Training Video

11-19-2011, 10:49 AM

This should be mandatory viewing for all police officers.

The video posted has been removed (for the fourth time) and will continue to be deleted. In addition to having the intent to personally slam specific officers, it also contains photos of the officers family and children.

Mod 161

11-19-2011, 02:17 PM

How is it a training issue? Why was the dog loose and not secured? I understand your pain but you need to move on with life and get another dog .

11-19-2011, 02:30 PM

I agree with the prior post. The dog gets loose and you fail to fix the fence. Finally the dog get loose and something bad happens and the police are called and respond to a call for service which leads to the death of the dog. Right or wrong cause and effect the dog was not properly secured and the Officer felt she had to shoot the dog. The dog could have been killed if it ran out infront of a car or if something else happened. You were aware that there was a problem and you failed to deal with it. The Officer and the Department should be taking you to court because you were not a responsible pet owner.
It is your fault. Stop pretending you are a Victim.
It is a dog and not a person please get some help because it appears you have issues telling the difference.

11-20-2011, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Guest

This should be mandatory viewing for all police officers.

The video posted has been removed (for the fourth time) and will continue to be deleted. In addition to having the intent to personally slam specific officers, it also contains photos of the officers family and children.

Mod 161

Whether you agree or disagree, like or dislike the “Boomer’s Voice” YouTube video, the content of the video does not violate any of the terms of agreement of Leo Affairs. The pictures contained in the video are pictures that are accessible by anyone on the internet. If you do not want your pictures on the internet than do not post those for the whole world to view such as on your public face book page. This is pure and simply the moderator using personal censorship to play favorites with the content he likes or dislikes. The moderator’s actions are publicly acknowledging that all the content he does not delete on this forum reflect his own personal views. The video in question was never even on the Leo Affairs forum it was only a link to the web address where the video could be found that was listed on the Leo Affairs forum. Every individual can decide for themselves if they want to view the video content (Edited to comply with the Terms of Use)

11-20-2011, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by Guest

This should be mandatory viewing for all police officers.

The video posted has been removed (for the fourth time) and will continue to be deleted. In addition to having the intent to personally slam specific officers, it also contains photos of the officers family and children.

Mod 161

Whether you agree or disagree, like or dislike the “Boomer’s Voice” YouTube video, the content of the video does not violate any of the terms of agreement of Leo Affairs. The pictures contained in the video are pictures that are accessible by anyone on the internet. If you do not want your pictures on the internet than do not post those for the whole world to view such as on your public face book page. This is pure and simply the moderator using personal censorship to play favorites with the content he likes or dislikes. The moderator’s actions are publicly acknowledging that all the content he does not delete on this forum reflect his own personal views. The video in question was never even on the Leo Affairs forum it was only a link to the web address where the video could be found that was listed on the Leo Affairs forum. Every individual can decide for themselves if they want to view the video content “Boomer’s Voice” hosted on YouTube.com

That pretty much sums up that your the lawyer who owned the dog. Typical that you think you have the right to do whatever you want. I have to agree that just like you have the right to post your sick videos so the whole world knows your pain....the owners of this site have the right to delete anything they don't want on their site.

I have to also agree with one of the other responses that you are to blame. Seems to me that if you were resposible enough to keep your dog contained the police would have never been called and never had the reason to shoot your dog. Go look in the mirror and see who's really at fault. Here's another suggestion: don't call the police and solve your problems yourself. I for one am happy you got the change you wanted and we no longer have to respond to animal complaints. We never should have been responding to those types of calls with no equipment and training to safely handle them anyway. Its good to see that for once the self pity and demand from the taxpayer who pays my salary gets his wish and in the process supports the police. Sorry the officer didn't get fired so you could feel vindicated also.

11-20-2011, 03:17 AM

That pretty much sums up that your the lawyer who owned the dog. Typical that you think you have the right to do whatever you want. I have to agree that just like you have the right to post your sick videos so the whole world knows your pain....the owners of this site have the right to delete anything they don't want on their site.

Hey anonymous ass-clown. You have a beef with the video and post so you use it as an opportunity to attack the grieving family who recently lost a member of their family in a horrific tragedy at the hands of one of your own. The owners of this site did not delete the video post. It was a moderator who is another St. Petersburg police officer marching in lock step and with a blind allegiance to one of their own. The “lawyer who owned the dog” did not make the post. The post was made by me a 22 year veteran of the Tampa Police Dept. who unlike you is not afraid to stand up for victims when the police make a grave error in judgment and then white wash the investigation. My allegiance is to the truth and justice and not to any police officer or dept. I do not believe the officer involved should be terminated. However the officer was clearly wrong to shoot the dog and your dept. should have acknowledged that fact and at the very least the officer involved should have received a written reprimand and remedial training. Let the attacks begin I have thick skin.

**Mod 161** · 11-20-2011, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Jeffrey L. Smith

That pretty much sums up that your the lawyer who owned the dog. Typical that you think you have the right to do whatever you want. I have to agree that just like you have the right to post your sick videos so the whole world knows your pain....the owners of this site have the right to delete anything they don't want on their site.

Hey anonymous ass-clown. You have a beef with the video and post so you use it as an opportunity to attack the grieving family who recently lost a member of their family in a horrific tragedy at the hands of one of your own. The owners of this site did not delete the video post. It was a moderator who is another St. Petersburg police officer marching in lock step and with a blind allegiance to one of their own. The “lawyer who owned the dog” did not make the post. The post was made by me a 22 year veteran of the Tampa Police Dept. who unlike you is not afraid to stand up for victims when the police make a grave error in judgment and then white wash the investigation. My allegiance is to the truth and justice and not to any police officer or dept. I do not believe the officer involved should be terminated. However the officer was clearly wrong to shoot the dog and your dept. should have acknowledged that fact and at the very least the officer involved should have received a written reprimand and remedial training. Let the attacks begin I have thick skin.

Mr. Smith,

You are correct, as a moderator I am not owner of LeoAffairs.com or affiliated with the ownership in any way. As moderators we are volunteers who moderate the content of the forums. We make judgement calls as to what is edited or deleted and use the terms of service as a guideline.

The incident involving the officer who shot the dog has been investigated by the SPPD and the officer was cleared of any wrongdoing. There have been policy changes made as a result of the investigation. As a 22 year veteran of the TPD I'm sure you've seen many IA cases where you disagreed with the findings. One of the good things about this site is it offers a forum to discuss our disagreements, voice our own opinions and sometimes add additional information that may otherwise not be known. The case involving the dog shooting is one that has already resulted in such discussion, both positive and negative.

As it relates to your video, it's my opinion that with the inclusion of the officers pictures your sole purpose is to slam the officer and bring negative attention to her and not as a memorial for the dog. Your inclusion of the officers family, especially her children, is completely unacceptable and goes way beyond simply discussing the topic at hand. I'm shocked that a 22 year veteran police officer would stoop so low to post photos of another officer's children in such a context.

You have the right to post your video on YouTube or whereever else you choose, but I as the moderator of this board do not believe that its acceptable. I believe that its content does violate the terms of use guidelines and I will delete it if it's posted again. As for your video link on the TPD board, I would hope that moderator chooses to come to the same conclusion that I have, but that's not for me to decide.

Mod 161