24 September 2010

Meatless Friday: Every Suspect, Victim, and Witness in This Story Lie to Try to Frame the Police

OK, that isn't the headline of this story, but I'll just assume that's what happened.  My readers have spoken, and I have learned my lesson.




OK, I can't resist one more comment.  The title of the video is: "Officer shoots dog in Landover", not, "Officer gets victim of attempted shooting in headlock and punches him repeatedly in the face".  Is this not interesting?  Oh, yeah, back to the title of this post.  (Your blogger now getting ready to duck rotten eggs...)

16 comments:

Latinmassgirl said...

I think we should just get rid of all police officers!!! Let's fire them all Timman! The officer should have just let the dog bite his face off - so what's a face? You can breathe without a nose, it is just cosmetic.

And as for punching the guy in the face, well, I'm sure he did it for NO reason at ALL! He saw that face and just wanted to punch it! I think that from now on we should just all buy our own guns and go back to the days of defending ourselves as they were much less violent then. Let's go back to the hanging times and linch up that officer for killin' that great, gentle puppy!

thetimman said...

You watched the same video as the one I posted, right?

Debbie said...

That was a strange report. The man was not upset that the police officer had punched him in the face or wrestled him to the ground? Maybe the other police officer shot the dog to keep everyone from pressing charges for police brutality?

That is just too strange. It sounded like the police force in this town had a history of shooting dogs.

As for getting rid of the police and letting us all defend ourselves, I think that is what was going on in this report. Everyone involved had a gun, the alleged robbers (never found them) and the family 'defending' themselves who called the police for help. Maybe the news station needs new editors/producers.

Fenian said...

The real problem with the story is that the one brother fled into the house, armed himself, then re-entered the situation.

From a legal standpoint, once you exit the situation, you should lock the door and call the police. Once he left the safety of his home, guns blazing, everything changed. You can't exit your house and shoot at someone over a property crime.

What happened to the dog is unfortunate. However, as a gun owner, and as a CCW holder, that man should not have done what he did. You could end up in prison for doing something like that.

Anonymous said...

Fenian has summarized perfectly. End of story.

Peggy said...

The whole story sounds odd. The alleged attack on the brother, him getting a gun and going back outside. Then the alleged police brutality. The police staff's story is odd and so is the family's story.

But, this is PG County, MD. Stay on the beltway and move along to your destination.

Latinmassgirl said...

Timman,

Did you see the officer punch the man in the head? Did you see the dog sit nicely and for no reason get shot? Did you think that there is more to the story than the people interviewed want to say? Why would you automatically assume that the police were guilty? I know it is trendy to hate the police, but don't you think that some of them might be actually doing their job of fighting crime for our safety?

thetimman said...

Come on, lmg. Why must you disbelieve three separate witnesses, one of whom was unconnected and disinterested? If I point out any apparently abusive conduct of any policeman I therefore "hate" all police? Why would a criminal call 911 and invite the police to the scene of his crime?

I can't think of any obvious reason why the police in this case should be more credible than the victim and witnesses. I trust you can't either. I hope not, certainly.

Anonymous said...

I see latinmassgurl's point.

But had it been white man's dog instead of a brother's, the dog would still be running wild in the streets.

ATW said...

I'm with Fenian.

thetimman said...

Was hoping to hear from you, ATW. Next week I will post a correction, no doubt!

Methodist Jim said...

Timman, I agree with you, I can't think of any obvious reason why the police in this case should be more credible than the victim and witnesses. But, I also can't think of any obvious reason why the victim and witnesses in this case should be more credible than the police.

The truth is that those of us here in St. Louis, about 850 miles from PG County, having watched a 2 minute 40 second local news story and nothing else, haven't a clue what really happened.

If the dog attacked the officer, shooting it in self-defense may have been justified. If not, it is criminal.

If the man attacked the officer, putting him in a headlock and punching him in the face, even repeatedly, may have been justified. If not, it is criminal.

And neither you, nor Latin Mass Girl, nor (likely) anyone reading this blog knows what happened and what didn't.

(All that said, based on the story alone, I'm sure leaning your way.)

Latinmassgirl said...

The ending of the report states, "Barlow was arrested for several offences, including ASSULTING an officer". (He was the "innocent" man who called the police).

Why does Barlow, who claims to be punched repeatedly in the face still have his glasses on, undamaged? Why is his face uncut and unbruised? His dog, who was shot by a female officer, just happens to be a Rottweiler, which are considered the most dangerous dog, along with the pit bull, as they have been known to kill people.

So, at least two officers were at the scene, one a woman, who shot the dog, and they are both corrupt?

thetimman said...

Latinmassgirl, yes, Barlow was arrested for assault. And rightly so. His face wantonly and repeatedly broke the trajectory of the police officer's fist.

Latinmassgirl said...

Timman,

You didn't answer my question. Why wasn't his face injured looking? No blood or even puffiness. And his glasses looked unharmed? Was he punched with a sponge? Could there just be more to the story than he told, and the drive-by- media reported? THe "nice" dog was fierce by nature, so he very well could have attached, thus forcing the woman cop to shoot him.

I promise to stop this bantering, but it was fun. . .

Anonymous said...

Latinmassgurl:

I guessing that you must somehow be related to my my wife. She enjoys 'bantering' as well.