Buffalo police officers at wrong apartment kill Iraq War veteran's dog

Jun 5, 2013 Full story: Examiner.com 80

Another pit bull has been shot and killed in her own home, by police who broke into the wrong apartment while conducting a drug raid .

Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
WNY

Los Angeles, CA

#87 Jun 18, 2013
Lifeeeeee Coachhhhhhhhhhh wrote:
<quoted text>
That'll work
Are we talking for your car or for other purposes? Cause that would be one tiny car!

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#89 Sep 18, 2013
Whatever became of this investigation?

I'll tell you what....NOTHING!

The Officers were exonerated.

“Still an outsider”

Since: Jan 07

Dagus Mines, PA

#91 Sep 19, 2013
BFLO NEOCON wrote:
Whatever became of this investigation?
I'll tell you what....NOTHING!
The Officers were exonerated.
I guess so.

“Still an outsider”

Since: Jan 07

Dagus Mines, PA

#92 Sep 19, 2013
This is about time, dogs are now considered protected under the Fourth Amendment. If you shoot a family dog, the family will likely sue you, your police department and your city. James P. Gaffney is highly qualified and served with a metro-New York police department for over 25 years as a patrol officer, sergeant, lieutenant and an executive officer. He also teaches university level criminal justice courses as an adjunct professor in the NYC area.
Warns cops shooting the dog first and asking questions later will have consciences. The officer no longer has a free pass to shoot the dog before coming onto a property. Especially if the person living there hasn't committed a felony.
The Fourth Amendment his now been used in court to back this up. The family dog is now considered property, which cannot be seized without cause. It gives people rights against a search and seizure by police without probable cause.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#93 Sep 19, 2013
frilled2b wrote:
This is about time, dogs are now considered protected under the Fourth Amendment. If you shoot a family dog, the family will likely sue you, your police department and your city. James P. Gaffney is highly qualified and served with a metro-New York police department for over 25 years as a patrol officer, sergeant, lieutenant and an executive officer. He also teaches university level criminal justice courses as an adjunct professor in the NYC area.
Warns cops shooting the dog first and asking questions later will have consciences. The officer no longer has a free pass to shoot the dog before coming onto a property. Especially if the person living there hasn't committed a felony.
The Fourth Amendment his now been used in court to back this up. The family dog is now considered property, which cannot be seized without cause. It gives people rights against a search and seizure by police without probable cause.
This case had nothing to do with what you speak. The Officers were executing a no knock Search Warrant signed by a Judge after an in-camera interview with an informant. They had probable cause to enter and the dog was NOT chained as the complainant claims. There is no cop in the world who would not shoot a dog attacking him under those conditions. Just how do you stop to ask questions in a situation like that?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#95 Sep 19, 2013
Lacrosse Coachhh wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure the snitch knew about the dog and he should have been asked about the possibility. They asked about guns, didn't they? This should have been included in the risk matrix. Or don't you backward chest-beaters do that yet?
I posted before about back in the 70's when a couple patrol cops walked into my house and almost shot my dog until I could restrain him. Those cops were showed restraint because they were experienced STREET cops, not the wanna-be soldiers these days who are running around with their soldier M-4's or whatever you call them and spend most of their time time "training" instead of getting real street experience
What are you babbling about? So drug houses with dogs shouldn't be raided because the entry team might need to shoot the dog?

The cops that entered your house in the 70's weren't worried about the possiblity of evidence being destroyed and a target with an AK47 behind your mutt that's why they showed restraint. They were probably called to your house on a situation involving alcohol induced domestic violence not a drug raid. You lived in Pct 17 which back in that day was considered a white retirement house. No REAL street cops worked there.

The only cops with M-4s are SWAT officers. They are all street cops who train one or two days a month.

Obviously you watch too much TV.
TBIRD

Buffalo, NY

#98 Sep 20, 2013
Neocon has no idea what the risk matrix is. That is owing to the majority of his career being spent as a desk jockey.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#99 Sep 20, 2013
Lacrosse Coachh wrote:
<quoted text>
They knew nobody was home when they hit the house.
From what I understand it was sn upstairs apartment so shooting a 7mm round DOWN into the dog should have been avoided if possible. If the scared fake soldier boys had any guts they could have been prepared with a snare.Or some OC and a rap on the snout with. Mel light. But that would not be soldier-like now would it? When fighting the "War on Drugs" you must play soldier
Those cops in the 70s did not come into my house for a problem. The woman next door was mugged on her porch. The first car parked in my driveway. The second car parked behind them but walked into my house by mistake. Honest mistake
The Narco Squad hit the house not the SWAT team. They use shotguns not M-4s, which fire 5.56 rounds not 7.62mm by the way. And what makes you think they knew nobody was home? You can't assume anything on that job. Could get somebody killed. I'd like to see you spray an attacking dog with OC and then try whacking it with something while in the mean time Pookie taking aim at you with his 9 from the back room. Please...get real! Why don't you volunteer to be first through the door sometime? I'd pay to watch that! LOL

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#103 Sep 20, 2013
its sad

“Still an outsider”

Since: Jan 07

Dagus Mines, PA

#105 Sep 26, 2013
BFLO NEOCON wrote:
<quoted text>
This case had nothing to do with what you speak. The Officers were executing a no knock Search Warrant signed by a Judge after an in-camera interview with an informant. They had probable cause to enter and the dog was NOT chained as the complainant claims. There is no cop in the world who would not shoot a dog attacking him under those conditions. Just how do you stop to ask questions in a situation like that?
The police had the wrong apartment, Cindy the dog was tied up, "Cindy was a well behaved dog, who often played with children in the neighborhood", and you are a retarded ass. I wish a not chained dog would chew up your dumb ass.
factcheck

Mystic, CT

#106 Sep 26, 2013
Lacrosse Coachhh wrote:
<quoted text>
They should have known whether or not "Pookie" was home.
Why should they know that?

I am surprised at that post from you because you are a big government, one-size fits all type. You can't guarantee that the house is empty or not and if you you are conducting a raid the two main reasons are the following:

1. There is going to be cash there so the cops want to get their hands on the spoils. Who is going to miss the money or know how much was there? Quite a few cops live well above their means.
2. There is going to be drugs there so the cops want to get their hands on the spoils. Same as note 1. The suspect isn't going to dispute the quantity if it is lower. The less evidence the better it is for him any way. Not going to say "you honors they wuz 2 keelows not 1.5 dawg".
3. If there is a suspect then the cops are justified in the eyes of the public. Not to worry because the suspect is easily replaced by the next citizen waiting in line to be the local dealer.
factcheck

Mystic, CT

#107 Sep 26, 2013
....make that three main reasons!

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#108 Sep 26, 2013
frilled2b wrote:
<quoted text>
The police had the wrong apartment, Cindy the dog was tied up, "Cindy was a well behaved dog, who often played with children in the neighborhood", and you are a retarded ass. I wish a not chained dog would chew up your dumb ass.
Your ignorance speaks volumes. The police had the right apartment, the dog was NOT tied up, and the investigation of the incident proved it.

You're the retarded one because you believe everything you hear from people as ignorant as you!

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#110 Sep 26, 2013
Lacrosse Coachhh wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, I don't know? Was his car out front? Does he answer the phone? Was hr at his "day job" at the car wash or barber shop? Did they see anybody go in and out?If the snitch knows so much about him and his drug sales, the snitch might also know his habits
FYI
Snitches make a buy at a complaint house and that's it. What makes you think the snitch knows anything more about him besides the fact he hit him off once?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#112 Sep 27, 2013
Lacrosse Coachhh wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll admit I have never been directly involved in that nonsense, but I think it's rare that some idiot trying to work off a charge or make money as a snitch walks up to a door of somebody he doesn't know and says "Hi. I heard you sell drugs here and I wanna buy some..."
I am not going to blab about it here, but I know there is a much easier way of getting a warrant on a house of some careless idiot.
I know you won't, nor should you tell me, but I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that the snitch in this case knew the target pretty well
Obviously you have no direct knowledge on how it works. Let me explain how MOST, but not all, Search Warrants are obtained. A CI, criminal informant, is sent to a house where complaints of possible drug dealing have been made. The CI is given money and goes to the address where a controlled buy is attempted. Most ghetto drug dealers will sell to anybody with money. If a buy is made the CI then MUST be taken in-camera to a Judge where he/she testifies on the controlled buy. The Judge then signs off the Search Warrant if he/she decides the testimony credible. Sometimes the CI knows the target but many times they go in cold. Many times the CI is wigwagged, or directed, to THE place by a homie on the street. "Yo G, where can I get me some work?"

The BPD requires in-camera review by a Judge to obtain search warrants.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#114 Sep 28, 2013
Lacrosse Coachhh wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it really that complicated in Buffalo?
I had no idea.
In most places it is much easier....To easy if you ask me. The Aguilar–Spinelli two-pronged test and an in-house registration file is all that's needed. Judge never lays an eye on the snitches
The City requires an in-camera hearing. They believe it will relieve civil liabilities to some extent. Of course they are wrong.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#116 Sep 28, 2013
Lacrosse Coachhh wrote:
<quoted text>
Was that a policy enacted with Byron pulling Little Danny's strings, or has that one been around for a while?
Like any enacted policy, I am sure there is that one straw-that-broke-the camel's-back incident where that policy will always be famously associated with a particular bonehead cop (or ex-cop) who caused that policy to be enacted
I know a cop who became famous because he was having informant #12345 or whatever was making buys for him but that informant was in jail during the time these buys were supposedly made. Ooops
I know another guy who prompted a "Use of Tobacco Products" policy when he accidentally drooled tobacco juice on a motorist's arm when he was giving him a ticket
No. That policy was enacted prior to the Derenda appointment. Most policies are enacted to save the City face in the event of a miscue by an officer. But for every rule and regulation there is a way to get around it and for some members those rules and regs don't apply.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#118 Sep 30, 2013
Lacrosse Coachhh wrote:
<quoted text>
I have an idea...Legalize drugs so you don't have to endanger cops over BS
Pass out free drugs- ANY KIND OF DRUGS to anyone who wants them
Darwinism at its finest
Anyone one who wants them??? Even children? If ANYBODY would be excluded from free distribution then a black market would be opened to those excluded from legal distribution and then the current problems continue.

And if these drugs are legally sold and taxed the problem will also still continue.
Adam Arroyo

United States

#120 Oct 16, 2013
Thank you frilled2b for your support. I will get justice!!! Cindy i miss you baby!!!!

“Still an outsider”

Since: Jan 07

Dagus Mines, PA

#122 Oct 28, 2013
Adam Arroyo wrote:
Thank you frilled2b for your support. I will get justice!!! Cindy i miss you baby!!!!
Your welcome, and thank you for serving our country. R.I.P. Cindy

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Buffalo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Democrats 1 hr LOL 5
Genero or Demler 7 hr Buck Rohde 6
Happy Liefless New Year 8 hr GUMP 17
Did Nam Biker Vet Ever See Combat (Jan '10) 9 hr Loco Motion 1,203
I mite knot no grammer and speling but....... 11 hr tbird19482 4
Questioning Cherry Creek Demolition (Mar '08) 11 hr tbird19482 500
Why won't LIEF COACH die? 11 hr tbird19482 16
Buffalo Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Buffalo People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Buffalo News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Buffalo

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:07 am PST