“A SWAT team sent to handle an alleged neighborhood dispute over dog waste ended up killing the dog, and igniting a firestorm of criticism against the local police force,” nydailynews.com reports. Wait. What? Why am I seeing a phalanx of Racine, Wisconsin cops huddling behind an up-armored vehicle to settle a dispute about dog shit? There’s a simple explanation . . .

Neighbor Kim Polk described the shooting as the result of one irate resident refusing to pick up after his dog when confronted by her, and then violently threatening to kill her own pooch. It was that threat, first with a bow and arrow and then with a machete, that she said led to her family calling 911 and a SWAT team approaching the man’s home.

Ohhhh. So they sent the SWAT team to protect a dog. Before shooting a dog. Things went downhill from there . . .

“When he finally decided to come out of the house he was irate upset and was telling the cops to get off his property that he was going to harm them, he was going to shoot at the cops,” Polk told Fox6Now. Ohhhh. So the cops came out in force because a homeowner told them he was going to shoot them. With a crossbow. Responding to the resulting howls of indignation, Racine Police Chief Art Howell released a statement on the incident.

“On a personal level, I am saddened over the loss of a domestic pet that more than likely, had no malice against anyone. As more information is released however, members of the public will have a better understanding of nature of the dilemma officers faced as this incident unfolded.

“During this standoff, the dog owner threatened to use a body armor piercing crossbow to kill officers, and this subject threatened to use his dog as a weapon against officers as well. After several hours of dialogue with crisis negotiators, the barricaded subject ultimately made good on his threat to introduce the dog into the active standoff.

“After the dog was released, the dynamics of this encounter changed. Officers, who for over three hours were focused on peacefully resolving this crisis through dialogue, were now forced to deal with the distraction and unpredictability of having the subject’s dog moving through the scene of this active encounter at a critical time.

“Additional review is in order; however, judgement relative to the actions taken should be reserved until the matter has been thoroughly reviewed and all facts are known and considered.

“Please know that our policy is such that, all use of force incidents are reviewed internally. In the event our review process exposes misconduct, or if we find that additional training could have resulted in a better outcome, we will take appropriate action as dictated by our findings.”

I get the feeling that none of this will shake the Chief’s faith in the utility of armored car-equipped SWAT teams to take down anyone who dares threaten the life of his officers who, it must be said, only want to go home at the end of their shift.

Recommended For You

146 Responses to WI SWAT Cops Huddle Behind Armored Car, Shoot Dog [Video NSFW]

    • Lots of reports recently about cop shooting dogs for no good reason. Is this to desensitize the public to the eventual shooting of people for the same reasons as they shoot dogs? Just wondering.

      • They shoot dogs for two reasons….
        First of all because they can. They know that nobody is going to punish them for murdering pets.
        They know the union will push management into a corner so they ALWAYS back them up. In addition
        the shooting allows them to get their thrills. An ENORMOUS portion of LEO now are sociopathic,
        the schooyard bully’s that harassed and tormented other kids, the ones that fried ants with magnifying glass
        and pulled the wings from flies. Shooting dogs satisfies the innate need for gratuitous risk free violence that
        pathologic personalities need and enjoy.

        The second reason they shoot pets is to send a message. That message is clear and unmistakable.
        “We can shoot your dog for no reason whatsoever and do it with complete impunity……if we want
        we can shoot YOU for NO REASON at all kill YOU with complete impunity” THAT is the message.

    • So, not having your dog on a leash is now grounds to shoot them?

      Damn, I’d hate to see what speeding will get you in your universe.

      • Why should you keep your dogs secure? Maybe you don’t want them to get hit by passing cars? Or eat roadkill and get infested with parasites? Or if they are small dogs, get in fights with coyotes? Or to have young neighbor children spook them into a minor bite by chasing them, jumping on them, or trying to hug them (my son does this all the time to my dogs)? Or to just plain wander off and get lost?

        Many dangers to dogs far more likely than being shot by police. If you want to ignore them, that’s your choice.

    • mine are in my fenced in backyard. evidently that is not enough to protect them from 4th amendment violations and dog killing LEOs eitther.

    • Locked up and on a leash if we care about them? You can have your dogs inside your locked up home and government paid thugs will still bust down your door and shoot them while dressed head to toe in Kevlar so they can make it home that night… with no scratches, and no hurt feelings. Because their job is so dangerous, except by far not the most dangerous and nobody else gets to kill others and their pets with even close to the same level of impunity.

  1. Needed an excuse to use the MRAP to justify having that armored vehicle. Only problem with that is look what they ended up using it for.

  2. More of those de-escalation tactics I keep hearing about.

    To prevent things going beyond bickering neighbors they rolled up all geared out with their new toy truck weapons drawn. You know, to calm things.

  3. Ah yes, our ever present friend, Officer Twitch-finger.

    “It’s coming right for us!”
    Except it’s not. I watched the video. The dog runs out, sees the cop, turns around, and BANG BANG. Why do cops feel compelled to shoot harmless pets in the back, as they retreat?

  4. First, anyone convinced a crossbow isnt deadly is welcome to stand in front of one.
    Second, if SWAT is called out onto your property, that is not the wisest time to let your pet out.
    Third, if the poor animal is made out to be a threat to said SWAT unit , expect them to react in kind.

    There are too many cases of incompetent officers shooting pets without cause-this isnt one of them. The reaponsible party is the jackhead who put his own animal at risk to start with.

    • If you seriously feel threatened by a nut job with a pre-14th century weapon while you have what looks like a half platoon of light infantry with automatic weapons for immediate backup, you need to turn in your badge and find a line of work requiring less testicular fortitude.

      That’s a rather small dog. The only way in which it is a threat to a man in full body armor is if he trips over it.

    • Every hear of pepper spray? It’s obvious that the SWAT team was “in their moment” and the rules of that moment say always shoot the dog. Much of what you see with SWAT team behavior is theater. Very ugly theater.

        • True, but the steel armor of the 1400s was nothing like the AR500 and ceramic trauma plates of 2014.

        • Crossbows from the 1400s are nothing like crossbows from today, Stinkeye. Do you honestly think the technology hasn’t advanced?

        • Bullet proof vests don’t do jack to stop knives or arrows. Regardless of what era crossbow it was, anything with more than 60 lbs worth of pull weight will blow straight through kevlar. So basically any crossbow ever could quite easily ruin a cops day.

        • “Hurrrrr you disagree with me. Hurrrr why don’t you let me shoot you to prove you are wrong?”

          Come on really? That tired old line? Get some new material!

          A whole armored ‘car’? No. Of course the space between the plates is still vulnerable just like it would be to a bullet… but hardened armor plating I still don’t think so.

          A simple, slightly scientific experiment to test your hypothesis versus mine, shoot any rock of your choosing with the strongest crossbow you can find and the hardest tip you can find. The rock is a readily available and cheap stand in for ceramic armor plating and hardened steel armor plating. Report results.

          Hypothesized results:

          1 – Rock is mostly unscathed (surface marks) and the bolt may bounce off or may be redirected (dangerous and potentially lethal in its own right). The bolt may break.
          2 – Rock breaks/crumbles and absorbs most of if not all of the energy of the bolt hitting it. Little or no penetration occurs. The rock behaves in a way that modern ceramic armors do. The bolt may shatter or break. Spalling danger still present as it is with a bullet striking hard armors.

          If I’m wrong I’m wrong, but I’m not convinced I’m wrong.

        • @Matt
          Not to be argumentative, but a Crossbow is accurate, powerful, and could quite easily defeat the kevlar portion of the officer’s protective armor. How it would fare against the ceramic I’m not quite sure. The ceramic is *not* the same as a rock. It’s lighter and is designed to absorb the energy of a projectile striking it. (this energy causes the plate to crack, making it a 1-3 shot effective barrier against most bullets) It is designed with the assumption that the projectile will be relatively small and have relatively low mass. A heavy bolt with a steel tip might crack the ceramic and penetrate through that weakness in the plate’s integrity. I’m honestly not certain.

          I would certainly not volunteer for testing. It’s not like the ceramic covers all of the officer’s anatomy.

        • @DeFacto
          I agree with you that kevlar would be easily defeated by a crossbow. In fact, I never have made a claim to the contrary. I have consistently said armor plating of some kind. I say that because you have a fully kitted swat team standing behind an armored vehicle in the video. My money would be that they are wearing much more than soft kevlar armor so penetration of kevlar by a crossbow in this situation seems to be a moot point. (See lower for the video that someone posted about a crossbow penetrating kevlar).

          I agree rock is not the same material as ceramic armor; it may be harder, it may be softer. Weight I doubt plays much of a factor, although the greater the mass and more material, the stronger it may be. That is why I said only a semi scientific test; it only does so much to as an illustrative example. As I lack ceramic and hardened steel armor plating and it is inaccessible to many, I tried to quickly think of something anyone with a crossbow could test.

          Re the design of ceramic plating, I believe I covered this point adequately in my hypothesized result #2.

          Re coverage, agreed and addressed prior to my semi scientific experiment.

          Thanks for remaining pleasant unlike some others.

      • You’re an idiot if you think a modern crossbow (or non-modern crossbow) won’t blow right through regular soft body armor that is worn by normal officers. Even if someone is wearing ceramic plates on their chest it can sure go under them into the gut, leg, or through the eye.

        • I’m the idiot then. But, I’ll take idiot any day of the week over lacking reading comprehension and ability for rational discourse.

          If you cared to read my posts you will see:

          1 – I never mention kevlar armor (point further expounded upon in my reply to DeFacto reproduced here for your reading? pleasure).

          “I agree with you that kevlar would be easily defeated by a crossbow. In fact, I never have made a claim to the contrary. I have consistently said armor plating of some kind. I say that because you have a fully kitted swat team standing behind an armored vehicle in the video. My money would be that they are wearing much more than soft kevlar armor so penetration of kevlar by a crossbow in this situation seems to be a moot point. (See lower for the video that someone posted about a crossbow penetrating kevlar). ”

          2 – The rest of your points are addressed and agreed with if you actually read my other posts.

          At no point have I argued that there is or is not danger to the officers, merely that I doubt a crossbow can penetrate ceramic or hardened steel armor.

    • What a bunch of cowards they are probably afraid of their own shadows. Screw the dog it is ok as long as these “cowards” make it home ok I am sure they are really proud of themselves. Sometimes i think you have to have a really Low IQ to be a police , Really if you had any brains you would ask yourself what am i doing this dumb stuff. It is a shame we hire idiots for police and them we give them guns and let them power trip.

    • My understanding is that officers are required to use force sufficient to defeat their attackers and not much more. In this case, being that their would-be attacker was threatening them with a crossbow and a hellhound, they should’ve laid siege to his home and then readied their trebuchet.

    • The dog was clearly moving away from the officers when it was shot. And if you’re dressed out in that much body armor, a couple of you can easily get a net or blanket over the dog without getting injured.

  5. Yes… The epic terror of the 20lb lapdog. Those officers need to get publicly beaten for their rank cowardice.

  6. Wait….did that cop just explain that in order to deescalate the situation, and preserve the opportunity for negotiations to proceed, they had to kill the dog at the center of the narrative? Where did these guys learn to negotiate? Also, where was animal control – surely if there is a dog involved it my be prudent to get them on the phone, and perhaps have them stand by the scene.

    Also, “armor-piercing crossbow”, really? Was that absolutely necessary? Ugh!

  7. Why did they shoot that little dog again? He was big and vicious I guess, wagging his tail in a threatening manner.
    What about the killer rabbit from the holy grail?

  8. But did you guys not see the size of those fangs??? If they hadn’t shot it, those could have ripped right through their Dunkin Donuts sacks!

  9. I have been attacked by nearly every breed. They aren’t hard to stop. Cover me from the human ill catch the dog.
    If a cop is ever killed by a dog I will eat my hat.

    • So… the real bottom line here… pick up your dog’s sh*t. (& it’s pretty inadvisable to threaten to kill your neighbors dog)

      Zero excuse for trigger-happy-Harry there, but this was an easily avoidable situation it appears.

  10. “Jackhead” should have kept his dog in the house, because the cops would never shoot your dog inside your home.

  11. “During this standoff, the dog owner threatened to use a body armor piercing crossbow to kill officers,”

    I must have missed this tidbit of info when shopping for Level IV plates. Any crossbow enthusiasts that can provide more info would be appreciated. I imagine it might penetrate soft body armor and of course non armored appendages.

    Seems like fido might have just ran out imo, but you cant see the front door open or close so who knows.

    “forced to deal with the distraction and unpredictability of having the subject’s dog moving through the scene”
    Cant get all geared up without getting to shoot something. either way, threaten to shoot the cops and theyll shoot AT LEAST your dog, if not you as well. Shitty situation all around, but when you act irate and start threatening people, its only going down from there.

    • A crossbow bolt may not penetrate a plate (then again, modern crossbows have a LOT of power behind them) but it’ll go through Kevlar like an icepick…with razor blades on it. A little internet research may surprise you.

      Of course, crossbows aren’t exactly “rapid fire” weapons, but for at least the first target it’s a serious threat.

  12. “Shoot the hostage, take him out of the equation.”

    One of these days, these fellas are going to unleash a NYPD style fusillade and hit someone who doesn’t mind shooting back.

  13. Pepper spray? Available to the police in fire-extinguisher sizes and high concentrations, right? It seems to me that if you “were focused on peacefully resolving this crisis through dialogue”, you would have some pepper spray in the general vicinity. That might help you deal with the “distraction and unpredictability of having the subject’s dog moving through the scene”, without having to pop Fluffy.

    Hey, I carry pepper spray when I walk, in addition to my .38, because I would rather have a non-lethal option handy. Shouldn’t the police think about that option? And if they were that terrified of the little ankle-biter, why didn’t they turn their big fierce police dog loose to protect themselves?

    • Exactly. This isn’t complicated. Thousands of meter readers and postal workers have survived without killing any dogs.

    • In addition to the fact mailmen all over the country seem to be able to do their jobs without blowing away dogs left and right, the stability/mentality of these officers concerns me a lot.

      I mean, when you sign up to be a police officer, you understand you are going to be expected to handle stressful/scary situations that other people would run away from. If an officer can’t handle a little dog like that one without shooting, I’m sorry, they shouldn’t have a badge. Their “danger meter” is just way too off-kilter.

  14. I don’t know, man, that dog looked dangerous. He was carrying the ebola. Could’ve killed them all.

    \s

  15. I get the feeling that the only way TTAG would approve officers using force is if a few of them get killed or injured first during a particular incident. In any event, this is one believer in the 2nd amend that can no longer take this site’s pandering to the mob.

    • Man, really? You know cops have changed the paradigm from getting the job done, and laying waste to anything that stood on the way of them getting back home that night. It was a DOG homey. Me and my brother, without body armor, have tackled and subdues a dog before.
      And this is one 2nd Amendment supporter who would be just fine with you leaving this sight. Good riddance.

      • And Steve Irwin wrestled crocs, doesn’t mean that should be part of a cop’s job.

        The guy sent his dog out to get shot. Blame him.

    • How on earth did we survive as a nation before body armor, assault rifles, and “up armored” trucks to handle a dog poop dispute?

      Given that the police these days draw their arms at the slightest provocation or naughty words hurled at them, yes I kind of expect them to actually take fire before I’ll trust that they really were under serious threat. Take that SC cop who shot the guy a few weeks back over a seat belt violation.

      One reason to respect police in the past was that they generally didn’t shoot first and ask questions later. These days its all about going home at the end of their shift of managing the serfs, I mean slaves, er I mean cattle.

    • Eh, no, I think they’re usually justified in using the force they use against genuinely dangerous humans and dogs, perhaps including this dog’s crazy owner.

      However, that little dog was running away. Jeez, as a lone woman I would have been less frightened of that dog than all those men with their body armor were. I’m embarrassed for them. What a bunch of pu$$ies.

    • Well hadenough; I’ve defended cops in other shooting situations that pretty much everybody here thought the cops should be charged with murder.

      In this situation, the dog owner was scum for sending his dog out into a conflict he created with a bunch of cops pointing guns at him; the cop that shot the dog as he ran away was also scum for doing so.

    • Don’t let the door punk you on your way out. You might want to hurry up. I hear your jackboots need polishing before the latest cross burning.

    • Here’s an old saying: “if you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen”. This site is well known for its full-tilt discourse. If you aren’t up to it, Hadenough, begone. You won’t be missed.

    • See if you can get any of the other bootlickers to go with you to the land of Copsdonowrong. You can ride unicorns together. It will be great.

  16. Maybe a tad nit-picky but did anyone else notice that the “suspect” was referred to as “subject”? Froidian slip maybe?

  17. Article says is was a blue heeler. Those things are maybe 40 pounds tops. They can be protective, but not mean or vicious. Someone should see a month of duty shoveling dog crap at the local animal services facility.

  18. So if I’m tired of my neighbor’s dog crapping in my yard, just SWAT the dog. Score this as a win for the guy tired of having his yard crapped on.
    Two shots? 5-0 was uncharacteristically restrained.

  19. For you guys who think this website is not being fair to cops. You should see the reaction this video is getting everywhere else, its gone viral. Basically the overly armed cops behaved like well armed cowards and added even more bad press for all the cops out there.

  20. That dog was so small a good swift kick with a steel toe storm trooper boot would have deterred it, if not killing it.

    They could have released their K9 that was five times the size of the “attack” dog. Officer K9 probably leaves a turd pile bigger than that dog.

    this is wrong on so many levels. Police have a made their public perception problems with stuff like this.

    • I didn’t even think about that police dog that was there. Now that you brought that dog up, I’m kinda wondering if he feels like a sell out for being on the side of the oppressors who kill so many of his kind.

  21. Did they actually see the cross bow? Seems like that would be an important fact in the whole “the distraction and unpredictability of having the subject’s dog moving through the scene of this active encounter at a critical time” thing. Perhaps if the suspect was standing there with the weapon in his hand or visibly accessible to him the explanation might make sense. Aren’t these guys supposed to be trained to handle complex situations with many moving parts?

  22. “all use of force incidents are reviewed internally. ” This is the problem. Outside independent review is needed.

  23. Chief Art Howell sure used a whole lot of words in this statement just to finesse the simple phrase “tough shit”.

  24. Amazing how officials at our National Parks tell us to take and use bear spray to repel a charging, 7-800 pound, animal that can kill… but SWAT members feel the need to use deadly force on household pets.

    At least they went home safe. For the children.

    • I may have missed something, but wasn’t the general consensus around here that the Parks people were full of crap? I’m not saying that a dog is as dangerous as a bear, but that example doesn’t work for me.

      Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t have shot the dog in this video, but it’s not because I’m manly enough to enjoy facing down bears with pepper spray.

      • I think his point wasn’t so much about what kind of force is needed to counter an animal threat as it was about the “One rule for me and another for thee” mindset of our betters.

  25. I don’t really like the police BUT in this case it appears they were right.

    A moment before I’m squwered (sp?).

    Even a small dog will distract the cops. A crossbow will kill easily. In WW II, the Nazis threatened to shoot 10 Dutch if they shot at troops with a crossbow.

    So he has threatened them, sends out the dog to distract them and as they are looking at the dog he shoots them with a cross bow.

    I’d shoot the dog too.

  26. Why am I seeing a phalanx of Racine, Wisconsin cops huddling behind an up-armored vehicle to settle a dispute about dog shit?

    Judging from his statement, the Racine Chief is an expert on bullsh!t, so why not?

  27. That’s just horrible to see.

    People need to hold their phones horizontally. Vertical video makes everyone’s lives a little bit poorer.

  28. Good Lord, why couldn’t the chief had said “We responded to the call. The man repeatedly threatened the officers with a crossbow and his dog. When he turned the dog loose to attack the officers, they shot and killed it.” He sure killed a lot or electrons to type out that convoluted, politically correct, sorry excuse for a statement.

  29. Why are the cops even going to a location with a dog present? Doesn’t anyone care about officer safety? They should have called in an air strike rather than exposing officers to such danger.

  30. A barricaded person with a deadly weapon openly threatening police employees is a legitimate reason to call out a SWAT team. The thing I have a problem with is how they were seemingly the first option used to resolve the situation. And before everyone gets their cock in a knot over how this guy had a crossbow instead of a rifle, let’s all remember that the right arrow can absolutely punch through soft armor, and the right broadhead can cause a MASSIVE amount of tissue damage. Armor doesn’t cover everywhere, I would have wanted to be behind the armored truck too.

  31. Holy crap! From the reaction of those witnesses, I thought ISIS just beheaded the neighbor’s kid. Overreact much?

  32. SWAT was sent to deal with a domestic dispute involving a dog taking a crap in a neighbor’s yard.

    SWAT. For dog crap.

    Perhaps SWAT teams just need to be disbanded. If that much firepower is needed, call in the National Guard. Municipal police departments have clearly proven that they are utterly incapable of handling that kind of firepower responsibly, and in the best interests of the common, public good.

    • Any time someone threatens to shoot at police, a more powerful force should be present. The common, sane person knows that a cop wears some level of armor and carries at least a pistol, so they either have a plan or more firepower than the average police officer. Either option calls for a force trained and armed to deal those types of threats. I wouldn’t put my money on the national guard vs a typical SWAT team. It’s sad that the wrong decision was made in this case, but that lies within the training, not whether or not the force should be present.

      • Oh, horse (dog?) crap. The SWAT team was called to deal with a domestic dispute over a dog who took a crap, and an owner who refused to clean it up.

        What more really needs to be said? Cities are proving again and again that they are not responsible enough to wield the power of a SWAT team, and perhaps that power should be taken away from them.

        • The only reason the SWAT team was called/sent out was because of threats made on LEO. We don’t know if local PD was sent out first and then SWAT called, but people are under the assumption that someone called 911 about dog shit and SWAT was immediately dispatched. I hardly find that plausible and if, and only if, that truly was the case should disbandment of that city’s SWAT team be considered.

        • Sure is easier to make an argument when you steadfastly refuse to recognize ANY facts that don’t fit you narrative.

          Might not have been right to shoot the dog. But if you think it’s wrong to have the police respond when someone is threatening to shoot people with a deadly weapon, you should probably move somewhere there is no police at all.

        • Mea culpa. SWAT was sent in response to a man threatening a dog. With a bow and arrow and machete.

          Nope; I still don’t see why SWAT is required for that situation.

          Why was this an “active” situation to begin with? The man threatened to shoot the neighbor’s dog with a bow and arrow, and then went home. The husband then went to his house, at which time the man threatened the dog with a machete – and stayed inside his house.

          What’s wrong with rolling up to the guy’s house with a police cruiser and a couple of officers, and knocking on his door?

          Oh, no. They needed crisis negotiators, a SWAT team, and an hours-long standoff.

          Give me a break.

        • Oh, the days of cops actually engaging citizens directly are screeching to a halt. No more of the officer simply knocking on the door, its all tactical teams and high power rifles, kicking in doors without warrants and trampling citizens rights cause they can get away with it. We can thank the War On Drugs and television/movies for this sh*t.

        • Chip, let me run this by you. With the Republican wave last night, I was thinking of what difference this means in the way we are governed. With a few exceptions, the difference is who holds the guns and what direction are they pointed.

  33. I don’t hear anyone talking about the aftermath of an incident like this. The officer or officers who were forced to fire at the dog are very likely to have long lasting psychological problems stemming from their involvement in a line of duty shooting. They will likely require medical intervention, psychiatric intervention, and perhaps even be forced to take an early retirement. Not all wounds are visible.

  34. While i dont call for violence against LEO
    please explain to me the moral issue with killing them in large numbers i really dont see one.
    they kill hundreds of innocent people a year
    they are an organized crime syndicate, if your a cop and you lie for a coworker who filed a false report congrats, that’s criminal conspiracy and the very reason the RICO act has taken down many gangs. I dont care if you lied that you smelled weed in a car because you knew a hippy would have weed.
    In many parts of the country people fear cops more than gang violence.
    mass civil right violations.

  35. Just so you guys know, a crossbow is much more of a threat than small arms for LEO. Most of our armor offers little defense against blades/spikes/pointy things.

    • Oh sure, go dragging a bunch of facts and reason in, is that what you’re going to do? If you don’t want to be shot in the face with a crossbow to spare an innocent dog’s life, why exactly DID you become a cop anyways?

      • It amazes me that people on this website know so little about weapons. I’d much rather be shot with a handgun round than a crossbow.

        • And physics too. A bullet from a handgun is not likely to deposit all of its energy into a body. A bolt from a crossbow is heavier and will likely deposit all of its energy in a body. To me the argument is ridiculous, you can’t really expect these guys to expose themselves to either weapon, that’s not a reasonable request, so they were right in staying behind cover. That said, I can’t see any reason why they shot that dog.

    • Its a crossbow. He gets off one shoot and then dies in the hail of bullets from the other cowardly f**ksticks hiding behind a car. The real question is how many innocent bystanders get hit as these “heroes” mag dumping on the entire neighborhood in their terror fueled hysteria.

  36. I guess it will be okay to declare open season on police dogs right? I mean they’re just dogs and if the police don’t care about shooting ours, why should I give a crap what happens to theirs?

    • Are you planning on shooting them when they’re off duty, like maybe when they’re leaving the bar that all the cop dogs go to?

  37. lmao…get use to it…it happens every day…….and it will continue to get worse until people start standing together and holding police/politicians accountable for their actions. America is following in the foots steps just the same as rome did….history repeats itself time and time again…..

  38. Maybe it was Darryl from “The Walking Dead” inside the house. That dude’s mighty handy with a crossbow. Plus, the dog might have been a zombie…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *