United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Cops Murder Woman’s Three Dogs, Shooting One Through a Locked Door — To Look for Pot
Source:
Free Thought Project/Dailyu News
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/i- ... -cannabis/#T7WwMaO2T5HyyBFJ.99
Published: May 28, 2016
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2016-05-28 18:26:54 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 21181
Comments: 118
Detroit, MI — Three of Detroit’s finest, Officer Gaines, Officer Paul, and Officer Morrison, are named in a recent lawsuit after they entered a woman’s home, hunted down her dogs, and murdered them all. The officers were serving a search warrant in search of one of the most beneficial plants on the planet which is currently outlawed in the state of Michigan. After cops murdered all the dogs, they came to the owner of the home, Nikita Smith, and said, “I should have killed you too,” according to the lawsuit. According to Smith, when the cops came to the door to tell her they had a warrant to look for marijuana, she asked them if she could secure the dogs. Smith put two dogs in the basement and locked one in the bathroom. But the fact that the dogs were secured, did not matter to these cruel officers. “They went around and killed them. Like a death squad,” Smith’s lawyer Chris Olson told the Daily News on Thursday. As the Daily News reports: After officers entered the home, one of the dogs was able to get out of the basement, and harmlessly sat next to Smith. As Smith reached for the dog, officers shot the animal “multiple times,” the lawsuit charges. Smith watched from less than 10 feet away as the dog, named Debo, died on the floor. Three officers then went to the basement and fatally shot a dog named Mama, who was pregnant. Mama was quiet and not attacking the cops at the time, according to the lawsuit. When the sadistic cops found the last dog in the bathroom, according to the suit, they discussed if they should kill it or not. It was locked in a bathroom. “Should we do that one too?” one cop asked. “Yes,” replied the other as Officer Gaines and Officer Paul opened fire, shooting through the door multiple times killing the dog on the other side, named Smoke. “Did you see that? I got that one good!” Officer Gaines said as he laughed, according to the lawsuit. According to Smith, after the officers killed all of her dogs, one of them walked up to her and said, “I should have killed you too.” Then, another officer told her, “you could have been killed.” Pictures from the scene show Smith’s home riddled with bullet holes. They also show the tragically brutal aftermath of Smoke flailing around the bathroom as officers shot through the door. Blood quite literally painted the walls. “I couldn’t believe my eyes,” Olson said. Cops incorrectly believed that Smith’s home was a drug house and during the raid, they found only marijuana. “They had a warrant to search the house,” Olson said. “That we don’t really quarrel with. But when you search the house, you can’t go in the house and kill all the dogs.” Smith was arrested on charges of possession of marijuana — a misdemeanor. For possessing a plant, police officers felt it was just to break into Smith’s home, kill her dogs, kidnap her, and throw her in a cage — and this is called ‘Justice’ in the land of the free. The charges against Smith, however, were later thrown out as the cops who broke into her home and murdered her dogs never bothered to show up to court. Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells, save the lives of countless epileptic children, treat PTSD, heal bones, treat brain trauma, and a slew of other uses science is only beginning to understand. And yet, the only thing dangerous about this seemingly miraculous plant is that police will kidnap, cage, or kill you or your pets for possessing it. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 66.
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
Typical Matt Agorist sensationalist bullshit. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. It is legally impossible to murder a dog.
Who said he was using the legal definition? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder?s=t: "to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously." My dog was worth approximately 500 of these thug cops. Had a cop killed my dog to compensate for his numerous inadequacies, only regard for my family would have kept me from stalking and exterminating him.
I always thought murder was taken of an innocent life. Too many people these days are using their dog as a weapon and might not even know they are doing it. I can not tell you how many times I have been bitten by a dog that the owner swore it never bites. This really only started since the mid to late 90's. Before that dogs really were not the issue they are today.
Uh - these dogs were restrained, in the basement and bathroom. The cops shot through the door of the bathroom to finish off their killing spree.
I guess they put the dogs where they did not want the police to look?
They put the dogs there because they didn't want them to be killed. The dogs were not a threat - the cops were psychos.
And you have confirmed this ... how?
And you have confirmed this ... how? The cops shot one dog standing next to it's owner - no threat. Another one was shot through the locked bathroom door. And you think it was a threat? The third one, the pregnant one was in the basement - they went down there and killed that one too. Nowhere have the cops claimed that the dogs threatened them. All charges against the owner were dropped when the cops failed to show up in court. This is sociopathic behavior - and to make it worse, the cops gloated about killing the dogs and threatened the owner. These are the types of cops you worship.
And you think it was a threat? With Cujo behind the bathroom engaged in excessive low-range barking; snarling; growling, snapping and scratching at the bathroom door, I would damn well think … no, scratch that … I would damned well know that Cujo was exhibiting dominant behavior which crossed the line to aggression. Hey, sport, it doesn’t take an animal behavioral specialist with a doctorate degree to know that a dominant-aggressive dog is very dangerous and poses a threat. BAM! BAM! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Cujo dog ... dead dog!!!
HOW do you KNOW this to be a fact?
HOW do you KNOW this to be a fact? How do you KNOW the author, Matt Agorist, stated FACTS in the article? That would be the first question an intelligent person with general cognitive problem-solving skills would ask … est-ce pas droit ?
How do you know that he did not? And what is the source of your info: " " With Cujo behind the bathroom engaged in excessive low-range barking; snarling; growling, snapping and scratching at the bathroom door " " " That would be the first question an intelligent person with general cognitive problem-solving skills would ask … est-ce pas droit ? " Take your own advice.
" How do you KNOW the author, Matt Agorist, stated FACTS in the article? " How do you know that he did not? I don’t know if Matt Agorist presented “facts” or “judgments” in the article. I do however know that I go through a thought process each time I read an article to ask myself, “Can I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is true?” If the answer is yes, then it’s a fact, and I begin the process of acceptance. On the other hand, if there is even a tiny bit of doubt and wiggle room … then it’s a judgment. Unlike a fact, a judgment is open to interpretation and can be questioned, challenged and disputed … for me, that’s exactly what needs to be done. I do what I do … I challenge a judgment. Challenging a judgment isn’t an easy thing to do. But the first step is simply recognizing that a judgment is more subjective than objective. And that provides a certain degree of comfort in and of itself. It appears that it is a natural tendency for some people to accept a judgment as a fact without even realizing it. Or, when they read something they want to believe, they will accept it as a fact and not realize it is a judgment. Facts have very little power to hurt us, but it’s only when we insert a painful judgment that we can suffer and cause others to suffer. You missed my point with the Cujo parody, it was used to show that many things are possible and we really don’t know what went on behind a closed bathroom door. I do know that one of the dogs was an American Pit Bull Terrier and based on the article, it would be pretty safe to make a judgment that the other two dogs were the same breed. It did not go unnoticed by me that Mat Agorist mentioned “dog(s)” twelve times in the article and not once did use “Pit Bull(s).” Why not? Was it because these fearful two words would nullify the sympathy conditioning he was leading his readers towards? Probably so. I feel that is what an intelligent person with general cognitive problem- solving skills would do … I have done so and therefore I have taken my own advice. If you want to accept what Matt Agorist had to say as fact, believe it and condemn the cops, then that is your prerogative to do so … est-ce pas droit?
#67. To: Gatlin (#66)
Many insurers will often not provide homeowner’s insurance coverage Pit Bulls because of the massive volume of attacks and because they are so vicious. Quite frequently, these dogs repeatedly make headlines for attacking people. Their aggressive temperament matched with their strength historically saw them bred as fighting dogs. Pit bulls have been known to attack the elderly, their owners, attack and eat small children – anyone that happens to be in their path. If the dog feels provoked or startled, it has been known to attack. Many owners swear that their pet would never attack them; however, this breed has led to more human fatalities than any other. it also cannot be denied that this particular breed is responsible for more fatalities than any other type of dog. I can imagine the Pit Bull behind the bathroom door acting the way I depicted Cujo, but you can imagine the Pit Bull as a docile lap dog cowering in the corner afraid of the big bad cops if you choose to do so. " Well, Mr " I want the facts ". I reread the posted article, and went to the source link, and not once did I see " Pit Bull " spelled out. Yet you injected the word into your post. Why is that ? Simple, to inject fear so others will sympathize with the cops, and try to justify their actions. Because the cops were wrong, and everyone here knows it. Looks like you are making up shit there sarge. Not very truthful! Not a sign of " an intelligent person with general cognitive problem- solving skills ". More like a BSer, making up lies ! Go back to being a cop groupie. Maybe some will let you polish their badge, LOL
It doesn't matter - the point is, the door was closed. The cops shot THROUGH the door. They were in no danger - they killed the dogs and laughed about it afterwards. Why? Because they are mentally disturbed individuals who have no business being cops. No doubt these sick freaks have issues going back to childhood when they most likely tortured animals for fun.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Three of Detroit’s finest, Officer Gaines, Officer Paul, and Officer Morrison, are named in a recent lawsuit after they entered a woman’s home, hunted down her dogs, and murdered them all.
Murder. The unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought, either express or implied.
#4. To: nolu chan (#3)
It is legally impossible to murder a dog.
#5. To: ConservingFreedom, nolu chan (#4)
Who said he was using the legal definition? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder?s=t: "to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."
#7. To: Justified (#5)
Too many people these days are using their dog as a weapon and might not even know they are doing it.
#9. To: Deckard (#7)
Uh - these dogs were restrained, in the basement and bathroom.
#10. To: Justified (#9)
(Edited)
I guess they put the dogs where they did not want the police to look?
#13. To: Deckard, Justified (#10)
The dogs were not a threat ...
#15. To: Gatlin (#13)
The dogs were not a threat ...
#21. To: Deckard (#15)
Another one was shot through the locked bathroom door.
#34. To: Gatlin (#21)
" With Cujo behind the bathroom engaged in excessive low-range barking; snarling; growling, snapping and scratching at the bathroom door, I would damn well think … no, scratch that … I would damned well know that Cujo was exhibiting dominant behavior which crossed the line to aggression. "
#37. To: Stoner (#34)
(Edited)
" With Cujo behind the bathroom engaged in excessive low-range barking; snarling; growling, snapping and scratching at the bathroom door, I would damn well think … no, scratch that … I would damned well know that Cujo was exhibiting dominant behavior which crossed the line to aggression. "
#64. To: Gatlin (#37)
" How do you KNOW the author, Matt Agorist, stated FACTS in the article? "
#66. To: Stoner (#64)
Many insurers will often not provide homeowner’s insurance coverage Pit Bulls because of the massive volume of attacks and because they are so vicious. Quite frequently, these dogs repeatedly make headlines for attacking people. Their aggressive temperament matched with their strength historically saw them bred as fighting dogs. Pit bulls have been known to attack the elderly, their owners, attack and eat small children – anyone that happens to be in their path. If the dog feels provoked or startled, it has been known to attack. Many owners swear that their pet would never attack them; however, this breed has led to more human fatalities than any other. it also cannot be denied that this particular breed is responsible for more fatalities than any other type of dog. I can imagine the Pit Bull behind the bathroom door acting the way I depicted Cujo, but you can imagine the Pit Bull as a docile lap dog cowering in the corner afraid of the big bad cops if you choose to do so.
Since there is no way for me to determine if what Matt Agorist published is fact, judgment or opinion … I can therefore neither condemn nor condone the actions by the cops.
Replies to Comment # 66. " not once did use “Pit Bull(s).” Why not? Was it because these fearful two words would nullify the sympathy conditioning he was leading his readers towards? Probably so.
#72. To: Gatlin, Stoner (#66)
You missed my point with the Cujo parody, it was used to show that many things are possible and we really don’t know what went on behind a closed bathroom door.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 66.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]