-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Oakland Cop Kills Baby Deer
- Thread starter Stinkles
- Start date
- Status
BertramCooper
Banned
I specifically said (twice) that the manner in which they did it was unacceptable. In principle, however, euthanizing the animal was probably the best solution.idahoblue said:
And as it states in that article, the current deer population now is greater than it was when North America was first settled by Europeans. And you still don't think that's indicative of a serious problem?
ElectricBlue187
Member
NomarTyme said:
:lol
idahoblue said:
This post his hilarious.
Let me guess - you don't live anywhere near the natural habitat for a deer, do you? When I lived in the midwest I hit two deer in one night with my car. EEEEVERYONE I know has wrecked a car due to dumbass deer bounding across the road at random.
Hell, the city of Cedar Rapids Iowa where I grew up (population 100,000) hired professional snipers to come in and thin the size of the deer herd.
Deer hunters can also get two licenses these days instead of one, meaning that hunters will effectively kill DOUBLE the number of deer each fall. And yet the deer population is still climbing... climbing.
I love posts like this.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Not having been there or having all the facts, it's kinda hard for me to say if this a bad call or not (I'm leaning toward it was,) but really this is the probably near the bottom of the list in terms of problems in Oakland, folks.
Just quickly before I go to bed(it was a good suggestion actually, it's late!) I just want to explain why I argue these kinds of things. Personally I just get a little frustrated when people have an initial emotional reaction, make little attempt to temper this with research or reflection and then just dismiss other opinions or throw out put-downs against those involved. It might seem like I'm just being contrary for some trivial point but I'm really not, I think it's legitimately important and influences matters far, far more important than baby deer. So don't think I'm just making a stand against a cute animal to be a dick, because at least for me there's more to it than that. And also don't take it personally, I find myself backspacing through or completely deleting things before I post sometimes.
Back on topic though I don't think anyone has said the method was ideal, but just that the specific result of a dead baby deer isn't automatically cause for punishment or finger pointing.
Back on topic though I don't think anyone has said the method was ideal, but just that the specific result of a dead baby deer isn't automatically cause for punishment or finger pointing.
Deer populations being higher than a very rough estimate may or may not indicate a problem in the locale of THIS deer. This deer is the only one I am talking about. You have flown off and decided that since deer are a problem in some areas, they should be fair game to be shot on sight by any cop that comes across one in a city. If you agree the manner was unacceptable, what the hell are you arguing about. That is really all I have said, except in reply to your statements that this was fine. I was not talking about culling herds, I was talking about lost and injured animals in urban locations not needing to be shot.BertramCooper said:
Wow. So much aggression. I suggest you go kill some deer, or something. Did you actually read my post? No? What do you take issue with? The part where I said someone with appropriate knowledge needed to make the call to destroy the animal or not, or where I ragged on a cop for not being able to shoot straight?GDJustin said:
idahoblue said:
I may be wrong, but I'm going to assume that you don't live near or have spent any significant amount of time near heavily forested areas. If you did, you would know how dangerous deer are to people and property in populated areas. You would also know that most states have huge deer over population problems that are barely held in check even with the incredibly liberal hunting quotas allowed by state hunting commissions.
Yep. Those baby deer sure are dangerous. Jesus christ, did you read the rest of my posts? I am not talking about stags jumping into schoolyards, i am talking about fawns in urban areas.g0est said:
Edit: And yes, I grew up and have lived in or near forested areas, in Oregon, and in Australia, where roos will fuck your car as bad as any deer.
Does anyone have any data to back up these 'dangerous deers' claims. I know they kill a bunch of cars, but how many people are injured or killed?
BertramCooper
Banned
I would much rather a deer in an urban or suburban area be put down than for it to potentially kill itself and a driver in an auto collision.idahoblue said:
That said, I reiterate yet again that the manner in which this particular fawn was euthanized was not acceptable. However, several people such as yourself seem to take issue with the very idea of the animal being put down, which is what I strongly disagree with.
You must have been reading someone elses posts then, since I have said repeatedly I would have been fine with an animal control officer deciding the animal needed to be destroyed, and doing it humanely.BertramCooper said:
The terrible decision making process and irresponsible manner of killing are what as me concerned.
g0est said:
not to mention they are a danger to other animals like moose and elk due to the fact they carry a lot of diseases that can be spread to them. And while deer have a huge population so the diseases don't impact them, they can devastate moose populations which are much much smaller and more vulnerable. Of course none of this would be an issue if we hadn't been dumbshits and wiped out all their natural predators. Bring back the wolves!
idahoblue said:
They aren't. Deer kill very few people a year in car accidents. But they do cause a very large amount of accidents that result in a large amount of money lost.
But the biggest issue is the overgrazing. It's one thing to have a deer ruin your garden, annoying yes, but fixable. However they can fuck up an entire ecosystem by eating all the saplings before they can grow into trees, so as the older trees die, no new ones survive to take their place. They also overgraze the banks of streams and rivers, causing erosion that changes width and depth of those streams, making them uninhabitable for certain species that live in them. Which of course affects other species that rely on that stream for a food source.
BertramCooper said:
This has absolutely nothing to do with the article or anything - but you are absolutely correct. The deer population in North America is completely out of hand, and it is pretty much entirely due to the fact that we got rid of the primary apex predator (wolves) in pretty much large swatches of land that they used to territorially hunt and control the deer. It's kind of funny that by getting rid of one 'pest', we have ultimately created another which in the grand scheme of things causes far more potential damage (fiscally speaking) than the other did.
It's interesting to see the reintroduction methods going on, but once again we're getting into a cycle where people are burdening the fledgling wolf population with this scarlet letter that is turning a lot of popular opinion against the animal.
Guess that was just my random off topic rant.
SouthernDragon
Member
So?
idahoblue said:
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/deer-accident-statistics.html
As a side note here - I think it may be a bit misleading to call the animal a 'baby' deer. All we know from the article is that it was a young deer. There is a huge difference from a baby deer and a young deer - and if this animal was even just a year old, its size and weight could potentially pose a serious problem for anyone trying to handle the animal. I understand that the article states that the deer was 'in the corner shaking', but a cornered animal is always the most dangerous.
If the animal took 6-7 shots - I highly doubt it's what you call a 'baby' deer.
Now I'm not saying that the officers should've shot the animal. I'm just saying that it's completely off base to downplay the potential danger that the animal could cause. That's all.
idahoblue said:
The combination of your smugness and wrongness prompted my reply. You come off as a person that likes to shoot his mouth off on topics he isn't informed about.
Edit: For the record I don't think I support the Oakland police's actions. But as someone that did kill deer growing up, I can't really muster too much outrage. On a scale of right / wrong it's almost certainly on the 'wrong' side, but... replace 'baby deer' with 'baby animal people find less cute' and this wouldn't be much of a news story for the general population.
So... what was I wrong about? The number of deer? Okay, I'll wear that. What else?GDJustin said:
Edit:
RyanDG said:
I don't actually see any statistics there... a list of the highest accidents rates by state.
Worst states for deer collisions based on total number of claims filed with one of the countries largest auto insurers:
1) Pennsylvania
2) Michigan
3) Illinois
4) Ohio
5) Georgia
6) Minnesota
7) Virginia
8) Indiana
9) Texas
10) Wisconsin
On which California does not feature, but no statistics.
Edit2: Oh, on another page they have it. 150 people die a year and 10,000 injured. That is a lot of injured.
Edit3
:
You don't think police deciding to shoot an animal while waiting for people with appropriate training, and then fucking it up to the point that they had to fire at least 6 shots is a problem?GDJustin said:
bgassassin
Member
If I see something like this happen I will definitely not fawn over their actions.
idahoblue said:
When people were talking about deer population being a major problem your response was this:
"Oh really? Got numbers to back up that wild assertion? Out of control? Really?"
As someone that hit 3 deer in the 4 years he lived in the midwest, seen dozens of news reports about deer overgrazing and starvation, known people put into the hospital from deer car wrecks, read about SNIPERS being hired to thin deer populations... yeah. That angered me. It's the combination of not knowing what you're talking about and being a smartass about it. Either one on their own is fine. But combine them, and it is frustrating to read.
That's the entirety of my point, actually. There's way way too many of them. My dad calls them giant rats with hooves.
You basically want people to take a bunch of time to dig up data to disprove someone they already know is wrong
o.0
I said, right in the bit you quoted, that I think the police's actions were wrong.
Don't put too much stock in the # of shots though. Unless they shot it in the head 6 is not too surprising.
Yeah, I do want people making claims to back them up. Fancy that. And increased human/animal interactions is not proof of out of control populations. Others in the thread have added info that may support deer populations being larger than is optimal, for several reasons.GDJustin said:
I was talking about you deciding people were only outraged because it was a baby deer, and if it was something else, people wouldn't bother. And no, it should NEVER take 6 shots to kill a deer. If it does, you are using the wrong weapon, or you have no idea what you are doing. But hey, you just go along assigning me whatever motivation you think works best for your world view. Don't actually read what I wrote.
moniker
Member
Louis CK's take on deer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL9xCWphV8s
Eh, this is something that we deal with all the time in PA. Especially around spotting/hunting seasons, you have no idea the number of calls that come in for assistance with aggressive deer in yards or injured dear on the side or middle of the road. These things are terrible here, so many of them everywhere. I remember a few years back a man in my area died when a deer jumped out in front of him on his motorcycle. To be honest, around here, it would've been handled much similar. Local/State doesn't have the man power to deal with this stuff and just tell the police to "do what's best" since they can't get down there "soon enough". Usually PennDOT will be there the following day (lol week), and clean it up. That's if someone driving by didn't pick up the carcass to eat (lol PA citizens again).
I'm outraged a police officer is this terrible a shot. 6 shots to down a deer from a presumably close distance? Time to hit the range, champ.
Also, they should have cleared the area before electing to discharge the weapon. Sounds like people were all over the damn place.
Other than that, I've got no real problem with this.
Also, they should have cleared the area before electing to discharge the weapon. Sounds like people were all over the damn place.
Other than that, I've got no real problem with this.
universalmind
Member
Fucking ridiculous.
I don't know. I've never shot a dear with my rifle but from what I understand my 30-30 isn't even a guaranteed kill, of course that's an adult deer we're talking about not a fawn, I wonder if a 9mm would be an effective weapon to even try and kill a dear with, even if we're talking precise shots. I mean, I figure it should kill a fawn just fine if you shot it in the head but I really don't know, maybe their skulls are harder than ours or some shit. I doubt the poor officer even knew where the little guys heart was.eznark said:
That said, once the decision was made and the deer was hit but not dead I absolutely hope they'd finish it off and not just let the damn thing suffer.
I'm just assuming on the caliber, maybe the Officer ordered to kill the dear was ordered to do so because he carried a different weapon, hell for all I know he might have went to the squad car and grabbed a M-4, I think after that bank robbery in California some precincts carry "heavier" weaponry, if we wanna call .223 heavier than 9mm. But my cops have nothing but 9mm and 12 gauge shotguns in my area of Texas.eznark said:
But if he missed a few shots it does seem like he panicked after the initial shot failed to kill him and just wanted it to hurry and die. I actually feel bad for both him and the deer to be honest, I wouldn't want to be told to kill a baby deer.
I understand the officers anxiety. A cornered animal (no matter how small) can be an intimidating thing. But, it kind of disturbs me how easy/quick he was to discharge his weapon in public. Kind of reckless, in that regard.
Anyways, this thread was funny. You can tell the people that have had no contact/experience with deer in their lives. Deer are pests. They are no different than racoons or muskrats and should be treated as such.
--- /// ---
Look's like the deer are fighting back:
http://www.chippewa.com/news/local/article_957b55b4-5702-11df-a0e8-001cc4c002e0.html
Video Link
Anyways, this thread was funny. You can tell the people that have had no contact/experience with deer in their lives. Deer are pests. They are no different than racoons or muskrats and should be treated as such.
--- /// ---
Look's like the deer are fighting back:
http://www.chippewa.com/news/local/article_957b55b4-5702-11df-a0e8-001cc4c002e0.html
Video Link
Who cares? Deer are a fucking pest. Anyone that thinks otherwise should try driving the Taconic State Parkway in bad weather, and have these suicidal deer lurch out into the roadway when you're driving fast. Lucky for me, the deer I hit was already dead, but I know it dinged up the underside of my car. I came within inches of hitting a few on deliveries too. Fuck deer. The only thing I'd say is eat that motherfucker. Deer tastes good. PEACE.
Doesn't seem like a big deal to me, that happens a lot of time where deer get killed by police, but it's usually when they've been hit by a car but aren't dead yet. I imagine the thinking is that there are too many of them already, and it's not exactly easy to catch a deer (although I did see a video on CNN.com yesterday of a guy catching one inside a restaurant).
Also, it's Oakland
BattleMonkey
Member
Cops rescue deer and let it go back into a forest, where it is promptly shot by a hunter.
SuperAngelo64
Banned
Oh look, another anti-cop thread.
BertramCooper
Banned
Opinions based solely on emotion and not logic? Yes.EYEL1NER said:
I would have no problem with deer if the population were in check.
quickwhips
Member
The problem is the animal control worker didn't know what to do. If he had taken charge of the situation the cop might have stood down and let him do his thing. But if you have some dumbass who says I don't know what to do. What do you think the cop is going to do. I can't believe there is an article about a deer. People need to stop crying so much over a dead deer. If that deer had hit a car and killed someone I wonder if people would think differently? Now I don't hunt and I wouldn't go out of my way to kill or hurt any animal. But I think at the time the officer thought he was doing what he should. Everyone makes a bone head plays everyonce in a while.
The Lamonster
Member
Slow crime day?
I say shoot both cops several times.
I say shoot both cops several times.
BertramCooper
Banned
He has a Sonic avatar. Not too surprising. :loleznark said:
Not as concerned about the loss of a deer, than with the casual disregard the Sgt. showed in ordering his subordinate to fire away. That's not fucking buckshot the officer is using. Is there a reason he couldn't wait until the game warden showed up? Deer would be alive, rounds not spent, and a minor PR mess avoided, not to mention more SAFELY handled.
And WTF at the animal control not trained to handle a deer. This isn't some red-breasted Tasmanian Devil. A deer is a goddamn commonplace animal in the suburbs and they aren't trained to deal with them?
And WTF at the animal control not trained to handle a deer. This isn't some red-breasted Tasmanian Devil. A deer is a goddamn commonplace animal in the suburbs and they aren't trained to deal with them?
Ahh, well then I have fewer reservations about the whole thing.Lesath said:
I did look up the recommended service arm for Oakland PD, and while they allow .9 mm they suggest 40 s&w. Should not have taken 6 or 7 shots to down a fawn from close range with the recommended firearm.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll