I ended up posting a link to an article from my local newspaper on Facebook   
   earlier today due to the fact that Bismarck, ND's police department has finally   
   'gotten with the times' and had an officer shoot a private citizen's dog while   
   executing a search warrant.  Somebody I'm friends with ended up replying to   
   that a little while later stating that 'it was too bad, but the owner's   
   should've been able to control their dog', which I found unbelievably   
   shortsighted, ignorant, and bordering on brainwashed with deferrence to   
   perceived authority.  I immediately began writing a small rant about my   
   disagreement with this, and it turned out concise enough so that I think the   
   thoughts stand on their own as a thread to discuss.  Figured that I'd post it   
   here and see what y'all might think about the issue in general, as well as the   
   points I made and opinion that I have, personally.   
      
   -=-=-=-=-   
      
   As a former law enforcement officer on an assist/protect/defend mission to   
   residential communities and military airfields and armories in Germany, I wrote   
   this just a little bit ago regarding law enforcement's decision to use   
   potentially lethal force on man's best friend in Bismarck recently. It's a   
   comment on an old post that may not be seen by many of you, but I think this   
   line of thought holds its own in a post all to itself. So without further ado,   
   here's what I think about any line of thought that the dog being shot was a   
   justifiable decision and that it was the owner's responsibility to control   
   their pet on their own home turf during a court mandated breach of individual   
   sovereignty:   
      
   If they were executing a warrant, they were trying to convey a sense of   
   authority and jurisdiction on the private property of the owner, and the dog's   
   home turf. There is a lack of common consideration and courtesy shown in such   
   situations that is purposely cultivated by law enforcement to surprise and   
   shock the property owner. This is to try to prevent the property owner from   
   establishing defenses, hiding contraband, or getting up the nerve to compose   
   resistance to the execution of the aforementioned warrant. Of course the   
   animal, being loyal, protective, and instinctively territorial, takes this as a   
   serious and legitimate threat to its own safety, that of the owner, and the   
   sanctity and sovereignty of the 'home turf'. It tries to do the only thing that   
   it understands as reasonable in the face of this threat and attempts to 'serve   
   and to protect' its owner, itself, and the home territory. Then cowardly law   
   enforcement officers, rather than do their own mission of protecting and   
   serving the public (which courts have said they have no legal obligation to   
   actually do, anyway), end up 'playing it safe', which superiors recommend and   
   state that they will back their officers in doing, thus using potentially   
   lethal force on a loyal and justifiably/instinctively defensive and upset   
   family pet and companion.   
      
   Another hideous reminder of the social decay of authority, government, and   
   industry in America.   
      
   -=-=-=-=-   
      
   -The opinions expressed are not necessarily an advocation of any of the   
   aforementioned ideologies, concepts, or actions.  We still have the freedom of   
   speech, for now, and I enjoy using it in a satirical or ficticious manner to   
   amuse myself-   
      
   "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a   
   revolutionary act." --  George Orwell   
      
   --- SBBSecho 2.14-OpenBSD   
    * Origin: telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ (1:282/1057)