Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Necroshea wrote:I'd like everyone to reflect on the past 6 ish pages, and how ridiculous it is that we've been arguing about what may have been a false story from the get go.

You know, kind of like what myself and several others have been trying to point out.

Except the establishment of aggressive behavior was the only thing that changed. That still isn't enough to warrant use of deadly force against a small pet that has yet to actually attack anyone.

Really?

Yeah, you were right. We're done here.

Rented Tritium wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:I'll be over here collecting concession statements.

The parts about where the dog never bit anyone or the part where it's size didn't miraculously change?

The part where there was a reasonable scenario that justified the shooting.

The part where the original news story was wrong in basically every way.

The part where the dogs tried to bite people.

All of these things.

Tried to bite? If it wanted to bite it would have bitten. Posturing and attacking are different behavioral patterns. There was no attack, the story establishes that. This is the exact reason animal control exists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Necroshea wrote:I'd like everyone to reflect on the past 6 ish pages, and how ridiculous it is that we've been arguing about what may have been a false story from the get go.

You know, kind of like what myself and several others have been trying to point out.

Except the establishment of aggressive behavior was the only thing that changed. That still isn't enough to warrant use of deadly force against a small pet that has yet to actually attack anyone.

Really?

Yeah, you were right. We're done here.

Sorry that you're high horse got shot by some officers, but honestly, it shouldn't of been lunging like that. I mean, it didn't bite anyone, but I felt threatened.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:I'll be over here collecting concession statements.

The parts about where the dog never bit anyone or the part where it's size didn't miraculously change?

The part where there was a reasonable scenario that justified the shooting.

The part where the original news story was wrong in basically every way.

The part where the dogs tried to bite people.

All of these things.

Tried to bite? If it wanted to bite it would have bitten. Posturing and attacking are different behavioral patterns. There was no attack, the story establishes that.

So you read that second one and you're actually not changing your position?

That's dedication, but uhhh, you're gonna be pretty alone here.

Necroshea wrote:I'd like everyone to reflect on the past 6 ish pages, and how ridiculous it is that we've been arguing about what may have been a false story from the get go.

You know, kind of like what myself and several others have been trying to point out.

Which don't mean gak. The original article noted none of that and you were essentially arguing taking out a puppy that barked at a cop. This is a completely different situation.

If you say "those evil people should quit bombing and killing innocent civilians" thats one set of facts.

If the person saying is it is Emperor Hirohito and its January 1944, thats a completely different set of facts.

Frazzled wrote:

Necroshea wrote:I'd like everyone to reflect on the past 6 ish pages, and how ridiculous it is that we've been arguing about what may have been a false story from the get go.

You know, kind of like what myself and several others have been trying to point out.

Which don't mean gak. The original article noted none of that and you were essentially arguing taking out a puppy that barked at a cop. This is a completely different situation.

Nobody in this thread has argued that the dog should be shot just for barking. People were arguing that the dog might have been doing more than just barking and the witness was wrong/couldn't see it, etc etc.

I CHALLENGE YOU to find a post ANYWHERE in this thread where someone says that dog should be shot JUST for barking where they didn't also talk about posture and aggression or other circumstances.

Rented Tritium wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:I'll be over here collecting concession statements.

The parts about where the dog never bit anyone or the part where it's size didn't miraculously change?

The part where there was a reasonable scenario that justified the shooting.

The part where the original news story was wrong in basically every way.

The part where the dogs tried to bite people.

All of these things.

Tried to bite? If it wanted to bite it would have bitten. Posturing and attacking are different behavioral patterns. There was no attack, the story establishes that.

So you read that second one and you're actually not changing your position?

That's dedication, but uhhh, you're gonna be pretty alone here.

My position was based in reference to what constitutes a threatening situation and what constitutes an attack. The new article establishes that no attack occurred and did not alter the size of the dog, merely it's behavioral patterns from agitation to aggression and posturing. The use of deadly force was still unnecessary. This is the gak you never understood from the very beginning because you were too busy straw-manning some sort of snowman made of puppies.

Frazzled wrote:

Necroshea wrote:I'd like everyone to reflect on the past 6 ish pages, and how ridiculous it is that we've been arguing about what may have been a false story from the get go.

You know, kind of like what myself and several others have been trying to point out.

Which don't mean gak. The original article noted none of that and you were essentially arguing taking out a puppy that barked at a cop. This is a completely different situation.

If you say "those evil people should quit bombing and killing innocent civilians" thats one set of facts.

If the person saying is it is Emperor Hirohito and its January 1944, thats a completely different set of facts.

If you think the last 6 pages of discussion are worth a damn, I'm not going to even bother attempted to convince you otherwise.

And no, I argued that the story was based on an untrusted source. I argued that it was a stray dog acting aggressively. An aggressive stray that a cop shot. Now we have a story that makes the dog and dog owner look worse.

Even now you guys are still getting up in arms over this.

ShumaGorath wrote:
My position was based in reference to what constitutes a threatening situation and what constitutes an attack. The new article establishes that no attack occurred and did not alter the size of the dog, merely it's behavioral patterns from agitation to aggression and posturing. The use of deadly force was still unnecessary. This is the gak you never understood from the very beginning because you were too busy straw-manning some sort of snowman made of puppies.

So you're arguing that a dog has to literally sink teeth into someone before it's a threat?

I think you should look up threat in the dictionary.

If by strawman, you mean "i was assuming that you were using the real life definition of the word "threat" and not a madeup space word" then yeah, I guess that's a strawman.

Rented Tritium wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
My position was based in reference to what constitutes a threatening situation and what constitutes an attack. The new article establishes that no attack occurred and did not alter the size of the dog, merely it's behavioral patterns from agitation to aggression and posturing. The use of deadly force was still unnecessary. This is the gak you never understood from the very beginning because you were too busy straw-manning some sort of snowman made of puppies.

So you're arguing that a dog has to literally sink teeth into someone before it's a threat?

I think you should look up threat in the dictionary.

If by strawman, you mean "i was assuming that you were using the real life definition of the word "threat" and not a madeup space word" then yeah, I guess that's a strawman.

A dog has to be capable of causing injury beyond what can be handled without the use of a firearm. That dog was not capable of that. You have no idea what consitutes a threat that warrants the use of deadly force. You have attempted to establish time and time again that a 40 pound dog can maul an officer severely. That's bull gak. You know it's bull gak. Everyone knows thats bs. Is this some sort of longdog? Some sort of super dense 200 pound dog made of titanium? Where the hell is the threat? You allergic to dogs?

Did anyone call animal control? No. Did the officers employ non lethals? No. did they attempt any course of action other then observation and then use of deadly force? No.

They didn't do their fething jobs. Get over it. Get over your fear of small animals. I know you're pretty comfortable in your position of waiting for the ivory tower to build around your legs, but it isn't coming. The posture of the animal did not establish need of deadly force. An attack would of done that. Size or breed might have done that. None of that changed though, so you're still out in the rain.

ShumaGorath wrote:You have attempted to establish time and time again that a 40 pound dog can maul an officer severely. That's bull gak. You know it's bull gak. Everyone knows thats bs.

You know, everyone except everyone involved in the case who decided the other way.

40 pounds is plenty of dog to do some damage. My roomate had a 40 pound boxer, that was a pretty powerful dog and she was like 18 inches to the shoulder.

Have you ever had a medium-small sized dog? They're not weak.

Rented Tritium wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You have attempted to establish time and time again that a 40 pound dog can maul an officer severely. That's bull gak. You know it's bull gak. Everyone knows thats bs.

You know, everyone except everyone involved in the case who decided the other way.

40 pounds is plenty of dog to do some damage. My roomate had a 40 pound boxer, that was a pretty powerful dog and she was like 18 inches to the shoulder.

Have you ever had a medium-small sized dog? They're not weak.

Clearly they decided the other way. We wouldn't be here saying they made a bad call otherwise. Do you live in the smuf village or something?

Rented Tritium wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
My position was based in reference to what constitutes a threatening situation and what constitutes an attack. The new article establishes that no attack occurred and did not alter the size of the dog, merely it's behavioral patterns from agitation to aggression and posturing. The use of deadly force was still unnecessary. This is the gak you never understood from the very beginning because you were too busy straw-manning some sort of snowman made of puppies.

So you're arguing that a dog has to literally sink teeth into someone before it's a threat?

I think you should look up threat in the dictionary.

If by strawman, you mean "i was assuming that you were using the real life definition of the word "threat" and not a madeup space word" then yeah, I guess that's a strawman.

Well at this point my issue is more satisfied. While I'd still proffer pepper spray/mace are effective, the statement that that the two bystanders were in fear of attack, puts it into an altogether different scenario and the police are defintiely justified to do something. If the cops wheel up and the dog puts them in a threatened situation, and is of a size to be an actually threat. then again they have the right to defend themselves.

ShumaGorath wrote:An attack would of done that

Ok dude, I'm sorry but this is like the 10th time.

It's would HAVE.

HAVE.

not of

HAVE.

It's driving me crazy, stop writing that.

Rented Tritium wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You have attempted to establish time and time again that a 40 pound dog can maul an officer severely. That's bull gak. You know it's bull gak. Everyone knows thats bs.

You know, everyone except everyone involved in the case who decided the other way.

40 pounds is plenty of dog to do some damage. My roomate had a 40 pound boxer, that was a pretty powerful dog and she was like 18 inches to the shoulder.

Have you ever had a medium-small sized dog? They're not weak.

Wait, really? Thats what you consider a lethal level threat? a 40lb dog?

Rented Tritium wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:An attack would of done that

Ok dude, I'm sorry but this is like the 10th time.

It's would HAVE.

HAVE.

not of

HAVE.

It's driving me crazy, stop writing that.

It works via the third definition of of. It's a dialect thing, get over it.

Frazzled wrote:While I'd still proffer pepper spray/mace are effective.

This is fuzzy, but yes in theory. Pepper spray on animals is kind of complicated. It's been tested a LOT less and the thing is, it's less humane.

Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down. There is no scenario where a dog gets to lunge at an officer when it's ALREADY on someone else's property lunging at the elderly without being put down for it.

So in the case where the dog has ALREADY crossed the line where the law is going to put it down, pepper spraying it is just an extra risk that it doesn't work and you get bitten anyway and the payoff is that the dog still gets put down the next day.

If the dog had constitutional rights to due process or something, then you'd have an argument, but they don't . They're property.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So yes, we treat dogs differently than people for use of force. Surprise.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The British police seem capable of dealing with barking dogs without shooting them.

Perhaps dogs are more aggressive in the US.

And I'll bet more officers are injured by dogs there.

Let's take a look.

The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population).
Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301.

NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm

It seems as if dog attacks are about 150 times more common in the USA than in the UK.

This might be thought to argue two things; firstly, that the police were justified in their caution around the puppy, secondly, that easy availability of guns is of little use in defending against dog attacks.

This is fuzzy, but yes in theory. Pepper spray on animals is kind of complicated. It's been tested a LOT less and the thing is, it's less humane.

Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down. There is no scenario where a dog gets to lunge at an officer when it's ALREADY on someone else's property lunging at the elderly without being put down for it.

Where in the hell do you live if people have eachothers small dogs put down the moment they get off the leash and start acting aggressively? I know Maine is kinda rural so maybe I'm used to more bumpkinisms, but that just seems douchey.

If the dog had constitutional rights to due process or something, then you'd have an argument, but they don't . They're property.

Animals also have behavior, something a car doesn't have. Thus it's important to parse their behavior and capability before acting like they're automoton killbots and putting them down on the spot.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The British police seem capable of dealing with barking dogs without shooting them.

Perhaps dogs are more aggressive in the US.

And I'll bet more officers are injured by dogs there.

Let's take a look.

The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population).
Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301.

NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm

It seems as if dog attacks are about 150 times more common in the USA than in the UK.

This might be thought to argue two things; firstly, that the police were justified in their caution around the puppy, secondly, that easy availability of guns is of little use in defending against dog attacks.

I'm talking about the officers, not the general population. I'm saying that I'll bet more officers are bitten by dogs on duty in the UK than in the US, where they can shoot them.

This is fuzzy, but yes in theory. Pepper spray on animals is kind of complicated. It's been tested a LOT less and the thing is, it's less humane.
***Its a hellofalot more humane than blowing its brains out. But agreed its more ambiguous, and some breeds tend to ignore it (especially those lovable pit bulls and rottweilers). In the situation (taking both articles into effect), I'd put pepper spray as the next best option. A 40lb animal is highly controllable (and capable of getting its ass kicked if necessary).


Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down.
***No. The cop might. The city pound will impound it, but unless there's an attack then no reason to put it down.

There is no scenario where a dog gets to lunge at an officer when it's ALREADY on someone else's property lunging at the elderly without being put down for it.
***Again it depends on the actual situtaion as you so correctly pointed out. So far the dog hasn't actually done anything. Using a kill order is more likely when an actual attack has occurred.

Frazzled wrote:
Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down.
***No. The cop might. The city pound will impound it, but unless there's an attack then no reason to put it down.

This really isn't true. If the dog is aggressive and it lunges at an officer, it's gonna get put down. It happens every day. It doesn't have to actually get teeth into a person to be considered a threat or a dangerous dog.

Again, this comes back to the faulty definition of "threat" that people like to use that only covers actual injury actually literally occurring before your very eyes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:So far the dog hasn't actually done anything.

Except lunging at an elderly couple and a cop?

Except that?

Because that's kind of a big thing

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down.
***No. The cop might. The city pound will impound it, but unless there's an attack then no reason to put it down.

This really isn't true. If the dog is aggressive and it lunges at an officer, it's gonna get put down. It happens every day. It doesn't have to actually get teeth into a person to be considered a threat or a dangerous dog.

Again, this comes back to the faulty definition of "threat" that people like to use that only covers actual injury actually literally occurring before your very eyes.

Apparently Animal control does not exist. There are not trained people whose job it is to handle these exact situations in non lethal ways. Officers dispense justice quickly and quietly in every single situation. Little timmy can just get a cat if he doesn't like it.

Except lunging at an elderly couple and a cop?

Except that?

If it is lunging but not biting then it is exhibiting territorial or defensive aggression and is not intent on attacking. It is attempting to establish dominance and appear threatening. A dog that is genuinely aggressive bites you. That is the inherent and incredibly important difference.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down.
***No. The cop might. The city pound will impound it, but unless there's an attack then no reason to put it down.

This really isn't true. If the dog is aggressive and it lunges at an officer, it's gonna get put down. It happens every day. It doesn't have to actually get teeth into a person to be considered a threat or a dangerous dog.

Again, this comes back to the faulty definition of "threat" that people like to use that only covers actual injury actually literally occurring before your very eyes.

I'm not using a faulty definition and yes the standard is lower, but the standard for shooting a car is almost nonexistence. Yet, strangely, going Dirty Harry on an Edsel generally is frowned upon.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Here is the thing, if the dog is lunging at an officer, the city is GOING to put it down.
***No. The cop might. The city pound will impound it, but unless there's an attack then no reason to put it down.

This really isn't true. If the dog is aggressive and it lunges at an officer, it's gonna get put down. It happens every day. It doesn't have to actually get teeth into a person to be considered a threat or a dangerous dog.

Again, this comes back to the faulty definition of "threat" that people like to use that only covers actual injury actually literally occurring before your very eyes.

Apparently Animal control does not exist. There are not trained people whose job it is to handle these exact situations in non lethal ways. Officers dispense justice quickly and quietly in every single situation. Little timmy can just get a cat if he doesn't like it.

Right, I suppose the cops should have just sat there and let the dogs attack the elderly couple and themselves while they waited for animal control to get there.

Ok, well back over here in reality land, nobody reasonable is going to wait when an active threat is happening.

If animal control had gotten there first? That would have OBVIOUSLY been better. The dogs would probably STILL have ended up being put down, though. They went into someone else's yard and lunged at them, pinning them on a porch.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The British police seem capable of dealing with barking dogs without shooting them.

Perhaps dogs are more aggressive in the US.

And I'll bet more officers are injured by dogs there.

Let's take a look.

The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population).
Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301.

NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm

It seems as if dog attacks are about 150 times more common in the USA than in the UK.

This might be thought to argue two things; firstly, that the police were justified in their caution around the puppy, secondly, that easy availability of guns is of little use in defending against dog attacks.

I'm talking about the officers, not the general population. I'm saying that I'll bet more officers are bitten by dogs on duty in the UK than in the US, where they can shoot them.

The stats presented include attacks on officers. There's no reason to suppose that police in either country are more or less liable than the general population to be attacked by dogs.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:So far the dog hasn't actually done anything.

Except lunging at an elderly couple

You got me there. Point, RT.

ShumaGorath wrote:
If it is lunging but not biting then it is exhibiting territorial or defensive aggression and is not intent on attacking. It is attempting to establish dominance and appear threatening. A dog that is genuinely aggressive bites you. That is the inherent and incredibly important difference.

Except that it was happening on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. You do not get to have a dog that does that. I'm sorry man, but you just don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The British police seem capable of dealing with barking dogs without shooting them.

Perhaps dogs are more aggressive in the US.

And I'll bet more officers are injured by dogs there.

Let's take a look.

The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population).
Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301.

NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm

It seems as if dog attacks are about 150 times more common in the USA than in the UK.

This might be thought to argue two things; firstly, that the police were justified in their caution around the puppy, secondly, that easy availability of guns is of little use in defending against dog attacks.

I'm talking about the officers, not the general population. I'm saying that I'll bet more officers are bitten by dogs on duty in the UK than in the US, where they can shoot them.

The stats presented include attacks on officers. There's no reason to suppose that police in either country are more or less liable than the general population to be attacked by dogs.

Considering the point that was argued was that police in the UK "seem capable" of dealing with dogs without guns. It's kind of important to restrict our sample size to the actual thing we're talking about because... you know... science.

I guess maybe you think all Americans have guns and will use them on dogs? That's not how it is. Those datasets are too broad and too dirtied up with hundreds of unrelated variables and policy differences.

Rented Tritium wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
If it is lunging but not biting then it is exhibiting territorial or defensive aggression and is not intent on attacking. It is attempting to establish dominance and appear threatening. A dog that is genuinely aggressive bites you. That is the inherent and incredibly important difference.

Except that it was happening on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. You do not get to have a dog that does that. I'm sorry man, but you just don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The British police seem capable of dealing with barking dogs without shooting them.

Perhaps dogs are more aggressive in the US.

And I'll bet more officers are injured by dogs there.

Let's take a look.

The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population).
Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301.

NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm

It seems as if dog attacks are about 150 times more common in the USA than in the UK.

This might be thought to argue two things; firstly, that the police were justified in their caution around the puppy, secondly, that easy availability of guns is of little use in defending against dog attacks.

I'm talking about the officers, not the general population. I'm saying that I'll bet more officers are bitten by dogs on duty in the UK than in the US, where they can shoot them.

The stats presented include attacks on officers. There's no reason to suppose that police in either country are more or less liable than the general population to be attacked by dogs.

Considering the point that was argued was that police in the UK "seem capable" of dealing with dogs without guns. It's kind of important to restrict our sample size to the actual thing we're talking about because... you know... science.

Who says? You? It's not police procedure to kill small animals that are acting aggressively without the establishment of a threat. They contain until animal control gets there and then animal control deals with it. There are a few situations wherein use of force can be condoned. They are:

If the animal attacks someone
If the animal is of a dangerous breed or species
If the officers suspect that the Animal could be diseased
If the animal is causing undue property damage
If the animal is a threat to motorists
If the animal is of a species considered "vermin"

Being on someone elses property does not give carte blanche to kill it. Acting aggressively does not give carte blanche. Without attacking or being dangerous then it doesn't warrant that kind of force, even on someone elses property. Did that man own chickens or small animals he was worried about? If not then there wasn't undue stress concerning property damage either. Were they next to a main thoroghfare or freeway? If not then it's not much of a threat to motorists. Pets aren't vermin. None of the articles stated that the officers suspected rabies.

We're left scratching our heads wondering why the officers didn't just disable the dog in the ways they are trained to do. Putting on a jacket and sitting on the thing should of been more then enough to disable it until the end of time and I'm not even particularly trained outside of the wrestling I do with dogs anyway (I <3 dogs).

ShumaGorath wrote:
Who says? You? It's not police procedure to kill small animals that are acting aggressively without the establishment of a threat. They contain until animal control gets there and then animal control deals with it. There are a few situations wherein use of force can be condoned. They are:

If the animal attacks someone
If the animal is of a dangerous breed or species
If the officers suspect that the Animal could be diseased
If the animal is causing undue property damage
If the animal is a threat to motorists
If the animal is of a species considered "vermin"

Being on someone elses property does not give carte blanche to kill it. Acting aggressively does not give carte blanche. Without attacking or being dangerous then it doesn't warrant that kind of force, even on someone elses property. Did that man own chickens or small animals he was worried about? If not then there wasn't undue stress concerning property damage either. Were they next to a main thoroghfare or freeway? If not then it's not much of a threat to motorists. Pets aren't vermin. None of the articles stated that the officers suspected rabies.

We're left scratching our heads wondering why the officers didn't just disable the dog in the ways they are trained to do. Putting on a jacket and sitting on the thing should of been more then enough to disable it until the end of time and I'm not even particularly trained outside of the wrestling I do with dogs anyway (I <3 dogs).

You keep saying that a 40 pound dog lunging at an elderly couple that it has pinned on a porch isn't a threat.

This is nonsense.

Stop posting nonsense.

You are saying that an elderly couple should have been left on a porch with dogs lunging at them until animal control could get there with their nooses. Did you see where the officers even TRIED it your way before shooting them?

Rented Tritium wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Who says? You? It's not police procedure to kill small animals that are acting aggressively without the establishment of a threat. They contain until animal control gets there and then animal control deals with it. There are a few situations wherein use of force can be condoned. They are:

If the animal attacks someone
If the animal is of a dangerous breed or species
If the officers suspect that the Animal could be diseased
If the animal is causing undue property damage
If the animal is a threat to motorists
If the animal is of a species considered "vermin"

Being on someone elses property does not give carte blanche to kill it. Acting aggressively does not give carte blanche. Without attacking or being dangerous then it doesn't warrant that kind of force, even on someone elses property. Did that man own chickens or small animals he was worried about? If not then there wasn't undue stress concerning property damage either. Were they next to a main thoroghfare or freeway? If not then it's not much of a threat to motorists. Pets aren't vermin. None of the articles stated that the officers suspected rabies.

We're left scratching our heads wondering why the officers didn't just disable the dog in the ways they are trained to do. Putting on a jacket and sitting on the thing should of been more then enough to disable it until the end of time and I'm not even particularly trained outside of the wrestling I do with dogs anyway (I <3 dogs).

You keep saying that a 40 pound dog lunging at an elderly couple that it has pinned on a porch isn't a threat.

This is nonsense.

Stop posting nonsense.

It doesn't matter if it was a threat to them at some point. When the police fired it was focusing on the police. The police could of then employed non lethal means. They didn't fething max payne dive and shoot the dog as it was going for grandpas throat. They watched it a few feet away, drew on it, then fired while grandpa watched. The police didn't punish the dog for being a threat five minutes ago, they dealt with the here and now. They dealt with it wrongly and stupidly.

I am flabberghasted that you could consider an animal that size to be meaningfully threatening outside of the capacity for spreading disease. We are very large animals.