Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trooper Shoots Family Dog

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • quote:
    Originally posted by Niteshift:
    We didn't stop disliking the media. We let you think that so that you'd leave it alone. It worked for 4 months, didn't it?

    That's two years and four month gee, and you say we get the facts wrong - I hope your investigative work is a little more accurate. [Eek!]

    Not only that but you take some of my quotes totally off content.
    You guys would just love to shovel everything under the rug. I'm sure the more experienced officers don't all feel that way, I'm sure some of you understand in needing further investigation, after all isn't that what you all do???

    I think I remember you nightshift, you're a tough one to crack. We do report the facts and we do report your side when you give it to us, didn't you see the videos we all aired???
    <a href="http://www.ics-multimedia.com/sonicboom.htm" target="_blank">"Time is running out - Let's Roll"</a>

    Comment


    • "That's two years and four month gee, and you say we get the facts wrong - I hope your investigative work is a little more accurate."

      Again, typical media. Don't just say it wasn't accurate, imply that it means something else. You guys can't help it, can you?

      When it matters, I'm plenty accurate. You, my friend, don't particularly matter to me.

      "Not only that but you take some of my quotes totally off content."

      Do you mean out of context?

      How does it feel? You folks do it regularly.

      "We do report the facts and we do report your side when you give it to us, "

      See, you still don't get it. Report FACTS, not "sides". Give me the FACTS, not the spin side A puts on it, then equal time for the spin side B puts on it.

      "didn't you see the videos we all aired???"

      Don't make me laugh. That video was aired ONLY because it would draw viewers. Don't even try to lie to everyone here and tell us it was because you were being "fair".

      Just like the Rodney King tape.....yeah, the media showed it a zillion times, but how many showed ALL of the tape? Why NOT show the first part? If you've seen the first part, you know the answer to the question.

      Comment


      • I have no idea if we/they are going encrypted digital, Are you talking about those 2.4Gz cordless phones?
        All of god's creatures are entitled to live without fear of "gun violence" except for you and your family. - <a href="http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/selfdefense_quiz.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>

        Comment


        • I talked to one of my suppliers in Cookeville today. It's a converter remanufacturing company I have dealt with for years. I called him about a converter problem and also asked him what the local climate was like there regarding this incident. He said it was very bad and the media was blowing it way out of proportion. He also said people are afraid to go out with their dogs because they think the police might shoot them. He also said that the guy who shot the dog had a very good reputation in Cookeville and was respeced and well liked. FYI.

          Comment


          • Let me first explain that I am just an ordinary citizen. I have had no police training and I am not acquainted with a lot of the terms the police officers use in this thread. Having said that I can only speak about my own reactions to this sad event. I am quite sure that many people in this country feel the same.

            Before I ask a few questions I must tell you that one of my dearest friends was the chief of police here in my home town. He was known as a tough but very fair man. Unfortunately he died a few years ago.

            As has been well documented the Smoak family were on vacation and ended up on the ground handcuffed with their family pet dead.

            My father taught me many years ago that you have to be willing to assume responsibility for the consequences of your own acts.

            With your kind permission I will copy something that I wrote on another forum.
            This is it.

            Just some thoughts
            If any of your have read my prior threads you will be aware of my sympathy for all parties in this sad event.

            That having been said let's try to break this situation down to each entity envolved and then go from there.

            I believe we should ask the following questions.
            1. Who was damaged in this event? Or was there no damage?
            2. Did the damaged party contribute to their own damage?
            3. Should the damaged party or parties be compensated for the damage caused? If so, how?
            4. Who contributed to the damage both directly and indirectly?
            5. Should they be held responsible for their actions? If so, how?

            Now let's talk about the participants in this drama.
            In no particular order there are:
            The state of Tennessee and it's citizens.
            The Tennessee Highway Patrol
            The THP officers that participated in the road block.
            Putnam County and it's citizens
            The Putnam County sheriff's department.
            Any deputies that participated in the road block. As there has been no mention of the sheriff's department it is not sure they participated.
            The city of Cookeville and it's citizens.
            The Cookeville police department
            The Cookeville police officers who participated in the road block
            Officer Hall
            Mr. Smoak
            Mrs. Smoak
            Mr. and Mrs. Smoak's son
            The family pet.
            The lady that made the phone call
            The dispatcher for the Cookeville police department
            The dispatcher for the Tennessee Highway Patrol.
            If you would look at the above mentioned parties and apply each question to them perhaps some sense could come of this.

            Your responses would be appreciated.

            Once again I'm just an ordinary citizen trying to reconcile what happened in my own mind.

            Finally, for your information this is the third incident in the Cookeville records of officer Hall shooting a dog. All three dogs were pets and none were strays. Officer Hall has been a policeman for five years.

            Please, can anyone help me out of my delimma? I have great respect for our police officers and I know what they face on a daily basis. That notwithstanding some serious errors were made by someone somewhere.

            Nobody seems to want to step up and accept the responsibility for their actions. That is very upsetting.

            Sorry to get on such a rant.

            Jim

            Comment


            • 1: Where was this 'roadblock'?
              2: Officer Hall DID accept responsibility for his actions, and that they were justified.
              3: Were the other dog shootings justified?
              4: I am disturbed that so many ppl are afraid to take their dog for a walk, If these ppl have such out of control dogs that they fear would attack an officer then maybe those dogs shouldn't be in public. I don't see the simularity between walking the dog and a mistaken felony stop, unarmed people have been shot by police
              by mistake, It doesn't make me afraid of the police but then I wouldn't make any furtive/sudden movements around them.
              All of god's creatures are entitled to live without fear of "gun violence" except for you and your family. - <a href="http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/selfdefense_quiz.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>

              Comment


              • Shoot a cops dog because you are in fear of your safety and see what happens to you.

                [ 01-15-2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

                Comment


                • Okay, so what is everyone's opinion about the cop shooting the dog?
                  Retired

                  Comment


                  • Only the officers and citizens on the scene could give an honest, factual opinion. Everybody else is guessing.

                    And, regards the citzens now being afraid to take their dogs out because the police might soot them: That does not speak well of the intelligence of the dog owners, now does it?

                    Jim Burnes

                    Comment


                    • Niteshift wrote:

                      That's all I've ever asked. Report the FACTS. Not your opinions, implications or biases. Just the FACTS.

                      Then, a couple of messages later:

                      See, you still don't get it. Report FACTS, not "sides". Give me the FACTS, not the spin side A puts on it, then equal time for the spin side B puts on it.

                      You've created an impossible expectation. It is simply not possible to satisfy both of the above requests.

                      You want us to report the facts. The only way we can get the facts is by talking to people who are involved in the story. If those people do not agree on the facts, how are we supposed to decide which facts to present, if we don't present both sides?

                      See, if we choose facts from one side or the other, any choice on our part would appear biased in that side's favor. In a story that involves you, if we choose the facts YOU give us, you're happy, but the other side will say we're biased. If we choose their facts, then YOU will say we're biased. All we can do to present the story fairly is to tell both sides, whether they're telling us an indisputable truth, telling us what they believe to be the truth but are mistaken, or are "spinning" it.

                      How we normally handle this is that anything that is in dispute is not presented as a hard fact, but as someone's account of the fact. "Mr. Smith says that X happened. But Officer Niteshift says that's not true." WE can't KNOW what happened, so we have to tell the audience WHO is saying it happened and let them decide who they believe.

                      It's not a perfect system, but it is the closest thing we have to fairness. However, forgive me for being adversarial, but I think what you really want is for us to report YOUR version of the story as "fact," and anything else that doesn't jive with what you want to hear will be "bias" or "spin" in your mind. That's natural. It's human nature.

                      But it amounts to shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.

                      Let me tell you a story that illustrates my point. I once worked a story where a police officer shot and killed a young black man in a poor section of town. The officer said the guy advanced on him and wouldn't stop when he told him to. The guy's family said the cop hid in the bushes, then jumped out and shot him in cold blood. The officer said he never hid in the bushes, but approached the guy from his cruiser, from the other direction. The family then said the cops handcuffed the guy and let him bleed out on the ground. The police said they handcuffed him because he was still combative after being shot, and that he lost consciousness while they were awaiting the arrival of the ambulance.

                      Hell, we didn't know what happened. We weren't there. If we presented the officer's account of it as the truth, discounting the account from the family, we were being biased against poor black people. If we presented the family's account, we were biased against the police. So we told both sides.

                      What happened? We were accused of being biased by BOTH sides. The police were mad at us, and said so, because we aired comments from the family. One of them told me we were "blowing this thing way out of proportion." But I had a lady in the neighborhood tell me, "I ain't talkin' to y'all cuz y'all just take sides wit da po-leece anyhow. Cain't trust the media!"

                      Our only option seems to be just to NOT cover any stories with disputed facts at all. But what happens if we don't cover something?

                      "Y'all won't cover us 'cuz you're biased against us. Cain't trust the media!"

                      We can't win.

                      [ 01-15-2003, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Shaky & Blue ]

                      Comment


                      • Haha! Officer Unfriendly hid in the bushes stalking his prey! WTF?? [Eek!]
                        All of god's creatures are entitled to live without fear of "gun violence" except for you and your family. - <a href="http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/selfdefense_quiz.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>

                        Comment


                        • I have read the posts about facts.

                          Once again, the only facts really known about this incident are that a family ended up on the ground in handcuffs and their family pet was dead.
                          The governor of Tennessee has called the Smoaks several times to apologize. The Tennessee general assembly has placed this item on their docket for for discussion to make sure this never happens again.

                          These facts are irrefutable.

                          Now I respectfully ask once again. Who is responsible for this and should they accept the consequences of their acts? That is all I ask.

                          I don't want to hear justifications, apologias, or theosophy. I just want straightforward honest answers to my questions.

                          Remember that everything that is typed in this forum is read all over the world on the internet. It would be in the best interest of all involved to remember that when they post.

                          Once again, I'm just a plain man looking for some answers.

                          Comment


                          • Oh, come on Niteshift. In this thread, I'm not talking to you as if I'm doing an "on-air" interview with you, relax.

                            Let me clarify,
                            "I can't help but wonder how many of you stereotype people in general"

                            After reading through the four pages in this thread, that was a truthful professional and personal observation by me. Now if the four pages in this thread were taken from an actual interview, then I would have no choice but to ask the question in some form. I would never throw words like "suspects, witnesses, judges , blacks, whites, Hispanics" out in a real interview with you. Unless of course one of you would actually stereotype one of the groups in your response. However I would pose the question about "some" of you thinking that the media is biased and I would air my question and your response, air it for all the public to hear.

                            How about you Niteshift? In a real interview, would you really use sentences like

                            Quote by Niteshift
                            " We didn't stop disliking the media. We let you think that so that you'd leave it alone"
                            Unquote

                            Isn't that a classic case of sweeping something under the rug???? In that sentence you lied to the media, just to get us off your back. You actually acknowledged lying to me (creating a false statement) just so I would go away. No Niteshift????

                            And you wonder why we must dig for truth, hmmm.

                            How about this one Niteshift.

                            Quote by Niteshift
                            "When it matters, I'm plenty accurate. You, my friend, don't particularly matter to me."
                            Unquote

                            If that was a "real" interview response - you do realize that your answer would reflect a pretty bad image of you in the public's eye. Can you imagine some official responding in that manner???? After all in an interview you aren't talking to me, you're talking to our (your) public through me. Just as when President Bush talks to the people through the media.

                            If you, however would like to write to me on this board only in a official manner, I will be willing to abide. So which will it be "on the record" or 'off the record" I can play by any rules you choose, it is your domain I'm at.

                            PS
                            Yes, we do air videos to attract viewers, that is the structure behind our business, we would never survive being just a community service, we are owned by money making corporations. That is something you boys and girls will have to get through your thick heads. If the public wasn't interested, we would never bother sending crews from all over the country to report on issues. I will however admit that many stories are pure sensualism and not journalism, that is an unfortunate part of the biz, never the less its done to make money, meaning certain idiots want to see stupid stories.

                            I tried explaining this to you 2 years ago. On a more serious issue, how about our Premiere being busted in Maui for drunk driving? Did we have a right to tell this to the voting public? No, we had an obligation my friends, if we didn't report issues like that then the regulators should pull our license and lease it to some outlet that will report it. Just what we needed, our premier hating our guts, right? See, it's not just you guys.

                            Same goes with the cop shooting the dog video. I can not imagine sweeping something like that under the rug, in my opinion that would be almost criminal on the media's part.

                            Let's not forget cooperation between us, let's not forget amber alerts and shows like America's Most Wanted.
                            <a href="http://www.ics-multimedia.com/sonicboom.htm" target="_blank">"Time is running out - Let's Roll"</a>

                            Comment


                            • You want us to report the facts.

                              No! We want you to report only the facts. No opinions, unless you're doing it in an op-ed piece.

                              The only way we can get the facts is by talking to people who are involved in the story.

                              What? You may want to hire a detective. Interviews are only 1 facet of investigating. IOW, you verify what people tell you with reference sources. Any cop with more than 2 weeks on the street can tell you that eyewitness accounts are very unreliable, and often outright falsehoods.

                              If those people do not agree on the facts, how are we supposed to decide which facts to present, if we don't present both sides?

                              If you can't verify it, you acknowledge that you can't. By your logic, you should report a pregnant blind man robbing a convenience store because that's what you were told. If you report the fact that a witness reported that, you also report that it is unconfirmed.

                              What the media do, in general, is report the most scandalous accounts (whether or not they are confirmed) then if they are challenged, they print a retraction on page D32 (or the broadcast equivalent obscure location.)

                              Yes, we do air videos to attract viewers, that is the structure behind our business, we would never survive being just a community service, we are owned by money making corporations.

                              As happy as I am to hear somebody in the media admit this, it does not justify sensationalizing. Do you really believe that there is no market for honest reporting of unbiased facts? It seems to me that there would be a great many people interested in unbiased reporting.

                              If the public wasn't interested, we would never bother sending crews from all over the country to report on issues.

                              Horse puckey. The media will whip nonstories into a frenzy to fill all the dead air. Would you like a list of recent non-stories? I'll start a new thread, and I'll bet you could spend hours reading.

                              Same goes with the cop shooting the dog video. I can not imagine sweeping something like that under the rug,

                              I can't either, but the story does not need to be presented in a way that omits the facts. The officers did not just arbitrarily decide to pull some family over and shoot their dog. I see nothing that tells me these officers did anything remotely out of line.

                              The story should present the fact that the officers were under the impression that they were making a felony stop, and that they responded to what they perceived as a threat in the form of a large animal with sharp teeth.

                              What should be addressed is the mistake made in putting out a call to do a felony stop when it wasn't necessary. The breakdown here was in communication, and with regard to the media's obligation, it remains that way.

                              in my opinion that would be almost criminal on the media's part

                              Almost?
                              "But if it be a sin to covet honor, I am the most offending soul alive." from Henry V, by Wm. Shakespeare

                              Comment


                              • I can't help but wonder how many of you stereotype people in general, suspects witnesses, judges , blacks, whites, Hispanics etc.

                                I stereotype everyone equally. You are all suspects until NCIC says differently.

                                I object to a comment like "everyone that wasn't there should shut up"

                                Object all you want. But you weren't there so SHUT UP!. The media has the habit of glamorizing their reports to make them more appealing to the viewers. I on the other hand would rather hear the real truth rather than some sensationalized story that no truly knows about except the people that were there.
                                "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
                                Thomas Jefferson

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4674 users online. 314 members and 4360 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X