If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Police dog eats a hamster during a drug raid. Richard Gere inconsolable   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 70
    More: Strange, Musa Kham, search warrants, Greater Manchester Police, police dogs, Manchester Evening News, Wayne LaPierre, Oldham, Richard Gere  
•       •       •

7402 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 May 2013 at 4:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-04 10:46:39 PM  
ohkate.com
 
2013-05-05 12:59:23 AM  
If police conduct a raid and do not find the main objective of their raid, they should be liable for damages in the form of pure eye for an eye.

They killed this guy's hamster, so he should get a new hamster from the paycheck of the guy who was supposed to be holding the dog.
 
2013-05-05 01:13:47 AM  
i140.photobucket.com i140.photobucket.com i140.photobucket.com i140.photobucket.com i140.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-05 04:23:40 AM  
How do you get a dog to "cough up" a hamster?  And has that worked for the handler before?  'See the hamsters just a little wet, he's fine.....'
 
2013-05-05 04:38:38 AM  

doglover: If police conduct a raid and do not find the main objective of their raid, they should be liable for damages in the form of pure eye for an eye.

They killed this guy's hamster, so he should get a new hamster from the paycheck of the guy who was supposed to be holding the dog.


Id be OK with this.
 
2013-05-05 04:42:44 AM  
Was ironic tag also eaten?
 
2013-05-05 04:43:53 AM  
TV in a room where an old cat has been
 
2013-05-05 04:44:18 AM  
The hamster escaped when their police dog knocked its cage over, setting in free, according to Manchester Evening News.
The dog ate the hamster and despite being forced to cough it up, the animal had died.


Stop the police brutality.

Is there a good reason for a K9 unit on an animal cruelty investigation? Minor at that.

/UK, so rules are a little different.
 
2013-05-05 04:51:48 AM  
He was fined £110 and ordered to pay £400 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

I'm confused.  They charged him £15 because he's a victim of their dog eating his pet?  Because the alternative is that they're collecting money on behalf of a bird and that can't possibly be right.
 
2013-05-05 04:54:41 AM  
Hey Limeys...how's that self imposed Nanny State thing working out for you?

Nobody carrying a knife with a locking blade that night?

Oh to be a dustbin in Shaftsbury tonight....
 
2013-05-05 04:58:58 AM  
This is why Farkers hate cops.
 
2013-05-05 04:59:16 AM  
i ate a hamster and it didn't die that hamster was a pussy
 
2013-05-05 05:03:26 AM  

jtown: He was fined £110 and ordered to pay £400 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

I'm confused.  They charged him £15 because he's a victim of their dog eating his pet?  Because the alternative is that they're collecting money on behalf of a bird and that can't possibly be right.

 
IDK how it works in the UK.  But in the US it's common to have a victims assistance fund.  Everyone convicted of certain crimes pays into it, and  the money is used to assist all victims.
 
2013-05-05 05:12:54 AM  

libranoelrose: This is why Farkers hate cops.


I don't hate cops. Cops do what they can get away with.

I hate lawmakers who make stupid laws that treat that cops as anything more than high school bullies who decided to start picking on bad guys instead of just weak guys.

What you have to do is kill the legislation that grants them immunity from inflicting massive harm on the citizenry by making them personally responsible for mistakes. Not the taxpayers of the state or the township they're in, but the individual police officers themselves.

Like those two women the LAPD lit up. Their 4 million dollar payout should come first from the pensions and salaries of the cops who shot them, then from the pensions and salaries of everyone else in the LAPD.

This group here? Take the guy who let the dog eat the hamster, make him pay a lot of money, and then slap him down with some charges like "Felony Instigation of Rodentia Mastication by a Canine on a Leap Year" or something like that and basically send the message that it's more important to act like a professional than make the arrest, because really it is. The really guilty people don't need to have their hamsters et to be incriminated during a search of their home. Just check the vacuum bag and in the ceiling vents and the upper tank of the toilet.
 
2013-05-05 05:21:49 AM  

doglover: They killed this guy's hamster, so he should get a new hamster from the paycheck of the guy who was supposed to be holding the dog.


Hamsters cost like $5.

At any rate, what a poorly trained dog.
 
2013-05-05 05:23:25 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: jtown: He was fined £110 and ordered to pay £400 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

I'm confused.  They charged him £15 because he's a victim of their dog eating his pet?  Because the alternative is that they're collecting money on behalf of a bird and that can't possibly be right.

IDK how it works in the UK.  But in the US it's common to have a victims assistance fund.  Everyone convicted of certain crimes pays into it, and  the money is used to assist all victims.


I understand the concept as it applies to humans.  However, I find it incredulous that such a policy would apply to a bird.  The bird can't use the money to buy a new cuttlebone and mirror.  Same way you can't sue for pain and suffering on behalf of your pet if someone kicks it.  You can get your vet bill paid but you're not going to collect fifty grand in P&S.

The guy had to pay for the vet costs and had to pay a fine.  There is no victim to whom a "victim surcharge" can be applied.
 
2013-05-05 05:32:12 AM  
Death penalty for the dog.
 
2013-05-05 05:36:42 AM  
Let me get this straight: the police have a specific cause (they think) to raid this guy's house. The dog they bring kills his pet hamster.

Yet, no charges were filed on the guy as a result of the raid. In other words, the raid was baseless.

Yet, they found cause (after invading his home) to fault him with maltreatment of a bird, for which the bird has been removed for some number of years.

I am all for proper treatment of animals, but I am glad that the US is not quite to that nanny state (yet).
 
2013-05-05 05:38:06 AM  

powhound: Let me get this straight: the police have a specific cause (they think) to raid this guy's house. The dog they bring kills his pet hamster.

Yet, no charges were filed on the guy as a result of the raid. In other words, the raid was baseless.

Yet, they found cause (after invading his home) to fault him with maltreatment of a bird, for which the bird has been removed for some number of years.

I am all for proper treatment of animals, but I am glad that the US is not quite to that nanny state (yet).


You're also basing your outrage on a daily mail article. I'm sure they left out....well...every bit of the facts
 
2013-05-05 05:39:07 AM  
I don't get this thing about people being up in arms over animal cruelty, when the majority of people eat animals that were treated cruelly. So the bird didn't have some of its feathers? What about foie gras? What about birds that have their beaks removed?

This guy probably just needed someone to come out to his house once a week to make sure he hadn't lost too many of his marbles and help with him some things like cleaning out the bird cage. Instead he got his hamster eaten by a police dog and his bird taken away from him! I don't know anything about him, but I have a feeling that bird and hamster were probably pretty important to him.
 
2013-05-05 05:39:50 AM  
I forgot to add that in the years he had both, he had managed to keep both the hamster and bird alive, something the police within minutes failed at (well 1 out of 2).
 
2013-05-05 05:43:16 AM  

hardinparamedic: powhound: Let me get this straight: the police have a specific cause (they think) to raid this guy's house. The dog they bring kills his pet hamster.

Yet, no charges were filed on the guy as a result of the raid. In other words, the raid was baseless.

Yet, they found cause (after invading his home) to fault him with maltreatment of a bird, for which the bird has been removed for some number of years.

I am all for proper treatment of animals, but I am glad that the US is not quite to that nanny state (yet).

You're also basing your outrage on a daily mail article. I'm sure they left out....well...every bit of the facts


It's on the Internet, so it's true.
It's on Fark, so it's doubly true.
 
2013-05-05 05:44:08 AM  

hardinparamedic: powhound: Let me get this straight: the police have a specific cause (they think) to raid this guy's house. The dog they bring kills his pet hamster.

Yet, no charges were filed on the guy as a result of the raid. In other words, the raid was baseless.

Yet, they found cause (after invading his home) to fault him with maltreatment of a bird, for which the bird has been removed for some number of years.

I am all for proper treatment of animals, but I am glad that the US is not quite to that nanny state (yet).

You're also basing your outrage on a daily mail article. I'm sure they left out....well...every bit of the facts


I was thinking that something about this story didn't seem right. That does clear it up, though.
 
2013-05-05 05:50:50 AM  
Like someone posted upthread: poorly trained dog.
 
2013-05-05 05:51:51 AM  

hardinparamedic: powhound: Let me get this straight: the police have a specific cause (they think) to raid this guy's house. The dog they bring kills his pet hamster.

Yet, no charges were filed on the guy as a result of the raid. In other words, the raid was baseless.

Yet, they found cause (after invading his home) to fault him with maltreatment of a bird, for which the bird has been removed for some number of years.

I am all for proper treatment of animals, but I am glad that the US is not quite to that nanny state (yet).

You're also basing your outrage on a daily mail article. I'm sure they left out....well...every bit of the facts


Well, there's this. Who knows what the actual facts were. You also need to understand that, while there may have been PC to search the house, that does NOT mean that there was going to be something found as a result of that search. Probable cause means "We believe that based on these articulable facts, there may be evidence of the following crimes inside this house," and the facts could be the affidavit of a reliable witness, observations from the outside, etc. That's how they get their warrant. But since a warrant is a request to search, they don't know for sure till they actually DO the search that there's going to be anything inside.

If a witness swears "I was there yesterday and I saw Joe had 14 pounds of pot in his house," and the cops get their warrant based on the witness affidavit (PC) and search, but since yesterday Joe has moved the pot, they'll search and not find anything (because it's gone) and they wont' be able to make any arrest. That doesn't mean the search was baseless, it was quite baseful in fact, but Joe got lucky. Same thing here. Whatever they were looking for was gone, so they couldn't make any charges. That doesn't mean that they had no reason to be there.

For the rest, if I could get the US equivalent of $800 for a hamster, plus $200 additional compensation--I'd let a police dog eat my hamster. There is no rodent worth a thousand dollars, no matter how traumatic seeing my pet eaten by a German shepherd might seem. I'd be more traumatized by watching them force a dog to puke up a dead rat, really.
 
2013-05-05 05:54:26 AM  

swahnhennessy: At any rate, what a poorly trained dog.


Let he who's never had a craving for that delicious hamstery goodness cast the first stone.
 
2013-05-05 06:00:24 AM  

Bslim: Like someone posted upthread: poorly trained dog.


www.veterangamers.co.uk
 
2013-05-05 06:04:54 AM  

jtown: BarkingUnicorn: jtown: He was fined £110 and ordered to pay £400 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

I'm confused.  They charged him £15 because he's a victim of their dog eating his pet?  Because the alternative is that they're collecting money on behalf of a bird and that can't possibly be right.

IDK how it works in the UK.  But in the US it's common to have a victims assistance fund.  Everyone convicted of certain crimes pays into it, and  the money is used to assist all victims.

I understand the concept as it applies to humans.  However, I find it incredulous that such a policy would apply to a bird.  The bird can't use the money to buy a new cuttlebone and mirror.  Same way you can't sue for pain and suffering on behalf of your pet if someone kicks it.  You can get your vet bill paid but you're not going to collect fifty grand in P&S.

The guy had to pay for the vet costs and had to pay a fine.  There is no victim to whom a "victim surcharge" can be applied.


The victim surcharge has nothing to do with any particular victim or type of victim, it's just a way to raise money for victims in general.  Animal abusers are unsympathetic offenders so no one cares if they're hit with a surcharge.   We also have "pole taxes" on strip clubs that go to domestic violence programs, not because there's any proven link  between the two but because who gives a shiat about strip clubs or their patrons?
 
2013-05-05 06:28:54 AM  

Gyrfalcon: I'd be more traumatized by watching them force a dog to puke up a dead rat, really.


imageshack.us
 
2013-05-05 06:35:04 AM  
As long as that dog is facing the same consequences any other officer would in the event of the death of someone's pet during a raid, I don't have a problem with this.
 
2013-05-05 06:42:06 AM  

doglover: What you have to do is kill the legislation that grants them immunity from inflicting massive harm on the citizenry by making them personally responsible for mistakes. Not the taxpayers of the state or the township they're in, but the individual police officers themselves.


Any cop who breaks the law should have their sentence for any crime doubled for violating the public trust.
 
2013-05-05 06:44:04 AM  
I saw a woman dressed as a policewoman being banged doggy style while eating another woman on Xhamster.

Does that count?
 
2013-05-05 06:44:14 AM  
The Richard Gere joke never gets old.

/for the lulz
 
2013-05-05 06:49:35 AM  
Was it Trumpster?

www.sleeptalkinman.com
 
2013-05-05 07:29:35 AM  
doglover

If police conduct a raid and do not find the main objective of their raid, they should be liable for damages in the form of pure eye for an eye. shot in the face.

FiFy
 
2013-05-05 07:30:23 AM  

hardinparamedic: Bslim: Like someone posted upthread: poorly trained dog.

[www.veterangamers.co.uk image 400x574]


Ready, everyone? Royals on the fіrѕt page, swine flu and road rage...
 
2013-05-05 07:40:26 AM  
The police dog claims the rodent was packing heat.
 
2013-05-05 07:45:43 AM  
now if the dog had just ate the bird all of this could have all been avoided or not.    I don't really understand the radiator-old cat statement.     I mean I get he's saying that may have stressed the bird to feather pluck,  but the wording is weird.

/bird is the word
 
2013-05-05 07:50:35 AM  

Craig_Kreist: How do you get a dog to "cough up" a hamster?  And has that worked for the handler before?  'See the hamsters just a little wet, he's fine.....'


"He's just pining for the fjords"
 
2013-05-05 07:54:11 AM  
My dog ate a bird once.

/csb
 
2013-05-05 07:57:21 AM  

doglover: If police conduct a raid and do not find the main objective of their raid, they should be liable for damages in the form of pure eye for an eye.

They killed this guy's hamster, so he should get a new hamster from the paycheck of the guy who was supposed to be holding the dog.


i agree with you, but that's not really what eye for an eye means
 
2013-05-05 08:01:58 AM  

Pathman: doglover: If police conduct a raid and do not find the main objective of their raid, they should be liable for damages in the form of pure eye for an eye.

They killed this guy's hamster, so he should get a new hamster from the paycheck of the guy who was supposed to be holding the dog.

i agree with you, but that's not really what eye for an eye means


A hamster for a hamster makes the whole world smell like cedar shavings and hamster shiat.
 
2013-05-05 08:10:19 AM  

Oldiron_79: doglover: If police conduct a raid and do not find the main objective of their raid, they should be liable for damages in the form of pure eye for an eye.

They killed this guy's hamster, so he should get a new hamster from the paycheck of the guy who was supposed to be holding the dog.

Id be OK with this.


That settles it so
 
2013-05-05 08:16:24 AM  

LordJiro: Pathman: doglover: If police conduct a raid and do not find the main objective of their raid, they should be liable for damages in the form of pure eye for an eye.

They killed this guy's hamster, so he should get a new hamster from the paycheck of the guy who was supposed to be holding the dog.

i agree with you, but that's not really what eye for an eye means

A hamster for a hamster makes the whole world smell like cedar shavings and hamster shiat.


oh crap - i had a funny picture of a huge rat eating a dog - unfetchable my ass!
 
2013-05-05 08:19:49 AM  

wellreadneck: As long as that dog is facing the same consequences any other officer would in the event of the death of someone's pet during a raid, I don't have a problem with this.


A stern look followed by his superior unable to keep a straight face before sending him home for a paid vacation?
 
2013-05-05 08:38:59 AM  

doglover: If police conduct a raid and do not find the main objective of their raid, they should be liable for damages in the form of pure eye for an eye.

They killed this guy's hamster, so he should get a new hamster from the paycheck of the guy who was supposed to be holding the dog.


So the guy should get to eat the dog?
 
2013-05-05 08:54:40 AM  

abhorrent1: doglover: If police conduct a raid and do not find the main objective of their raid, they should be liable for damages in the form of pure eye for an eye.

They killed this guy's hamster, so he should get a new hamster from the paycheck of the guy who was supposed to be holding the dog.

So the guy should get to eat the dog?


The guy should get to eat the officer!
 
2013-05-05 09:12:36 AM  
Difference between a hamster and a gerbil is more dark meat on a gerbil.
 
2013-05-05 09:49:35 AM  
"Officers from Greater Manchester police were raiding the home of a man [...]"
"No charges were brought against Mr Khan in connection to the raid."


So what were they raiding his house for in the first place that required the presence of a police dog?

Oh, and...

i.dailymail.co.uk


KHAAAAAAAAN!!!

 
2013-05-05 09:56:49 AM  

ypsifly: Hey Limeys...how's that self imposed Nanny State thing working out for you?

Nobody carrying a knife with a locking blade that night?

Oh to be a dustbin in Shaftsbury tonight....


We really can't throw stones here. Glass house and all.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report