[imardmd1]

In the '50s I had a village paper route of 100 door-to door customers, and I can tell you that a "pet" dog can be more dangerous than a "pet" rattlesnake. I have a few bitemarks to prove it.

In an urban or village setting, I believe that every dog-owner should be required to train his/her/their dog to instantly obey the command to "heel," as well as never to advance on another human without a direct order. And I believe if that animal can not be thus trained, or if the owner will not train it, that animal should be summarily put down.

If such a dog animal attacks me while I am on publicly-accessible property, I will kill it, if it is not under your control and you will not or cannot control it. And if you unlawfully, emotionally, and irrationally try to come for me to "get even" for doing that, I will likewise treat you as an even greater danger, man or woman.

I expect an officer of the law to do likewise, and you ought to respect his person and authority likewise. In this case under discussion, whether the LEO was mistaken in the address or not, if the owner did not, would not, or could not control his animal with intent to harm the officer, the animal should be put down. I further contend that the owner ought to be arrested as possessing a deadly weapon with intent to use.

That said, all rural environments are a completely different issue. Rural property should be treated with great respect as regarding privacy and trespassing, and its animal inhabitants likewise.

I am not at all sympathetic with a dog-owner who will not train his/her "pet" (to him/her but not to others); and who is so emotionally involved with the object of affection that he loses the sense of proportion that it is an animal.

I believe he that allows his/her sense of responsibility to place its welfare of any dog above that of a law-abiding citizen (let alone that of a LEO performing his duties), himself needs firm discipline.

[Timber Rattler]

In this case under discussion, whether the LEO was mistaken in the address or not, if the owner did not, would not, or could not control his animal with intent to harm the officer, the animal should be put down.

You gotta be kidding!!! Did you even watch the camvideo of the incident?

I further contend that the owner ought to be arrested as possessing a deadly weapon with intent to use.

Are you crazy???

[Ratman83]

I think this officer should be shot for stupidity. The dog was on the owner’s property not in the public right of way. Take your boot licking holier than thou bs somewhere else. The cop was wrong and you are wrong.

[BLOC77]

You’re an idiot. The LEO was on private property with his gun drawn, yelling at the owner to put his hands up. The owner was not given a chance to control his dog. The cop was out of line and out of control. And, at the wrong address to boot!

[jboot]

"Publically-accessible property"...tricky term. That's basically everywhere.

That said, if you kill my animal on my property-"village" or rural-you will be lucky to live to regret it. You aren't the only one carrying and willing to shoot.

[x1stcav]

What a retard.

[Ken H]

Do you belong to a government union? If so, I have two words that should chill you to the bone - PENSION REFORM

[momtothree]

“Rural property should be treated with great respect as regarding privacy and trespassing, and its animal inhabitants likewise”.

So... you are saying that people who live on ten acres have more rights than someone living in a townhome? How about a condo or an apartment? I guess those people shouldn’t have any sort of property rights.

“I expect an officer of the law to do likewise, and you ought to respect this person and authority likewise”. Respect is earned. Just because some person went to 22 weeks of rookie school.. doesn’t mean he or she automatically can do whatever they want. Some law enforcement officers are good people. Some aren’t. Some are jack booted, seal team wannabees... getting off on their “authority”.