# Police Shoot Family Dog Near Son



## GSDLoverII

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21006799598266/father-concerned-after-police-shoot-dog-near-son/


----------



## ShenzisMom

Public. Long lines or flexi. No reason to have your dog offleash.

Cops. PUT THE GUNS AWAY.

That being said, I'd like to know what actually happened.


----------



## Draugr

Sounds fishy. I am slightly leaning toward the side of saying "police really need more dog-related training" after reading this but as we don't have all the facts or even know if the facts are correct in this one (media are notorious for royally screwing things up in stories like this one)...I'll bite my tongue, for now.


----------



## GSDLoverII

The cop needs to hang up his gun and turn in his badge if he is that afraid.
Seriously, has no business being a cop.
I hope they sue the pants off of him.


----------



## Jelpy

Another sterling example of restraint and good judgement by Police Officers.

Jelpy


----------



## juliejujubean

not cool... Im glad the dog survived.


----------



## TaZoR

We had a similar situation at the vet hosp. Where i worked. Unfortunately the dog didnt survive but we had to xray for bullets and figure out the tragetory of the bullet wounds. The officer said the dog was lunging mid air and witnesses said otherwise. Not sure how it turned out.

We had plenty of gunshots over the years, some police but mostly hunting accidents. 

Either way...its sad.


----------



## Syaoransbear

I think maybe police should have video recorders on their person so officials can get a better idea of what happened in certain situations besides he said she said.


----------



## OriginalWacky

I found this article that gives slightly more detail.
Pembroke Pines Police shoot family dog in front of teenager - National Pet Rescue | Examiner.com

I'm inclined to think this officer went overboard, and would love to hear more details.


----------



## ChristenHolden

Some PO's do have as they see it cameras. Hopefully it will become a requirement like the car cameras. Police POV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Draugr

_Seriously_?

A 40-50lb dog bites a _shoe_ and that officer thinks the use of his firearm is warranted?

Officers carry plenty of non-lethal weapons on their duty belt, if he really felt that he was in _that much danger_, there are far more appropriate options then discharging your weapon in public so close to other people. 

I think I'm confident enough, now, to say...this guy needs to turn in his gun and badge, and the entire department needs training on how to deal with dog-related situations. People like him, too quick to "solve" a situation with a firearm, do not make communities safer. And they certainly don't do a thing for public perception when their first option against a family pet is deadly force.

Yes, the dog should have been on leash or under some sort of control. But no, shooting the dog was not warranted. Maybe if there were some other mitigating circumstances - domestic violence call, in the middle of a chase, etc, something, but that wasn't what was going on here.


----------



## rshkr

cops here should be like cops in britain = no guns, only batons.
too much jonh wayne syndrome.


----------



## kennajo

excue me what about pepper spray first? Most police carry non -lethal forms of "weapons" now days. What if it had been a mentally handicaped person with a knife ,what would be the control PO's reach for then?

Just noticed previous poster said same thing.


----------



## BadLieutenant

rshkr said:


> cops here should be like cops in britain = no guns, only batons.
> too much jonh wayne syndrome.



Remember, 173 Officers were killed in the line of duty in the United States last year compared to just 6 in Great Britain. 5 of the 6 in Great Britain were caused by Vehicle Accidents. Believe me, we need guns.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup we NEED guns...but one should wonder why the Brits do not....

Just sayin'

I support 2nd A all the way, what I don't like is that as a society we NEED to have some kind of arms race....a sad reflection on us..IMO.

Details are very sketchy on this incident but the second linked report states the dog was shot after the door to the home was opened by the 13 year old. So it *sounds* like the dog was shot on the owners property (like the recent incident in ATL). 





BadLieutenant said:


> Remember, 173 Officers were killed in the line of duty in the United States last year compared to just 6 in Great Britain. 5 of the 6 in Great Britain were caused by Vehicle Accidents. Believe me, we need guns.


----------



## 1337f0x

I couldn't sit through the video accompanying the story. I hope that cop loses his job and has a fun time writing up his report on why he shot his gun 6 times and needed to use his gun. 

The training these cops go through to get to the point they are in their career would make me think this guy would of held off on shooting and at least WAITED for the kid to grab his dog. "Gave me 2 seconds," really? "Grab your dog!" Shoots right after.

These kinds of stories disgust me. He was probably one of those dog hating individuals.


----------



## APBTLove

And this NEVER would have happened if the dog was properly contained.. Such an easy thing to do - were the police in the right? NO! But you cannot expect people to act rationally or intelligently nor leave the safety of your family, pets, etc. up to the general public - which you do any time you take your animal off leash in public. 

Cops NEED animal training! I wish everyone who said this would write their local/state office and voiced how important it is to people who love their animals and how it's safer. No, they aren't Animal Control, but they act like they are often enough. I'm positive if it had been 9/10 cops in my position yesterday there would have been two dead dogs laying in the street and another "Pit Bull Attack" headline.

This stuff makes me so mad.


----------



## LARHAGE

BadLieutenant said:


> Remember, 173 Officers were killed in the line of duty in the United States last year compared to just 6 in Great Britain. 5 of the 6 in Great Britain were caused by Vehicle Accidents. Believe me, we need guns.


 
Yeah, but how many were killed by dogs? I have no problem with Cops being trigger happy with gang-bangers, but these dog shootings are getting ridiculous, the general public handles these problems without deadly force being required.


----------



## selzer

If my German Shepherd puts a hole in a police officer's shoe, when he is there for a legitimate reason, comes to the door, after a complaint about a loose dog, well, then he can shoot my dog and it is on me. But there better be a hole in his shoe and it had better match up to my dog's tooth. 

I do not think we should expect officers to be bitten in the line of duty and do nothing in response. However, if the dog bites you in the shoe, and you fire off your gun six times, the dog should really be dead. I mean, that is close range. 

A decent guy would have probably called the kid to get his dog, and then filed a complaint with damages against the dog's owners, follow up with animal control. 

Frankly, if your dog is out roaming the neighborhood and it bites someone, maybe the dog should be put down. The owner is not very responsible, and the dog has already given proof that he will bite people. The next person he bites might be elderly, or an infant, and that person may have more severe damage, even loss of life. So why should a police officer let the dog bite him again and again while he tries to find a kinder, gentler method of subduing the dog? I don't know. If the dog bit the officer, then the officer should be allowed to shoot. 

If a 13 year old punk pulls a gun on an officer, the officer should be able to shoot. Maybe some officers would be able to manage the situation without loss of life, but just because it is a kid does not mean an officer should take a bullet. The same is true for a child being present. I am sure the kid was traumatized by seeing his dog shot, but frankly he would be just as traumatized if the dog's head was run over by a car and his eye ball was on the ground while the dog flopped around, not dead yet. (Believe me, been there with a kitten, it _is _traumatic.)

Folkes, we have to protect our dogs. It just isn't safe to let your dog roam around a neighborhood. Maybe the cop over-reacted, but that takes all the blame for this incident and puts it on the cop. The people who are at fault, probably more at fault are the dog's owners. What were they thinking? They should be charged for the cop's shoe too (if it has a hole in it).

If the dog did not bite the officer, the shame on the owners of the dog for letting it be a menace in the neighborhood. And shame on the officer for taking a situation that did not require deadly force and using deadly force, and for lying on the report.


----------



## selzer

APBTLove said:


> And this NEVER would have happened if the dog was properly contained.. Such an easy thing to do - were the police in the right? NO! But you cannot expect people to act rationally or intelligently nor leave the safety of your family, pets, etc. up to the general public - which you do any time you take your animal off leash in public.
> 
> Cops NEED animal training! I wish everyone who said this would write their local/state office and voiced how important it is to people who love their animals and how it's safer. No, they aren't Animal Control, but they act like they are often enough. I'm positive if it had been 9/10 cops in my position yesterday there would have been two dead dogs laying in the street and another "Pit Bull Attack" headline.
> 
> This stuff makes me so mad.


We have no money in our budgets for animal training. Sad but true. Citizens need to contain/control their dogs. If the cops bust into your dwelling because of illegal activity, it is sad, but your dog might go down. And now and again, there will be an accident where the address is wrong, and someone who has done nothing wrong will deal with a tragic loss. But in that case, cops are more important than dogs, even pets. 

This incident was so avoidable. The dog's owners could have kept their dog under control.


----------



## GregK

GSDLoverII said:


> The cop needs to hang up his gun and turn in his badge if he is that afraid.
> Seriously, has no business being a cop.
> I hope they sue the pants off of him.


I second this!!!!

Pathetic!!!


:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> If my German Shepherd puts a hole in a police officer's shoe, when he is there for a legitimate reason, comes to the door, after a complaint about a loose dog, well, then he can shoot my dog and it is on me. But there better be a hole in his shoe and it had better match up to my dog's tooth.
> 
> I do not think we should expect officers to be bitten in the line of duty and do nothing in response. However, if the dog bites you in the shoe, and you fire off your gun six times, the dog should really be dead. I mean, that is close range.


Nobody is saying the officer should have done nothing.

The use of his firearm, however, was unjustified and excessive.

My dog likes to nip at my heels when I play with him. He "holds on" to my ankles. I think it is fun, he thinks it is fun, and he knows exactly how hard to hold on to avoid even coming close to causing injury. Since I live out in the sticks, this isn't a huge deal, but if I lived in town, with more encounters with officers...I'd certainly be worried about what could happen from him "biting" an officer's shoe (if he had the temperament to play with strangers, that is - he does not).

I don't know if that is what happened in this situation here, perhaps it was, who knows. It was an overblown, unnecessary response, regardless.



selzer said:


> We have no money in our budgets for animal training. Sad but true. Citizens need to contain/control their dogs. If the cops bust into your dwelling because of illegal activity, it is sad, but your dog might go down. And now and again, there will be an accident where the address is wrong, and someone who has done nothing wrong will deal with a tragic loss. But in that case, cops are more important than dogs, even pets.


Cops have to attend multiple training sessions a year, regardless. Can you really argue that the negligible added expense from switching one session over to animal training, would be of such little benefit as to make it pointless? Idiotic situations like this could turn out very differently and you'd have far less people with less than favorable views of police.

(I am not one of them - I've got a problem with trigger-happy policemen re. dogs, not the police as a whole).

And you might be surprised at just how much money there is in LE budgets, or at least how much money could be redirected for something so simple and relatively cheap.



> This incident was so avoidable. The dog's owners could have kept their dog under control.


The owners were not _given a chance_ to get the dog under control before it was shot. Cops show up at the scene, order is given, two seconds later, shots are fired. From what I understand the kid opened the front door ready to bring the dog back. No, the dog should probably not have been out in the first place. But the bulk of the blame does not lie at the owner's feet, in this situation, IMHO. Some of it definitely does...most does not.

My dog's life is worth more than a cop's boots. That is true of _any_ dog's life. Is there a reason pepper spray was not used? Taser? Lethal force, unless they are very different than most PD's, was justified in this situation according to the force matrix. That doesn't mean it was the right choice, though, and I expect the people who are charged with protecting my community to employ better judgement than this.

Police are public servants and their job involves preserving life. Sometimes, in the course of their duty, that means taking a life to preserve life. Sometimes it involves taking life to avoid putting anybody in a situation in which a life might be risked. That is not really a debatable point. I am not arguing that.

But this was not one of those situations, unless there are just some really _major_ details being withheld from this story.


----------



## crackem

There certainly are a lot of missing details aren't there?

I withhold my opinion as there isn't much there to go off of. Given the recent trend of slanting articles to elicit and emotional response, rather than report, I'm not totally inclined to take the article at face value.

I expect someone to be able to handle a dog situation without a gun, I can think of very few instances where I can think one would be necessary, BUT, I also don't think an officer needs to get bitten to pacify the masses. Keep your dog contained and problem is solved. Nobody gets hurt and everyone goes home happy.


----------



## selzer

My problem Draugr, is that we, as individuals, cannot change what others do. We cannot stop someone from deciding to speed down our road, and we cannot stop an officer from shooting a gun in a situation where he felt threatened by a dog. 

Oh, we can provide animal training, and all the police officers will grab their donuts and coffee and sit through another stupid lecture that probably has no practical use in their opinion. But the chances are, they will only learn how to put the best story together after they fired their gun, that will appease their boss and the public in general. 

The thing is you can ONLY control your own behavior. That is all you have control over. And if you don't keep control over your dog, there is a decent chance that something will cause it some type of injury, up to and including the death of the dog. 

The owner should have controlled his dog. He should have controlled his dog before the animal was ever off his property and before the police were called. I have no place in my heart for fools who let their dogs run loose, and then get mad at everyone besides themselves when the dog gets hurt or killed. If the dog wasn't running around in the neighborhood, the cops would not have been called, and the dog would not have been shot, and we would not be discussing this. 

I am not saying the officer was right to shoot the dog. But the owner put his dog at risk of eating the wrong things, tangling with the wrong critters, getting hit by motor vehicles, or getting in the way of the wrong person or persons. The owner failed his dog. Maybe this was the first and only time the dog was ever off their property, and in that case, I maybe feel a tinge of sympathy for the intensity of the lesson learned. 

Unfortunately, no lesson was learned, because it was all the police officer's fault. The dog owner does not see his own part in the situation, or he sees it as very minor. I see it as very major.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> My problem Draugr, is that we, as individuals, cannot change what others do. We cannot stop someone from deciding to speed down our road, and we cannot stop an officer from shooting a gun in a situation where he felt threatened by a dog.


Yes, we can.

We can change what others do by what we permit. We don't _have_ to permit unjustified animal killings. Policies can change.

Do we allow black people to be hung for the crime of being black? No? We used to. We did change what people do, because society wizened up and realized that certain acts are completely barbaric and should not be tolerated by a civilized society.



> Oh, we can provide animal training, and all the police officers will grab their donuts and coffee and sit through another stupid lecture that probably has no practical use in their opinion. But the chances are, they will only learn how to put the best story together after they fired their gun, that will appease their boss and the public in general.


I can at least see this. But, I wish I could find the story - it did work in, I want to say, NYC. Had mandatory training, dog-killings dropped to single digit numbers and I would bet you those incidents were actually warranted.



> The owner should have controlled his dog. He should have controlled his dog before the animal was ever off his property and before the police were called. I have no place in my heart for fools who let their dogs run loose, and then get mad at everyone besides themselves when the dog gets hurt or killed. If the dog wasn't running around in the neighborhood, the cops would not have been called, and the dog would not have been shot, and we would not be discussing this.


Being _shot_ (at least in these circumstances) should not have to be in your expected list of consequences for letting your dog roam. *That* is completely ass-backwards. You also have to look at community expectations - in many places, there is the "neighborhood dog" that visits house-to-house in the morning before returning to his residence.

I'm not arguing that such behavior is really commendable, or something that should be encouraged or found without blame - but it's hardly appropriate to file it away under TFB simply because they didn't have direct control over the dog.



> Unfortunately, no lesson was learned, because it was all the police officer's fault. The dog owner does not see his own part in the situation, or he sees it as very minor. I see it as very major.


It _could_ have been very major. Maybe it is, maybe it is not.

Regardless, because of the gravity of the officer's actions and the _severe_ absence of reasonable judgement, no lesson is going to be learned. Had the officer reacted appropriately, in a way that would not have brought blame upon himself, there may be some very different thoughts floating around about the incident.


----------



## selzer

I disagree Draugr. We can only control our own actions. It is not legal to commit racial crimes, but it happens still. There are laws against bank robbery, but one got robbed down the street from my sister. There are laws against bringing guns to school and shooting people, but that happened today down the street from where my brother works. You cannot control the behavior of others, only yourself.

If your dog is running loose, it can

a, get hit by a car
b, get stolen and sold to a laboratory
c, get attacked by a larger predator
d, get caught and tortured by someone evil
e, get shot by a farmer sick and tired of dogs molesting his livestock
f, get shot by a hunter for running deer
g, get picked up by AC and euthanized by accident 


And so many other things. People need to protect their dogs. Getting shot by cops is a low cause of death for canines. Becoming road pizza is a whole lot more likely. If this dog got smooshed in front of the teenager, it would be just as traumatic, and it would not have been in the news, because it would not be newsworthy. Sorry, dog brains on road are too common. 

The dog's injuries are almost entirely the fault of the owner, they just came in a less expected manner. 

There may still be dogs going from house to house in the morning, it is a stupid, unnecessary risk. But in this case someone called the cops, so it certainly is not that common there. 

Lastly, here it is pretty common for roaming dogs to be shot, either by farmers or hunters.


----------



## rshkr

BadLieutenant said:


> Remember, 173 Officers were killed in the line of duty in the United States last year compared to just 6 in Great Britain. 5 of the 6 in Great Britain were caused by Vehicle Accidents. Believe me, we need guns.


i am for the 2nd as well, i am an IDPA master and class A IPSC shooter single stack 1911. How many IDPA/IPSC tournaments are held each month around the country? Do you hear in the news a shootout amongst them?

That is called responsible gun ownership. Most cops dont see owning a gun as a responsibility, they see it as a tool to get respect, bullies with a badge. 

Can't even hit a dog less than 10 yards. They should do a "bill drill" so as not to embarrass themselves shooting in close quarters and hitting nothing.


----------



## Samba

I know some of our officers are quite afraid of dogs and have reactions from is. I keep my dogs contained but am super careful with them around people carrying weapons.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> I disagree Draugr. We can only control our own actions. It is not legal to commit racial crimes, but it happens still.


And yet, if you look at the frequency of that today, versus one hundred years ago, clearly something has changed.

Unless I am just really, really missing something, here. I can't remember the last time I heard of a minority getting lynched, much less public approval of that.

Exceptions don't disprove the rule. Taking a "TFB" attitude toward this only permits more tragedy like this to happen.



> If your dog is running loose, it can
> 
> a, get hit by a car
> b, get stolen and sold to a laboratory
> c, get attacked by a larger predator
> d, get caught and tortured by someone evil
> e, get shot by a farmer sick and tired of dogs molesting his livestock
> f, get shot by a hunter for running deer
> g, get picked up by AC and euthanized by accident


And yet, none of those are "running about a neighborhood and being shot by police for a completely unjustified reason." You're comparing apples to oranges. I don't see what any of that list has to do with this situation. Because dogs in that situation get killed/injured by other means more often, that makes the specifics of this case okay? I don't think so.

I don't approve of what happened but what worries me even more than just another dog being unjustifiably shot is the severe lack of judgement this officer displayed. I would not feel very safe in a community where the people charged with protecting said community are so quick to use lethal force.


----------



## sparra

rshkr said:


> cops here should be like cops in britain = no guns, only batons.
> too much jonh wayne syndrome.


Sorry I had to laugh when I read that......After reading a lot of threads on here about gun laws in the US it seems it is pretty easy to own one over there......I think your cops are entitled to carry them if the general public are ....no??


----------



## Draugr

sparra said:


> Sorry I had to laugh when I read that......After reading a lot of threads on here about gun laws in the US it seems it is pretty easy to own one over there......I think your cops are entitled to carry them if the general public are ....no??


Rshkr:

The John Wayne thing is overstated by the media. Yes there are some idiot gun owners because there are idiot people. If you read your history you will find out the "Wild West" actually had far more strict gun laws on their books than we do as a nation today. Most towns prohibited the carrying of firearms within their limits, period. No conceal carry or open carry. The notion of lawless old western towns was brought about by dimestore novelists looking to make a quick buck.

Sparra: It's easy if you are a law-abiding citizen, at least for handguns (presuming you pass a background check). There is a hotline set up specifically so the firearms dealer calls it up and the person at the other end looks up your criminal history (and I'm not sure what else, but there's more) to see if you are allowed to purchase a gun.

There's a waiting period too so you can't just waltz right out with one as soon as you slap down the money. If you want to have it outside your home (after purchase) then you have to go through an even more thorough background check and submit fingerprints to your state police agency that go on permanent file. Handgun regulations vary *wildly* by state though. Some states allow the sheriff's dept full discretion on who they will allow to have a license. Other states are "shall-issue" meaning that unless there is a legal reason to prohibit someone from owning a handgun license then they MUST issue the license. Some states mandate training before a license will be issued, others do not. Some states by practice prohibit handgun ownership entirely (by making it so difficult as to be nearly impossible). Some localities (cities, etc) prohibit it period although I think Chicago and DC both had bans overturned, SCOTUS found it unconstitutional visa vi 2nd amendment.

Long guns tend to have very low regulation, though. Shotguns/low caliber rifles can be bought by almost anyone although pretty much everywhere will still run a background check on you even though I don't think they are required (again, may vary by state). When I bought my shotgun at a gun store I had a full background check run on me. My 70+ year old grandpa had a background check run on him when he bought his rifle too.

There are "gun show loopholes" though, but those are quickly being closed. I am generally pro-gun if you couldn't tell but I am all for reasonable restrictions that prevent firearms from winding up in the hands of criminals.

I'm not sure how easy it is for criminals. Many have them even though they shouldn't but they are pretty resourceful and determined. I wouldn't really know given that I've never been prohibited from owning a firearm =/.

~

Sorry for dragging this so far off topic.


----------



## PatternDayTrader

Just another situation where when the world needs the police to use good judgement, instead there is massive failure. Around here this kind of thing is actually pretty typical, and frankly the kid is lucky he wasent shot as well.


----------



## Courtney

crackem said:


> There certainly are a lot of missing details aren't there?
> 
> I withhold my opinion as there isn't much there to go off of. Given the recent trend of slanting articles to elicit and emotional response, rather than report, I'm not totally inclined to take the article at face value.
> 
> I expect someone to be able to handle a dog situation without a gun, I can think of very few instances where I can think one would be necessary, BUT, I also don't think an officer needs to get bitten to pacify the masses. Keep your dog contained and problem is solved. Nobody gets hurt and everyone goes home happy.


crackem, I agree with you.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

This on the heels of the H.S. shooting in Cleveland? 

Well reasoned points, as usual, but evidence shows otherwise especially when compared to Canada, U.K. and Australia.

...that's a whole 'nuther kettle-O-fish for another forum though....and I do know of one if you like to hash these kind of topics over. 



Draugr said:


> Rshkr:
> 
> The John Wayne thing is overstated by the media. Yes there are some idiot gun owners because there are idiot people. If you read your history you will find out the "Wild West" actually had far more strict gun laws on their books than we do as a nation today. Most towns prohibited the carrying of firearms within their limits, period. No conceal carry or open carry. The notion of lawless old western towns was brought about by dimestore novelists looking to make a quick buck.
> 
> Sparra: It's easy if you are a law-abiding citizen, at least for handguns (presuming you pass a background check). There is a hotline set up specifically so the firearms dealer calls it up and the person at the other end looks up your criminal history (and I'm not sure what else, but there's more) to see if you are allowed to purchase a gun.
> 
> There's a waiting period too so you can't just waltz right out with one as soon as you slap down the money. If you want to have it outside your home (after purchase) then you have to go through an even more thorough background check and submit fingerprints to your state police agency that go on permanent file. Handgun regulations vary *wildly* by state though. Some states allow the sheriff's dept full discretion on who they will allow to have a license. Other states are "shall-issue" meaning that unless there is a legal reason to prohibit someone from owning a handgun license then they MUST issue the license. Some states mandate training before a license will be issued, others do not. Some states by practice prohibit handgun ownership entirely (by making it so difficult as to be nearly impossible). Some localities (cities, etc) prohibit it period although I think Chicago and DC both had bans overturned, SCOTUS found it unconstitutional visa vi 2nd amendment.
> 
> Long guns tend to have very low regulation, though. Shotguns/low caliber rifles can be bought by almost anyone although pretty much everywhere will still run a background check on you even though I don't think they are required (again, may vary by state). When I bought my shotgun at a gun store I had a full background check run on me. My 70+ year old grandpa had a background check run on him when he bought his rifle too.
> 
> There are "gun show loopholes" though, but those are quickly being closed. I am generally pro-gun if you couldn't tell but I am all for reasonable restrictions that prevent firearms from winding up in the hands of criminals.
> 
> I'm not sure how easy it is for criminals. Many have them even though they shouldn't but they are pretty resourceful and determined. I wouldn't really know given that I've never been prohibited from owning a firearm =/.
> 
> ~
> 
> Sorry for dragging this so far off topic.


----------



## rshkr

Draugr said:


> Rshkr:
> 
> The John Wayne thing is overstated by the media.


we will have to agree to disagree on this.
i've seen too many cops with john wayne syndrome.
give them a gun and they think they are one bad*#$% mofo.
they are nothing else but bullies with badges.

owning a gun doesnt mean you'll have to use it because there are idiot people, that's the reason we have john wayne syndrome.
90% of the human race is "idiot", that's human nature, but it doesnt mean you ahve to use your gun on all of them.
do you know when you're justified to use deadly force?


----------



## selzer

Well, if you consider gays as a minority, one of the guys I used to work with, his son's vehicle was the one used down in texas where they beat and hung up a gay person. It still does happen. Things are different then they were 100 years ago maybe, but the only way YOU can keep YOUR dog safe, is if you do not let it go roaming around. 

Personally, I think there is a lot more meaningless cruel sadistic acts perpetuated an animals than ever before. There are laws against dog fighting. It does not keep it from happening. Perhaps it is happening more now than ever before. But I cannot tell, have no data. 

I will say again, that the reason you have heard about this is that it is relatively rare. It is news not because it is awful, but because it is uncommon. Most cops are not out there just waiting to pull their guns out and fire away at family pets. Most cops have dogs, like dogs, and do whatever possible to avoid injuring a dog. 

Does it really make sense to make 400,000 cops go through animal training, when there are maybe a dozen incidents in a year where a cop maybe could've done something differently?

If I was on a village council I would vote against any such proposal. If two officers out of 200,000 were found to have a drug problem, would you force all officers to training seminars to avoid drug addiction? I guess I just do not see any type of epidemic when it comes to cops flagrantly shooting non-aggressive family pets.


----------



## Draugr

rshkr said:


> we will have to agree to disagree on this.
> i've seen too many cops with john wayne syndrome.
> give them a gun and they think they are one bad*#$% mofo.
> they are nothing else but bullies with badges.
> 
> owning a gun doesnt mean you'll have to use it because there are idiot people, that's the reason we have john wayne syndrome.
> 90% of the human race is "idiot", that's human nature, but it doesnt mean you ahve to use your gun on all of them.
> do you know when you're justified to use deadly force?


Exceptions don't disprove the rule. No, 90% of the human race is not "idiot," and neither are 90% of cops. That's preposterous. I'm misanthropic and even I don't agree with that.



selzer said:


> If I was on a village council I would vote against any such proposal. If two officers out of 200,000 were found to have a drug problem, would you force all officers to training seminars to avoid drug addiction? I guess I just do not see any type of epidemic when it comes to cops flagrantly shooting non-aggressive family pets.


Drug addiction isn't (normally) a life or death situation.

Apples and oranges again.

We had a dog shooting here a few months ago. I listened a group of local officers sit around and talk about it after the officer involved was put on paid administrative leave. It was quite clear that they had a complete disdain for canine life. The attitude was "it's just a dog" and the same TFB attitude I see taken toward incidents like this. Of course one of them, I know, has a complete disdain for human life too...(not true of the others AFAIK).

The incidents may not be there in massive numbers but the attitude that leads to it is.



> Personally, I think there is a lot more meaningless cruel sadistic acts perpetuated an animals than ever before. There are laws against dog fighting. It does not keep it from happening. Perhaps it is happening more now than ever before. But I cannot tell, have no data.


I suspect it's reported more often because there are a lot more things we consider "cruel sadistic acts" against animals than we did fifty years ago. It's the same reason people think such and such a county has a worse drug problem than such and such other county - no, probably not - the county with the "worse" drug problem is cracking down with enforcement. More arrests. There wasn't really a difference between them.


----------



## selzer

Is it not? 

Well that is news. I figure drug addiction is another form of suicide. But whatever. People on drugs make bad decisions and lose an awful lot of lives. I would think it is far more reaching and more of a problem than a couple of dogs that get killed in a year's time by cops.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> Is it not?
> 
> Well that is news. I figure drug addiction is another form of suicide. But whatever. People on drugs make bad decisions and lose an awful lot of lives. I would think it is far more reaching and more of a problem than a couple of dogs that get killed in a year's time by cops.


"Ruining lives" is a figure of speech, I hope you realize. It doesn't literally mean a lost life. Generally speaking it is a reversible situation.

Death tends to be permanent, on the whole.

The fact that this dog survived is a fluke. Most dogs, especially in the 40-50lb range are not going to survive being shot three times.

And I think you are deliberately understating the problem.

ETA:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/35288314.html

This amounts to a little over one dog per week. In just _one city_. Not nation-wide but it's ignorant to say there is no problem.

This is hardly "a couple."

~

If postal workers are given training on how to avoid bites I don't see why, especially here of all places, there is such resistance against the idea of cops receiving the same sort of training, particularly since they carry and use a tool that is lethal and postal workers do not.


----------



## selzer

Nope, we just totally disagree. I think that people should protect their dogs by not allowing them to roam around the neighborhood, which can get them killed in a number of ways. I do not feel sorry for the people. Not really. If their dog got smooshed in the road, we would not be having this conversation, but to say that that could not have happened, you couldn't. Suggesting that all cops should have to take animal training because of this incident, is kind of like saying that pit bulls should be banned because of an attack.

In any case, I am done with this thread, you are not going to change my mind, but if you want the last word, feel free.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> Suggesting that all cops should have to take animal training because of this incident, is kind of like saying that pit bulls should be banned because of an attack.


Except it isn't because of this incident.

It's because of places like Milwaukee, where cops shoot about one dog a week.

You seem to have a problem with tunnel vision. You want it all or nothing. "Well, it still happens." I want to see it happen less. I'm realistic enough to realize it will never be zero. Everyone else is looking at this as one more event in a long string of events. You are looking at this as "one event" and making such ridiculous statements like "a couple dogs killed in a year."

Sorry, it's a problem, and your complete disdain for life and the TFB attitude you take "because it's the owner's fault" is abhorrent. I don't care whose problem it is. The dogs are paying for it. Fix it. I really don't give a crap if the owner behavior that led to this could have (or been more likely to) result in road pizza instead of lead poisoning. It's irrelevant. If X is more likely to happen than Y & it doesn't make Y irrelevant, especially when Y is so easily addressed and X is simply going to be a fact of life.

You say you don't feel sorry for the people. Neither do I. But for several pages now you've had nothing to say about the dogs, other than to shrug your shoulders and say it's the owner's fault.


----------



## GregK

Draugr said:


> If postal workers are given training on how to avoid bites I don't see why, especially here of all places, there is such resistance against the idea of cops receiving the same sort of training, particularly since they carry and use a tool that is lethal and postal workers do not.


 
Totally agree!




selzer said:


> Suggesting that all cops should have to take animal training because of this incident, is kind of like saying that pit bulls should be banned because of an attack.


 

Huh?? :thinking:


----------



## Draugr

I'd also like to add that I have seen this compared to a dog being hit on the road.

That, is an accident.

This would be more like someone swerving their car and deliberately going out of their way to hit the dog. Would we not be clamoring for criminal charges to be pressed against such a person?

Still not the same thing but that is a closer metaphor. This officer deliberately chose to draw his pistol and fire at a 40-50 dog six times after it _bit his shoe_. Yes, something should have been done. Not that.

Yes, he was almost certainly justified in doing that by his department's force matrix. And he will be cleared of any wrongdoing. That does not make his decision nor his actions right nor indicative of the kind of judgement we expect out of our finest.


----------



## Rua

rshkr said:


> cops here should be like cops in britain = no guns, only batons.
> too much jonh wayne syndrome.


Agreed. 

Our "cops" (called the Garda Síochána over here) don't carry guns either.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I don't think I'll comment on the specifics because both stories seem rather different, the first one it sounds like the dog/kid were in their yard, the second sounds like the kid opened the door and the dog barked/bite the cops shoe? Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Anyhoo, if that were my aussie he'd have probably done the same thing, he's rather a big mouth and doesn't particularly care for strange men, it's the reason he goes into a crate when someone 'strange' comes to the door. 

I have to say, tho, I'd be mighty peeved if a cop did that to my aussie. Accidents do happen, but mine would not have been outside roaming around to begin with.

Again, not siding for either one, because I don't know specifics, but I'm glad the dog is going to be ok.


----------



## rshkr

Draugr said:


> No, 90% of the human race is not "idiot," and neither are 90% of cops.


the world's population is 6 billion, show me (10) people who hasn't committed and idiotic act.


----------



## Draugr

rshkr said:


> the world's population is 6 billion, show me (10) people who hasn't committed and idiotic act.


Everyone does stupid things.

You've done stupid things.

I've done stupid things.

That doesn't make you (or me) an idiot.


----------



## jaggirl47

I have just read all of the threads and I really need to comment. Last year a GSD was shot and killed in Colorado. I argued left and right about the police doing the wrong thing. Come to find out, the cop was in the right. The article, which was written to inflame the public against the officer, was by the same Examiner writer that did this piece.
We were not there. Period. Noone, except those involved, knows the real story. If the officer was wrong, it will come out. That being said, the dog never should have been out roaming the neighborhood.
As far as police budgets and training, yes it would be nice. However, almost every state is in the red and they do not have the money. Many cities/states are cutting the size of their forces because they cannot afford them. When it comes to the "John Wayne" syndrome, yes it is there but not as many as people think there is.
All through the state of Florida there are leash laws, ie the dog is REQUIRED to be on a leash. The family was extremely irresponsible to allow their dog to roam.

Police officer shoots family's dog | News - Home

In this video, the owner admits that the dog took off out the door towards the police officers and that the dog is extremely territorial. The story is also different from the video originally posted.

WSVN-TV - Police forced to fire after animal attack

Another article. The wounded officer was treated at the scene.


----------



## GSDLoverII

ON A LIGHTER NOTE, BAXTER IS RECOVERING...

WSVN-TV 7NEWS Video

That is One Lucky Dog! :angel:


----------



## rshkr

Draugr said:


> Everyone does stupid things.
> 
> You've done stupid things.
> 
> I've done stupid things.
> 
> That doesn't make you (or me) an idiot.


fine, that makes you and me a genius.

if a person steals, you call him a philanthropist? you call him a thief.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

That is good news!

I withheld my opinion because of uncertainty of the details, but IMO this video spells out what happened.

The 13 year old involved is obviously an articulate and composed young man.

He clearly explains what happened in the video below.

As the father notes at the end of the video 6 shots fired within 17 feet of his son. 3 shots did NOT hit the dog.

Clearly, based on the eyewitness testimony of the young man, the fact that 6 shots were fired, this officer over reacted without concern for the safety of an innocent child. 

The dog, shown in this video, clearly is not a 100 pound rottie that was leaping for the upper arm, chest or face. The dog was biting the officer's ankle foot and while that's BAD one swift kick would have probably sent the dog running away yelping. 

(in edit unlike the recent incident in ATL the officers were not responding to a reported crime or violent domestic dispute....so no reason to be 'amped' up expecting immediate danger either.)



GSDLoverII said:


> ON A LIGHTER NOTE, BAXTER IS RECOVERING...
> 
> WSVN-TV 7NEWS Video
> 
> That is One Lucky Dog! :angel:


----------



## GregK

Unbelievable!! "forced to shoot" an ankle biter :rolleyes2: ....and 17 feet away from a young boy. 


If this is the kind of people we're hiring to 'serve and protect' we got serious problems!!!!! :thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:


----------



## SophieGSD

I feel like if you want to be a policeman, then don't be afraid of dogs. Especially if there are dogs in a home that you're responding to, and you KNOW it.

Oh no, the dog bit your ankle. Go to the hospital and get the wounds checked. Don't shoot the dog less than TWENTY feet away from a 13-year-old innocent child.


----------



## jaggirl47

One thing that everyone needs to keep in mind....the police were called out specifically because of this dog roaming at large. The owners kept the door open and the dog, who the owner admitted was territorial, rushed out at the officer and bit him. A 50lb dog is not an ankle biter. A 50lb dog can do alot of damage. I do not like the thought of a dog being show. That being said, the owners should have had control of the dog and not allowed it to rush up and bite a police officer.


----------



## Konotashi

Wonder if he actually bit their ankles, or was doing what most herders do by nipping at their ankles.


----------



## msvette2u

> The article, which was written to inflame the public against the officer, was by the same Examiner writer that did this piece.


I cannot stand this Examiner, they loathe police and will do anything to smear them. I won't believe, ever again, anything written by them.


----------



## selzer

When I was 13 I would have NEVER said I was "traumatized." I would have said, "it was really scary, the guy was shooting over and over again. My dog was hurt, she was bleeding, and he was shooting." The kid was coached. Sorry. 

Sometimes officers do have to shoot in the presence of kids. My German Shepherds are only 10-15 pounds heavier. And what if it was a 100 pound Rottweiler, should the guy just let the dog kill him because there is a kid present and he does not want the kid to see him shoot the dog? 

No matter what cops do, it isn't going to be ok. This dog was 50 pounds, about the weight of a pit bull, maybe heavier than a pit bull. If it was a pit bull, even the pit bull people would be quiet about the cops shooting it. Because it is an aussie we are having a collective cow about it. Well, a dog is a dog. We should not be prejudiced in favor of some breeds over others -- that is as bad as breed specific legislation. You cannot punt a 50 pound dog. 

And, if you think an officer is going to take it if your GSD is clipping at their heels, herding them, then you have another thing coming. A bite is a bite. If there is a hole in the shoe or ankle, then it was a bite, not a nip. But even if your dog only nips, I wouldn't let it go running, barking toward a police officer, or the chances are good you will have an injured or a dead dog.


----------



## GregK

selzer said:


> And what if it was a 100 pound Rottweiler, should the guy just let the dog kill him because there is a kid present and he does not want the kid to see him shoot the dog?


It wasn't a 100 pound Rottweiler. 

The issue isn't that the kid saw the shooting. 

The issue is the possibility of a stray bullet hitting the kid. And seeing as only 3 out of the 6 hit the dog. I see this as being a *BIG* concern!!

If I'm not mistaken, cops have tasers, billy clubs and mace on their belts. The dog was biting at the ankles. He didn't have a death grip on the cop's neck.


----------



## selzer

No cop should be bitten in the ankles or anywhere else. The kid did NOT get shot. Maybe, just maybe the cop DID shoot in such a way that the bullets would not go into the child. 

I am sorry, but if the kid had a bullet in the leg, I might be fussed about it. If the dog was a Rottweiler and DID have a death grip on his neck, maybe the kid would have gotten shot, and then everyone would be happy. 

My understanding is that tasers are really not a good choice for dogs. Mace may work and it may not. I think it would be very traumatic for a teen to see a cop pull out a night stick and beat the dog senseless too. 

I think with this group, there is nothing this cop could have done that would have satisfied everyone except to allow himself to be bitten, maybe several times. 

Whether this officer over-reacted or not, the only way that WE can protect our dogs is to ensure that they are not in this situation.


----------



## jaggirl47

GregK said:


> It wasn't a 100 pound Rottweiler.
> 
> The issue isn't that the kid saw the shooting.
> 
> The issue is the possibility of a stray bullet hitting the kid. And seeing as only 3 out of the 6 hit the dog. I see this as being a *BIG* concern!!
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, cops have tasers, billy clubs and mace on their belts. The dog was biting at the ankles. He didn't have a death grip on the cop's neck.


The kids was standing at the front porch and the cop shot down towards the dog in the grass. The kid was not standing right next to the dog. The idiot owners left the door wide open after their dog was already running around the neighborhood. The dog rushed out the front door at the cop. The owner admitted that he should have had control of the dog and that the dog is very territorial. To tell you the truth, if I had a 50 lb dog run up and start biting me, I would most likely shoot it as well.


----------



## GregK

selzer said:


> If the dog was a Rottweiler and DID have a death grip on his neck, maybe the kid would have gotten shot, and then everyone would be happy.


Seriously????? 

I know the kid didn't get shot. Are you disputing the fact that stray bullets are unpredictable? 

Again seriously, you think an Aussie would have to be 'beat senseless' to stop ankle biting???



jaggirl47 said:


> The kids was standing at the front porch and the cop shot down towards the dog in the grass.


I understand this. The article states he was 17 feet away. Again, the stray bullet thing. We got a cop here scared to death of dogs, freaking out and blasting away with his firearm. He **did** miss the dog at point blank range 3 times.


----------



## selzer

Well, I missed a rat at pretty much point blank range with a shot gun. It darted out of the garbage can and I shot and missed. I reloaded, my dad was less than 3 feet away (no I did not hit him either). Dad got him with the pistol, but did not dispatch him. I did with the shot gun. I really don't know how I could have missed. After dropping the ground hog from half my yard away with one shot. But whatever. 

Pistols are actually harder to hit things with than rifles or shotguns. But a shot gun is not a close range weapon. Still...

You figure the dog is running and barking and acting crazy. 

The thing is the pictures are all taken to pull your heart strings and show you this smallish Aussie that is just a cute little ankle biter type dog, never hurt a flea. Whoever heard of an Aussie eating a baby or biting an intruder. But it is actually just a few pounds shy of a GSD. It is a herding dog, not a toy companion animal. It has teeth, and even a toy dog's bite will hurt and draw blood. 

I am insensed that the owner does not take responsibility for his actions, for his not protecting his dog, allowing it to be a nuisance, needing the cops to be called on his dog, and then being all mad at them for his dog getting injured. That just bothers me more than a cop shooting a dog that bit him, whether a kid is present or not. 

And stray bullets, you do have control over their direction. They may not hit the moving target, but you never shoot the bullets in the direction of innocent bystanders. So, while they may not hit the target, they will go where they will not hurt anything or anyone. There is always the possibility that a bullet will ricochet, but that did not happen, and maybe the officer knew what was in the background of his trajectory.

I guess yes, stray bullets are not exactly unpredictable.

When you have kids in a car shooting up the street, yeah, the bullets are flying everywhere without any concern as to what they may ricochet of of, or who they may hit, but that was probably not the case here. 

My dad fired his gun several times with me 3 feet away and neither of us hit the other. Just one dead rat.


----------



## guitarest

I had something similar to this happen to me. My GSD (King) was on the other side of the fence and the officer immediately told me if he gets free he would gladly put a few rounds into my dog. I immediately turned into a individual who would react to this statement. Thus ended my never being arrested before in my life. I was charged with failure to follow the directions of a police officer; went to court and charges were dropped. 

I am good friends with Law Enforcement Officers and dont even begin to understand some of the stress they are exposed to daily. With that said I do believe some but not nearly as many would suspect fall into the John Wayne many feel here. 

This story does not make sense and as Judge Judy says if it doesn't make sense its not true.


----------



## Dainerra

If we are playing "what if"s - what if the bullet that hit the dog passed through, went through a window and killed a grandma baking pies in her kitchen?

Anytime a firearm is involved there is a danger. Did the cop shoot recklessly? The kid was 17 feet away - plenty of room to not be aiming around him. Hitting a running dog at close range, one that is biting at your ankles, isn't easy. That doesn't mean that bullets are flying everywhere though.

Yes, I agree that he was within his rights to shoot the dog.


----------



## jaggirl47

GregK said:


> Seriously?????
> 
> I know the kid didn't get shot. Are you disputing the fact that stray bullets are unpredictable?
> 
> Again seriously, you think an Aussie would have to be 'beat senseless' to stop ankle biting???
> 
> 
> 
> I understand this. The article states he was 17 feet away. Again, the stray bullet thing. We got a cop here scared to death of dogs, freaking out and blasting away with his firearm. He **did** miss the dog at point blank range 3 times.


Some articles say he was 17 feet away. Others say he was more than 20. When you go through firearms training, you do learn how to shoot things with others (to include people) at close range without injuring anything but what you are shooting at. My GSD weighs 56lbs, approximately 6lbs more than this Aussie. When she bites while playing, it hurts like heck. And that is just playing. 
Aussies can be extremely territorial and just like a GSD, they have to be trained. They can inflict serious injuries when they bite.
The owner needs to take responsibility for the issue. He never should have left the front door open with a dog that he admitted was territorial. He did, police were bit, and the dog was shot.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Exactly. 

I was willing to give the police officer a benefit of the doubt in the recent ATL incident due to several circumstances.

There is such a thing in as using "professional discretion".

In this specific incident, as reported by a coherent witness old enough to testify in court, the evidence indicates the officer did NOT use good discretion.

and....bullets don't have eyes....




GregK said:


> It wasn't a 100 pound Rottweiler.
> 
> The issue isn't that the kid saw the shooting.
> 
> The issue is the possibility of a stray bullet hitting the kid. And seeing as only 3 out of the 6 hit the dog. I see this as being a *BIG* concern!!
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, cops have tasers, billy clubs and mace on their belts. The dog was biting at the ankles. He didn't have a death grip on the cop's neck.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

In the video posted earlier (referring the 'on a lighter note' post).

The young man who was actually there reported that he was 17 feet away from the dog as it was being shot.

I'm sure the first comments were guesstimates (only 3 feet off at that) and then after actual investigation and measurements the more precise reading of 17 feet was obtained. 

It is, however, irrelevant in that 3 feet more or less would not affect the deadly force of a bullet that much.

Accidents happen. Dogs get loose. They run out doors. This was a 13 year old who is probably not much experienced in dog training nor dealing with police.

The officer was the professional who did not use, from what I have gathered, good discretion in his handling of this incident. 

The office is the adult, with the gun and the training. The witness is a 13 year old boy with an Australian shepherd and the 'we should protect our dogs at all times' does not relieve him of his responsibility as a professional law enforcement officer.



jaggirl47 said:


> Some articles say he was 17 feet away. Others say he was more than 20. When you go through firearms training, you do learn how to shoot things with others (to include people) at close range without injuring anything but what you are shooting at. My GSD weighs 56lbs, approximately 6lbs more than this Aussie. When she bites while playing, it hurts like heck. And that is just playing.
> Aussies can be extremely territorial and just like a GSD, they have to be trained. They can inflict serious injuries when they bite.
> The owner needs to take responsibility for the issue. He never should have left the front door open with a dog that he admitted was territorial. He did, police were bit, and the dog was shot.


----------



## jaggirl47

Here are the links I posted a couple of pages back:

Police officer shoots family's dog | News - Home

WSVN-TV - Police forced to fire after animal attack

No, bullets do not have eyes. However, those that have been trained to fire these weapons do. The owners were in the wrong 100%.


----------



## GregK

From the news story:

_"Police said Baxter bit one of the officer's ankles, forcing them to fire. But a neighbor called that story doubtful. "I said, 'Show me the bite marks.' He said, 'Well, I am not going to let a dog bite the officer and then shoot.' I said, 'OK, well then you're changing the story,'" said the neighbor."_


*The officer unjustifiably shot this dog!!! What part of this is so hard to understand**????*


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I'm going by the statements made by the young man who was there.

For the following reasons I disagree with your opinion:

The witness provided clear and succinct explanation of what happened, which clearly indicate the officer did not use appropriate discretion.

This call was not in reponse to domestic violence (or other potential life threatening cause).

The officer was dealing with a minor (again, non threatening unarmed minor who was in his home at the time).

The dog was not attacking in a manner which necessitated 6 shots be fired.

...and this final one is deductive resoning on my part - but REALLY it takes **3** bullets (let alone firing SIX times) to stop an Aussie** from biting your shoe or ankle THREE bullets at close range?

The more I think about the more I think this office made some serious mistakes in judgement.

Again, I would NOT say that about the Atlanta incident but if one steps back and looks at this case, it's very different.

(**this is a 40-50 pound dog, not a sherman tank....)







jaggirl47 said:


> Here are the links I posted a couple of pages back:
> 
> Police officer shoots family's dog | News - Home
> 
> WSVN-TV - Police forced to fire after animal attack
> 
> No, bullets do not have eyes. However, those that have been trained to fire these weapons do. The owners were in the wrong 100%.


----------



## jaggirl47

GregK said:


> From the news story:
> 
> _"Police said Baxter bit one of the officer's ankles, forcing them to fire. But a neighbor called that story doubtful. "I said, 'Show me the bite marks.' He said, 'Well, I am not going to let a dog bite the officer and then shoot.' I said, 'OK, well then you're changing the story,'" said the neighbor."_
> 
> 
> *The officer unjustifiably shot this dog!!! What part of this is so hard to understand**????*


That same neighbor is also the lawyer representing the family. It's on their FB page. The statement was also changed from the officer refusing to show this neighbor (even though he received medical care for the bite) to the above statement.


----------



## jaggirl47

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I'm going by the statements made by the young man who was there.
> 
> For the following reasons I disagree with your opinion:
> 
> The witness provided clear and succinct explanation of what happened, which clearly indicate the officer did not use appropriate discretion.
> 
> This call was not in reponse to domestic violence (or other potential life threatening cause).
> 
> The officer was dealing with a minor (again, non threatening unarmed minor who was in his home at the time).
> 
> The dog was not attacking in a manner which necessitated 6 shots be fired.
> 
> ...and this final one is deductive resoning on my part - but REALLY it takes **3** bullets (let alone firing SIX times) to stop an Aussie** from biting your shoe or ankle THREE bullets at close range?
> 
> The more I think about the more I think this office made some serious mistakes in judgement.
> 
> Again, I would NOT say that about the Atlanta incident but if one steps back and looks at this case, it's very different.
> 
> (**this is a 40-50 pound dog, not a sherman tank....)


We will start with the bottom statement...male aussies average 50-65lbs and 21-24in tall. This happens to be the same size as many GSD's. Looking at the video, this aussie is larger than my GSD Leyna, who can inflict serious damage were she to bite someone.

Second....this 13 year old is 2 years older than my son. He was coached 100% on what he said to the media. A kid that age would never talk like that. You could also tell when he was tripping over his memorized words during the interview.

Third....the neighborhood security guard called the police about this dog because this has happened several times (it's funny how much info you can find when you actually dig past the crap). The dog's owners now want the security guard fired for calling the police on the dog running loose. Well, that city has leash and aggressive dog laws. The owners should have followed them.

And last...the owner was not dealing with a minor. He was dealing with a territorial (per the owner) dog that rushed him and bit him. Have you ever been in an instance where you had to decide in less than 2 seconds whether or not you had to shoot someone or something?


----------



## Warrior09

This video is no offense to anyone who is a cop on here and I mean no harm, but i use this video to back up MY PERSONAL OPINION about situations like this.
I agree with Draugr; sorry selzer  I still like you LOL

I PERSONALLY think this should be considered animal cruelty; because cops should be able to read a dogs body language since they do deal with k9s.
There are other videos on youtube showing cops shotting dogs for no apparent reason and even on one video the "supposedly" arrested person got awarded 300,000 dollars because of the cop shotting the dog since the owner did tell the cop they had dog and asked permission to put him and the cop said No and shot the dog in front of them. 

Heres the video if you want to watch it and again this nothing against ALL cops just these one in particular.





 
I would vote on any proposal that help cops know when to shot a family dog and when not and IF wrongful shot they should have to spend a week or so volunteering an animal shelter and learn from it. 

Personal opinion again.


----------



## jaggirl47

But again, you cannot apply every bad situation to a complete different situation. Are there bad apples? Of course. However, that does not mean that every cop shoots a dog just because he wants to be a jerk.


----------



## rshkr

jaggirl47 said:


> No, bullets do not have eyes. However, those that have been trained to fire these weapons do.


the pfficer doesnt have sufficient training to use his weapon. 6 rounds on a 50-60# dog at 17ft? 
c'mon...that doesnt give me the confidence in his marksmanship or his training.



Warrior09 said:


> There are other videos on youtube showing cops shotting dogs for no apparent reason and even on one video the "supposedly" arrested person got awarded 300,000 dollars because of the cop shotting the dog since the owner did tell the cop they had dog and asked permission to put him and the cop said No and shot the dog in front of them.


we have turned into a police society. sooner or later, you will regret giving them so much power.


----------



## BadLieutenant

The anti police sentiment on this board at times makes me ashamed to be a member. Go try to shoot a moving target at 17 feet. Its not that easy. The second guessing by people who sit in a cubicle and punch keys on a keyboard is ridiculous. You obviously have watched too many re runs of Lethal Weapon. Very glad I will be retiring this year.


----------



## LaRen616

Warrior09 said:


> ASPCA THIS IS A CRY FOR HELP: ANIMAL CRUELTY BY THE LAGRANGE MISSOURI POLICE DEPARTMENT part 2 - YouTube


This video still pisses me off!


----------



## BadLieutenant

Instead of leaving this forum, I will begin a thread and post every time an Officer is killed in the line of duty to remind everyone how often this happens and the selflessness that these Officers show.


----------



## jaggirl47

The dog was not 17 feet away. The dog was actively attacking the officer. Just out of curiosity, how many on this board actually understand weapons and bullit calibers? A 9mm will generally not kill or subdue an animal with the 1st shot unless you use a hollow point or directly hit a major organ.


----------



## jaggirl47

rshkr said:


> the pfficer doesnt have sufficient training to use his weapon. 6 rounds on a 50-60# dog at 17ft?
> c'mon...that doesnt give me the confidence in his marksmanship or his training.
> 
> 
> we have turned into a police society. sooner or later, you will regret giving them so much power.



Do you feel the same as those that serve in the military?


----------



## BadLieutenant

LaRen616 said:


> This video still pisses me off!


Hey LaRen,

Not too proud of this either but for every video like this there are dozens of cases where Officers look out for stray dogs, adopt stray dogs and will do just about anything for all sorts of animals. I have seen officers adopt more dogs from the street than i can even remember. There are several Officers that always have a bag of dog food in their trunk and feed the dozens of stray dogs throughout their districts and never tell a soul. Dont let the bad behavior of a few sour your view of the rest of us. I see you are fond of tattoos, well I have had unfortunate days were I have arrested guys and girls who abused children and were covered in tattoos. I don't let this cloud my judgement on all people that have tattoos. Just a thought.


----------



## rshkr

jaggirl47 said:


> Do you feel the same as those that serve in the military?


nope, i served for 23yrs. semper fi.
Tucson SWAT Team Defends Shooting Iraq Marine Veteran 60 Times - ABC News


dont bother with the 2nd/3rd video. look at the 4th, how much is enough?


----------



## LaRen616

BadLieutenant said:


> Hey LaRen,
> 
> Not too proud of this either but for every video like this there are dozens of cases where Officers look out for stray dogs, adopt stray dogs and will do just about anything for all sorts of animals. I have seen officers adopt more dogs from the street than i can even remember. There are several Officers that always have a bag of dog food in their trunk and feed the dozens of stray dogs throughout their districts and never tell a soul. Dont let the bad behavior of a few sour your view of the rest of us. I see you are fond of tattoos, well I have had unfortunate days were I have arrested guys and girls who abused children and were covered in tattoos. I don't let this cloud my judgement on all people that have tattoos. Just a thought.


I didn't even bad mouth any cops in this whole thread. I am sure there are great cops out there, I am sure there are also bad cops out there, the cops in the video however are idiots.

All I said is that that video still pisses me off, doesn't mean I hate all cops.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

It is not realistic to go through life saying all LEOs are perfect, bad or good.

This officer may be a fine professional, based on what eyewitnesses have reported, however, in this particular incident it is reasonable to question his actions.

The problem is not this forum, it's the subjective way people respond to criticism. 

In the thread about the GSD shot by an officer in ATL the overall (median if you will) tone was that most people could see how the mistake might happen.

In this thread there's more of a lean towards the officer did not act appropriately given the circumstances. The reason that is happening is not because people hate LEOs it's because LEOs aren't perfect and this case appears to be an example of that.

Really, there's no reason to take it personally. Part of what makes this country great is our right to question authority.





BadLieutenant said:


> Instead of leaving this forum, I will begin a thread and post every time an Officer is killed in the line of duty to remind everyone how often this happens and the selflessness that these Officers show.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Well our Aussie's sire is 45 pounds......so who knows. From watching the video he doesn't look like a really big dog, except for being a bit overweight maybe. That's splitting hairs when you consider the dog was shot multiple times.

Point two: Occam's razor, you're going to have to prove the parents, the child and cooberating witnesses are coached and lying too. Unlikely.

Point three: the dog was on it's owner's property when the incident occured. So while the dog may have been a problem for the security guard that's not germane to this incident is it? (speaking of crap?)

If someone see's you practicing SchH tug work in your front yard off leash and then 2 months later your dog acts aggresively to someone else on your property should that be an automatic indictment that the dog be shot SIX times? That's the other side of that slope.

A minor cannot be expected to have the same control and grasp of the situation as an adult. Per the young man the police officer only gave him a couple of seconds to responds to his orders. Now that may not be 100% accurate but shooting SIX rounds is not indicative of a cool calm response. I suspect something else was at play with the officer that day (or he may not like dogs, it's possible). Minors cannot drink or enter into contracts because they are not held to the same level of responsibility at adults. The officer was the adult in this situation and should have neutralized not escalated it.









jaggirl47 said:


> We will start with the bottom statement...male aussies average 50-65lbs and 21-24in tall. This happens to be the same size as many GSD's. Looking at the video, this aussie is larger than my GSD Leyna, who can inflict serious damage were she to bite someone.
> 
> Second....this 13 year old is 2 years older than my son. He was coached 100% on what he said to the media. A kid that age would never talk like that. You could also tell when he was tripping over his memorized words during the interview.
> 
> Third....the neighborhood security guard called the police about this dog because this has happened several times (it's funny how much info you can find when you actually dig past the crap). The dog's owners now want the security guard fired for calling the police on the dog running loose. Well, that city has leash and aggressive dog laws. The owners should have followed them.
> 
> And last...the owner was not dealing with a minor. He was dealing with a territorial (per the owner) dog that rushed him and bit him. Have you ever been in an instance where you had to decide in less than 2 seconds whether or not you had to shoot someone or something?


----------



## Draugr

I knew the word "traumatized" at age 13 and I would have used it. Maybe at eight I would have used far more simplified speech (it was "scary" and he "shot a bunch") but at thirteen I would have told someone I was traumatized. And yes I'd trip over my words from bad nerves and worry over my dog. But, maybe I'm just weird.

Occam's Razor is a issue here as Gwenhwyfair pointed out. It's not likely the parents, kid, and other witnesses are all coached, lying, and somehow managed to make all their stories line up. In fact I'd say that goes past being unlikely and is at the point of being ludicrous.


----------



## jaggirl47

The only ones who witnessed the actual shooting were the police, the security guard of the neighborhood, and the 13 year old. That was it. All these other "witnesses" were going off what the family said, so yes it is possible to "coach" others to say what the family believed.

As far as the dog being on it's property at the time of the shooting, yes it was. The security guard called the police when the dog was roaming which is how the police got involved. The police were going up to the house to speak with the owners when the dog rushed out and attacked the police because the door was wide open. So, there you have how the security guard got involved.

As far as the minor child handling the situation, the adults that were in the house should have been responsible enough to keep their dog safe. Do freak accidents happen? Of course. That is why it is the owner's responsibility to look out for the best interests of the dog.

As far as SchH tug work in the front yard, I do it all the time with Leyna. However, I make sure the area is clear. I also know Leyna is extremely protective of the house and our family. I, as the responsible owner, make sure she is not placed in a situation where she may get shot. People come over and she goes to her kennel because if someone did get bit on my property, I have to pay for it and risk having her put down and losing my homeowners insurance.

As far as the size of this aussie, from the videos he is larger than my Leyna who weighs 59lbs (we just got home from the vet), both height and weight.

rshkr, we will not get into the former Marine being shot because I already know it would cause a massive argument that has absolutely no place in this thread.


----------



## jaggirl47

Just some interesting articles:

Marion police officers bitten by dog at Cedar Rapids house | TheGazette

Dog That Bit Police Officer Gets Reprieve - New Hampshire News Story - WMUR New Hampshire

Cops: Police dog bitten by pit bull, owner ticketed - Chicago Tribune

This next one is fairly interesting:
3 dogs shot, 1 deputy bit serving search warrant |ActionNewsJax.com | Jacksonville News, Weather, Sports | WTEV-TV

Belmont Police Officer Shoots, Kills Biting Dog During Home Search CBS San Francisco

Police kill dog that allegedly bit 2 lawmen

And this last one is a study on taser effects on dogs:
http://www.uspcak9.com/training/taser_canine_test.pdf


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> And this last one is a study on taser effects on dogs:
> http://www.uspcak9.com/training/taser_canine_test.pdf


It's actually a study on whether or not it is safe for a police K9 to bite a subject who is actively being tased, not how the taser affects a dog.

They actually say in there the main danger is inadvertently hitting the dog, and to make sure the subject has the probes already in him before releasing a K9 officer on him.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> It's actually a study on whether or not it is safe for a police K9 to bite a subject who is actively being tased, not how the taser affects a dog.
> 
> They actually say in there the main danger is inadvertently hitting the dog, and to make sure the subject has the probes already in him before releasing a K9 officer on him.


Yep, I know.  However, one of the articles posted talks about a dog that was shot point blank range in the head with a .45, but was still alive and had to be euthanized by a vet. That was the 2nd police officer this dog bit.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

RE: witnesses, that's not how I read some of the comments in the reports but then neither of us was there. 

The point of being on the property is the officer did not actually see the dog off property or being aggressive (past) & during the incident the dog was not running off property i.e. endangering a neighborhood child or something else of that nature. We often discuss on this site how people misunderstand a dog's body language, hence my comment about practicing with a tug in your front yard. If someone perceives your dog to be aggressive, simply by watching from ACROSS the street (for example, being clear of other people is not a static condition). They tell a police officer your dog is aggressive, it runs out of the house and then is shot because of an incorrect assesment of the dogs temperament. The point is we can't be sure what nor how the dog was acting prior to this incident as it is often misconstrued and/or blown out of proportion. As I said we see threads here about that all the time.

Regarding the size, we have an Aussie and we visited several breeders. Most of the males were UNDER 60 pounds which is why we chose to get an Aussie as we wanted a dog under 60 pounds. Do some go bigger sure, but the dog I watched in the video did not look to be an exceptionally larger example of a MEDIUM sized breed. So it's really splitting hairs, 45, 55 or even 60 pounds.

BECAUSE-

What I would really like to know is why the officer pumped off SIX rounds. That's an awful lot of rounds for just ONE dog that is not, by any definition, a large breed. In crimes, where victims are shot more then once or twice it is often considered to be an emotionally driven (crime of passion) reaction. Anger, usually.

I'm not saying this officer is a bad person, what I am saying is there is enough agreed upon facts that it casts a reasonable doubt on the officer's reaction in this case.





jaggirl47 said:


> The only ones who witnessed the actual shooting were the police, the security guard of the neighborhood, and the 13 year old. That was it. All these other "witnesses" were going off what the family said, so yes it is possible to "coach" others to say what the family believed.
> 
> As far as the dog being on it's property at the time of the shooting, yes it was. The security guard called the police when the dog was roaming which is how the police got involved. The police were going up to the house to speak with the owners when the dog rushed out and attacked the police because the door was wide open. So, there you have how the security guard got involved.
> 
> As far as the minor child handling the situation, the adults that were in the house should have been responsible enough to keep their dog safe. Do freak accidents happen? Of course. That is why it is the owner's responsibility to look out for the best interests of the dog.
> 
> As far as SchH tug work in the front yard, I do it all the time with Leyna. However, I make sure the area is clear. I also know Leyna is extremely protective of the house and our family. I, as the responsible owner, make sure she is not placed in a situation where she may get shot. People come over and she goes to her kennel because if someone did get bit on my property, I have to pay for it and risk having her put down and losing my homeowners insurance.
> 
> As far as the size of this aussie, from the videos he is larger than my Leyna who weighs 59lbs (we just got home from the vet), both height and weight.
> 
> rshkr, we will not get into the former Marine being shot because I already know it would cause a massive argument that has absolutely no place in this thread.


----------



## Draugr

During qualification/firearms training, officers don't ever just place just one shot, as far as I know. You draw, and fire until empty, getting all shots as accurate and consistent as possible. If he actually was "in fear for his life" - well, the whole point of training is so that in times of stress you can fall back on your training to take over for you. It may have taken him, again, if he was truly frightened, a few moments to slow down, quit firing, etc.

That said herding breeds, when "fear aggressive" tend to give a single nip to the heel and then back off. True aggression in dogs is more rare than people realize. I have a hard time believing that this dog actually attacked and gave a full bite, although I won't discount the possibility.

Regardless, there were plenty of non-lethal options to take. I can see only a few very unlikely scenarios in which this dog _should_ have been shot for his actions.


----------



## jaggirl47

Gwenhwyfair said:


> RE: witnesses, that's not how I read some of the comments in the reports but then neither of us was there.
> 
> The point of being on the property is the officer did not actually see the dog off property or being aggressive (past) & during the incident the dog was not running off property i.e. endangering a neighborhood child or something else of that nature. We often discuss on this site how people misunderstand a dog's body language, hence my comment about practicing with a tug in your front yard. If someone perceives your dog to be aggressive, simply by watching from ACROSS the street (for example, being clear of other people is not a static condition). They tell a police officer your dog is aggressive, it runs out of the house and then is shot because of an incorrect assesment of the dogs temperament. The point is we can't be sure what nor how the dog was acting prior to this incident as it is often misconstrued and/or blown out of proportion. As I said we see threads here about that all the time.
> 
> Regarding the size, we have an Aussie and we visited several breeders. Most of the males were UNDER 60 pounds which is why we chose to get an Aussie as we wanted a dog under 60 pounds. Do some go bigger sure, but the dog I watched in the video did not look to be an exceptionally larger example of a MEDIUM sized breed. So it's really splitting hairs, 45, 55 or even 60 pounds.
> 
> BECAUSE-
> 
> What I would really like to know is why the officer pumped off SIX rounds. That's an awful lot of rounds for just ONE dog that is not, by any definition, a large breed. In crimes, where victims are shot more then once or twice it is often considered to be an emotionally driven (crime of passion) reaction. Anger, usually.
> 
> I'm not saying this officer is a bad person, what I am saying is there is enough agreed upon facts that it casts a reasonable doubt on the officer's reaction in this case.


 
I got the info off of their FB page as well as different articles which is how I knew of the actual witnesses.  You are correct. The officer did not physically see the dog running loose beforehand. The security guards (and neighbor who reported it to the security) did. As far as shots fired, the vet, when interviewed, said 3, the kid said the dog was actually shot 6 times, the dad says 3 shots missed. Way too many different stories. I am interested in hearing the actual police investigation to find out for sure how many rounds the officer actually fired. That being said, the owner is still 100% responsible and accountable for his dog.

People can yell about horrible cops all they want. All that does is push the blame from irresponsible pet owners. Especially a pet owner that admitted their dog is territorial and took off after the officer.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> During qualification/firearms training, officers don't ever just place just one shot, as far as I know. You draw, and fire until empty, getting all shots as accurate and consistent as possible. If he actually was "in fear for his life" - well, the whole point of training is so that in times of stress you can fall back on your training to take over for you. It may have taken him, again, if he was truly frightened, a few moments to slow down, quit firing, etc.
> 
> That said herding breeds, when "fear aggressive" tend to give a single nip to the heel and then back off. True aggression in dogs is more rare than people realize. I have a hard time believing that this dog actually attacked and gave a full bite, although I won't discount the possibility.
> 
> Regardless, there were plenty of non-lethal options to take. I can see only a few very unlikely scenarios in which this dog _should_ have been shot for his actions.


 
Actually, there is much more to firearms training than just firing until empty. They train with group shots, starting with one and moving up. Normally it will go 1, 3, 6. I actually shoot with LEO on and off and dated enough cops to know.


----------



## selzer

That video with the two cops and the bully-type dog was discussed to death here. I do not get sound on it, so we have no idea what the cops are saying through the incident. It looks like they spent a LOT of time trying to figure out any other thing to do with the dog, and were discussing it with higher ups on the phone. 

When my brother's chow-mutt attacked the principle's wife, the cops called my mother because she was the Village Clerk and they knew her. She TOLD them to shoot the dog. They refused and put it in the chicken wire enclosure the other dog was in. (My brother was on vacation, and the dog was left in the basement where I was feeding it. It had climbed up onto a stack of mattresses and chewed its way out of the basement window.) The point is that the owners might have TOLD the officer to shoot the dog. The higher ups might have TOLD them to shoot the dog. I think that the dog had already bitten two people, one of them a kid. 

It did not look like those cops WANTED to kill that dog. And after they did, the officer was upset about it. It is a crappy job. And euthanizing dogs is not what those guys got up in the morning to do that day.

Look, I don't generally give cops a free-pass because they are cops, the opposite is true. I generally hold them to a higher standard because they are walking around with a weapon and they had better have a decent amount of judgement. 

But I hold the safety of pets to be in the domain of the owner. If the owner also owns kids, they have to be responsible for their dog and their kids. It is not ok for them to say, oh my the teenager let the dog run loose. If you cannot manage your dog and your kids, then you need to get rid of your dog. 

Yes, accidents happen, but if you have a KNOWN territorial dog, then you do NOT let it roam around the neighborhood. 

At thirteen, I also knew what the word "traumatized" was and what it meant, but I would never be a pantywaist and use it in reference to myself. Never. As an old lady, I can actually use that word. But I never would have as a kid. When you are a kid, you just don't want to admit that you are young, vulnerable, victimized, traumatized. I am glad that I am not the only one who thought the brat was coached. Eddie Hascal squared. These people are trying to get everyone and their brother in trouble over this event. Trying to fire the security guard over calling the police about their mismanagement of the dog in question? The next-door neighbor said it was unlikely. That is not necessarily eye-witness testimony, and then we find out that NDN is actually their lawyer. Well every single witness or spokesman in this case has an agenda. 

So if your Rottweiler, or Pit bull dog, or German Shepherd dog, knocks down a little old granny on her morning walk, and bites her and she dies, do you get a get-out-of-jail-free card if you have a teenager that let the dog run loose? I think not. If you want to own a dog, then you have to be responsible for that dog whether you have kids or not.


----------



## BadLieutenant

selzer said:


> That video with the two cops and the bully-type dog was discussed to death here. I do not get sound on it, so we have no idea what the cops are saying through the incident. It looks like they spent a LOT of time trying to figure out any other thing to do with the dog, and were discussing it with higher ups on the phone.
> 
> When my brother's chow-mutt attacked the principle's wife, the cops called my mother because she was the Village Clerk and they knew her. She TOLD them to shoot the dog. They refused and put it in the chicken wire enclosure the other dog was in. (My brother was on vacation, and the dog was left in the basement where I was feeding it. It had climbed up onto a stack of mattresses and chewed its way out of the basement window.) The point is that the owners might have TOLD the officer to shoot the dog. The higher ups might have TOLD them to shoot the dog. I think that the dog had already bitten two people, one of them a kid.
> 
> It did not look like those cops WANTED to kill that dog. And after they did, the officer was upset about it. It is a crappy job. And euthanizing dogs is not what those guys got up in the morning to do that day.
> 
> Look, I don't generally give cops a free-pass because they are cops, the opposite is true. I generally hold them to a higher standard because they are walking around with a weapon and they had better have a decent amount of judgement.
> 
> But I hold the safety of pets to be in the domain of the owner. If the owner also owns kids, they have to be responsible for their dog and their kids. It is not ok for them to say, oh my the teenager let the dog run loose. If you cannot manage your dog and your kids, then you need to get rid of your dog.
> 
> Yes, accidents happen, but if you have a KNOWN territorial dog, then you do NOT let it roam around the neighborhood.
> 
> At thirteen, I also knew what the word "traumatized" was and what it meant, but I would never be a pantywaist and use it in reference to myself. Never. As an old lady, I can actually use that word. But I never would have as a kid. When you are a kid, you just don't want to admit that you are young, vulnerable, victimized, traumatized. I am glad that I am not the only one who thought the brat was coached. Eddie Hascal squared. These people are trying to get everyone and their brother in trouble over this event. Trying to fire the security guard over calling the police about their mismanagement of the dog in question? The next-door neighbor said it was unlikely. That is not necessarily eye-witness testimony, and then we find out that NDN is actually their lawyer. Well every single witness or spokesman in this case has an agenda.
> 
> So if your Rottweiler, or Pit bull dog, or German Shepherd dog, knocks down a little old granny on her morning walk, and bites her and she dies, do you get a get-out-of-jail-free card if you have a teenager that let the dog run loose? I think not. If you want to own a dog, then you have to be responsible for that dog whether you have kids or not.



Very nicely put. 
Standing up cheering your post.


----------



## x0emiroxy0x

I love how I can't sleep at night when my boyfriend is on shift PROTECTING YOU PEOPLE from burglars, rapists, **** even your own abusive husbands and all you do is bitch and moan that a cop shot a dog.

Keep your dog in your freaking yard. 

I am TIRED of the crap people say about the police....but they don't hesitate to call when they are in trouble.

Howabout you go buy yourself a gun and when someone breaks into your house unplug your stupid phone and protect yourself instead of letting these people you hate so much risk their life to save yours.

I can't believe my boyfriend switched degrees from engineering to criminal justice junior year because "he wanted to help people". I really hope each and every one of you that are talking with so much hate towards the police end up getting your LIFE SAVED by one. Or, even have a cop DIE saving your life.

Pathetic. 

Really? He should be fired because he shot a LOOSE dog "without giving the owners a chance to get it"...they had a chance to get it in the house. They had a chance to not let it OUT of the house. They had a chance to train it and teach it recall. OWNERS fault. Who knows how many times this officer has been bitten by dogs? Seriously. Cops are people too!


----------



## x0emiroxy0x

You think this was a crime of passion????? HAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you think my boyfriend wakes up every day thinking "God I love being a cop so I can shoot moron's dogs" ?

That was the dumbest thing anyone has said so far.

And when you want to make sure something is dead you shoot as many rounds as possible.

*Cops don't want to waste time with dogs. Idiot owners make them waste precious time they could be saving HUMAN lives to deal with dogs.*


----------



## selzer

C'mon, Xo, everyone knows people become police officer's so they can point their 45 at a scumbag, inform them that it can blow their head clean off, and then ask them if they feel lucky.


----------



## x0emiroxy0x

Rant over. Selzer I really feel like you are the most level headed person on most of these threads. 

It is so sad that I have to worry about my boyfriend and future husband dying in the line of duty saving people that openly ridicule his job.


----------



## x0emiroxy0x

Let's start a new police system.... all the people that hate cops will have their house and cell numbers blocked from calling 911 so that when they are in trouble they won't have to worry about an 'incompetent idiot that just likes to be in charge and shoot people" helping them.


----------



## selzer

LOL, I think I said 45, it is actually a 44 magnum. Whatever. The position of law enforcement does carry and has always carried the possibility of people abusing it. Police officers are human beings, and some of them do things deliberately that are shady and some of them do things that do not show good judgement. That is just true of people in any profession, doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, plumbers, pastors, doesn't matter. Not everyone is the best of the best, and above question. 

I think in hindsight there are many things that we do day in and day out that we might have done differently. 

I do not know whether this particular officer should have done something differently, but the dog's owner should never have put the dog into such a position. 

And I think that if the kid said there were bullets whizzing by his ear, or the neighbor said that a bullet went through his window and lodged into his wall, I think that the case that the officer was careless with his gun would have more merit.


----------



## x0emiroxy0x

Nice clip, just saw it. I'm so passionate about this [I guess I would use 6 bullets?] ...to see someone I love so much that cares so much about his job have his career be openly ridiculed is so hurtful.

It is sad that once people get on the internet they have a god complex and forget that they aren't perfect themselves. In EVERY job there are some bad people.
[catholic priests???]


----------



## jaggirl47

selzer said:


> LOL, I think I said 45, it is actually a 44 magnum. Whatever. The position of law enforcement does carry and has always carried the possibility of people abusing it. Police officers are human beings, and some of them do things deliberately that are shady and some of them do things that do not show good judgement. That is just true of people in any profession, doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, plumbers, pastors, doesn't matter. Not everyone is the best of the best, and above question.
> 
> I think in hindsight there are many things that we do day in and day out that we might have done differently.
> 
> I do not know whether this particular officer should have done something differently, but the dog's owner should never have put the dog into such a position.
> 
> And I think that if the kid said there were bullets whizzing by his ear, or the neighbor said that a bullet went through his window and lodged into his wall, I think that the case that the officer was careless with his gun would have more merit.


 
I do have one argument to make here Selzer. Many cops actually carry 9mm. Depends on the city they work for.


----------



## jaggirl47

x0emiroxy0x said:


> Nice clip, just saw it. I'm so passionate about this [I guess I would use 6 bullets?] ...to see someone I love so much that cares so much about his job have his career be openly ridiculed is so hurtful.
> 
> It is sad that once people get on the internet they have a god complex and forget that they aren't perfect themselves. In EVERY job there are some bad people.
> [catholic priests???]


(and my ex-husband in the USMC)


----------



## x0emiroxy0x

You were right about the blame being pushed off irresponsible owners. Just like with certain dog breeds that are known to be aggressive...the owners always say "Oh, it was your body language, oh you stood a certain way, oh he felt threatened" Dogs should NOT attack. My dog would never charge a stranger, or be off leash outside of my apartment for that matter. And he is fearful as can be.


----------



## x0emiroxy0x

I re-read that about 8 times until I understood what you were saying about your ex lol


----------



## jaggirl47

x0emiroxy0x said:


> I re-read that about 8 times until I understood what you were saying about your ex lol


 
Sorry, I couldn't help but throw that in there lol. It made me laugh.


----------



## selzer

LOL, no I was just talking about the Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry Clip, not what type of gun this guy had. I don't know much about pistols, so I cannot judge between a 9mm and anything else really. All I know is that my dad shot that rat with a pistol 3 times and I still had to finish it off with the shot gun, because it was still moving, coming toward me. 

Sometimes I wonder what my neighbors think -- we were in the front yard. 'Course he (the neighbor) sits in his house and shoots squirrels from through the window. Whatever.

ETA: maybe I should stop now before I convict myself as a *******, lol.


----------



## jaggirl47

selzer said:


> LOL, no I was just talking about the Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry Clip, not what type of gun this guy had. I don't know much about pistols, so I cannot judge between a 9mm and anything else really. All I know is that my dad shot that rat with a pistol 3 times and I still had to finish it off with the shot gun, because it was still moving, coming toward me.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder what my neighbors think -- we were in the front yard. 'Course he (the neighbor) sits in his house and shoots squirrels from through the window. Whatever.
> 
> ETA: maybe I should stop now before I convict myself as a *******, lol.


I think it's too late for that. lol Once you admit you chase rats with pistols and shotguns...you're done for. 

I can tell you one thing though. I personally carry a Smith & Wesson M&P 9c. It is a 9mm compact pistol. I absolutely love it. However, due to the fact that 9mm do not generally do a whole heck of alot of damage (unless you hit directly into a main organ, artery, etc.) I keep it loaded with hollow points in order to properly be able to do damage. Police do not tend to use hollow points. Just a standard issue 9mm round.


----------



## selzer

Actually, I caught the rat in my kitchen garbage can. I hadn't put a bag in, and the thing got in there and could not climb out. So I am looking at him, and know if I just let him out in the snow, he will be back inside my house before me. So I knew I needed to kill him. 

I guess I could have poisoned him. But that is a nasty way to go. 

With one eye on the phone and one on the garbage can, I called my dad, and he said he would be over. He assessed the situation, told me to get my gun and carried the can outside. He had his pistol and said, I would get some target practice. The rat had to go. So we, well, we dispatched him. 

I live in the country, and shooting a rat in the front yard is not like doing it in the middle of the city, or in the house. I wasn't exactly rat-hunting.

I have a river on my property, and rats and mice will come in when the weather turns cold. They have chewed my wiring. They have chewed my water pipes, cause serious water damage. They have chewed the insulation out of my walls. They are nasty, and getting rid of them is not revenge, but just a necessity.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

The story is too inaccurate for me to make a decision on.

Do I think some cops need some training in dog behavior 101? Yea maybe some do, but not all do. There are cops out there who know dogs. In this case? No, the article(s) are too inaccurate for me to say yes.Do I think shooting the dog 6 times was a bit excessive? Yes, but then again I wasn't there and the article(s) are poorly written. 

Were the owners at fault? Yes. Keep your dog contained properly. Train your dog properly.

Sad situation that the dog had to loose its life because of its owner's stupidity.

Do I hate cops?NO! NEVER! Yes, there idiot cops, but that shouldn't mean ALL cops are bad. A lot of people I know view that all cops are bad. IThe I got into an argument with my friend about cops, she even admitted herself that she hasn't had many good experiences with cops, and she wonders why I say she had a negative view on them. She lets her bad experiences overcrowd the good. I wanted to be a cop for sometime but I don't think its the job for me. I have a TON of respect to those cops, military men and women, and other forms of law enforcement(the good one of course). I know a few people who I went to HS who are in the military. A PD Chief went to my HS. I feel better know that there are people out there who are willing to sacrifice their lives to protect me!

Oh and I am pretty sure there are a lot of people on this board who do NOT hate cops, so don't make that assumption. I have seen it.

There is the good, the bad, and the ugly in everything. Unfortunately, a lot of people(in general) let the bad and the ugly overshadow the positive.


----------



## jaggirl47

I do have to say I was just corresponding with one of the owners on FB. Now, apparently, the police were 25ft away and the front door was only open because the dog knows how to open it. They also said that the security guard sees the dog out all the time and they do not know why he called the police instead of them. *insert eye-rolling here* They also say it is the police's fault because the dog was inside when they came but rushed out at them. They state that if the police called from their car with the bullhorn, then they could have just closed the door. However, from the way it sounds the dog got out quite often which is most likely why the police were called. They also say that it is against the law to shoot the dog because the adults were not next to the kid.


----------



## Dainerra

ok, so they ADMIT that they have a huge problem with the dog opening the door and geting out any time it pleases. They ADMIT that the dog aggressively charged from the house at the officers. They think that it's the security guards job to call them if the dog is out? Shouldn't they be watching if he is? I would bet that the guard called the police BECAUSE he has called them many times in the past. That obviously hadn't worked, so they escalated to getting the police involved.
The cops should call out from a bullhorn in the street instead of walking up and knocking on the door to have a conversation? Is this a hostage situation? It sounds like the owners assume that the cops should have known it would be dangerous and the dog would attack if the police stepped into the yard.

Sorry, the more info that the owners put out there, the more I come down firmly on the side of the cops. If they lived in my neighborhood, the dog would have been shot long ago, and not by the cops. A farmer would have shot him and dumped him in a ravine - Shoot, Shovel, and Shut-up. Some of the farmers are kind enough to tell you one time to keep your dog at home; others shoot the first time they see a strange dog on their property, even if they know who it belongs too.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Angry post tho..... 

The last time I checked this is not North Korea.

I'm very good friends with a Captain in a police dept and he's stated that he has to be careful to watch out for people who join the police for the wrong reasons (because as HE said they want to be bullies...this is a career LEOs words NOT mine). One of the things is people who are too quick to escalate in situations where it's not warranted. Based on your responses I doubt he would hire you to be a LEO.

This is a free country and it is not only a citizen's right to question authority, it is their duty.

Further more no one is forced to join law enforcement as a profession. Anyone who does should darn well know that in addition to being empowered to perform actions that the average citizen is not THEY will also be scrutinized much more closely then the garbage man.

One of the foundational tenents upon which this country was created (and why we defend the 2nd A!) is that her citizens should be free from *domestic *oppression. Anything less is...totalitarian and KGB think.

I'm sorry that police officers are paid too low. I'm sorry they have to deal with a lot of scummy and dangerous people, I'm sorry they go from boring duty to extreme danger within a matter of seconds. That does not, however, justify imputing the most base of motives for questioning the actions of a police officer as hate or pure disdain. It comes with the territory of living in democratic republic. Anything less is an EPIC FAIL in a free country.

There...how's that for a rant?







x0emiroxy0x said:


> You think this was a crime of passion????? HAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Do you think my boyfriend wakes up every day thinking "God I love being a cop so I can shoot moron's dogs" ?
> 
> That was the dumbest thing anyone has said so far.
> 
> And when you want to make sure something is dead you shoot as many rounds as possible.
> 
> *Cops don't want to waste time with dogs. Idiot owners make them waste precious time they could be saving HUMAN lives to deal with dogs.*


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

In red... 'kay I'm not really that invested in this story. I read the links, looked at the videos pertaining to this case and that's as far as I'm willing to take it.

These discussions tend to end up in the weeds and brambles of imputing motives and ad hominem declarations and judgements of who is worthy of police protection and not..... 

Rather then just discussing what may or may not have happened?? As with anything of this nature there's going to be two sides of the story and often the middle ground is the closest to the truth.

However as you point out it'll be sorted out by the people involved and the police dept.

I believe the vet reported that three shots actually hit the dog in one of the video links. 

Anyhoo...what bugs me the most is the lack of tolerance displayed by some towards those who question the police officer's actions. 

Not that you are jumping on that bandwagon....

I'd just like to add that in my life I've never had a problem with a police officer. They've always treated me with respect during the couple of traffic stops I've dealt with. I've returned the favor. One of my clients is a recently retired LEO and we actually talked about some of his dog encounters. He's a real dog lover and told me a couple of stories where he did go out of his way to help a dog that was acting fearful.

...and just one more thought to chew over from a more macro perspective...fireman often go into burning buildings to save dogs. They don't know if the dog is friendly or so freaked out it may bite and still they take the time and put their lives on the line to save pets. 

The reason I point these things out is there is room for discretion amongst LEOs and other public safety personnel in the way they handle dogs in different situations.





jaggirl47 said:


> I got the info off of their FB page as well as different articles which is how I knew of the actual witnesses.  You are correct. The officer did not physically see the dog running loose beforehand. The security guards (and neighbor who reported it to the security) did. As far as shots fired, the vet, when interviewed, said 3, the kid said the dog was actually shot 6 times, the dad says 3 shots missed. Way too many different stories. I am interested in hearing the actual police investigation to find out for sure how many rounds the officer actually fired. That being said, the owner is still 100% responsible and accountable for his dog.
> 
> People can yell about horrible cops all they want. All that does is push the blame from irresponsible pet owners. Especially a pet owner that admitted their dog is territorial and took off after the officer.


----------



## GregK

x0emiroxy0x said:


> Howabout you go buy yourself a gun and when someone breaks into your house unplug your stupid phone and protect yourself instead of letting these people you hate so much risk their life to save yours.


 
Not a problem. 




x0emiroxy0x said:


> I love how I can't sleep at night when my boyfriend is on shift PROTECTING YOU PEOPLE from burglars, rapists, **** even your own abusive husbands and all you do is bitch and moan that a cop shot a dog.
> 
> Keep your dog in your freaking yard.
> 
> I am TIRED of the crap people say about the police....but they don't hesitate to call when they are in trouble.
> 
> 
> I can't believe my boyfriend switched degrees from engineering to criminal justice junior year because "he wanted to help people". I really hope each and every one of you that are talking with so much hate towards the police end up getting your LIFE SAVED by one. Or, even have a cop DIE saving your life.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Really? He should be fired because he shot a LOOSE dog "without giving the owners a chance to get it"...they had a chance to get it in the house. They had a chance to not let it OUT of the house. They had a chance to train it and teach it recall. OWNERS fault. Who knows how many times this officer has been bitten by dogs? Seriously. Cops are people too!


What's with all this nonsense? Haltered towards police? No. There's one particular cop here that used deadly force when he didn't have to. Simple as that.

Mail carriers get threatened by dogs.

UPS delivery people get threatened by dogs

Fed Ex delivery people get threatened by dogs

And so on....none of these people shoot dogs. The prepared ones use a repellant.

Or maybe there's some of you out there that think they should carry so they can shoot dogs as well?


----------



## crackem

all those people have a decided advantage over a police man though, they can just leave. a UPS guy shows up and there's an aggressive dog, they don't get out of their truck. Mailman doesn't like your dog, they won't deliver your mail and will require you to get a PO box somewhere else if it's a continual problem.

But when A policeman is called to take care of a dog running at large, they don't just get to leave. They dont' get to just stand at distance and watch and judge. If they did, they'd still be lambasted for not doing their jobs.

I don't like the attitude to shoot first when it comes to dogs, but I really have trouble pinning all the blame on officers when your dog is biting them and acting aggressive and they shoot it.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

In red...kind 'a scary isn't it? 



GregK said:


> <snipped>
> 
> What's with all this nonsense? Haltered towards police? No. There's one particular cop here that used deadly force when he didn't have to. Simple as that.
> 
> Mail carriers get threatened by dogs.
> 
> UPS delivery people get threatened by dogs
> 
> Fed Ex delivery people get threatened by dogs
> 
> And so on....none of these people shoot dogs. The prepared ones use a repellant.
> 
> Or maybe there's some of you out there that think they should carry so they can shoot dogs as well?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

How do you arrive at the conclusion that people (a lot anyways) are pinning *all *the blame on the officers? 




crackem said:


> all those people have a decided advantage over a police man though, they can just leave. a UPS guy shows up and there's an aggressive dog, they don't get out of their truck. Mailman doesn't like your dog, they won't deliver your mail and will require you to get a PO box somewhere else if it's a continual problem.
> 
> But when A policeman is called to take care of a dog running at large, they don't just get to leave. They dont' get to just stand at distance and watch and judge. If they did, they'd still be lambasted for not doing their jobs.
> 
> I don't like the attitude to shoot first when it comes to dogs, but I really have trouble pinning all the blame on officers when your dog is biting them and acting aggressive and they shoot it.


----------



## GregK

crackem said:


> all those people have a decided advantage over a police man though, they can just leave. a UPS guy shows up and there's an aggressive dog, they don't get out of their truck. Mailman doesn't like your dog, they won't deliver your mail and will require you to get a PO box somewhere else if it's a continual problem.


LOL!! Trust me, there's plenty of times when it's not that easy.


----------



## GregK

crackem said:


> But when A policeman is called to take care of a dog running at large, they don't just get to leave. They dont' get to just stand at distance and watch and judge. If they did, they'd still be lambasted for not doing their jobs.


 
I understand this. Put the hand on the mace then instead of the gun.


----------



## GregK

Gwenhwyfair said:


> In red...kind 'a scary isn't it?


Yeah, especially the type-o.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Nah, I knew what you meant...I was leaning more to an "Orwellian" interpretation of a police state but that's just me. 



GregK said:


> Yeah, especially the type-o.


----------



## crackem

GregK said:


> LOL!! Trust me, there's plenty of times when it's not that easy.


 I know, I worked for UPS in college, and yes I did deliveries sometimes during the week and always saturday doing 1 and 2 day air deliveries. Funny how many times I was sent out to middle of nowhere Amish places to deliver an engine part  Strange all the way around.



> I understand this. Put the hand on the mace then instead of the gun.


I probablly wouldn't even do that. But let's face it, if they mace it floats in the air, which it does and affects someone else, they're in trouble. If they kick the dog away and it runs into the street and gets hit, they did wrong, if they wrestle it to the ground and the dog gets hurt, they're in the wrong. If they yell at the owner to get their dog inside and the dog runs off and bites someone else, they're to blame.

As soon as they do "right" in someone's eye's, they're wrong in another's and if something bad happens they're even more "wrong".


----------



## GregK

crackem said:


> I probablly wouldn't even do that. But let's face it, if they mace it floats in the air, which it does and affects someone else, they're in trouble.


I think most peoople would let that slide as opposed to shooting the animal.


----------



## msvette2u

> ..fireman often go into burning buildings to save dogs. They don't know if the dog is friendly or so freaked out it may bite and still they take the time and put their lives on the line to save pets.


No they don't. They go into some burning buildings to save _people_. Not pets.
I actually asked my husband about this and he told me they won't even go into a death-trap burning building to save a human life, when it is certain they'll lose theirs, in fact they are trained to not go into a certain death trap, which would cause not only the death of someone trapped in their, but bring about their demise as well.

And whoever it was who said it is a cops job to save human lives, not worry about dogs' lives, is right. 
They swear to uphold the law and to protect people, not dogs, and especially not ones who are a chronic problem in neighborhoods.
I, for one, am glad they have not lost perspective. Dogs' lives are nowhere near as precious as that of a human. Sorry, they are just not.


----------



## msvette2u

GregK said:


> I think most peoople would let that slide as opposed to shooting the animal.


Some might. Some may have asthma and pepper spray could literally kill them. So now the cops have killed someone in an effort to save a dog?? Not happening.

As an asthmatic (and in law enforcement - ACO), I can tell you it is absolutely no fun getting pepper spray on or near you. One whiff of it and you literally cannot breathe.

A cop disabled by pepper spray is a target and at risk for all kinds of problems.
Pepper spray, in theory, is a beautiful thing. 
Pepper spray in the real world is a nasty thing with the potential to disable if not kill the people near it.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Wow you are reading WAY too much into what I wrote.

See I always post from the perspective of what a reasonable person would do. No one is saying that it is EXPECTED that a public safety official endanger his/her life for an animal! They do choose to do that from time to time though. Big picture, to me that goes without saying. Most people aren't thinking in the extreme.


I just saw a story on the news (few weeks ago) that a fireman went back into a burning building to save a dog (no people were in the building at the time).

Again, it's at the discretion of the firefighters wrt their safety.

....and I was thinking when I have the time I'll post some positive stories about the police and firefighters helping animals because people just go off the rhetorical cliff and focus too much on the negatives and hyperbole to make their points...IMO. (in edit....and I'll bet ya the positive stories won't get nearly as much attention...  )



msvette2u said:


> No they don't. They go into some burning buildings to save _people_. Not pets.
> I actually asked my husband about this and he told me they won't even go into a death-trap burning building to save a human life, when it is certain they'll lose theirs, in fact they are trained to not go into a certain death trap, which would cause not only the death of someone trapped in their, but bring about their demise as well.
> 
> And whoever it was who said it is a cops job to save human lives, not worry about dogs' lives, is right.
> They swear to uphold the law and to protect people, not dogs, and especially not ones who are a chronic problem in neighborhoods.
> I, for one, am glad they have not lost perspective. Dogs' lives are nowhere near as precious as that of a human. Sorry, they are just not.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Agree with it or not....as it's not the topic at hand...but last fall there were quite few incidents of LEOs using pepper spray on people. 



msvette2u said:


> Some might. Some may have asthma and pepper spray could literally kill them. So now the cops have killed someone in an effort to save a dog?? Not happening.
> 
> As an asthmatic (and in law enforcement - ACO), I can tell you it is absolutely no fun getting pepper spray on or near you. One whiff of it and you literally cannot breathe.
> 
> A cop disabled by pepper spray is a target and at risk for all kinds of problems.
> Pepper spray, in theory, is a beautiful thing.
> Pepper spray in the real world is a nasty thing with the potential to disable if not kill the people near it.


----------



## msvette2u

Gwenhwyfair said:


> *because people just go off the rhetorical cliff and focus too much on the negatives and hyperbole to make their points.*..



Yes they sure do, don't they? 

You were trying to justify why a cop should put his life on the line for a dog, by using a fireman as an example.
Hardly comparable, and the truth is, they don't. Maybe some maverick would, but they really don't and in fact are instructed not to. 
Not long ago there was a thread about it and someone was po'ed that the dogs were left inside and burned to death and that the fireman didn't risk his own life to save said dogs.

Anyway. As to anyone in law enforcement, they are out there for the people and to protect them, not to save dogs' lives.
That's why they call in A/C when things are dicey, if a/c even exists where they are. With the cutbacks these days, that's always the first position to go.

Other things to think about are that if (in this situation) the dog had managed to bite one of the officers, there's more huge headaches awaiting, including lost wages from work, hospital visits, insurance issues, the list goes on. Simply not worth it, easier to get the dog out of the way the way they did.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Hey!! I didn't see anyone jumping in to pat me on the back when I said I could understand the circumstances of why the officer shot and killed the GSD in ATL recently.

In this thread I just say (in summary) that in this case it is reasonable to question the officer's actions and the next thing you know myself and others are getting called cop haters.

'splain that! (< oh and that's just a_ rhetorical_ question...just sayin')






msvette2u said:


> Yes they sure do, don't they?
> 
> You were trying to justify why a cop would put his life on the line for a dog, by using a fireman as an example.
> Hardly comparable, and the truth is, they don't. Maybe some maverick would, but they really don't and in fact are instructed not to.
> Not long ago there was a thread about it and someone was po'ed that the dogs were left inside and burned to death and that the fireman didn't risk his own life to save said dogs.
> 
> Anyway. As to anyone in law enforcement, they are out there for the people and to protect them, not to save dogs' lives.
> That's why they call in A/C when things are dicey, if a/c even exists where they are. With the cutbacks these days, that's always the first position to go.


----------



## msvette2u

Did I call you a cop hater?

I was explaining why things may go down as they did, since I worked right alongside our men in blue! 
Oh, and why the firefighter vs. cop comparison is kind of, you know, out there.

Don't be so over-reactive. Life is too short.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Oh and I just remembered....there's an entire show devoted to people (including fire and police officials) who save animals, often at their own peril.

It's called "Animal Rescue" how many people have watched it?

Animal Rescue - Official website of weekly TV series, Animal Rescue


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Oh please...I didn't say YOU called me a cop hater. Now you're being silly just to take swipes at me. 

You're really making this too personal and it shouldn't be, speaking of reactive. :/





msvette2u said:


> Did I call you a cop hater?
> 
> I was explaining why things may go down as they did, since I worked right alongside our men in blue!
> Oh, and why the firefighter vs. cop comparison is kind of, you know, out there.
> 
> Don't be so over-reactive. Life is too short.


----------



## msvette2u

We don't have cable.
And no, I'm not "being silly to take swipes", you *stated *"people are calling myself and others a cop hater".

I didn't even read this thread but the last few pages, and caught the post of yours and wanted to point out that no sane firefighter is going to risk his life for a pet.

But all in all, to help others and perhaps yourself to see and understand that no cop's priority is an animal. Their priority is people and protecting them and if it means killing an animal to do it, that's what they'll do.

How hard is that for anyone to understand?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Sheesh msvette - I did not specify anyone in particular and I did not direct at you that's why I chose the GENERIC word people. All you have to do is read the thread to determine the particulars.

Now you're dragging this convo off into some strange territory because I said that police and fire officials do find and take the time to help save animals and now somehow that's a bad thing to say?

I stated that reasoning because life is not always black and white and humans do have compassion for animals and as such will AND do act on that compassion. 

I already said that it's at the discretion of the firefighter and police officer wrt to saving animals. WHAT part of 'discretion' do you not get? Meaning it's up to their judgement (NOT mine) do you not understand??

I keep using the word discretion in this thread for a reason. This is not a problem with my understanding.

People do put their lives on the line for animals and I'm NOT touching you're assesment of those actions (in red) with a 50' pole......


(in edit, part of the problem is, as you mention below, you've not followed all the posts in question and as such are taking things way out of context)





msvette2u said:


> We don't have cable.
> And no, I'm not "being silly to take swipes", you *stated *"people are calling myself and others a cop hater".
> 
> I didn't even read this thread but the last few pages, and caught the post of yours and wanted to point out that no sane firefighter is going to risk his life for a pet.
> 
> But all in all, to help others and perhaps yourself to see and understand that no cop's priority is an animal. Their priority is people and protecting them and if it means killing an animal to do it, that's what they'll do.
> 
> How hard is that for anyone to understand?


----------



## msvette2u

> Now you're dragging this convo off into some strange territory because I said that police and fire officials do find and take the time to help save animals and now somehow that's a bad thing to say?


Gwenhwyfair, I never said bad, I said inaccurate.
Cops are out there to protect the public, that is all I wanted to point out. 
that, and they are unlike firefighters as well, for many many reasons. 
It seemed to me you were saying police officers shouldn't be afraid of dogs biting them, because firefighters were not when they went in to save animals from burning buildings. 

If I am mistaken, please do correct me, but also re-read your post. Perhaps your mind was moving in that direction, maybe not. 

Just "in general", this is not aimed at anyone, people do need to realize that police officers are always at risk for being killed in the line of duty and if a dog is threatening them to the extent it could take them down or make them disabled, they will have to remove that threat. An officer being attacked by a dog is vulnerable to another human taking advantage of the moment to bring harm to that officer themselves.

I just don't think people always see the "big picture" that way.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

You certainly are taking me to task for it. 

To answer your question; What I've resisted in this thread, in general, is this either/or sort of back and forth here.

For example: If you disagree with how the officer handled this incident you are a cop hater. 

For example: Cops simply don't have the time or inclination to worry about dogs.

Both of these ideas have been presented in this thread and both are incorrect.

The reason I mentioned my position in the ATL GSD Killed thread was to illustrate that I (and I believe many people) do see the big picture.

There is a tendancy (on both sides) to sort of lock down into a predetermined position. Those who make it out like cops do this all the time (they do not) and those who automatically defend the cop no matter what (cops are not perfect).

Then there a people who look at each individual situation and try to make a judgement call based on the evidence presented.

In reality it's really hard to do (no matter what side of the issue we are on) on the internet because usually we don't have all the facts or inaccurate facts are presented. 

Still we talk about them and excercise some powers of reasoning and I would only hope that could be done without us having to paint each other into defensive corners.

:toasting:







msvette2u said:


> Gwenhwyfair, I never said bad, I said inaccurate.
> Cops are out there to protect the public, that is all I wanted to point out.
> that, and they are unlike firefighters as well, for many many reasons.
> It seemed to me you were saying police officers shouldn't be afraid of dogs biting them, because firefighters were not when they went in to save animals from burning buildings.
> 
> If I am mistaken, please do correct me, but also re-read your post. Perhaps your mind was moving in that direction, maybe not.
> 
> Just "in general", this is not aimed at anyone, people do need to realize that police officers are always at risk for being killed in the line of duty and if a dog is threatening them to the extent it could take them down or make them disabled, they will have to remove that threat. An officer being attacked by a dog is vulnerable to another human taking advantage of the moment to bring harm to that officer themselves.
> 
> I just don't think people always see the "big picture" that way.


----------



## msvette2u

> For example: If you disagree with how the officer handled this incident you are a cop hater.
> 
> *For example: Cops simply don't have the time or inclination to worry about dogs.*
> 
> Both of these ideas have been presented in this thread and both are incorrect.


I didn't think I was taking you to task, but if that's how you feel, maybe it comes off that way.

As for "cops don't have the time or inclination to worry about dogs", yes, that is actually quite accurate for the majority of officers or at least those I worked with. (I could tell you of one officer in a group of 12 who didn't mind putting a dog in the back of his patrol rig and taking it to the shelter for me on my off-hours. The rest would say screw it and not even fiddle with it. Might get hair in the rig. Or slobber. Or (dear God no!) _vomit._ )

And I can say that because the folks I worked for and with would just as soon shoot a dog than have to somehow else deal with it. I was on scene for more than one dangerous dog situation when the officers took matters into their own hands and simply shot the dog. 
They were told by their supervisors, when faced with an injured dog, to shoot it rather than call me out to come put it to sleep, but they could only do so when the public wouldn't see them and perceive them as being cruel or shooting a dog that may have been able to be saved. 

But then I'd get a rare gem (or newbie!) who called me out for an injured dog who wasn't being a menace. They didn't do it twice. My fee (I worked on a contract with the county) was $24.50/hr. with a two hr. minimum, if I worked 15min. or 1 hr. and 45 min. 
Then mileage on top of that and a $10/night boarding fee. 
So yeah. It made more sense, budgetwise, to simply dispatch the dog then and there than to call me out, and their supervisors would chew them out good for calling me.

Because I have seen it firsthand in many instances, I can say that many many officers aren't dog people and dogs are the least of their concerns.
If you go out on the 'net you'll see over and over where SWAT teams simply shoot the dog on the premises than deal with it. What the dog presents to them in those situations is a potential danger that could get officers killed.

And...what's weird is I don't disagree with their stance, but I don't agree with it, either.
The way I feel is, it is what it is. If their killing a dog saves someone's life, than that's just how it is. Their safety has to come first.

I wonder if the people who feel you (and others) are a "cop hater" feel the same and that's why they are reacting that way?
Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

You jumped hard on that comment?

Anyhoo....

You're painting a much less positive picture of the police than I am, that's for sure.

Now you can pull 'rank' on me in general because of your ACO work but then that flies in the face of many LEOs on this board who have objected to such a broad brush being applied to them. **

That's your gig tho...not mine.

Another irony is I am really less invested in this topic then you think and have often mentioned in other threads that human life comes first. It's just not an 'always' or 'either/or' situation.

As to why other's may think I (or others are) a "cop hater" through the tortuous and twisty turns of this thread...if they catch me in just the right mood I'll either kill 'em with kindness or bid them 'good day comrade'. 

heh. 

** (and btw some LEOs I know personally...I am friends with LEOs, train with a retired LEO and have several clients who are currently employed as LEOs)



msvette2u said:


> I didn't think I was taking you to task, but if that's how you feel, maybe it comes off that way.
> 
> As for "cops don't have the time or inclination to worry about dogs", yes, that is actually quite accurate for the majority of officers or at least those I worked with. (I could tell you of one officer in a group of 12 who didn't mind putting a dog in the back of his patrol rig and taking it to the shelter for me on my off-hours. The rest would say screw it and not even fiddle with it. Might get hair in the rig. Or slobber. Or (dear God no!) _vomit._ )
> 
> And I can say that because the folks I worked for and with would just as soon shoot a dog than have to somehow else deal with it. I was on scene for more than one dangerous dog situation when the officers took matters into their own hands and simply shot the dog.
> They were told by their supervisors, when faced with an injured dog, to shoot it rather than call me out to come put it to sleep, but they could only do so when the public wouldn't see them and perceive them as being cruel or shooting a dog that may have been able to be saved.
> 
> But then I'd get a rare gem (or newbie!) who called me out for an injured dog who wasn't being a menace. They didn't do it twice. My fee (I worked on a contract with the county) was $24.50/hr. with a two hr. minimum, if I worked 15min. or 1 hr. and 45 min.
> Then mileage on top of that and a $10/night boarding fee.
> So yeah. It made more sense, budgetwise, to simply dispatch the dog then and there than to call me out, and their supervisors would chew them out good for calling me.
> 
> Because I have seen it firsthand in many instances, I can say that many many officers aren't dog people and dogs are the least of their concerns.
> If you go out on the 'net you'll see over and over where SWAT teams simply shoot the dog on the premises than deal with it. What the dog presents to them in those situations is a potential danger that could get officers killed.
> 
> And...what's weird is I don't disagree with their stance, but I don't agree with it, either.
> The way I feel is, it is what it is. If their killing a dog saves someone's life, than that's just how it is. Their safety has to come first.
> 
> I wonder if the people who feel you (and others) are a "cop hater" feel the same and that's why they are reacting that way?
> Just thinking out loud.


----------



## msvette2u

> You're painting a much less positive picture of the police than I am, that's for sure.


I am painting an honest picture.
I love and respect our cops, sheriffs and highway patrol, and I am glad they put human lives above animal's lives, and I am glad so many here are in agreement.

Yes we have dog loving officers who will try to work with or around dogs, but when it comes down to safety of themselves and other officers, they will shoot a dog if they have to.
That's not being negative, it is just stating a fact.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

This isn't a question of putting dogs lives OVER human life. That's a strawman argument for the purposes of this discussion. 

It's a question of, given the circumstances, if a situation can be handled without seriously harming the dog will the officer opt to handle the situation without use of deadly force....again this is under the condition that no humans are in danger for their lives.

This is where the discretion part comes into play.

If the officers in your jurisdiction consistently opt << (mistakes happen, so let's set that condition aside) to seriously injure animals for no other reason then convenience that is a negative indictment of the police in your area. 

My life experience tells me most public safety officials are not THAT cold hearted and _usually_ given the opportunity won't injure an animal.






msvette2u said:


> I am painting an honest picture.
> I love and respect our cops, sheriffs and highway patrol, and I am glad they put human lives above animal's lives, and I am glad so many here are in agreement.
> 
> Yes we have dog loving officers who will try to work with or around dogs, but when it comes down to safety of themselves and other officers, they will shoot a dog if they have to.
> That's not being negative, it is just stating a fact.


----------



## rshkr

Gwenhwyfair said:


> given the circumstances, if a situation can be handled without seriously harming the dog will the officer opt to handle the situation without use of deadly force...


NO. they wont be called police "force" if they wont use force.LOL.


----------



## msvette2u

Gwenhwyfair said:


> If the officers in your jurisdiction consistently opt << (mistakes happen, so let's set that condition aside) to seriously injure animals for no other reason then convenience that is a negative indictment of the police in your area.
> 
> My life experience tells me most public safety officials are not THAT cold hearted and _usually_ given the opportunity won't injure an animal.


I find it strange you keep insisting you're not "invested" in this "argument" or discussion yet you've got over 25 posts in this thread, and every time I state anything, no matter how basic it is, you come back to argue with it. 

My response to your statement above is the same:



> Yes we have dog loving officers who will try to work with or around dogs, but when it comes down to safety of themselves and other officers, they will shoot a dog if they have to.
> That's not being negative, it is just stating a fact.


I believe this should be the philosophy of every cop/sheriff/state patrol out there.


----------



## Dainerra

ok, here is how I would gauge "was the response reasonable". Yes, I would have shot the dog in the officer's shoes.
I mean, the owner is telling people that the dog can open doors, has a long history of roaming the neighborhood, and is extremely territorial. The security guard called the police, a guard with a personal knowledge of the dog's past behavior. The owner said "They should never have gotten out of the car." Seriously? Sounds a bit extreme that it's the officer's fault that the dog attacked him.

Do you wait until you are bleeding to defend yourself? Or do you take action as soon as it's clear that the dog is aggressive? The cop did the latter - the dog was aggressively grabbing at his body AFTER a report that the dog was roaming the neighborhood. 

How often do we all hear "Oh, don't worry, he's friendly!" and the dog is acting like he is going to tear your throat out? It's not a matter of being convenient, it's a matter of valuing the life of me and mine over the possession of another person. An obviously "un-cared for" possession as the owner had taken zero steps to stop the behavior despite a long history.


----------



## selzer

It really is not up to the police to waste time on finding a kinder, gentler solution for your dog running amok, biting people. It is up to the owners to protect their territorial dog. These owners let this dog run the neighborhood regularly. They got what they deserved. Boy is that cold. But this dog was injured by cop. It could have died by motorist, or any number of things. It could have bitten a little old lady who had to spend thousands of dollars on skin graphs and therapy, and they could have had the pants sued right off of them. 

In fact, I think most cops do not want to shoot dogs, and have a serious problem with shooting dogs. They should be compensated for having to shoot a dog, and the owner should be responsible for that too. 

In my opinion the owners should be convicted of:
1. Loose dog, leash law. $50
2. Failing to contain a dangerous dog. $1000
3. Dog bite. $250

So, if I was the judge, I would award the general fund $1050, and award the officer $250. 

The dog should have a dog-bite on its record and be euthanized if it bites again.

It does not matter that this was a smaller dog and there were not blood and guts everywhere. This kind of gross negligence increases the problems for dog owners everywhere. It is listed as a dog bite. And people need to stop blaming everyone else and take care of their dogs. These bites seem insignificant, but insurance agencies everywhere will give all of those of who own dogs a good bashing because of incidents like this one. It does not matter that this officer was treated on the scene. Another person may have taken them to the cleaners, and insurance companies know this.

Ok, rant over.


----------



## selzer

Yeah, they show it on TV all the time: Bullhorn comes out. "You in the house -- Do NOT flush the evidence down the toilet! Come out and remove your dog so we can get out of the car and come and arrest you!"


----------



## msvette2u

Good posts :thumbup:
And don't forget cops were not hired to deal with dogs. There's a/c for that purpose!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

They aren't called the KGB either. 

Seems like some here would have it that way. 

LOL not.

Society is not judged by how the most powerful (or empowered in this case) behave but rather on how the most vunerable members of society are treated. Vunerable members including animals.






rshkr said:


> NO. they wont be called police "force" if they wont use force.LOL.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

...and how often do you hear that people are misinterpreting the dog's body language.

In the next thread you're going to read bunches of posts about how clueless people are regarding the behaviour towards dogs.


BTW- at least, dainerra you're referring to this particular case.

Whereas a lot of the comments here are generalizing for the sake of being demeaning and dismissive only.

If it all were so black and white we wouldn't need juries and judges to settle disputes.





Dainerra said:


> ok, here is how I would gauge "was the response reasonable". Yes, I would have shot the dog in the officer's shoes.
> I mean, the owner is telling people that the dog can open doors, has a long history of roaming the neighborhood, and is extremely territorial. The security guard called the police, a guard with a personal knowledge of the dog's past behavior. The owner said "They should never have gotten out of the car." Seriously? Sounds a bit extreme that it's the officer's fault that the dog attacked him.
> 
> Do you wait until you are bleeding to defend yourself? Or do you take action as soon as it's clear that the dog is aggressive? The cop did the latter - the dog was aggressively grabbing at his body AFTER a report that the dog was roaming the neighborhood.
> 
> How often do we all hear "Oh, don't worry, he's friendly!" and the dog is acting like he is going to tear your throat out? It's not a matter of being convenient, it's a matter of valuing the life of me and mine over the possession of another person. An obviously "un-cared for" possession as the owner had taken zero steps to stop the behavior despite a long history.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I was *ready* for that question. It demonstrates your continued misunderstanding.

It's not about this one dog being shot. It's about people being told if they question a policeman's actions they are cop haters that really got me involved.

I've tried to use, going forward from those posts, this case a study of that attitude.

I AM invested in the 1st amendment and think some of the comments are really dancing on thin ice. Now YOU have NOT said those things but you've jumped in and keep redirecting, for some reason.

Do you not believe we have the RIGHT to question authority in this country? 


...and in red below I've already said that goes without saying, of course.




msvette2u said:


> I find it strange you keep insisting you're not "invested" in this "argument" or discussion yet you've got over 25 posts in this thread, and every time I state anything, no matter how basic it is, you come back to argue with it.
> 
> My response to your statement above is the same:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this should be the philosophy of every cop/sheriff/state patrol out there.


----------



## GregK

Dainerra said:


> .
> 
> Do you wait until you are bleeding to defend yourself? Or do you take action as soon as it's clear that the dog is aggressive? .


Right, you take action. In this case, hit him with the billy club. Don't fire six rounds at him.

It just amazing me that on a dog board with supposed dog lovers, there's so many of you that want the gun to be the first course of action.

How about this, those of you who agree with shooting this dog; this is your dog. No, not your GSD, your Aussie. Same situation. Same course of action by the police officer - he shoots your dog.

You're ok with it? You going to shake his hand and say ‘job well done officer?’


----------



## Dainerra

I wouldn't let my dog become a chronic problem. But, yes, if my dog attacked an officer I would hold myself responsible, not the cop. In my area, I know that if I were to let my dogs roam, there is every likelihood that they would never come home. Farmers shoot dogs near their animals - some even if the dogs are just passing through the field. 
I would be devastated, but all the blame would be on me. The same if my dog was out and hit by a car. Is it the driver's fault? 
To me, it doesn't matter if the dog was a yorkie, a chi, or a great dane. The dog ATTACKED the officer. A dog that the officer was informed had a long history of roaming the neighborhood and acting aggressively.

To turn it around, would you be ok with the dog having a fractured skull and died from internal injuries because it was beaten with an asp until it backed down?


----------



## GregK

Dainerra said:


> To turn it around, would you be ok with the dog having a fractured skull and died from internal injuries because it was beaten with an asp until it backed down?


Yes.


----------



## Dainerra

so what would the difference be? I would rather the officer shoot my dog than attempt to beat him into submission with a large metal club.


----------



## msvette2u

Gwyn, you are being very rude and overbearing. Your use of *CAPSLOCK* and enlarged font tells me you are _way_ too invested in this discussion.
There is no misunderstanding, and I never said half the things you are implying and inferring into my statements. I am done "discussing" anything with you.



> It demonstrates your continued misunderstanding.


Greg. When you are out there with a billy club and a gun, and a dog attacks me, you tell me which is more effective at getting the dog off you.
We were taught where to hit a dog to make it stop attacking. The top of the head will not work. The muzzle will work. You essentially break the muzzle off, you can break the dog's front legs and also you can damage it's spine if you hit right behind the ribs.
No other place on the dog's body, if hit with a club, will stop it. 
Now, I don't know about you but the last thing I want is a dog with it's muzzle hanging off, it's forelegs broken and paralyzed from the waist down. If it was my dog and this was going on, I'd prefer the officer shoot it instead of do all that to it.
A fractured skull is a fractured skull, at least with a bullet the dog will die instantly instead of a prolonged painful death.


----------



## Draugr

msvette2u said:


> A fractured skull is a fractured skull, at least with a bullet the dog will die instantly instead of a prolonged painful death.


I'd rather a taser/pepper spray be used, than a billy club OR a gun, but, I'd just point out that no...bullet does not always cause instant death. Sometimes it is very prolonged and painful.

There was a case a few months ago of an off-duty cop who brought his sidearm to the dog park and shot a husky. The dog took a couple hours to die.


----------



## msvette2u

Draugr said:


> I'd rather a taser/pepper spray be used, than a billy club OR a gun, but, I'd just point out that no...bullet does not always cause instant death. Sometimes it is very prolonged and painful.
> 
> There was a case a few months ago of an off-duty cop who brought his sidearm to the dog park and shot a husky. The dog took a couple hours to die.


_Done correctly_, it will kill the dog instantly. If I had to shoot a dog I'd shoot it until it quit moving.
I was out with state patrol a few months ago where a dog had been hit and almost killed on the freeway. It's back was broken and it had internal injuries, by the way it was going downhill fast. I couldn't get it in my truck so I called the vet and asked where to shoot it so it was over instantly. I then instructed the trooper who shot it in the median while I held up a blanket. 
It's the same as for horses, for those who know how to do that properly.


----------



## Dainerra

I will admit that an instant kill shot on a dog grabbing at your ankles isn't guaranteed. But, it's unlikely that pepper spray will stop a dog. It's even more unlikely that you could get an accurate shot with a taser.


----------



## Draugr

Dainerra said:


> I will admit that an instant kill shot on a dog grabbing at your ankles isn't guaranteed. But, it's unlikely that pepper spray will stop a dog. It's even more unlikely that you could get an accurate shot with a taser.


If you can't get an accurate shot with a taser that close, you certainly shouldn't be shooting a gun. They DO work point-blank range, if it's really that much of an issue.

And frankly, the "myth" that pepper spray doesn't work on dogs is exactly that, a myth. I won't deny that just like humans there may be the occasional individual who is not affected, that doesn't mean it's an excuse to jump straight to lethal force without justification. Just because there are humans who are basically immune to the effects of pepper spray does not mean an officer should jump straight to the use of his sidearm in those situations instead of using the pepper spray. The same is true with dogs.

Sorry. I don't buy that ankle-biting in a scenario that isn't posing any immediate danger to the officer or a surrounding individual (such as, for instance, a response to a domestic violence call) is a valid death warrant.

No, the dog should not have been at large. The owners should have contained it. Some of the fault lies on them for having the dog in that situation in the first place. But it is truly sickening to see how little people care for a dog's life because of what its owners did. Yes, all sorts of other horrible irrelevant things could have happened to it. But none of those things did. This did. Here, in this situation, the dog did not need to be shot. And if I am ever an LEO I will most certainly take care to avoid having to needlessly shoot a family pet just because it's the easiest way out, regardless of how "irresponsible" the owners are. I think that's an absolutely sick justification to use as to why the dog should pay for that with its life.


----------



## Dainerra

I seriously doubt you will find anyone who thinks that shooting is the "easy way out". It's definitely not. Even if you dislike dogs, it isn't easy to make the decision to shoot. 

regular pepper spray isn't listed to be used on dogs. You have to buy a special "dog formula". Pepper Spray Information Will pepper spray work on bears and dogs? 
Pepper spray is effective on dogs and other wild animals. To protect you from bear /dog attacks, purchase bear spray and dog spray that is specifically formulated and clearly labeled for deterring attacks by bears or dogs.

check any number of pepper spray manufacturers and they will tell you to buy a special formula for dogs.


----------



## Draugr

Dainerra said:


> check any number of pepper spray manufacturers and they will tell you to buy a special formula for dogs.


Which is a particularly great marketing gimmick to get people to buy things they don't need.

Capsaicin (active ingredient in pepper spray) is just highly concentrated extract from chili peppers and will work against _any_ mammal. I could believe that for bears, due to their size, may require a higher concentration to deter them - maybe, maybe the case with some dogs. But they sell high-concentration OC spray for humans, too.


----------



## selzer

If this was my dog, I would be way too ashamed of myself to get on the news and cry foul, to push my child up and say Look, he shot my dog if front of my little boy, to want the security guard who called the cops to lose his job. 

When my girl was lost, it would have been completely my fault if she was hit by a car, shot by a cop, shot by hunters, or found poison and ate it. I would have taken responsibility for my lapse and not tried to blame everyone else.

I would have apologized and accepted any fine that I received for not following the law and letting my dog be a nuisance.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

msvette2u said:


> . Dogs' lives are nowhere near as precious as that of a human. Sorry, they are just not.


I am sorry my last dogs were pretty much the closest thing I had to human friends as I was bullied all through elementary school, middle school, and high school(Yes I have family and friends who did care but I was rather the black sheep of the family.). They passed in 2007 I am still NOT over their loss. Ask any of my friends and family and they will tell you that I was VERY CLOSE to those dogs. 

Yes, I do value human life immensely and think its sad when someone looses a child, family member(I have lost a few friends and family), but to say that a dog's life is NOT as precious or no where near as precious is absurd, IMO. IMO, my dogs lives ARE precious. There is a reason I volunteer in rescue and at a shelter, because I value their lives very much.

No I am not a PETA freak, thats just how I view things.

In this case I would be TERRIABLY UPSET AND TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY if this were my dog.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> No, the dog should not have been at large. The owners should have contained it. Some of the fault lies on them for having the dog in that situation in the first place. But it is truly sickening to see how little people care for a dog's life because of what its owners did.QUOTE]
> 
> See, this is the argument right here. The dog was loose, the dog was biting the officer. the dog was not under control. That is 100% the owner's fault. It can be turned around any which way you want, but it does not change the fact that the owners did not have proper control of the dog. It has nothing to do with whether or not we care about the dog. I am sure every member on here feels bad for this dog. However, the owners are COMPLETELY responsible for this happening.


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> See, this is the argument right here. The dog was loose, the dog was biting the officer. the dog was not under control. That is 100% the owner's fault. It can be turned around any which way you want, but it does not change the fact that the owners did not have proper control of the dog. It has nothing to do with whether or not we care about the dog. I am sure every member on here feels bad for this dog. However, the owners are COMPLETELY responsible for this happening.


Oh, that's right.

I remember the real version of the story now, where the owner ran up and grabbed the cop's gun so he could pull the trigger himself six times.

Silly me.


----------



## msvette2u

I think it's just the gun aspect that really bugs some folks. 

Had the dog been run over and killed, this wouldn't be news.


----------



## selzer

Draugr said:


> No, the dog should not have been at large. The owners should have contained it. Some of the fault lies on them for having the dog in that situation in the first place. *But it is truly sickening to see how little people care for a dog's life because of what its owners did*. Yes, all sorts of other horrible irrelevant things could have happened to it. But none of those things did. This did. Here, in this situation, the dog did not need to be shot. And if I am ever an LEO I will most certainly take care to avoid having to needlessly shoot a family pet just because it's the easiest way out, regardless of how "irresponsible" the owners are. I think that's an absolutely sick justification to use as to why the dog should pay for that with its life.


I think it is BECAUSE we care about dogs that we are infuriated with this owner. It does not matter that this dog's injury was not from the much more common being hit by a car, or getting into something poisonous. The ONLY way for fewer dogs to be injured, is to have them under control. If we all point our fingers at the big bad policeman, we are not bothering to protect our dogs. We are siding with the dog owner, who sees nothing wrong with his management plan. If he and we do not place the responsibility for this dog's injury correctly, more dogs will suffer the same or an equally nasty fate. 

It is because we care about dogs that we are passionate about who is at fault here. We need to be more careful with our dogs. Most of us have dodged a bullet once or twice, when the dog darted out the door, or went after some critter in the yard. When that happens we need to realize what we might have lost and up our prevention. Accidents happen, well let them happen to somebody else. I will not leave my dogs with just one line of defense. If I forget to latch a gate, my dogs are still safe. If I _knew _my dog could open the front door, then I would be installing a dead bolt, or bar the front door area from the dog. 

My guess is that for every dog that gets shot by a cop, there is probably hundreds, maybe even a thousand or more that are hit by cars. I wish every dog owner out there thinks that if a cop sees their dog running loose they are going to shoot it. Maybe that will save some of the hundreds.


----------



## GregK

selzer said:


> If this was my dog, I would be way too ashamed of myself to get on the news and cry foul, to push my child up and say Look, he shot my dog if front of my little boy, to want the security guard who called the cops to lose his job.


So you would be ok with the cop shooting your Aussie instead of using a less deadly course of action to prevent being bit?


----------



## GregK

Draugr said:


> No, the dog should not have been at large. The owners should have contained it. Some of the fault lies on them for having the dog in that situation in the first place. But it is truly sickening to see how little people care for a dog's life because of what its owners did. Yes, all sorts of other horrible irrelevant things could have happened to it. But none of those things did. This did. Here, in this situation, the dog did not need to be shot. And if I am ever an LEO I will most certainly take care to avoid having to needlessly shoot a family pet just because it's the easiest way out, regardless of how "irresponsible" the owners are. I think that's an absolutely sick justification to use as to why the dog should pay for that with its life.


YES!!!!!!

And if you're trying to become a police officer, best of luck to you! We need more cops with this kid of mindset!!! :thumbup:


----------



## selzer

GregK said:


> So you would be ok with the cop shooting your Aussie instead of using a less deadly course of action to prevent being bit?


Yupp, I would be ok with him shooting my Aussie, my Scotty, my Yorkie. If the dog ran toward him barking, growling, hackles up, even if it did NOT make contact with the ankle. If the dog was loose outside and the cops were there because people reported my dogs off my property. Then I would not blame the officer for shooting my dog.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> Oh, that's right.
> 
> I remember the real version of the story now, where the owner ran up and grabbed the cop's gun so he could pull the trigger himself six times.
> 
> Silly me.


No, the owner allowed his front door to stay open with a dog that is territorial. The dog rushed out and BIT the officer. The officer proceded to protect himself. This would have been unnnecessary to do if the owner had taken proper care of his dog.


----------



## selzer

GregK said:


> So you would be ok with the cop shooting your Aussie instead of using a less deadly course of action to prevent being bit?


Why should we be ok with them shooting our GSD, but not shooting another breed of dog?


----------



## selzer

I think the current story is that the dog can open the front door himself, and that cops should use a bull horn from their vehicle to get you to come out and corral the dog.


----------



## jaggirl47

selzer said:


> I think the current story is that the dog can open the front door himself, and that cops should use a bull horn from their vehicle to get you to come out and corral the dog.


And that the neighborhood security guard should be fired for calling the police because the dog was roaming.


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> No, the owner allowed his front door to stay open with a dog that is territorial. The dog rushed out and BIT the officer. The officer proceded to protect himself. This would have been unnnecessary to do if the owner had taken proper care of his dog.


The dog nipped a shoe. He didn't bite the officer himself and it's preposterous to say this was "protecting himself."

The officer made the decision to pull the trigger. Nobody made that for him. He was not forced to, it was one of many options available to him and certainly not the best option to take, but he decided to take it.

Absolving him of any blame is no different than placing all the blame on him.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> The dog nipped a shoe. He didn't bite the officer himself and it's preposterous to say this was "protecting himself."
> 
> The officer made the decision to pull the trigger. Nobody made that for him. He was not forced to, it was one of many options available to him and certainly not the best option to take, but he decided to take it.
> 
> Absolving him of any blame is no different than placing all the blame on him.


No, actually the OWNERS say that the dog bit the shoe. The officer received medical care for a dog bite to the ankle. That was reported prior to the owners going on every news station.
The best option would have been for the dog to not be put in a situation where the dog was shot. That is not the police officer's job or responsibility. That is the responsibility of the owner.


----------



## msvette2u

But the theme in America is, "it's always someone else's fault when I screw up".


----------



## selzer

Dragr, if your dog bites someone's shoe or someone's ankle, you're in deep doo doo. The cop should not have to wait and see if the dog is actually going to bite before he does something. 

I think braining the dog with a club is probably more likely for the officer to get injured, and more likely to cause the dog to become more aggressive toward people.

This yayhoo has a dog that can get out of the house on its own, that is territorial, will run up and BITE people. And he is whining and moaning about his dog getting injured. 

Someone mentioned the cop shooting the husky in the dog park. Well, there is just a little bit of a difference there. The dog did not bite the officer. The dog was in a DOG PARK, where dogs are supposed to run about OFF LEAD. And the officer was trying to protect his dog from the possibility of being attacked. Apples and oranges totally.


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> No, actually the OWNERS say that the dog bit the shoe. The officer received medical care for a dog bite to the ankle. That was reported prior to the owners going on every news station.
> The best option would have been for the dog to not be put in a situation where the dog was shot. That is not the police officer's job or responsibility. That is the responsibility of the owner.


Strange, I never saw any reports of medical care received. Just the officer claiming he was bit on the ankle, and then corroborating reports from neighbors casting some serious doubt on that.

Good judgement IS a police officer's responsibility.

"The best option" crap is irrelevant. What happened, happened, you have bad dog owners that didn't keep their dog confined. Whatever. Nobody, despite the straw men being set up here, is saying they deserve no blame whatsoever.

What you're basically telling me is that it's okay for the cop to have exercised bad judgement because someone else put him in that place. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone else screwed up doesn't excuse you from screwing it up even worse.

Police are and should be called to a much higher standard of judgement than civilians are and it is very sad to see so many people here think that when it comes to animals, for some reason, it's okay to throw all that out the window because the owners screwed up first.


----------



## selzer

Actually, the neighbor said it was "highly unlikely." The neighbor wasn't present, sorry. And someone says that the neighbor is a lawyer and was retained by the family. Puts what the neighbor said concerning this incident into perspective.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> Someone mentioned the cop shooting the husky in the dog park. Well, there is just a little bit of a difference there. The dog did not bite the officer. The dog was in a DOG PARK, where dogs are supposed to run about OFF LEAD. And the officer was trying to protect his dog from the possibility of being attacked. Apples and oranges totally.


I did, and it was in reference to the statement that bullets kill instantly.

It was not being compared to this situation. "Apples and oranges."



selzer said:


> Actually, the neighbor said it was "highly unlikely." The neighbor wasn't present, sorry. And someone says that the neighbor is a lawyer and was retained by the family. Puts what the neighbor said concerning this incident into perspective.


"Someone said, someone said, someone said."

Seems you are going to a lot of great lengths to remove every last vestige of possible blame for what this officer decided to do. Police are not blameless for their actions and it is criminal to treat them as such. I want our police forces to be filled with men and women of integrity. It is an honorable tradition. And by and large, they are "staffed" by society's best. That means not absolving them of mistakes just because of a uniform.


----------



## selzer

Well, the bullets obviously didn't kill instantly in this case because the dog was still alive as far as I heard. 

I would not want a cop to tase my dog, or to spray my dog with pepper spray, or to beat my dog with a night stick, or to shoot my dog, so I guess I will make sure that they do not get the opportunity. 

I do not look at it as though my dogs might get injured or killed if they are running around loose, I look at is as though they will get injured or killed.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> Well, the bullets obviously didn't kill instantly in this case because the dog was still alive as far as I heard.
> 
> I would not want a cop to tase my dog, or to spray my dog with pepper spray, or to beat my dog with a night stick, or to shoot my dog, so I guess I will make sure that they do not get the opportunity.
> 
> I do not look at it as though my dogs might get injured or killed if they are running around loose, I look at is as though they will get injured or killed.


Then I hope you never have an accident where your dogs manage to get loose despite your best attempts to prevent otherwise. But, considering you're willing to just grin and shake hands, and give the cop that shot your dog the key to the city, I don't really think there's any common ground to be had here, so I'll just move on. I've said my peace.


----------



## msvette2u

> Yes, I do value human life immensely and think its sad when someone looses a child, family member(I have lost a few friends and family), but to say that a dog's life is NOT as precious or no where near as precious is absurd, IMO. IMO, my dogs lives ARE precious.


Did I say they were not precious, Jessie? I did not.
Right now we're caring for some 15 dogs, so obviously I value their lives. I don't know if you realize it, but I've been in rescue over 10 yrs., going on 5yrs. as A PAW UP Rescue. We've saved roughly 150 dogs per year over the past 5yrs. What's that come to...some 750 dogs?? It's hardly like I don't care about them, now, is it?

But if it comes to a choice between my kids or my dogs, my kids will come first, every time. Any human's life would come first over a dog's life, that's how I live my life.

You seem to be quite set on arguing every one of my posts for whatever reason I cannot fathom, but when you start taking things out of context, you lose quite a bit of credibility.


----------



## jaggirl47

First off, if you read some of my past posts, it has the article posted the night of the incident that states the police officer received medical care. The next day is when the family started talking to the media and starting a firestorm.
Next, it is on the dog's Facebook page that the neighbor is their lawyer.
Lastly, the police were called out because of reports of a loose dog. The security guard called the police and he knew exactly who the dog belonged to. The owners should have taken more responsibility for their dog. Period. The police are there to protect and serve. A territorial dog that runs loose in the neighborhood, bolts out of the house, and bites a police officer is a public safety issue.
This can be spun any which way anyone wants but it does not change the fact that the owners should have had control of the dog.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

msvette2u said:


> Did I say they were not precious, Jessie? I did not.
> Right now we're caring for some 15 dogs, so obviously I value their lives. I don't know if you realize it, but I've been in rescue over 10 yrs., going on 5yrs. as A PAW UP Rescue. We've saved roughly 150 dogs per year over the past 5yrs. What's that come to...some 750 dogs?? It's hardly like I don't care about them, now, is it?
> 
> But if it comes to a choice between my kids or my dogs, my kids will come first, every time. Any human's life would come first over a dog's life, that's how I live my life.
> 
> You seem to be quite set on arguing every one of my posts for whatever reason I cannot fathom, but when you start taking things out of context, you lose quite a bit of credibility.


I volunteer for a rescue and shelter and have for quite a while. My elderly neighbor recently lost her husband and could not have kids of her own so her dogs are her kids. I saw her loose one dog and it devastated her. Her dog she has now is all she pretty much as left. I just value animals life a lot because of my experience, and yes I value human life very much. When I see my dogs I don't just see a plain old dog, I see a friend and companion.

No actually I am not. I just found that part of your post rather offensive and something that hit me rather closely.. As for the post in the other thread. I still see no logic in it. I was just saying I was disagreeing with you. I am not purposely set on arguing with you. I am not picking on you in anyway. I have not argued with every one of posts either. I am out taking anything out of context.


----------



## selzer

Draugr said:


> Then I hope you never have an accident where your dogs manage to get loose despite your best attempts to prevent otherwise. But, considering you're willing to just grin and shake hands, and give the cop that shot your dog the key to the city, I don't really think there's any common ground to be had here, so I'll just move on. I've said my peace.


I think that when you approach it with the attitude that your dog WILL get killed if it gets loose, rather than MIGHT get killed if it gets loose, you are much less likely of having such an accident. I personally feel my current set up is 99.999% secure. A tornado might rip through and leave my dogs loose -- that would be the .001%. If that happens, then I cannot expect a police officer to take teeth marks if the dog are running up to him aggressively. Sorry. It would be sad. Getting struck by lighting would be sad. Getting killed in a house fire would be sad. I can't blame the fireman or the policeman.


----------



## msvette2u

> My elderly neighbor recently lost her husband and could not have kids of her own so her dogs are her kids. I saw her loose one dog and it devastated her. Her dog she has now is all she pretty much as left.


This is very sad, I agree. But you know what? When people take on pets, they have to also understand these animals live only 12-15yrs, some make it longer if they are lucky. I feel sad when people get so wrapped up in their pets that they are so devastated when they inevitably pass away.

But that doesn't mean I do not value pet's lives. As I said, I wouldn't have 15 dogs in my front room, plastered all over the couches and every bit of floor space at times, if I didn't.


----------



## msvette2u

selzer said:


> I think that when you approach it with the attitude that your dog WILL get killed if it gets loose, rather than MIGHT get killed if it gets loose, you are much less likely of having such an accident. I personally feel my current set up is 99.999% secure. A tornado might rip through and leave my dogs loose -- that would be the .001%. If that happens, then I cannot expect a police officer to take teeth marks if the dog are running up to him aggressively. Sorry. It would be sad. Getting struck by lighting would be sad. Getting killed in a house fire would be sad. I can't blame the fireman or the policeman.


After working with some of the guys I worked with, I know for a fact my dogs would be killed either on the road, or if an officer came to my house and they were loose. I just accept that, and take appropriate precautions to prevent it from happening, like you, selzer.
Any time a dog gets loose you'd better be prepared for anything bad that may happen to it.
But as I've said over and over, nobody these days can seem to take responsibility for their mistakes.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> I think that when you approach it with the attitude that your dog WILL get killed if it gets loose, rather than MIGHT get killed if it gets loose, you are much less likely of having such an accident.


That's complete bull****.

The mere possibility of my dog being killed is enough for me to have a practically 100% escape-proof setup. And I approach that from all facets, both in his training, the practicalities of the house, how he is transported in a vehicle, etc. Will or Might is completely irrelevant, I don't even see where that difference enters the equation. Might should be enough for most people. It is for me.


----------



## Jack's Dad

Can't believe this is still going.

The cop should have shot the owner while the dog was hanging from the said officers ankle or shoe or whatever.

Then everyone except the cops family would be happy.


----------



## selzer

Jessiewessie99 said:


> I volunteer for a rescue and shelter and have for quite a while. My elderly neighbor recently lost her husband and could not have kids of her own so her dogs are her kids. I saw her loose one dog and it devastated her. Her dog she has now is all she pretty much as left. I just value animals life a lot because of my experience, and yes I value human life very much. When I see my dogs I don't just see a plain old dog, I see a friend and companion.
> 
> No actually I am not. I just found that part of your post rather offensive and something that hit me rather closely.. As for the post in the other thread. I still see no logic in it. I was just saying I was disagreeing with you. I am not purposely set on arguing with you. I am not picking on you in anyway. I have not argued with every one of posts either. I am out taking anything out of context.


My dogs are my kids. I will be 44 this year and have a medical condition that pretty much prevents pregnancy. I do not have the money needed to adopt. So I will not have children. But dogs' lives do not compare to human lives in my opinion. We love them, but we know that we will probably outlive them. 

They do not have to get married and present us with grand children. 

Losing them is awful, but I would not want a human being to die because of my dogs, or because I chose my dogs over them in a crisis. All life is precious. But human life is moreso. A dog leaves a grieving owner, and maybe a few friends. A person leaves a parent or parents, children, siblings, work-mates, friends. And the repercussions are much deeper. 

I love dogs. I see them as special, wonderful beings. I do not worry about where they go when they die -- no fiery pit set aside for canines. But people may need all the time they can get to get their affairs in order in this life.


----------



## jaggirl47

Jack's Dad said:


> Can't believe this is still going.
> 
> The cop should have shot the owner while the dog was hanging from the said officers ankle or shoe or whatever.
> 
> Then everyone except the cops family would be happy.


OK, I'm sorry, but this almost had me rolling. :laugh:


----------



## Jessiewessie99

msvette2u said:


> This is very sad, I agree. But you know what? When people take on pets, they have to also understand these animals live only 12-15yrs, some make it longer if they are lucky. I feel sad when people get so wrapped up in their pets that they are so devastated when they inevitably pass away.
> 
> But that doesn't mean I do not value pet's lives. As I said, I wouldn't have 15 dogs in my front room, plastered all over the couches and every bit of floor space at times, if I didn't.


She has dogs all her life. I know dogs don't live forever. Some people tend to have a certain connection to certain animals, hence heart dog. Of course there are those with mental cases.

I don't think thats the case in this thread. The people didn't care enough about the dog to contain or train.


----------



## selzer

Draugr said:


> That's complete bull****.
> 
> The mere possibility of my dog being killed is enough for me to have a practically 100% escape-proof setup. And I approach that from all facets, both in his training, the practicalities of the house, how he is transported in a vehicle, etc. Will or Might is completely irrelevant, I don't even see where that difference enters the equation. Might should be enough for most people. It is for me.


Well if the owner of the dog in question thought his dog would be killed if it got out, maybe he would not have let that become a common event, and maybe we would not be having this conversation. 

I think will or might is a big consideration. I think way too many people do not even consider that the dog MIGHT get injured or killed out there. It seems like it never crosses there minds. But if I think my dog Might get a back injury doing agility, I Might still do agility. If I think my dog WILL get a back injury doing agility then no way would I do agility.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> Well if the owner of the dog in question thought his dog would be killed if it got out, maybe he would not have let that become a common event, and maybe we would not be having this conversation.
> 
> I think will or might is a big consideration. I think way too many people do not even consider that the dog MIGHT get injured or killed out there. It seems like it never crosses there minds. But if I think my dog Might get a back injury doing agility, I Might still do agility. If I think my dog WILL get a back injury doing agility then no way would I do agility.


Oh, well, if you're speaking about the population in general, then yes, I'd agree with you.

But the way it was worded, sounded like it was a direct response to how I think of it, not how "Average Joe" thinks of it.


----------



## msvette2u

Or worse yet, say things like "Well if it gets run over maybe that'll teach it a lesson".
Here in our tiny town, at 5-6pm, people get home from work, open the front door (to unfenced yard) and off the dogs go. If they come home, yay. 
If not, oops.

What gets me...is then they blame everyone else _but _themselves if something happens and the dog is injured or killed (or picked up by a/c!)


----------



## selzer

Everyone seemed pretty happy when the off-leash dog walker was tased. They certainly wouldn't be too fussed if this yayhoo was shot. Gee, if everyone thinks THEY would be shot if their dog is out there running around biting people, maybe we would have fewer dogs running around loose against the law.


----------



## selzer

Draugr said:


> Oh, well, if you're speaking about the population in general, then yes, I'd agree with you.
> 
> But the way it was worded, sounded like it was a direct response to how I think of it, not how "Average Joe" thinks of it.


It was in response to your telling me that when my dogs get loose I will grin and shake the officer's hand and give him the key to the city. I was not really responding about how you manage your dogs, but my attitude is that my dogs will get killed out there. So when you think that way, (changed to the second person), you are less likely to have an accident. 

So no, it was not directed at you but what my philosophy is on it. I am not worried about my dogs getting out without some major disaster, because I know that they don't stand a chance out there.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

selzer said:


> My dogs are my kids. I will be 44 this year and have a medical condition that pretty much prevents pregnancy. I do not have the money needed to adopt. So I will not have children. But dogs' lives do not compare to human lives in my opinion. We love them, but we know that we will probably outlive them.
> 
> They do not have to get married and present us with grand children.
> 
> Losing them is awful, but I would not want a human being to die because of my dogs, or because I chose my dogs over them in a crisis. All life is precious. But human life is moreso. A dog leaves a grieving owner, and maybe a few friends. A person leaves a parent or parents, children, siblings, work-mates, friends. And the repercussions are much deeper.
> 
> I love dogs. I see them as special, wonderful beings. I do not worry about where they go when they die -- no fiery pit set aside for canines. But people may need all the time they can get to get their affairs in order in this life.


I also would not a human to die because of my dogs. I would be very upset. My brother was very upset when my grandfather passed, it hurt him the most. I had 2 friends I graduated high school graduate within 2 weeks of each other. I have lost other friends who I went to high school with one was when we were 7th grade. I have lost friends and family and grieve for them. I just happened to be more closer to my previous dogs. Yes I grieved for my friends and family that passed away. My grandfather was in a nursing home for a few months until his passing. I pretty much saw him as his life faded away.

I don't know I just haven't really gotten over my previous dog's passing. I am pretty stable, I am not a hoarder or some looney.

In this case the dog sadly paid its life for its owners stupidity. The owners are 100% at fault for not containing their dog and training their dog.


----------



## selzer

msvette2u said:


> Or worse yet, say things like "Well if it gets run over maybe that'll teach it a lesson".
> Here in our tiny town, at 5-6pm, people get home from work, open the front door (to unfenced yard) and off the dogs go. If they come home, yay.
> If not, oops.
> 
> What gets me...is then they blame everyone else _but _themselves if something happens and the dog is injured or killed (or picked up by a/c!)


My personal favorite is when people are all angry because the guy "sped up" to hit the dog. I have heard this so many times. Your dog is IN THE STREET!!! What is it doing in the street??? No I do not think that people should speed up to hit a dog. But I wonder how many actually do that, and how many people want to believe that about, because then it is the driver's fault, and not their fault for giving their dog access to traffic.


----------



## Draugr

We had a local county officer visit our home once (my father has known him for years). Samson is a shy dog who can show some fear aggression with strangers. He is getting much, much better about that but I really wished I lived in town and not in the country to make socialization easier. He needs daily exposure around scores of people, something that is really not practical for me to be able to provide.

ANYWAY:

This was a strange man (he's much better with women) on his owner's turf, in a weird clothing that he had never seen before. Well, other than in passing glimpses, this was a direct encounter. Not a good recipe for success.

Nevertheless, he was talking with me and my dad about Samson, and wanted to see him. I called Samson over, and he came, and sniffed the officer's hand. He moved his hand up over his head - which he is normally 100% okay with, until the hand reaches the neck - but this time, he was nervous enough to back up slightly, crouch down, and growl.

Rather than reaching for his weapon - any of them - this officer got down on one knee so he would appear less threatening to my dog and put him more at ease. Samson never did "make friends" but this officer "spoke his language" and it did make for a much easier and more positive encounter.

I am not saying all officers should act like _that_ in every situation. That's ludicrous, stupid, idiotic. And this officer knew enough about dogs, large dogs, fearful dogs, to know what he was doing, too, so there was some innate knowledge that I would not expect all officers, even with training, to have. 

Still, that's the kind of judgement I want to see with officers regarding animals. Less of a knee-jerk reaction to jump straight to lethal force, and more of a first impulse to preserve life. This dog (back to the main topic now) could easily have been stopped with either OC or Tazer. I don't know why he thought the gun was a more appropriate option. I do not believe the situation warranted that, and it also worries me because I believe a practiced disdain for animal life like that strongly correlates with a disdain for human life. JMHO. Different in high-stakes situations, but high-stakes this was not. This wasn't a domestic violence call, or something like that.

Yes, the owners royally screwed up by not keeping their dog contained. And nobody, that I am aware of, has been saying they do not deserve blame for what happened to their dog. But regardless of why the dog was there in the first place, as I've said, it does not change anything to do with the officer's judgement in this situation.


----------



## msvette2u

> Still, that's the kind of judgement I want to see with officers regarding animals. Less of a knee-jerk reaction to jump straight to lethal force, and more of a first impulse to preserve life. This dog could easily have been stopped with either OC or Tazer.


Tasers are only "less lethal". They can still kill. And even if the cop reaches for a taser, if one prong misses, it won't work. There's too many "ifs" with one. 
Pepper spray - can blow back and disable the person spraying it. I mentioned it before but I was in the yard when one of the guys sprayed a dog and I accidentally walked into the mist and almost had to go to the hospital (asthma). 

And honestly, if a dog has already engaged, it's biting the leg of an officer, I do feel he has the right to shoot the dog until it lets go. 

I do think they'd have been "wrong" no matter which they chose, in this situation. Obviously the owners cannot accept their wrongdoing in this case.


----------



## selzer

Jessiewessie99 said:


> I also would not a human to die because of my dogs. I would be very upset. My brother was very upset when my grandfather passed, it hurt him the most. I had 2 friends I graduated high school graduate within 2 weeks of each other. I have lost other friends who I went to high school with one was when we were 7th grade. I have lost friends and family and grieve for them. I just happened to be more closer to my previous dogs. Yes I grieved for my friends and family that passed away. My grandfather was in a nursing home for a few months until his passing. I pretty much saw him as his life faded away.
> 
> I don't know I just haven't really gotten over my previous dog's passing. I am pretty stable, I am not a hoarder or some looney.
> 
> In this case the dog sadly paid its life for its owners stupidity. The owners are 100% at fault for not containing their dog and training their dog.


Did the dog die??? Last I heard is that he was recovering. 

Losing Arwen was right up there with losing a friend. But I cannot even imagine losing my parents or siblings, and the idea of losing a child or one of my little nieces is nightmare material. But Arwen's life was not so precious as that friend's life. Because how that friend's life affected me, is not the same as how it affected the friend's close loved ones. 

For example, my friend Maria. I knew her for about 20 years, we worked together for 6 years, and the rest of the time we got together regularly over the years, so she was a pretty good friend. I felt bad about her passing. But I knew that her kid had never been reconciled with her, they were not speaking. I know that has to be really awful for her kid. 

That doesn't happen with dogs. The dog gets in the garbage, you yell and holler, the dog hangs its head, give you sad eyes, comes up and licks your hand, and you give up and pet the dog. The repercussions of losing our best friends are not the same as when humans die. It does not mean we dog care about our dogs. Just that their lives are not weighed the same as human lives. 

Losing Arwen killed me, but it was not the same as losing my Grandmothers, even though they were up there in age, and it was not completely a shock.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr, the difference is that this was a personal friend who requested for you to bring the dog over to him. This was not a random cop who was called out because of a loose dog and had that loose dog rush and bite him.


----------



## jaggirl47

msvette2u said:


> Tasers are only "less lethal". They can still kill. And even if the cop reaches for a taser, if one prong misses, it won't work. There's too many "ifs" with one.
> Pepper spray - can blow back and disable the person spraying it. I mentioned it before but I was in the yard when one of the guys sprayed a dog and I accidentally walked into the mist and almost had to go to the hospital (asthma).
> 
> And honestly, if a dog has already engaged, it's biting the leg of an officer, I do feel he has the right to shoot the dog until it lets go.
> 
> I do think they'd have been "wrong" no matter which they chose, in this situation. Obviously the owners cannot accept their wrongdoing in this case.


To add to this, in order for the pepper spray to work the way it is supposed to, the pepper spray must be sprayed directly into the nose and eyes of the dog. If the dog is already actively engaged, that is almost impossible.


----------



## selzer

I look at it like this. If my dog is BITING the police officer, or threatening to BITE the police officer, they can defend themselves up to and including shooting the dog. 

If they choose some other type of less lethal weapon to protect themselves with, well then I dodged a bullet, literally. 

I think that we do not appreciate grace so much any more. We are only angry if there is no grace. Grace is an undeserved gift with no strings attached. If the officer chose to wait and give you the time you need to collect the dog, even getting bitten in the process that would be a form of grace. Grace not to shoot and kill the dog.


----------



## selzer

I would not use pepper spray either (asthma too). 

If the officer pepper sprayed the dog in the presence of the 13 year old, and the kid had an asthma attack, I wonder what the father would say and do then.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

selzer said:


> Did the dog die??? Last I heard is that he was recovering.
> 
> Losing Arwen was right up there with losing a friend. But I cannot even imagine losing my parents or siblings, and the idea of losing a child or one of my little nieces is nightmare material. But Arwen's life was not so precious as that friend's life. Because how that friend's life affected me, is not the same as how it affected the friend's close loved ones.
> 
> For example, my friend Maria. I knew her for about 20 years, we worked together for 6 years, and the rest of the time we got together regularly over the years, so she was a pretty good friend. I felt bad about her passing. But I knew that her kid had never been reconciled with her, they were not speaking. I know that has to be really awful for her kid.
> 
> That doesn't happen with dogs. The dog gets in the garbage, you yell and holler, the dog hangs its head, give you sad eyes, comes up and licks your hand, and you give up and pet the dog. The repercussions of losing our best friends are not the same as when humans die. It does not mean we dog care about our dogs. Just that their lives are not weighed the same as human lives.
> 
> Losing Arwen killed me, but it was not the same as losing my Grandmothers, even though they were up there in age, and it was not completely a shock.


I don't know. I heard somewhere on here he died. I would think after 6 shots the dog is dead.

I was 15 and Max and Simba were 14. Too close for me. I lost my great grandmother, I was sad, but I wasn't too sad, as she was rather rude and mean to my older sister and other family members.


----------



## msvette2u

There are two types of pepper spray, or at least that's what I had accessible to me, a stream type which required you to be extremely accurate (not my forte) and a "cloud" type, which is just like it sounds, a mist you would theoretically get on the dog or create a cloud of the crap around yourself and in the perps face. 
I had the cloud type and almost made myself sick with it. It's really no fun to haul around.
I impounded two pit bulls once that had been sprayed by the Sheriffs before I got there (they made me sick, too, I had to pull over and get my inhaler out) and for days they made the kennel reek. I sneezed, etc. and their poor faces were red. I had no formal bathing area so sprayed them down with dishsoap/water solution and that helped some. 
But...bottom line, pepper spray is freaking h-e-l-l.
Even for _healthy_ people!


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> Draugr, the difference is that this was a personal friend who requested for you to bring the dog over to him. This was not a random cop who was called out because of a loose dog and had that loose dog rush and bite him.


I'm quite aware the stories were different in that regard. The difference is irrelevant. Did you bother to read the whole thing? It was about the decision not to automatically use lethal force when faced with animal threat. That is what I like and that is the kind of judgement I expect officers to be using in the field - barring mitigating circumstances as I explained.

If my dog had lunged for his jugular instead, I fully expect he would have been shot and I'd no longer be sharing my home with a dog any longer.



jaggirl47 said:


> To add to this, in order for the pepper spray to work the way it is supposed to, the pepper spray must be sprayed directly into the nose and eyes of the dog. If the dog is already actively engaged, that is almost impossible.


You've clearly never used pepper spray before. Not only is it used on actively engaged humans all the time - mind you, humans who know what it is and will do everything they can to evade it - it really is not that hard to hit your mark. Even with the ones that shoot a stream, rather than a mist.



msvette2u said:


> Tasers are only "less lethal". They can still kill.


Very, very rarely. When they do, it's a fluke - such as a person with a pre-existing heart condition, for instance.



> And even if the cop reaches for a taser, if one prong misses, it won't work. There's too many "ifs" with one.


And there's no "ifs" to using a firearm, either? Please.

If one prong misses do a drive stun. And at such close range, I'd probably do that anyway.



> Pepper spray - can blow back and disable the person spraying it. I mentioned it before but I was in the yard when one of the guys sprayed a dog and I accidentally walked into the mist and almost had to go to the hospital (asthma).


That, at least, I can understand. Strong enough wind will even take the stream-type back at you.



> And honestly, if a dog has already engaged, it's biting the leg of an officer, I do feel he has the right to shoot the dog until it lets go.


I think they have the right do that as well. That doesn't make it a good decision in all cases, though.



> I do think they'd have been "wrong" no matter which they chose, in this situation. Obviously the owners cannot accept their wrongdoing in this case.


There, at least, I think I can agree with you. Even if the responding officer had made a better decision they'd probably still have run to the media with their no-self-blame story. They played a part in all this, too.


----------



## selzer

I know the wife of someone who was killed by a taser. Can't be that rare.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> I know the wife of someone who was killed by a taser. Can't be that rare.


Wow, you know one person! Incredible! It _must_ be an epidemic, you know, because it isn't like there's 313 million other people in this country still alive and kicking.

So, I'm guessing you're saying you'd rather take a bullet than be hit by the taser?


----------



## msvette2u

I think that it's just like my chemical capture course. People have such misconceptions about "dart guns" and chemical capture that it's almost hilarious.
You watch some nature show, they dart the critter and boom, it falls down and lays there until they are done working with it.
IRL...nothing like that. At all. For one, I learned very quickly that a scared animal can override the drugs. 
That's if you actually hit the animal. And you measured correctly (guesstimating the animal's weight). And you managed to load the dart and not leave air in it. 
And if you did all that right, and were able to watch it for the 10-15 min. for the drug to take effect (because - you know, they edit films and tv shows, because we don't wanna watch the thing stagger around for 10-15min.) and it didn't run into some place you couldn't get to it (or crawl under a trailer, yes I had that happen!) maybe you could actually sneak upon the thing and get a catch pole on it and it would work right.
In fact I never used the gun (I used a "jab pole" mostly, or a live trap and/or drugged foods). 
My sergeant did once, and he says he hit the dog, I don't know if he did or didn't, but we never saw the dog for the rest of the night. Next time we saw him he was up and wandering all over town again. So something didn't go right.

My point - what you think you know about all the non-lethal methods of capturing/stopping/detaining a dog, are probably wrong. There's _so_ many ways all those other things can go wrong, when a bullet tends to go right, and stop the problem, I myself would never reach for anything else than a gun if in a threatening situation such as was happening here.


----------



## msvette2u

Draugr said:


> Wow, you know one person! Incredible! It _must_ be an epidemic, you know, because it isn't like there's 313 million other people in this country still alive and kicking.
> 
> So, I'm guessing you're saying you'd rather take a bullet than be hit by the taser?


She wasn't being nasty, you don't have to be 

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclie...qf.,cf.osb&fp=1361a018a51fd61&biw=943&bih=474

There's actually quite a few deaths by taser.


----------



## jaggirl47

I'm quite aware the stories were different in that regard. The difference is irrelevant. Did you bother to read the whole thing? It was about the decision not to automatically use lethal force when faced with animal threat. That is what I like and that is the kind of judgement I expect officers to be using in the field - barring mitigating circumstances as I explained.

If my dog had lunged for his jugular instead, I fully expect he would have been shot and I'd no longer be sharing my home with a dog any longer.


Yes, I read the entire post. However, you are still comparing apples to oranges. That's like saying "What if my aunt was a man, would he still be my aunt?" (Just showing how stupid playing the what if game is...no offense intended for anyone with this comment)

You've clearly never used pepper spray before. Not only is it used on actively engaged humans all the time - mind you, humans who know what it is and will do everything they can to evade it - it really is not that hard to hit your mark. Even with the ones that shoot a stream, rather than a mist.

Actually, yes I have used pepper spray before. The best way to use it on an engaged dog is a direct hit to the nose and eyes of the dog. I can't stand pepper spray which is the reason I spend a great deal of time at the firing range and always carry a concealed weapon.

And there's no "ifs" to using a firearm, either? Please.

If one prong misses do a drive stun. And at such close range, I'd probably do that anyway.

There are many more ifs when trying to fire a taser. I have seen first hand LEO miss with tasers on a person, even with extensive training. A dog's body mass is much smaller and it is more difficult to get an accurate hit.


----------



## Draugr

msvette2u said:


> She wasn't being nasty, you don't have to be
> 
> https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclie...qf.,cf.osb&fp=1361a018a51fd61&biw=943&bih=474
> 
> There's actually quite a few deaths by taser.


The implication that Taser deaths aren't rare because she knows _a single person_ who died as a result of the device being used against her is ridiculous and the sarcasm was warranted. I volunteered to take a hit with one once, does that mean nobody has ever died from being hit by a Taser? (Unless I'm a zombie? O.O)

Still, a link means quite more - but I suspect the 516 documented deaths, presuming all are legitimate Taser related deaths - would be pretty miniscule compared to the number of times the Taser has been deployed against anyone since it's inception.



jaggirl47 said:


> Yes, I read the entire post. However, you are still comparing apples to oranges. That's like saying "What if my aunt was a man, would he still be my aunt?" (Just showing how stupid playing the what if game is...no offense intended for anyone with this comment)


And once again, it is apparently necessary to re-iterate that the difference was between the points of judgement, not the scenario specifics. 

Forget I even brought it up.


----------



## msvette2u

I carry a pepper spray in my purse, and I usually have my concealed carry weapon on my person. 
If I'm about to get raped and my spray is just as easy to get to as my gun, which do you think I'll reach for?

Hmm.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> And once again, it is apparently necessary to re-iterate that the difference was between the points of judgement, not the scenario specifics.
> 
> Forget I even brought it up.


The points of judgement you brought up are 2 completely different things. I am sure if this officer was a friend and came over to the house to visit, specifically requested this dog to come up to him so he could pet him, then the dog bit his ankle, it would have ended much differently. It is not even close to comparable circumstances. So, no, it is not necessary to "re-iterate" the differences because both circumstances are on total opposite sides of the fence.


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> The points of judgement you brought up are 2 completely different things. I am sure if this officer was a friend and came over to the house to visit, specifically requested this dog to come up to him so he could pet him, then the dog bit his ankle, it would have ended much differently. It is not even close to *comparable circumstances*. So, no, it is not necessary to "re-iterate" the *differences because both circumstances *are on total opposite sides of the fence.


Are you even listening to yourself?


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> Are you even listening to yourself?


Listening, no. Thinking about and reading what I type, yes. You are attempting to make a comparison with something that is a complete polar opposite of the actual happenstance. If you don't like that your point makes absolutely no sense because it does not compare in any way, shape, or form to what actually happened, then that is all on you.


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> Listening, no. Thinking about and reading what I type, yes. You are attempting to make a comparison with something that is a complete polar opposite of the *actual happenstance*. If you don't like that your point makes absolutely no sense because it does not compare in any way, shape, or form to what actually *happened*, then that is all on you.


And if you, despite the fact that I have repeatedly - this is what, the fourth time, now? - made the distinction that what I am comparing has nothing to do with the circumstances and everything to do with the actual thought processes going on in the officer's head, still can't get it, that's on you.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> And if you, despite the fact that I have repeatedly - this is what, the fourth time, now? - made the distinction that what I am comparing has nothing to do with the circumstances and everything to do with the actual thought processes going on in the officer's head, still can't get it, that's on you.


No, you repeatedly have tried to push a total difference "thought process" from a complete different situation. This police officer was called to a house because of this dog. This dog rushed out the door and bit the officer. This officer was not a friend. This officer was on the job. The thought processes (as you want to point out) are also complete opposites. So, what you are saying (for the 4th, 5th, 20th, I don't care) still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever with this specific situation.


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> No, you repeatedly have tried to push a total difference "thought process" from a complete different situation. This police officer was called to a house because of this dog. This dog rushed out the door and bit the officer. This officer was not a friend. This officer was on the job. The thought processes (as you want to point out) are also complete opposites. So, what you are saying (for the 4th, 5th, 20th, I don't care) still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever with this specific situation.


And you repeating yourself incessantly for a full forum page doesn't make you right.

If you're incapable of understanding it just drop it. I'm done with this, I'm not going to waste my time getting in a hissy fit with you over something so stupid.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> And you repeating yourself incessantly for a full forum page doesn't make you right.
> 
> If you're incapable of understanding it just drop it. I'm done with this, I'm not going to waste my time getting in a hissy fit with you over something so stupid.


I never said I was incapable of understanding. The point you keep pushing for the last several pages has absolutely nothing to do with what happened here. Yet you keep pushing your agenda. You can just as easily drop it but you want to argue with every single person on the thread that disagrees with you. Just because I will not shut my mouth (or stop typing) to agree with you on a total different point, you try to do personal attacks towards me and my beliefs. I will not be pushed into your beliefs just because you want me to be. If you don't like that, I honestly do not care.


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> I never said I was incapable of understanding.


You didn't say it, your "argument" or lack-thereof, showed it.

I don't expect you to agree with it. I don't care if you do or don't. But you're arguing against a straw man. And despite the fact that I've pointed that out, multiple times...yeah, you know what? I'm just going to drop this, like I said I was, because you're just going to ignore it yet again and:



> blahblahblahmorereptition


~~~


> Yet you keep pushing your agenda.


It's an "agenda" now? XD Creative!



> You can just as easily drop it


As could you and everyone else (not that I want that, at all). If you want to sit around and pat eachother on the back and never speak to anyone who thinks differently than you, then by all means, go right ahead and do it. Ignore me, it isn't going to hurt my feelings.

But it takes two to tango, buddy.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> You didn't say it, your "argument" or lack-thereof, showed it.
> 
> It's an "agenda" now? XD Creative!
> 
> As could you and everyone else. If you want to sit around and pat eachother on the back and never speak to anyone who thinks differently than you, then by all means, go right ahead and do it. Ignore me, it isn't going to hurt my feelings.
> 
> But it takes two to tango, buddy.


 
If you want to quote me, then quote me properly. Don't change what I say. The blahblahblah you did shows just how closed-minded you are.

Yes, it is an agenda because you have posted the sme crap page after page. Just because I disagree, you repeat yourself. Therefore, I repeat why I disagree but you are too full of your own opinion, and yes "agenda", to listen to anyone else's opinion. This is why you repeatedly have been rude to every person who posts a different belief than you.

As far as talking and having discussions with people who believe differently than I do, I have been in the Army 14 years now. My entire life is surrounded by diversity. However, no matter how diverse a population is, I have my own set of beliefs which will not be changed.

You can snipe, be rude, and anything else all you want, I really don't care one way or the other.

Oh, and I am a woman, not your "buddy".


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> If you want to quote me, then quote me properly. Don't change what I say.


I don't see where it is really any different. After so many times it just kind of blurs together and becomes incoherent.



> Yes, it is an agenda because you have posted the sme crap


Yeeeahh, _okay_. *I'm* being close-minded.



> Just because I disagree, you repeat yourself. Therefore, I repeat why I disagree but you are too full of your own opinion, and yes "agenda", to listen to anyone else's opinion.


I really don't give a flying baguette about an opinion you formed on a point I didn't even attempt to make.



> Oh, and I am a woman, not your "buddy".


Good for you, buddy.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> I don't see where it is really any different. After so many times it just kind of blurs together and becomes incoherent.
> 
> Yeeeahh, _okay_. *I'm* being close-minded.
> 
> I really don't give a flying baguette about an opinion you formed on a point I didn't even attempt to make.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, buddy.


Yes *YOU* are being closed-minded. This is why you would rather argue and make personal attacks, or as you saying a different opinion "blurs together and becomes incoherent".
Obviously, you did try to make a point. You posted it. Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote.
Also, if you didn't really care that I disagree with you, you wouldn't keep up the argument post after post.
Buddy, hmmmm, I am probably much more traveled than you with a good possibility of being older than you. But hey, that shows true ignorance and having a closed-mind.


----------



## Draugr

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. And I'm sorry, but it's not a matter of opinion as to whether or not you are rambling on about a point I didn't make - _I did not attempt to make the point you are arguing against_. That is a fact. Plain and simple. That is not opinion. I'm sure you would say the same sorts of things if someone was arguing until they were blue in the face that the sun revolves around the earth. That's pretty much exactly the reaction I'm having, here.

And, wow, that's rich - I need to go back and read what *I* wrote to know what I'm saying? You've got a bit of arrogance about you, don't ya?

I think I know about what I'm thinking a whole heck of a lot better than you do. So when someone tells you that you are full of it and putting words in their mouth, they are probably right. Unless you've invented some sort of crazy trans-internet mind reading device.

And, no, I don't care if you disagree with me.

I care when you're trying to set up a straw man, and then attack _that_. If you disagreed with the _actual point I made_, then, who cares. I don't. But not only do you _still fail_ to get the actual point I was making, you apparently, still, after two pages, haven't figured out that you've been arguing against a point I didn't make, and that I've not been defending that point I didn't make, either.

It's silly, and more than a little sad.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. And I'm sorry, but it's not a matter of opinion as to whether or not you are rambling on about a point I didn't make - _I did not attempt to make the point you are arguing against_. That is a fact. Plain and simple. That is not opinion. I'm sure you would say the same sorts of things if someone was arguing until they were blue in the face that the sun revolves around the earth. That's pretty much exactly the reaction I'm having, here.
> 
> And, wow, that's rich - I need to go back and read what *I* wrote to know what I'm saying? You've got a bit of arrogance about you, don't ya?
> 
> I think I know about what I'm thinking a whole heck of a lot better than you do. So when someone tells you that you are full of it and putting words in their mouth, they are probably right. Unless you've invented some sort of crazy trans-internet mind reading device.
> 
> And, no, I don't care if you disagree with me.
> 
> I care when you're trying to set up a straw man, and then attack _that_. If you disagreed with the _actual point I made_, then, who cares. I don't. But not only do you _still fail_ to get the actual point I was making, you apparently, still, after two pages, haven't figured out that you've been arguing against a point I didn't make, and that I've not been defending that point I didn't make, either.
> 
> It's silly, and more than a little sad.


haha This is laughable.

Now, take your own advice on the first paragraph. Saying it over and over does not make it true. You did try to make a point but failed to because it is comparing apples and oranges. It has nothing to do with this actual post. I think you should go back and read your posts because your "fact" is nothing more than your opinion, therefore it is not a fact (which touches on paragraph 2 above).

As far as arrogance, no I am not an arrogant person. I am actually quite far from being arrogant. I have confidence and I have personal beliefs. Trying to personally attack me for that shows ignorance and a closed mind (as I have already pointed out).

Yes, I agree that you do know what you are trying to say better than I do. It's your mind, your thoughts. However, maybe you should re-read what you wrote to make sure you actual point gets across as you mean it, not personally attack someone for answering what you did actually write. If it wasn't the point you were trying to get across, rewrite it. It is up to you and only you to make sure people understand the point you want to make. I just answered to the point you did make. I also have no way of reading minds. I just read exactly what you wrote. 

Obviously, you do care that I disagree or you would not still be trying to make personally attacks because I disagree with your point. It is what it is whether you like it or not. Yes, I completely disagree with the point you made. That is my PERSONAL OPINION and I honestly could care less if you like that or not. I wrote my personal opinions about WHAT YOU WROTE. If you don't like that, then don't post. Again, I could honestly care less.


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> Now, take your own advice on the first paragraph. Saying it over and over does not make it true. You did try to make a point but failed to because it is comparing apples and oranges. It has nothing to do with this actual post. I think you should go back and read your posts because your "fact" is nothing more than your opinion, therefore it is not a fact (which touches on paragraph 2 above).


Holy _heck_. Are you being deliberately dense, and just trolling? Honest question. Those is the only end I can rationally comprehend at this point.

I make a point, you pull something completely irrelevant out of it and start beating a dead horse with it for the next...three pages, now? And despite the fact that I've routinely told you that you have _no freaking clue what you're talking about,_ you still just can't get it.

Once you get your facts straight, and figure out what I actually said - then come back. It's not that hard to understand.

Or if you're trolling, then just stop, the game is getting old. Whatever it is.



> not personally attack someone for answering what you did actually write.


Not are you not answering what I actually did write, I made a couple pretty clear attempts to further clarify what I was saying, and you either just ignored it, or _still didn't get it_. It is my job to make sure the *average person *understands what I'm reading, but it's not my job to bend over backwards and repeatedly re-iterate what I'm saying to a person who continues to completely ignore me and then keep hacking at a point they pulled out of thin air instead, pretending that it's actually what I said.



> Obviously, you do care that I disagree or you would not still be trying to make personally attacks because I disagree with your point. It is what it is whether you like it or not. Yes, I completely disagree with the point you made. That is my PERSONAL OPINION and I honestly could care less if you like that or not. I wrote my personal opinions about WHAT YOU WROTE. If you don't like that, then don't post. Again, I could honestly care less.


*You don't disagree with MY* *point. You disagree with a point that YOU made up.*


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> Holy _heck_. Are you being deliberately dense, and just trolling? Honest question. Those is the only end I can rationally comprehend at this point.
> 
> I make a point, you pull something completely irrelevant out of it and start beating a dead horse with it for the next...three pages, now? And despite the fact that I've routinely told you that you have _no freaking clue what you're talking about,_ you still just can't get it.
> 
> Once you get your facts straight, and figure out what I actually said - then come back. It's not that hard to understand.
> 
> Or if you're trolling, then just stop, the game is getting old. Whatever it is.
> 
> Not are you not answering what I actually did write, I made a couple pretty clear attempts to further clarify what I was saying, and you either just ignored it, or _still didn't get it_. It is my job to make sure the *average person *understands what I'm reading, but it's not my job to bend over backwards and repeatedly re-iterate what I'm saying to a person who continues to completely ignore me and then keep hacking at a point they pulled out of thin air instead, pretending that it's actually what I said.
> 
> *You don't disagree with MY* *point. You disagree with a point that YOU made up.*


Oh, my lord. lol You are seriously funny.

Now, on to what you just wrote...
As far as trolling, I have been a member on this board going on 3 years so I'm obviously not a troll. That is a freaking funny statement. Due to the fact that you cannot see the rational....well, that explains alot.

I commented on your "point", which is exactly what you wrote. I didn't take over your account and write it, you wrote what you wrote and I commented.
As far as "beating a dead horse", you are the one making arguments about what you wrote. As I said, I don't care if you don't agree with me. However, you obviously care that I do not see your way so you resort to name calling, rudeness, and spite.

As far as making sense with what I am talking about, I have actually received several PM's from people who understand exactly what I am saying. Just because you don't doesn't mean I have "no freaking clue what I'm talking about".

I have my facts straight. You try to introduce something completely irrelevant to this thread and you get called out for it. Once again, if you don't like it, don't post it just for the sake of arguments.

The game is getting old because you have now turned what could be an extremely educational thread into personal attacks on everyone that has disagreed with you. Is that statement hard for you to understand? I can reword it if you need me to.

You in no way, shape, or form, tried to clarify your point. You resorted to name calling and childish behavior. I have read what you wrote many times. As I have said before, if the proper point you were trying to make did not get across clearly, then re-read what you wrote. I understand, and answered, exactly what you wrote.

Considering I am not the one that wrote about a friend coming over to see my dog that is skittish, and how he handled it even though it was a completely different circumstance than what this thread is about, then obviously it is not my point. It is directly from what you wrote. It is not pretending when it is written in black and white.

Now, I am going to watch a movie with my husband and enjoy the rest of my evening.


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> Oh, my lord. lol You are seriously funny.
> 
> Now, on to what you just wrote...
> As far as trolling, I have been a member on this board going on 3 years so I'm obviously not a troll. That is a freaking funny statement. Due to the fact that you cannot see the rational....well, that explains alot.


It's pretty irrelevant how long you've been a member anywhere, you can still troll someone.



> I commented on your "point", which is exactly what you wrote. I didn't take over your account and write it, you wrote what you wrote and I commented.


Okay, let me explain something to you. Take a few times to read it if you really need to:

I relate a story, and draw a very narrow parallel out of it make a point. You pull something out of there that is similar, but not identical to what I was saying - something that was irrelevant to the point I made, and then set it up, as a straw man (a classic fallacious tactic in debates), and attack it as though it were my point.

That isn't _opinion_. That isn't how I "feel" about the matter any more than someone can "feel" that they're really from the planet Venus. Everything in that summary is something definitively falsifiable - and exactly what happened.

My _opinion_ about the matter as a whole, how I "feel" about the matter, is that this officer's decision was wrong. That is an opinion - it's not provable or disprovable, it's someone's perception on the matter.

Anyway, moving on, I spend the next three pages fruitlessly attempting to explain this simple concept to you, but rather than just say - okay, maybe I got the wrong thing out of that, or EVEN okay, maybe that's what he meant, he just worded it really terribly - you keep hammering on the same stupid crap. Maybe you can see, if you really are learned and experienced, why someone would get pretty frustrated with that kind of nonsense and resort to "name-calling, rudeness, and spite" - which, might I add, you've done a spectacularly wonderful job of, yourself.



> As far as making sense with what I am talking about, I have actually received several PM's from people who understand exactly what I am saying. Just because you don't doesn't mean I have "no freaking clue what I'm talking about".


You keep doing this. Making some claim that you have no way of proving to me as though it's somehow "proof" that I'm wrong.

And I understand *precisely* the point that YOU are making - and I even agree with it. Which is why it doesn't really surprise me - if that's actually true, and not some pathetically shallow attempt to "one up" your argument - that you have PMs from people who 'get it.' Well, I got news for you: I get it, too, and did from square one.

The problem is, that it's not, and never was, about the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Dainerra

selzer said:


> Everyone seemed pretty happy when the off-leash dog walker was tased. They certainly wouldn't be too fussed if this yayhoo was shot. Gee, if everyone thinks THEY would be shot if their dog is out there running around biting people, maybe we would have fewer dogs running around loose against the law.



does that mean that the next time my neighbor's dog attack my livestock, I can just go over and shoot the neighbor? It would really save a lot of hassle on my part - when their dogs don't come home, they just get another. 

I swear, the trailer park dwellers across the street lose, on average, a dog a week to either a farmer's bullet or the highway. One of the dogs hit by a car had a litter of pups. They left them to starve and blamed it on the driver! "If they hadn't killed her, the pups would have made it" 

Yup, I'd be happy to shoot them!


----------



## Dainerra

if the officer wasn't there because of a call about a potentially vicious roaming dog, then maybe his mindset would have been different, as was your friend's. 
Maybe if the owner hadn't let his dog roam multiple times the guard wouldn't have called the cops.
Maybe if the cop had on boots instead of shoes he wouldn't have been bitten.
Maybe if someone had just bothered to lock the door the dog wouldn't have gotten out.

I'm sorry, you just can't compare the 2 situations. I DO understand what you are trying to say, but it doesn't pan out. The officer in your story KNOWS you/father. He KNOWS that what you are telling him about the dog is accurate. The dog was brought over and he was prepared to engage it in a specific manner.

If a strange dog that he has been called about terrorizing the neighborhood came charging out and started attacking him, would he react the same way? Would he get down on one knee in the presence of this loose dog and try to "speak its language"?


----------



## rshkr

after all the pages, i have come to the conclusion that:
the cop shouldnt have shot the dog, drawing your weapon should be the last resort.
if the officer had followed the 4 simple rules of gun safety, he wouldnt have drawn his weapon because their was an innocent civilian present.
*The 1st Law of Gun Safety - The Gun Is Always Loaded!*
*The 2nd Law of Gun Safety - Never Point A Gun At Something You're Not Prepared To Destroy!*
*The 3rd Law of Gun Safety - Always Be Sure Of Your Target And What Is Behind It!*
*The 4th Law of Gun Safety - Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger Until Your Sights Are On The Target!*

i've also coem to observe that jaggirl47 is a woman scorned, draugr is smart and is well educated.


----------



## Dainerra

let's see, he followed the 1st rule. He was aware of what was behind his target (no innocent people were accidentally shot and no property damaged) so that is the 3rd rule. He was obviously prepared to kill the dog, so there is rule #2. #4 really only works on stationary targets - unless you know someone who hits 100% of what they aim at 100% of the time?

So I think that he was very safe with his firearm. The issue isn't firearm safety - was he justified in using a gun? Some (myself, jaggirl, selzer, and msvette) say yes. Others say no. 

The reasons I say yes:

Dog has a known history of roaming the neighborhood.
Dog has a known history of being aggressive.
Dog charged from the house in an aggressive manner. 
Dog attacked the officer (I think actual blood being drawn is just a matter of degree - I only hurt him a little bit doesn't mean you didn't try to)
Owner (son) saw the dog attacking the officer, didn't or couldn't call the dog off.

Therefore, in my eyes, shooting is justified. I am well-educated in firearms. Well-educated on interactions with law enforcement. Reasonably well-educated on dealing with dogs. Know the legal requirements for using deadly force against dogs. If it was my dog, I would not fault the officer. It isn't HIS job to maintain my dog. He shouldn't have to risk injury to contain my dog, especially if I have been warned multiple times and KNOW that my dog will attack.

If we want to play "what if" How about this...
Door is open. Little boys from across the street are playing ball. Ball rolls into yard and boy comes after it. Dog charges out and bites the child. How many would say that it would be justified to have the dog euthanized? Yes, it would still be the owner's fault and the dog would be paying the price. Just as there shouldn't be a pass on small dogs that bite, there shouldn't be a pass because the dog bit an adult and not a child.


----------



## TaZoR

Since I wasn't present when the incident occurred I cannot possibly take one side or the other. The entire account of the attack on either side is hear say. 

It is possible the officer doesn't hold animals in very high esteem, just as a hunter will take down a deer without a second thought, but others feel it is a terrible, barbaric act. It is also possible the attack was far more vicious than we are lead to believe and he reacted out of fear. Maybe he felt bad about it just as he would shooting a teen with a gun pointed at him.

My point is.....why argue over speculation?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I am not rude. I'm being to the point. I did not call anyone a 'cop hater' - speaking of being rude.

I'm just not sure what it will take to get you to just answer the question I've posed several times. You keep avoiding it.

Furthermore you keep speaking for police officers (as a profession) in general.

You have been an ACO in the past and I am curious as to what your qualifications are to speak on behalf of law enforcement in general?

How many years were you an ACO 10, 15 or more and why are you no longer working as an ACO. I'm wondering?







msvette2u said:


> Gwyn, you are being very rude and overbearing. Your use of *CAPSLOCK* and enlarged font tells me you are _way_ too invested in this discussion.
> There is no misunderstanding, and I never said half the things you are implying and inferring into my statements. I am done "discussing" anything with you.
> 
> 
> 
> <snipped>.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I'm completely taken aback by this too. As you mentioned on a board that is populated by dog lovers people would advocate against some restraint in shooting of dogs by LEOS/ some of my conservative friends would be shocked AND my libertarian friends having fits...just wow.

Two larger themes at play here: 

1) The contention that people do NOT have the right to question authority. 

2) That there are NO circumstances, reasons or conditions under which an officer could be considered to use excessive force against an animal.

....I think we all get that human life comes first, but after that point to contend that an LEO is *free* to gun down, for all practical purposes, a person's dog. 

EVEN if you want to tease the emotional side out of it a dog is a person's private property and by shooting it you are destroying that person's property for no reason outside of 'because it's more convenient for the officer'.

The next slippery slope is > it's o.k. to beat people at a traffic stop, ONLY because they DID break the law and were speeding? 


*shiver* 



Draugr said:


> If you can't get an accurate shot with a taser that close, you certainly shouldn't be shooting a gun. They DO work point-blank range, if it's really that much of an issue.
> 
> And frankly, the "myth" that pepper spray doesn't work on dogs is exactly that, a myth. I won't deny that just like humans there may be the occasional individual who is not affected, that doesn't mean it's an excuse to jump straight to lethal force without justification. Just because there are humans who are basically immune to the effects of pepper spray does not mean an officer should jump straight to the use of his sidearm in those situations instead of using the pepper spray. The same is true with dogs.
> 
> Sorry. I don't buy that ankle-biting in a scenario that isn't posing any immediate danger to the officer or a surrounding individual (such as, for instance, a response to a domestic violence call) is a valid death warrant.
> 
> No, the dog should not have been at large. The owners should have contained it. Some of the fault lies on them for having the dog in that situation in the first place. But it is truly sickening to see how little people care for a dog's life because of what its owners did. Yes, all sorts of other horrible irrelevant things could have happened to it. But none of those things did. This did. Here, in this situation, the dog did not need to be shot. And if I am ever an LEO I will most certainly take care to avoid having to needlessly shoot a family pet just because it's the easiest way out, regardless of how "irresponsible" the owners are. I think that's an absolutely sick justification to use as to why the dog should pay for that with its life.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

One more comment in the spirit of understanding.

I think where wires are getting crossed here (like with myself and msvette and between draugr and others)....


The problem is I don't think some folks realize they are crossing a line regarding the use of excessive force when they advocate that dogs (or animals) can be shot **under ANY circumstances**, i.e. even when there is no danger to human life.

Perhaps some don't see that line or some don't want to admit they've crossed that line (which are delineated by my points 1 & 2 above). Which is why I think there's a lot of redirecting and avoidance in this discussion.

....but indeed that is the _intellectual_ line that is crossed when making the argument officers can shoot dogs for ANY reason.


----------



## msvette2u

I had an 80hr. training course and am still an ACO. 

I worked in a small town as an ACO (the only one, btw) and as part of my job, was on contract with the county for dangerous dogs. 
I was laid off after 3yrs. due to budget cuts. Real mysterious, huh? 
For some reason, law enforcement does take hits at budget cutting time.
However, even after my lay-off I continued to work on contract with the city and with the county as a euthanasia technician for an additional year. 

I am right now, on call with the state patrol (which is what I was doing on the freeway median with the trooper who had to shoot the dog) and county when necessary, although our County actually got an a/c department recently, relieving some of that burden. I've been contacted by another nearby town to provide a/c services for them, as well. That's in the works right now.

"What qualifications"? I'd say working in conjunction with Sheriff's who were armed and ready to shoot dogs if they attacked qualifies me. (Nothing beats creeping through underbrush looking for a dangerous dog while a gun is drawn behind you.)
Asking the Sheriff to dispatch a dog too dangerous to pick up, etc. 
Also working alongside police officers for 3yrs. qualifies me. I've also been on scene when matters were taken from my hands and the Sheriff made, for convenience sake, the decision to lethally shoot the dog we could not catch (easily - given time I may have been able to but that was time we did not have).
They are not "my clients", or my friends or even my husband, they are my co-workers, so I know how they think and their reasoning behind their decisions. 

And your theory that just because they can shoot a dog on scene they can progress to beating people up at traffic stops is pure paranoia, and it is wrong on many many levels


----------



## msvette2u

TaZoR said:


> Since I wasn't present when the incident occurred I cannot possibly take one side or the other. The entire account of the attack on either side is hear say.
> 
> It is possible the officer doesn't hold animals in very high esteem, just as a hunter will take down a deer without a second thought, but others feel it is a terrible, barbaric act. It is also possible the attack was far more vicious than we are lead to believe and he reacted out of fear. Maybe he felt bad about it just as he would shooting a teen with a gun pointed at him.
> 
> My point is.....why argue over speculation?


Exactly...I came on here to help others gain perspective about why this potentially happened.
In the end it does not matter. The discussion on this forum isn't going to change policy in that police department.
And we shouldn't sit around armchair quarterbacking this because until you are in that situation, you don't know what you'd do. 

How many of you, when told of any awful event, can say "Oh, had I been in that situation I'd have ______?" You don't even go there. 
Because truth is, you don't know until it happens to you.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

No reason to be rude about it, I was just wondering that's why I asked and did not draw any conclusions.

Oh and no reason to be sarcastic, rude and call me paranoid either.

The line that is crossed is the same for both scenarios. Just because you don't want to acknowledge that does not make me paranoid.

You have a good day. 




msvette2u said:


> I had an 80hr. training course and am still an ACO.
> 
> I worked in a small town as an ACO (the only one, btw) and as part of my job, was on contract with the county for dangerous dogs.
> I was laid off after 3yrs. due to budget cuts. Real mysterious, huh?
> For some reason, law enforcement does take hits at budget cutting time.
> However, even after my lay-off I continued to work on contract with the city and with the county as a euthanasia technician for an additional year.
> 
> I am right now, on call with the state patrol (which is what I was doing on the freeway median with the trooper who had to shoot the dog) and county when necessary, although our County actually got an a/c department recently, relieving some of that burden. I've been contacted by another nearby town to provide a/c services for them, as well. That's in the works right now.
> 
> "What qualifications"? I'd say working in conjunction with Sheriff's who were armed and ready to shoot dogs if they attacked qualifies me. (Nothing beats creeping through underbrush looking for a dangerous dog while a gun is drawn behind you.)
> Asking the Sheriff to dispatch a dog too dangerous to pick up, etc.
> Also working alongside police officers for 3yrs. qualifies me. I've also been on scene when matters were taken from my hands and the Sheriff made, for convenience sake, the decision to lethally shoot the dog we could not catch (easily - given time I may have been able to but that was time we did not have).
> They are not "my clients", or my friends or even my husband, they are my co-workers, so I know how they think and their reasoning behind their decisions.
> 
> And your theory that just because they can shoot a dog on scene they can progress to beating people up at traffic stops is pure paranoia, and it is wrong on many many levels


----------



## msvette2u

*sigh* 
I don't even know why I bothered...LOL my 1st inclination was correct I guess.


----------



## msvette2u

What's ironic is you cannot see the rudeness of your own posts (grilling someone else on their profession and "why no longer employed", if that is not rude I have no clue what is), then become offended when I respond in kind! Or maybe you were just disappointed in my answer...hm  




> You have been an ACO in the past and I am curious as to what your qualifications are to speak on behalf of law enforcement in general?
> 
> How many years were you an ACO 10, 15 or more and why are you no longer working as an ACO. I'm wondering?





> that's why I asked and did not draw any conclusions.


Ah, but it seems you did...ah well. 
Truth is, my life isn't that secretive, nor that dramatic. Just an every-day jane. All anyone has to do when they truly want to dispel rumors is ask


----------



## jaggirl47

Dainerra said:


> if the officer wasn't there because of a call about a potentially vicious roaming dog, then maybe his mindset would have been different, as was your friend's.
> Maybe if the owner hadn't let his dog roam multiple times the guard wouldn't have called the cops.
> Maybe if the cop had on boots instead of shoes he wouldn't have been bitten.
> Maybe if someone had just bothered to lock the door the dog wouldn't have gotten out.
> 
> I'm sorry, you just can't compare the 2 situations. I DO understand what you are trying to say, but it doesn't pan out. The officer in your story KNOWS you/father. He KNOWS that what you are telling him about the dog is accurate. The dog was brought over and he was prepared to engage it in a specific manner.
> 
> If a strange dog that he has been called about terrorizing the neighborhood came charging out and started attacking him, would he react the same way? Would he get down on one knee in the presence of this loose dog and try to "speak its language"?


 
I tried explaining this same point for the past 50 or so posts. I think it takes a certain amount of maturity that one does not have as a teenager still living at home. Sad, but true.


----------



## VonKromeHaus

Just not worth it. The truth will come out in the end.


----------



## jaggirl47

rshkr said:


> i've also coem to observe that jaggirl47 is a woman scorned, draugr is smart and is well educated.


I laughed so hard when I read this that my husband had to come read it. This is funny, but thatnks for trying to put me down. I got a really good laugh before my coffee. I even like the comparison you made between myself and a teenager who still lives at home. Darn it, I knew traveling the world and being sent on combat deployments would make me less well-versed than a teenager! 

I will just make it a point to let the Army Chief of Staff know that a couple of members of an internet forum say it is bad to use guns and to protect yourself at all costs. Darn-it!


----------



## Draugr

Haven't been a teenager for quite some time (actually, it would be nice to have the chance to roll back time and do some things differently), but the projection going on here is a bit interesting, to say the least.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> Haven't been a teenager for quite some time (actually, it would be nice to roll back time and do some things differently), but the projection going on here is a bit interesting, to say the least.


A couple of years out of teenager does not really change much.


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> A couple of years out of teenager does not really change much.


Bzzzzt.

Try again.

I seem to recall something, last night, something being said about if you have a point to make, do it without resorting to personal attacks. Or are you, like many teenagers, seemingly above your own rules of engagement?

/shrug

You can see it how you will. But unlike last night I think I will just keep my cool and walk away. There is really nothing to be accomplished here.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> Bzzzzt.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> I seem to recall something, last night, something being said about if you have a point to make, do it without resorting to personal attacks. Or are you, like many teenagers, seemingly above your own rules of engagement?


Considering, as a teenager, I did something with my life and joined the military....well, that normally makes you grow up and mature a bit faster than those who don't.

I would like to ask...you talked last night about understanding diversity. How many places have you been to in order to truly understand about diversity?


----------



## jaggirl47

VonKromeHaus said:


> Just not worth it. The truth will come out in the end.


You are very correct. Last year, I was on the other side arguing about the GSD Ava that was shot and killed. Unfortunately, I only listened to the owner and the Examiner. Well, was I wrong when the official report and autopsy came out! That kind of situation teaches you not to allow those who are so emotionally into the situation the benefit of the doubt. It also goes to show just how many people try to take the blame off of themselves so they don't feel so bad for being so irresponsible.


----------



## Draugr

jaggirl47 said:


> Considering, as a teenager, I did something with my life and joined the military....well, that normally makes you grow up and mature a bit faster than those who don't.


That's complete lunacy.

The military gives kids a great chance to grow up and get a bit of maturity ahead of the curve, and a good dose of reality. And some do take that opportunity. And if you are one of those, then great, I'm proud for you. That's quite commendable.

But it's not a magic wand that turns kids into grownups, and sadly, I have seen just as many of my close friends leave the military in the same state of immaturity that they went into it with, if not worse, as I have those who really got something out of it, and allowed it to shape them into a better individual.

Like most things, you get what you put into it. If you want to take your experiences and allow them to shape you into a better person, that's what will happen. If you want to use them as an excuse to continue many of the same behaviors you engaged in during high school? Well, that's going to happen too.

Not that all high school kids are immature brats, mind you, we've seen the kind of maturity they are able to display after the recent tragedy at Chardon - but, I'm going by your average kid who makes his decisions without forethought.

What branch are you in, out of curiosity?



> I would like to ask...you talked last night about understanding diversity. How many places have you been to in order to truly understand about diversity?


I've been in a couple different countries, one of those countries, a vastly different culture that was not English-speaking. My experience is probably not as well-rounded as some, I won't deny that, but it's enough to poke through the home-town America-centrist bubble that many people get stuck in.

One of the best things I ever did, was traveling to such a different place and getting to experience that culture. A definite eye opener, and something I think ought to be required of anyone who has pursued higher education, at minimum.

If I had higher income and job with better benefits (something I aim to improve!!!) you can definitely bet that I will be using that as an opportunity to see more.


----------



## TaZoR

Personally, I don't understand what the arguement is about. Only one side of the story was presented by the media. The police deoartment declined to comment, I'm sure until they investigate all the facts and interview all possible witnesses. 

The owners, and friends were distraught I'm sure, and the neighbor said they didn't witness the attack but assumed the officer wasn't attacked. 

The media is not the most competent source of unbiased facts as se all saw in the article about the woman whos dog was chewing on her face when she apparently died as the result of an attack on her children.. who actually had a heart attack and her kids were all adults.

Unless you were at this attack, there really shouldnt be too much to fight about. 

Maybe we should start debate threads with general topics...I'm surprised as i'm sure many are, that this thread hasn't been closed.


----------



## jaggirl47

Draugr said:


> That's complete lunacy.
> 
> The military gives kids a great chance to grow up and get a bit of maturity ahead of the curve, and a good dose of reality. And some do take that opportunity. And if you are one of those, then great, I'm proud for you. That's quite commendable.
> 
> But it's not a magic wand that turns kids into grownups, and sadly, I have seen just as many of my close friends leave the military in the same state of immaturity that they went into it with, if not worse, as I have those who really got something out of it, and allowed it to shape them into a better individual.
> 
> Like most things, you get what you put into it. If you want to take your experiences and allow them to shape you into a better person, that's what will happen. If you want to use them as an excuse to continue many of the same behaviors you engaged in during high school? Well, that's going to happen too.
> 
> Not that all high school kids are immature brats, mind you, we've seen the kind of maturity they are able to display after the recent tragedy at Chardon - but, I'm going by your average kid who makes his decisions without forethought.
> 
> What branch are you in, out of curiosity?
> 
> I've been in a couple different countries, one of those countries, a vastly different culture that was not English-speaking. My experience is probably not as well-rounded as some, I won't deny that, but it's enough to poke through the home-town America-centrist bubble that many people get stuck in.
> 
> One of the best things I ever did, was traveling to such a different place and getting to experience that culture. A definite eye opener, and something I think ought to be required of anyone who has pursued higher education, at minimum.
> 
> If I had higher income and job with better benefits (something I aim to improve!!!) you can definitely bet that I will be using that as an opportunity to see more.


Joining the military, getting married, and raising kids makes you much more mature than those who join the military for the 3 or 4 year minimum so they can go to school. There is a big difference between each.

I will also be the first one to admit I was an immature brat when I was in high school. Nothing wrong with that, I was a kid.

As far as traveling to different states/countries, mine is a bit more extensive. I have traveled to 28 different states (so far) and and 11 different countries (all of which were non-English speaking countries). Hopefully we will go back and live in Italy again. I wouldn't mind the southern coast of Spain either. It is absolutely beautiful there. So, obviously I am very aware of diversity. My kids have even traveled to more places than most kids their age.


----------



## jaggirl47

TaZoR said:


> Personally, I don't understand what the arguement is about. Only one side of the story was presented by the media. The police deoartment declined to comment, I'm sure until they investigate all the facts and interview all possible witnesses.
> 
> The owners, and friends were distraught I'm sure, and the neighbor said they didn't witness the attack but assumed the officer wasn't attacked.
> 
> The media is not the most competent source of unbiased facts as se all saw in the article about the woman whos dog was chewing on her face when she apparently died as the result of an attack on her children.. who actually had a heart attack and her kids were all adults.
> 
> Unless you were at this attack, there really shouldnt be too much to fight about.
> 
> Maybe we should start debate threads with general topics...I'm surprised as i'm sure many are, that this thread hasn't been closed.


This was kinda the point many of us were trying to make at the beginning. The fact that the media turns everything around is what most of us were saying. Especially the Examiner. On that point, there were actual media reports prior to the family coming out public that do not show personal feelings to inflame everyone.


----------



## Dainerra

everyone keeps saying that the officer jumped right for his gun. That the owner was never given a chance to contain his dog. Etc etc
What about all the times that they have been called in the past by the security guard? What about all the past complaints to security about the dog running free?
What about the fact that they KNEW that the dog was aggressively territorial?

This wasn't their first rodeo; they knew that this dog was a problem and potentially dangerous. The cop was called in to deal with a DANGEROUS DOG. Not to find a lost puppy or get a cat out of a tree. He was called about a dangerous situation that the owners had chosen to ignore multiple times.

The person who never gave the dog a chance was his owner, not the officer.


----------



## GregK

Jack's Dad said:


> The cop should have shot the owner while the dog was hanging from the said officers ankle or shoe or whatever.


:thumbup:


----------



## selzer

Dragr, since you attacked me and said my statement was actually worthy of the sarcasm, I am going to qualify it just a tad. 

We moved out here to this tiny town in 1979, so if I can add and subtract, 32-33 years ago. In that time, within a 5 mile radius of our town, but probably a lot farther, the police have killed two people. One was shot to death, one was tased and died. 

While cops may go for tasers a lot quicker than firearms, they are not tasing people left and right in our area. There is very little violent crime here, and most of the people know the other people in the area. If I do not know someone, then one of my family or friends does. That is just how it is here. So, when I said that I _know _someone whose husband was killed by a taser, to me that is really significant. I am not talking about a statistic, I am talking about someone that I sat on a bench and discussed the whole incident with. 

I would not expect a cop to choose pepper spray or a taser with my dogs. I would expect them to choose their gun which would eliminate the threat. My answer is to keep more dogs alive, by encouraging people to think that the cops ARE going to shoot their dogs. More dogs are kept under wraps, fewer dogs are slaughtered in the road. 

My animosity about this situation is the owner's blatantly blaming everyone besides himself. The security guard should be fired for calling the cops? The guy has a serious problem.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

pages and pages... enough said cause also getting a bit personal and starting to need moderation for potential rule breaking...

locked


----------

