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.

Monster Rain wrote:Windex? Would that work? I mean, apparently not, but what would make someone try that?

You might just have it in your hand when things kicked off, and just ran out into the street with it. And good stuff to the 14 year old.

Not so sure about shooting it, but then what else are you supposed to do? I don't think that the paramedics would want to deal with it, and it is not exactly a police matter. I can't imagine animal control would be ready for a rapid deployment either. If it were here, and my child was hurt and needed treatment, I would probably have gone out and brained it with something heavy, or tried to shoo it away or put something heavy over it (like a box with a bag of sand on it) at least. Though if it were outside my house I could have just booted it off the balcony.

In an ideal world she would have calmly locked the door and called the Police, however she had just witnessed a vicious dog maul one of her children and then chase and try to attack the rest of the family I think it is fair to say that thinking about the dogs rights and dignity were rightly at the back of her mind, can't say I would have done any differently in that situation. Good drills for doing all in her power to protect her family.

It really annoys me when people start banging on about animals being afforded the same rights as humans, lets say for instance that you were to give RSPCA vans (animal ambulances) sirens and flashing lights, how would you feel when your dear old mother had been run down and killed by a vet rushing to attend to an asthmatic chincilla?

This thread is a perfect example of why I have some people on "ignore".

Really if a dog attacked my kid I wouldn't care if it were trapping me in my house or on it's own porch licking it's balls, I'd go and kill it. Animals don't have the same rights as us because they cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be shown by punishment or rehabilitation that this kind of thing is wrong. It is in their nature to attack, especially certain unfortunate breeds that have been developed to do just that.

I positively LOVE dogs and have 4 of my own (I'd have more if it weren't for city ordinances and $$) but any dog that attacks people especially children needs killing, PRONTO!

Agree with above (though I feel less strongly). Animals should be protected from neglect, torture and random acts of cruelty. If they are a danger to others they need to be destroyed without hesitation.

Monster Rain wrote:Windex? Would that work? I mean, apparently not, but what would make someone try that?

Kudos to the mother and the 14 year old that was punching the dog. I would have done the exact same thing, though the dog wouldn't have survived.

It's perfectly reasonable to shoot an animal that's attacking one's child. Trying to uphold the "rights" of something that was mauling a 6 year old is laughable.

Well, in some cases--depending on how the animal was trained/raised--simply spraying something at them will cause them to cringe back as if struck. It's a way of training the dog to recognize authority.

Monster Rain wrote:Windex? Would that work? I mean, apparently not, but what would make someone try that?

A number of dog training techniques involve spraying something (usually water) in the dog's face, as a corrective action. It surprises the dog, which causes it to stop whatever it is doing, allowing the owner to reset and correct the dog. Of course, this is usually done in a more controllable situation, not on some random attacking dog.

Or maybe, as the other poster suggested, it was just handy...

I see. Thanks! I just didn't know if Windex had some special property against dog attacks that I was unaware of.

If your close enough to spray windex at it.. punch it in the nose and be done with it.

Slightly off topic, but still kinda meh.

Me and another guy were having a heated discussion about something similar yesterday.

A guy was fishing in know crocodile country, low and behold, a croc killed him. So the people demanded the "rogue croc" be killed, and it was.

Anyone else think thats completely screwed up. The guy was in the crocs territory, the croc was doing what it evolved to do, kill something, then eat it...I feel for the family of the man that died, but really, killing the croc following its natural instincts when the guy should have know the risks is messed up...

IMO if you are purposely tempting nature to kill you then nature has a right to.

It's like the killer whale that killed that lady at Sea World. Don't care if you are trained or not, you are tempting fate when you enter that tank/pool and it IS the whales domain so of course one day the whale could "snap".

If somebody is doing something to provoke an attack I won't punish the animal; I'll punish the antagonist if he survives. LOL.

ShivanAngel wrote:Slightly off topic, but still kinda meh.

Me and another guy were having a heated discussion about something similar yesterday.

A guy was fishing in know crocodile country, low and behold, a croc killed him. So the people demanded the "rogue croc" be killed, and it was.

Anyone else think thats completely screwed up. The guy was in the crocs territory, the croc was doing what it evolved to do, kill something, then eat it...I feel for the family of the man that died, but really, killing the croc following its natural instincts when the guy should have know the risks is messed up...

It has more to do with the fact that if an animal will do it once--it's quite likely to happen again.

Animals are not naturally "maneaters". Sharks, tigers, lions, and other large predators do not naturally attack people. It tends to be a learned behavior, wherein the animal will actually move from its native habitat to becoming closer to humanity so that it can get at an easier prey.

Kanluwen wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:Slightly off topic, but still kinda meh.

Me and another guy were having a heated discussion about something similar yesterday.

A guy was fishing in know crocodile country, low and behold, a croc killed him. So the people demanded the "rogue croc" be killed, and it was.

Anyone else think thats completely screwed up. The guy was in the crocs territory, the croc was doing what it evolved to do, kill something, then eat it...I feel for the family of the man that died, but really, killing the croc following its natural instincts when the guy should have know the risks is messed up...

It has more to do with the fact that if an animal will do it once--it's quite likely to happen again.

Animals are not naturally "maneaters". Sharks, tigers, lions, and other large predators do not naturally attack people. It tends to be a learned behavior, wherein the animal will actually move from its native habitat to becoming closer to humanity so that it can get at an easier prey.

While I feel for his family, it's his own damn fault and the crocodile shouldn't be punished. The reason most animals attack humans is either by mistake, or from starvation(99% of the time caused by humans). And nearly all confirmed maneaters in modern days was due to humans encroaching on their land. Be it through the lumber industries or otherwise.

Oh, and Polar Bears do actively hunt us by nature.

Polar bears see anything moving on the ice as food though.

Any animal that learns to eat humans should be killed, to prevent a re-occurrence of it.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Polar bears see anything moving on the ice as food though.

Any animal that learns to eat humans should be killed, to prevent a re-occurrence of it.

Why, just because its suddenly higher on the food chain then us...

I could probably agree that if a dangerous animal was in residential areas threatening children or something... thats one thing...

But when we go into their domain, and they are hungry, we are food. Some of it isnt even for food. We are encroaching on their territory, and just like any other "animal" that enters their territory they will defend it. Not our fault humans are pansies when it comes to the animal world and we cant take on a lion!

On some of our farmland in Louisiana there are alligators. Its not hard to stay out of their way and respect them. You just have to follow THEIR rules cause your in THEIR territory. Dont go swimming in their pond. Dont go messing around in their nest. Dont go walking up and down the banks of their ponds. Do these things and they wont bother you.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Polar bears see anything moving on the ice as food though.

Any animal that learns to eat humans should be killed, to prevent a re-occurrence of it.

By your logic we should exterminate every animal capable of killing a human. Since re-occurrence happens mostly with another animal as the culprit.

Anyway, the main point of this topic died a while back so to prevent locking wouldn't it be better to start a new one on this topic?

Woman is a dumbass.

She shot it after she was safely inside, and was such a terrible shot that she had to shoot it twice.

I would have just called animal control to have them take it away, if I was SAFELY INSIDE.

@Karon: She's a woman protecting her kids.

As a man, I'd have gone to the garage and gotten out a shovel...

You just can't argue with kneejerk animal rights supporters.

However, you can feed them to crocodiles!

Monster Rain wrote:It's perfectly reasonable to shoot an animal that's attacking one's child. Trying to uphold the "rights" of something that was mauling a 6 year old is laughable.

Yes. when it is attacking you at the moment. but when you are safe in the house you should call the pound. people who you know, get paid to deal with that suff and are trained proffesional.

And the "people who get paid to deal with that stuff" would shoot it in a case like this.

Simple.

Soladrin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

A guy was fishing in know crocodile country, low and behold, a croc killed him. So the people demanded the "rogue croc" be killed, and it was.

Anyone else think thats completely screwed up. The guy was in the crocs territory, the croc was doing what it evolved to do, kill something, then eat it...I feel for the family of the man that died, but really, killing the croc following its natural instincts when the guy should have know the risks is messed up...

It has more to do with the fact that if an animal will do it once--it's quite likely to happen again.

Animals are not naturally "maneaters". Sharks, tigers, lions, and other large predators do not naturally attack people. It tends to be a learned behavior, wherein the animal will actually move from its native habitat to becoming closer to humanity so that it can get at an easier prey.

While I feel for his family, it's his own damn fault and the crocodile shouldn't be punished. The reason most animals attack humans is either by mistake, or from starvation(99% of the time caused by humans). And nearly all confirmed maneaters in modern days was due to humans encroaching on their land. Be it through the lumber industries or otherwise.

Really? I mean, really?? I've got to say, if you're content to just let a man-eating croc swim around then you're just fething crazy. The guy was fishing, he wasn't skinny dipping in croc country, he was fishing. In a boat. Or on the shore. If he'd been going for a dip, then it's fair game. I'd really like to see a reference for that last statment of yours, becuase I'm calling bull-gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It's perfectly reasonable to shoot an animal that's attacking one's child. Trying to uphold the "rights" of something that was mauling a 6 year old is laughable.

Yes. when it is attacking you at the moment. but when you are safe in the house you should call the pound. people who you know, get paid to deal with that suff and are trained proffesional.

Oh sure. Let's just leave the bleeding 6-year-old with face wounds somewhere on the floor and wait for the pound. The dog's safety must come first, of course. Besides, it's not like she'd be waiting very long for the Pound-SWAT team to arrive with tranquilizer darts and all, would she? Plenty of time to get her child to the hospital later. [/sarcasm]

How sad when we begin arguing animal rights when the dog could have mauled the crap out of the kid.
We are human beings. We dont eat our own sh*t when we feel like it and we don't have to lick ourselves. We have certain qualities that elevate ourselves above dogs. Like it or not, dogs are inferior to human beings. If a human being did that to a child, the mother would shoot the crap out of him. I don't see how the attacker being a dog changes this in any way. Do not bring this 'animals = humans' argument into play when something like this happens. In normal life, I accept animals as part of nature and valuable, but when a dog begins to have an urge to randomly attack a child, I would go for the gun.
Mr. Self Destruct

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:How sad when we begin arguing animal rights when the dog could have mauled the crap out of the kid.
We are human beings. We dont eat our own sh*t when we feel like it and we don't have to lick ourselves. We have certain qualities that elevate ourselves above dogs. Like it or not, dogs are inferior to human beings. If a human being did that to a child, the mother would shoot the crap out of him. I don't see how the attacker being a dog changes this in any way. Do not bring this 'animals = humans' argument into play when something like this happens. In normal life, I accept animals as part of nature and valuable, but when a dog begins to have an urge to randomly attack a child, I would go for the gun.
Mr. Self Destruct

+1

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:How sad when we begin arguing animal rights when the dog could have mauled the crap out of the kid.
We are human beings. We dont eat our own sh*t when we feel like it and we don't have to lick ourselves. We have certain qualities that elevate ourselves above dogs. Like it or not, dogs are inferior to human beings. If a human being did that to a child, the mother would shoot the crap out of him. I don't see how the attacker being a dog changes this in any way. Do not bring this 'animals = humans' argument into play when something like this happens. In normal life, I accept animals as part of nature and valuable, but when a dog begins to have an urge to randomly attack a child, I would go for the gun.
Mr. Self Destruct

I was gonna fisk a bunch of animal rights nonsense, but I figure I'll just quote this and say...

QFT

And for the record, if a human being did something similar to one of my kids I would plan their hideous and brutal murder long after I was "safely in the house." So yes, I guess if you're saying that if a living being mauls a child their rights are exactly equal whether they be human or animal.

Whatever. animals are equal to humans. we are all biological beings created by nature. the idea that we are better then another being because we have a higher ability to think and opposible thumps is redicoulous.. i am not saying the women was wrong to protect here kid. im saying she was wrong to shoot an animal when it couldnt get to her. she should have called the aothorities. but really im done arguing. you guiys wont wee the truth. and its useless. what happned happend. all that arguing will do nothing. I hope the owner gets the law thrown at him and the dog get some help if it is possible to help it.

garret wrote:Whatever. animals are equal to humans. we are all biological beings created by nature. the idea that we are better then another being because we have a higher ability to think and opposible thumps is redicoulous..

My thumps are my greatest pride.

garret wrote:Whatever. animals are equal to humans. we are all biological beings created by nature. the idea that we are better then another being because we have a higher ability to think and opposible thumps is redicoulous..

Well, that's sort of how the food-chain works. The weak dominate the strong, and we're at the top of the pile. We could eradicate every other animal on the planet if we so desired. With this in mind, animals have the rights we allow them.


We have dominion.

I don't know about you guys, but I have a field full of puppies and I just cut them all down with a scythe.

garret wrote:Whatever. animals are equal to humans. we are all biological beings created by nature. the idea that we are better then another being because we have a higher ability to think and opposible thumps is redicoulous.. i am not saying the women was wrong to protect here kid. im saying she was wrong to shoot an animal when it couldnt get to her. she should have called the aothorities. but really im done arguing. you guiys wont wee the truth. and its useless. what happned happend. all that arguing will do nothing. I hope the owner gets the law thrown at him and the dog get some help if it is possible to help it.

So, if our higher ability to think and opposite thumps don't designate us as a higher being, what's to stop animals from neutering us because we breed too much? Why do we eat *COOKED* meat?
Your post is contradictory.

Yes. We are the Dominatrix in the food cha-...hmmm, maybe not the most appropriate description to use here.

I had hoped for a more readable or literate argument to be had on this thread. Oh well.