Rafael The Pussy Scumbag

He evidently liked to abuse his girlfriend's dogs but now that the police are looking for him he is on the run too scared to face whatever he has coming to him. The girlfriend knew something was wrong with her dogs and set up hidden video cameras to record what was going on when she was out. This is what those cameras captured - Rafael being a piece of crap to two small French Bulldogs:
 

This reportedly happened down in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil recently. More info here in a brief news report:

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/28073290/womans-hidden-camera-captures-her-boyfriend-abusing-her-dogs.

Too bad someone can't smother his nutsack with Alpo and let those dogs at it when they are really, really hungry.

All the best,
Glenn B

Almost A Good Shoot?

Here is a case of the police being involved in what probably can be described, by some, as 'almost a good shoot' and that some will even try to attempt to classify as a good one. Two police officers reportedly saw a 15 year old boy holding what appeared to be a hand gun while he reportedly was pointing it at another boy. They ordered him, more than once, to drop it but he did not. One of the officers fired striking the boy in the back. The thing is, the officer shot the other boy standing next to the one holding the replica gun and not the one who was actually holding what appeared to be a weapon (source). It seems the officer almost got it right and almost hit his target.

'Almost' does not count except in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons. 'Almost' certainly does not count in making a determination of whether or not a police shooting was a good one as far as who you hit went. It could have been a big enough mess had the officer struck the kid holding the suspected handgun (a justified mess at that but still a mess) but 'almost' shooting a suspected bad guy and instead hitting someone else instead should be considered a terrible shoot under the reported circumstances.

I wonder - did the officer who fired consider, for even a single moment, that he (the officer) would be endangering the lives of innocents by shooting? Did he ask himself, is this a shoot or no shoot situation? Did he think that maybe if he missed the guy holding the gun would open fire on the person at whom he had been pointing it? Did he ask himself if this was a hostage situation better handled by a negotiation team? Did he take appropriate cover, allowing himself that moment to consider all those factors even if in only a split second? Did he wonder, were there risk mitigating factors that allowed him to, even demanded that, he take the shot? And again, did he at all think of the possibility of not firing because others were in the line of fire?

I don't know the answers to any of those questions but someone needs to find out because we don't need police officers who are willing to unnecessarily risk the lives of innocents because of their possible recklessness. Now don't get me wrong, I am not condemning the officer who fired. He could fully could have been justified to have done so. It wasn't just two teens there but a larger group. For all we know, the guy who was shot could have been standing next to the one with the replica gun and doing something that made it appear as if he were the gun holder's accomplice and making it seem as if the others were victims. That alone may  not have justified him getting shot but there may have been additional contributing factors as well that would have.

In this case though, it seems the police are implying that the shoot was a mistake. Yet, they obviously, in an official statement, have blamed it on the kid holding the "replica" gun. An official police statement was: "It’s certainly an unfortunate situation..." "But because of people bringing replica weapons out like that, it certainly could have been a terrible tragedy." There was no reported hint that the police said it could have been a terrible tragedy because of a mistake made by the officer or because of poor shooting skills on the part of the officer. maybe they said it and it was not reported by I tend to doubt it.

Regardless, the fact is, had that child been shot, the one holding the gun, then yes I would agree - it was his fault. Truth is though, that child was not shot, it was a bystander who was shot and unless there were legal justifications to shoot him - or unless there were legal, ethical and appropriate risk mitigating factors* that justified taking a shot at the boy holding the weapon that overrode the risk factor to others - that shot should never have been fired. The justification for that shot being taken could have been there (and note even though that may justify taking a shot under risky circumstances it does not justify hitting the wrong person but it may fully negate any criminal liability and may also mitigate the civil liability somewhat). Anyhow, as I said:  'almost' only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear weapons.

*By Appropriate Risk Mitigating Factors - I mean circumstances  that would override the potential risk of shooting a bystander while trying to stop the bad guy. In other words, they would allow the officer to take a risky shot regardless of the risk it posed to others. Such a case could arise if the threat posed such a large risk to the public, that if the officer did not attempt to immediately stop that threat,  many others would be hurt by the threat if the officer did not shoot him immediately and the threat to the public from the shooter was much greater than the threat of the officer firing at him. An example would be a shooter who was firing into a large crowd and obviously hitting people injuring them with his shots. An officer arrives, commands him to drop his weapon and he just keeps shooting into the crowd and wounding people. The officer has a chance to shoot him but there are innocent bystanders in the path of the officer's shots beyond the shooter. If the officer misses, he realizes, he will almost surely hit one of the bystanders but if he does not shoot, he realizes, that shooter will most likely hit and wound or kill several other people. The officer would be justified, in my opinion based upon my training and experience, in taking the shot or shots necessary to terminate the threat because the threat posed to innocents by the bad guy continuing to shoot is much greater than the threat posed to innocents by the officer trying to shoot the bad guy. It would be one hell of a tough call to make but likely one that would have to be made in a split second with almost no time for delay.

All the best,
Glenn B