http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/ap/april/233362/Man-bites-dog-_-then-sues-over-police-canines-act



Just when I think humanity has hit the ground it decides to one up itself and dig a hole.

Who the hell bites a dog? :rofl:

:facepalm: <<<<

There are better things to sue the police over.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-leNf6VRGuww/TZOFwIlk-9I/AAAAAAAACK4/msVBuCf9zAo/s1600/181148-triple_facepalm_super.jpg

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAA :rofl:

I think that story is a bit sensationalist. It emphasizes the bizarre dog thing rather than this:

...and so the spear of reason was plunged into the heart of the thread.

...and so a sarcastically dramatic comment was made.

A dog cannot make a conscious decision about how much force is necessary to take a person down. A dog doesn't even know what the suspect has done or why he has to capture him, he just does as he is told. The dog and the police cannot be held accountable for "excessive force" because the dog doesn't have scope for what force is excessive and what is appropriate. It's a [censored] dog.

... and so the ellipsis and italics continued on, long after it was necessary.


Anyway, rule number one when running from police; dogs are faster than people.

He should have given that [censored] a bouncy ball. [censored]es love bouncy balls.

Female dogs, my dear, female dogs.


[Oh no! I said my dear, the intent was almost vaguely kind of humorous, but could be misconstrued as patronising and/or sixist, maybe you should sue me. Legal disclaimer : I am skinter than Mr. Penniless of Poor Street.]

What's with all the melodramatic misanthropy every time threads like this come up? Get a grip, this is one case that - actually - isn't even that ridiculous. It's not damning criticism of the species...

Come on, now! you've been here 5 years longer than i have, you should be used to it by now.

Anyway, on topic: we're (once again) doomed! :ahhh:

Oh, wait. This was a "stupid people" thread, not a "the world is going to hell in a handbasket" thread... :blush:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc5P8n3LRak are meant to be vicious. if he can sue the dog for biting him then the dog can sue back and say that he was avoiding arrest by biting him.

:shrug:

Doesn't mean I can't call people out on it. Besides, it didn't always used to be like this and it's gotten worse recently.

... you know....
It is just an unsigned snippet on a news channel website, and the wording they use may not reflect the actual events or the actual wording in court papers. It may be that the man is suing the police over excessive force, with the excessive force being that they sic'ed a trained attack dog on him, and/or the police failed to control the animal after the man had stopped running.

So don't be so quick on the draw there with opinions.

I know what you mean. Just when I think the community has hit the ground...

Huh, i guess these forums have gotten more sensationalistic too, then :hehe:

The entire human society has gotten more sensationalistic (actually, it's been getting more sensationalistic since the appearance of mass media, or perhaps even before that). The forums just follow suit.

but its always fun to read though :tongue:

The only damning evidence against humanity that I see here is police refusing a diabetic insulin when he needs it.

If by human society you mean mainly the US? But I agree about sensationalism in those who follow it and make sound byte type anologies prevalent in the US media. It's a crazy story but a person is just as crazy to base their views of humanity on a single event like that. I think it's more to make others look crazy so one feels better about themselves, or to look smarter by pointing out the worst scenarios with a non-witty retort that someone very affixed with sensationalist garbage will spew, I think to aid a cynical view of humanity or a haughty view of one's self. My mother, for example, used to base her societal views on Jerry Springer, which she watched religiously. :facepalm: