Humane Dispatch

Message

#1 Post by **DL.** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:12 am

I'm in disbelief that these firearms officers were disciplined for gross misconduct over the dispatch of a deer at the roadside.

Seems to me that the police service has lost the skill of two officers who offered a practical approach.

Putting an animal out of it's misery at the road side in Scotland is legal, using a blunt object (read hammer) provided it can't be proved that the animal was caused any additional distress. Since when did the hand wringing apologists run this country?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-30947899

soggy0ne · #2 Post by **soggy0ne** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:25 am

Could not agree more with DL, ludicrous decision, as to when the hand wringing started I would guess after The Second World war. Could well be argued that they are not qualified in humane dispatch only human dispatch!

nickb834 · #3 Post by **nickb834** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:46 am

It's a stupid outcome for sure - however - if the standard practice was to dispatch said animal with firearms (according to the article) and said coppers were equipped with such - then why did they go for a crowbar?

I have sympathy for them - but a moments lack of judgement has resulted in a stupid decision.

#4 Post by **ordnance** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:03 pm

Why send firearms officers if they were not going to use their firearms if necessary. Any officer could have hit it over the head with a bar. Stupid illogical decision by the officers and now they are paying for it.

Putting an animal out of it's misery at the road side in Scotland is legal, using a blunt object (read hammer) provided it can't be proved that the animal was caused any additional distress

Did the incident happen in Scotland. I can understand that method if there was no other option to dispatch the animal, but there was another option in this case.

#5 Post by **Les** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:11 pm

I think the correct decision has been made. I believe it was totally unnecessary to dispatch the animal with a crowbar instead of shooting it. I think it was done for their own amusement rather than the best interests of the animal.

Andy632 · #6 Post by **Andy632** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:31 pm

ordnance wrote:Why send firearms officers if they were not going to use their firearms if necessary. Any officer could have hit it over the head with a bar. Stupid illogical decision by the officers and now they are paying for it.

Putting an animal out of it's misery at the road side in Scotland is legal, using a blunt object (read hammer) provided it can't be proved that the animal was caused any additional distress
Did the incident happen in Scotland. I can understand that method if there was no other option to dispatch the animal, but there was another option in this case.

What part of Durham didn't you get??????????

#7 Post by **ordnance** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:54 pm

What part of Durham didn't you get??????????

My point if it did not happen in Scotland , what has what's legal in Scotland got to do with it. I could have put it in a smart ass way like you, but was being subtle. :)

Mike A · #8 Post by **Mike A** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:56 pm

I imagine there's a lot of paperwork whenever they discharge a firearm.

#9 Post by **meles meles** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 6:37 pm

Bandaging too...

#10 Post by **ordnance** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:01 pm

I imagine there's a lot of paperwork whenever they discharge a firearm.

I suspect they had a lot more paper work and hassle after what happened.

The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Humane Dispatch

Humane Dispatch

Re: Humane Dispatch

Re: Humane Dispatch

Re: Humane Dispatch

Re: Humane Dispatch

Re: Humane Dispatch

Re: Humane Dispatch

Re: Humane Dispatch

Re: Humane Dispatch

Re: Humane Dispatch

Who is online