General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCalif. TV station films dog calmly playing with kids after cop shoots himself trying to kill it
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/17/calif-tv-station-films-dog-calmly-playing-with-kids-after-cop-shoots-himself-trying-to-kill-it/A California deputy accidentally shot himself while trying to kill a dog that he said was threatening his life on Wednesday, but video captured by a local television station later showed the animal much smaller than reported and peacefully playing with children.
According to a Riverside County sheriffs spokesperson, the deputy was serving an eviction notice at around 2 p.m. on Wednesday when a large dog tried to attack him, KCAL reported.
A dog came at the deputy in an aggressive manner, Deputy Armando Munoz said, according to The Press-Enterprise. The deputy, (attempting to defend himself) pulled his service weapon, shot one round, and injured himself in the leg.
Hes OK. He has non life-threatening injuries.
snip
Dog is ok too.
Response to warrior1 (Original post)
Post removed
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)You should edit your subject line. Using that word in that way is not cool; especially at DU.
TYY
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)fucking asshole ... I see that lots on here so it must be ok
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)TYY
lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)Crazy, isn't it?
Hayduke Bomgarte
(1,965 posts)I was speaking of the cop. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.
ETA: And why in the world would I say the mother isn't fit to be a cop or carry a gun?.
Good grief!
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)That said, I probably wouldn't have voted to hide that. I use that phrase a lot myself - but not directed at people.
lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)but you'll get the hang of it. There is a "group" here ... they seem to have taken over.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)Definitely see a lot of that shit here.
Warpy
(110,909 posts)They see a word they don't like, instead of cringing and moving on, they alert and get the whole post censored.
Lovely people, they are. When they suck the guts out of this board, they'll be on to another one.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...about either the phrase "son of a bitch" or it's specific use in 'that way' here is inappropriate... at DU or anywhere else outside some kindergarten class where we have to watch our foul language in front of the wee kiddies?
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... almost 5 minutes.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)What the hell is wrong with people?
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)It is one of the "forbidden words" on DU. You should know that by now.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And that's just plain bullshit.
James48
(4,416 posts)that automatically will get you booted by the jury?
I didn't expect to see that one - and I wonder what else makes the list...
(P.S.- I like dogs- even female dogs. )
AngryDem001
(684 posts)I too would like a list of "banned words".
B Calm
(28,762 posts)you share it with me? I really think some people get a little carried away with their political correctness and look for things to be offended by.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... it's very tricky. I even had a post hidden once for merely asking if a certain word was considered a forbidden word. I was in the gungeon and asked if the term hoplophobe was considered a derogatory term. I guess it was, because a jury hid the post merely for asking the question, because the term was such a horrific slur.
I have also learned by experience and observation that there are a number of term that a certain group doesn't allow and will swarm a post that uses one of them. And no, I am not even going to list them. Too dangerous. You'll have to figure them out yourself.
Sad, but that's the way it is.
AngryDem001
(684 posts)The "B" word is forbidden, yet asshole is A OK.
I smell double standard!
frylock
(34,825 posts)itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Nt
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Bitch is sexist. Asshole isn't.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)when I see a post alerted on for using that word, unless it's a direct personal attack against another DUer. My tongue-in-cheek post was just pointing out a double standard. I guess I should have used the sarcasm thingy.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)IMO it is only small minded people who want to police words.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I merely pointed out that one is sexist, while the other isn't. I didn't police anything.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)Some dogs are male; some dogs are female.
With the statement "you dog!" we have no idea whether the target is male or female. Similarly we have no idea if the insulter wishes to impute they are male or female. There is no reference to any male or female characteristic or attribute.
Clearer?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)What else would you get to cover your bitch?
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)The "inclusive = male" assumption is at the root of patriarchy and the idea that females don't count. The thought patterns behind it are the same as those that used to think (and some still do) that "property owner" = male and "voter" = male and "jury member" = male.
The "male = inclusive" mode of thinking is actually the "female = excluded" mode of thinking.
Such usage reveals a thoughtless reflexive male privileged mindset. Language choices reveal mindset in much the same way as words like "coon" and "chink" are innocuous when used neutrally but are very loaded examples of bigotry in certain contexts.
Hence "dog" is not actually sexist, but claiming that "dog is sex specific" is itself sexist.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)The word "bitch" used as an insult is not gender neutral. "Asshole" is gender neutral since both genders have one. Duh.
Somehow it's escaped many people here that the word "bitch" used as an insult is sexist and has been used that way for centuries and specifically toward females. I'm not seeing why refraining from using hurtful insulting gender specific language as an insult is such a great hardship nor why anyone would be so hell bent on demanding that it's somehow appropriate to use bigoted language among mixed company and that they have some God-given right to use it here. Funny, I never see anyone on DU demanding their God-given right to use racist language here or be unable to recognize insulting racist language in the first place.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)uppityperson
(115,674 posts)Huh.
lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)a bunch of bullies? A minority here on DU? Are we that easily intimidated? Yep, guess we are.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)It all depends on who is on the jury and how offended they are by such things.
whopis01
(3,467 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Calling someone "you son of a bitch" has as much to do with sexism as calling someone "you bastard" has to do with their parents actual marital status.
Less actually, since even if the person in question were being completely literal... which is pretty much NEVER TRUE here in the 21st century... calling someone the son of a female *dog* is about the dog part, not the female part.
Sheesh.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...that doesn't have a damn thing to do with sexism. Or did you not read my last post?
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,788 posts)Yes I read your post. However we DO live in the 21st century where "bitch" is an insult referring to the female sex, not to dogs except in kennel clubs and dog shows (where the word itself is not an insult).
"bastard" is gender neutral but is still a slam at children born outside of marriage, of which there are plenty about. In some dark corners of America they are still called "illegitimate" which is just as much of a punch against innocent children who have no choice in their birth. Calling someone a bastard may not be sexist but it is ugly bigotry.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...is specifically applied to the female sex.
But the phrase "son of a bitch" means something else *completely*. It is simply shorthand for "contemptible jerk" or "asshole". It is not smack talk about that person's mother. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with their parentage any more than almost any use of the word "bastard" as an insult in general conversation does.
"bastard" is gender neutral but is still a slam at children born outside of marriage, of which there are plenty about."
Maybe a century ago. Nowadays calling anyone else a bastard as an insult simply does not have anything to do with their actual parentage however (except in specific circumstances in which the intent to use the term strictly literally is usually fairly clear to all parties involved.)
lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)Damn PC police!!!!
oneofthe99
(712 posts)/damn/
verb
past participle: damned
1.
(in Christian belief) be condemned by God to suffer eternal punishment in hell.
"be forever damned with Lucifer
Response to TeeYiYi (Reply #4)
Post removed
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Warpy
(110,909 posts)Rarely do you see such a shining example, a panicky and violent cop shooting himself because he draws slower than he thinks he does.
The rest of the Karma will get him when he goes back to work and gets razzed to death.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)of a cop, though...not that I wish it was life-threatening...but maybe a little more serious so he might realize how wrong and despicable he was.
atreides1
(16,046 posts)And here I was hoping the cop would have hit an artery!!!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that this deputy is dumber than shit. At least shit is useful in fertilizing plants. "Pulls gun on friendly dog, shoots self in the foot."
That is a dumbass of epic proportions.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Oh there they are with their loving dog Precious. I am so happy that the dog wasn't killed for no reason. I just hope this asshole cop doesn't sue this family.
louis-t
(23,199 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)cate94
(2,797 posts)sounds exactly like Barney Fife.
hue
(4,949 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I love happy endings.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)donco
(1,548 posts)Barney Fife should not be carrying anything more dangerous than a water pistol.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)At 0'45"
In Riverside, California?
marble falls
(56,358 posts)canuckledragger
(1,632 posts)I just fucking shot myself!
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)2naSalit
(86,054 posts)Bonx
(2,041 posts)hue
(4,949 posts)He obviously didn't have control of his weapon.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)What is it with cops thinking it's okay to execute family pets for no gawddamn good reason? This dumbass should be fired and have his right to ever touch a weapon again revoked.
frylock
(34,825 posts)is it now a requirement to become a LEO that you have to be a piss-pants chickenshit coward? I mean, if you're this fucking scared, and your number one priority is self preservation at any cost, then perhaps this isn't the job for you.
Nine
(1,741 posts)If you own a dog, it is your responsibility to control it, and that means not letting it attack people who enter the property. Not everyone who enters another person's property is trespassing. A police officer entering a property in the course of his or her duties is a perfect example of that. So are mail carriers and utility workers.
frylock
(34,825 posts)if my dog (or in my instance, my roommates dog) is in the backyard, behind a latched, 8 foot fence, then that IS control of the animal, full stop.
Nine
(1,741 posts)The dog bite statute protects a victim "while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog." This prevents trespassers from obtaining recovery...
A person is considered to be lawfully on private property if he is there in furtherance of a duty required by law (i.e., a police officer or a mail carrier), or was there as a result of an express or implied invitation...
If you have a utility easement on your property, that is one scenario where someone could enter your fenced property while you were at work. A police officer carrying out his or her lawful duties is another example.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)The dog bit no one.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Is not acting aggressively. The cop was afraid and reacted in fear...fortunately for the dog he was so scared he squeezed the trigger before he even aimed the gun. If the dog was so aggressive, why didn't he then attack the wounded officer?
There is a difference between a warning bark (warning the people there is an invader approaching) and being aggressive. Most people who deal with the public probably understand this. This deputy might have been nervous to begin with because he was bringing an eviction notice and didn't know what kind of reception he'd get. So his nerve failed him.
Pitts have a sometimes "earned reputation" that precedes them, so it doesn't matter that it was a medium sized dog...just that it was a scary mofo.
Where is Ceasar when we need him. He trains people, not dogs. :lol:
Nine
(1,741 posts)The dog could have been barking, charging, sleeping, or doing back flips. We have no way of knowing.
Nine
(1,741 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)and often do.
Nine
(1,741 posts)The police officer has no more right to kill your dog than anyone else who can lawfully be on your property. A friend you invite over is not a trespasser either. Does that give your friend the right to kill your pet with impunity? Of course not.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And what is considered admirable & desirable in most dogs - such as defending their family from strangers invading their territory - is suddenly deserving of a death sentence if it's "Pit Bull"-type dog.
Nine
(1,741 posts)No, the point is not that a dog should be expected to know the difference between a burglar and a police officer or other innocent person. The point is that a dog's owner should take responsibility for making sure the dog cannot attack the innocent.
If you look at the video at frame 0:55, you'll see that the fence encloses not just a back yard but the part of the property that includes the front door. A police officer serving an eviction notice would be required to enter the fenced area to perform this duty. If the dog attacks the officer under these circumstances, the dog owner cannot claim trespassing as a defense because the officer was not trespassing as far as I can see. The dog owners are liable when they allow a dog access to the front door area and the dog attacks someone who is not there unlawfully.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)He assuredly bit no one at all.
Just good ol' Deputy Dumbass wanting to be a tough evictor and decides to shoot the dog for good measure.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)there is no evidence, other than the quick-to-shoot cop's word that the dog "attacked" him.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Animal Services did not take the dog into custody because there was no evidence it or the owner had done anything wrong.
Nine
(1,741 posts)My very first post (#57) in this thread:
I have never deviated from that position. I don't know whether the dog charged the police officer. There is no evidence one way or another. But people - including the article's own headline writer - are taking the fact that the dog is shown being nonaggressive around its own family and waving that around as proof that the dog could not possibly have charged at the officer. That is what I object to. It's a ridiculous leap to make. And people are only making this leap because it reinforces their own biases.
The whole subthread started by frylock (#39) where the poster asked, "gee, who would ever expect a dog to agressively charge a stranger that just entered their yard?" was premised on the assumption by frylock, not by me that the dog did "aggressively charge." Frylock then posed other hypotheticals. You can see the progression of the discussion in posts 58 and 60. Never once in this entire thread have I claimed knowing that this dog charged the officer. Not once. All discussion along that line by me were in response to hypotheticals and assumptions posed by others.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)It is a discussion board and we all will "run" with something.
There is no evidence that the dog charged the guy or that the guy flipped out because he was afraid of the dog. What we do know is that the cop used his gun irresponsibly
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Deputy Dumbass was anxious to fire off a round, and luckily, it hit right where it would do the most good.
Nine
(1,741 posts)Dog owners have the responsibility to control their dogs. There are some defenses dog owners can use if their dog attacks someone and these vary from place to place. An owner would have a very strong defense if a burglar is breaking into the home and a rather weak defense if the dog attacks a girl scout walking up to knock on the front door. There is probably a strong defense when the dog is contained in a fenced backyard, but not always.
In the particular case of the OP, the officer was approaching the front door to serve an eviction notice. Does it matter, legally, that the officer had to pass through a gate to access the front door? I'm not a lawyer but I strongly suspect the officer would still not be considered a trespasser here, which means a trespassing defense could not have been used by the dog owners if the officer had been bitten.
Could the dog owners in this particular case use a defense of provocation as suggested upthread (if the officer had been bitten)?
gee, who would ever expect a dog to agressively charge a stranger that just entered their yard?
California law (and common sense, in my opinion) seems to hold that simply entering a dog's yard does not constitute provocation:
http://dogbitelaw.com/california/defenses-in-california.html
And that was my point. It's an irresponsible dog owner who takes the view that it's "natural" for a dog to aggressively charge a stranger who approaches what the dog considers to be its territory (and this territory may or may not align with the actual property lines), and that anyone who enters your property somehow assumes the risk of being attacked. But I have seen this type of Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine defense being made all too often: according to some, as long as the dog was on the dog owner's property, any attack by the dog is automatically the fault of the victim. But that's not what the law says.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)mbperrin
(7,672 posts)1. No evidence the dog "charged" anybody. Is walking up to someone looking for a friendly petting a charge?
2. Deputy was not bitten. Fact.
3. Dog is calm in pictures. Fact.
4. Deputy is stupid enough to shoot self by mishandling weapon, so too stupid for me to accept his version at face value, which is contradicted by the provable facts that we have.
I think the deputy is a bully and a liar and an incompetent handler of weapons. All the actual evidence points to that. I wish him ill and I wish him to be separated from his employment, and I'm taking action to try to accomplish that.
Want to argue hypothetical crap? Go to any college dorm and discuss topics like, "If John Lennon was still alive, Surface or Air?" and other gripping topics.
I'm happy the deputy is shot, the dog is alive, and the children are happy.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Now fire the lying piece of shit.
Apologies to actual shit, which has useful purposes.
harun
(11,348 posts)the fact you don't need to use a gun to stop a dog?
There's probably 100 better ways than using a gun, just say'n.
bkanderson76
(266 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)How disappointing. I guess shooting dogs crosses a line that simply shooting people doesn't.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)mbperrin
(7,672 posts)than are dogs.
And far more dogs get shot than people by law enforcement.
That's bad. Dogs are loyal, brave, loving, and patient.
Sometimes people are. We call them Gandhi and Mother Teresa. The rest are more like me.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They're the best!
Garion_55
(1,914 posts)if they admit that any shooting is not justified thats an instant lawsuit.
it really is like 99% of all dog shootings will be found justified by the 'internal police investigation' and the cop goes back to work after about a months paid vacation. its very rare for any officer to pay any kind of personal price for shooting a dog. especially when swat comes busting into your home at 3am looking for a plant. say goodbye to your dog if that happens. cops will do it just for spite no shit.
one city might recall their mayor and city council even because of a dog shooting.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/idaho-mayor-faces-possible-recall-after-police-officer-kills-dog/
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)chowder66
(9,011 posts)Talk about taking the higher road!
I'm ticked off at the cop too and hope he gains some perspective but man that dog owner was terrific in his response!
StarryNite
(9,364 posts)The owner was amazing! He is the silver lining in this story.
Nine
(1,741 posts)A perfect DU storm: hatred of cops + kneejerk defense of pitbulls + utter lack of basic logic
I don't know whether the cop was justified in pulling his gun on that dog and neither do any of you. The fact that the dog is not displaying aggression at one moment in time doesn't mean it wasn't being aggressive 10 minutes earlier. If anything, the fact that the cop shot himself makes me more likely to think he was responding quickly to a charging animal rather than just shooting the dog for the sheer fun of it.
ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)What I do know is the cop entered a fenced in area uninvited.
Nine
(1,741 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)UPS, FedEx, etc.
They're not known for shooting dogs.
Nine
(1,741 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)with pepper spray. So are cops. I support cops and the job they do. I do not support cops who shoot dogs when they don't have to. Serving a court order is not an emergency. There should be a proper procedure for doing so in a manner that respects property and life. It looks like this guy panicked at a dog doing what dogs are suppose to do.
Nine
(1,741 posts)Well there's the problem right there. You think a dog charging at an innocent person who is on the property for a legitimate purpose is just fine and dandy.
Serving a court order is not an emergency and neither is trying to deliver a package or sell girl scout cookies. But they are all legitimate and lawful reasons for a person to approach someone's front door. Are you assuming that the officer knew the dog was there before he entered the property? What is your evidence of that?
What is your evidence that the officer did not have to shoot the dog? Is it your belief that pepper spray always stops a charging dog? Letter carriers carry pepper spray and yet...
http://www.nalc.org/depart/safety/dogbites.html
pintobean
(18,101 posts)nt
Nine
(1,741 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)Like I said down-thread, you obviously don't understand dogs.
Nine
(1,741 posts)"It looks like this guy panicked at a dog doing what dogs are suppose to do."
Either the officer is telling the truth and the dog "came at (him) in an aggressive manner," or the dog didn't. If you thought the officer was lying, you would have said that instead of saying that he "panicked." That makes me think you feel it's OK for dogs to charge at people. But feel free to clarify.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)The cop was on private property that was fenced in. That's the dog's territory. His job is to alert and protect his family (pack). If the cop didn't go inside the fence, he couldn't have been charged at, or in any danger. The dog doesn't know the difference between a cop and a child molester. Yeah, the dog did its job. It was protecting the kids. The cop fucked up.
Nine
(1,741 posts)In general, a trespasser is someone who wasn't invited on the property. Unless you warn people off your property with signs or locked gates, you are considered to have given an "implied invitation" to members of the public to approach your door on common errandsfor example, to try to sell you something or ask directions...
A general rule is that a dog owner who could reasonably expect someone to be on the property is probably going to be liable for any injury that person suffers.
Specific legal rules that determine whether or not a dog owner is liable to an injured trespasser vary from state to state. Here are the basics...
Most dog-bite statutes do not allow trespassers to sue for an injury. The owner is liable only if the person injured by a dog was in a public place or "lawfully in a private place." That means that the injured person must have a good reason for being where he was. Mail carriers, for example, are always covered. Police officers performing their official duties are not considered trespassers, either.
The police officer had a lawful right to be there, and I believe a deliveryperson or a neighbor coming over to talk would also have had a lawful right to at least knock on the front door. Unfortunately, the fenced area encloses both the dog and the front door at this property, which I think creates a hazard to the public. If the dog was merely barking, that's one thing, but I don't think you really believe the cop was "panicking" over a dog barking. If the dog was charging at the officer, the officer had a right to defend himself. A neighbor kid coming over to ask one of the children living there to play would have been a lot less able to defend against a charging dog. That's why I think it's an irresponsible view to accept dogs charging at strangers as normal and expected. If your dog can't be trusted not to charge at strangers, it's your responsibility to protect the public from your dog.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Please do pay more attention in the future.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Well said.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)It's a chain link fence, so uh, yeah, he probably should have known.
Of course, he probably should have know how to discharge a weapon without shooting himself, so there you go.
And I suppose that the deputy could be blind, what with all the hiring inclusion going on these days, and so he couldn't have seen the dog, which would be some sort of violation of the deputy's rights, having a dog that's not sending a signal to the blind that he's there, and that might explain his problem with his weapon, which in that case, he's not incompetent at all, just a victim of insufficient modification to this job description to account for having to shoot without being able to see.
This hypothetical stuff is fun! Just chunk all known facts and imagine away! Wheeeee!
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Because after decades of teaching in public school, I can assure you on a national basis that there are at least 10 kindergartners bitten every day by a fellow attendee.
Yet hardly anyone suggests putting them down, or even pepper spraying them, for that matter.
Should there be no proportionality in life at all?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Of course the dog plays well with the kids in the family. So does mine but god forbid someone starts pounding on my door my Dog goes ballistic.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Unless you agree that the evicting officer is justified in shooting your barking dog through the door.
My dogs make different sounds to let me know who's at the door. Stranger? One short yip.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I wasn't there I cant judge but pics of the dog playing with it's family prove nothing.
I am glad the dog wasn't shot just the same.
Logical
(22,457 posts)lack of firearm skills?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)(Idiot cop putting his finger on the trigger while drawing) + (gun without a external safety) = Glock Leg
And that's putting aside the cops' recent tendency to shoot anything on 4 legs that comes near them these days.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I don't know this, of course, but the story suggests that possibility.
And this isn't even getting into his potential deficiency as a marksman.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)It shows.
Dogs don't attack one minute and play the next. But on with some logic:
We KNOW the dog didn't bite Deputy Dumbass - no bite marks, just a bullet wound.
We KNOW the dog was peacefully playing with the kids a short time after.
Doesn't look good for Dumbass and his story.
I'd like to get the cop on the end of an MMPI.
Nine
(1,741 posts)And I don't think it's all improbable for a dog to charge at a stranger, be called off or scared off, and then be playing with family not long after. In fact, I've seen it happen.
The officer's claim is that 1. the dog was charging, 2. the officer went for his weapon, 3. the weapon was discharged prematurely, and 4. the dog was scared off by the gunshot. (1) has not be proven one way or another, it's established that (2) and (3) happened, and I don't doubt that (4) would have happened whether or not the dog was charging. So the fact that the officer wasn't bitten proves nothing. And the fact that the dog was playing with family by the time the news crew arrived doesn't prove anything either, I believe.
TBF
(31,921 posts)nt
I'm some kind of authoritarian because I said we don't know whether the dog charged the officer or not?
TBF
(31,921 posts)that they are protective of their packs. I could train it out of my labs pretty easily but my husband wants them to bark when folks approach the property. And they most certainly will back down upon command and run off to play with the kids (takes a couple minutes to redirect but they will do it).
The story is funny because KARMA.
Especially in the case of an eviction the guy should have at least tried diplomacy before he started shooting. I might react differently to this story if he were entering a suspected drug den - then I sadly would suspect the training of the dogs to be very different.
Nine
(1,741 posts)Diplomacy with a charging dog.
You have labs. A "pack" of them to use your own term. You believe you could train this pack protection instinct out of them but you decline to do so because your husband would rather terrify anyone approaching your property. You believe the dogs are under your control and will "back down" upon command, and yet you admit it can take minutes to "redirect" your dogs when they are showing aggression or defensiveness. Sounds to me like a tragedy waiting to happen.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You obviously don't know dogs. People do have a tendency to fear what they don't understand.
Nine
(1,741 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)Please stop.
Nine
(1,741 posts)TBF
(31,921 posts)Wow, you're nice.
And you know nothing about dogs.
lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Bad cop, no doughnut.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Deputy forced to shoot Fishers K-9 after attack
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/deputy-forced-to-shoot-fishers-k-9-after-attack
alp227
(31,961 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Just waiting for it.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)Yup. I guessed right. Glad the kids and the dog are ok, hope the cop learned something positive from his experience.
hunter
(38,264 posts)Most of us live in places we can be evicted from for little or no cause.
Homelessness, or being forced to live in a dangerous and unhealthy place, is always a very real threat hanging over our heads, just one slight misfortune away.
An ordinary safe comfortable existence, a small garden, maybe a dog or cat, a place where one can feel secure, these become an impossible dream for many of us.
Welcome to hell.
That's why people cheer when one of the enforcers of this brutal society literally shoots himself in the leg while attempting yet another act of brutality.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)They'll take any ass-kissing jerk off the street where I live.
gopiscrap
(23,674 posts)stage left
(2,934 posts)JJChambers
(1,115 posts)I'm sure all the pitbulls that are responsible for mauling people to death were as equally vicious with their families, at all times, because it is impossible for a dog to be both vicious and calm at different times. The families of the numerous children mauled to death by their own dog, who report that the dog was normally loveable and wouldn't hurt a flea, were actually lying and their dogs were vicious 24/7.
Response to warrior1 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed