Replies

Who expects someone to shoot a dog, that from what I can see, is relatively harmless?

How can you tell a dog is "relatively harmless" from a still picture presented by the owner?

Dogs act much differently when not in the presence of their owner.

Dogs, genetically, have the capacity of being aggressive and dangerous. A bite from even a small dog can cause significant damage, especially if infection sets in.

Owners have the legal responsibility to control their dog. They are responsible for what their dog does.

I have repeatedly encountered owners who deny any responsibility for their dog's actions, even after incontrovertible proof their dogs did enormous damage, usually to livestock, but occasionally to humans.

A bite from even a small dog can cause significant damage, especially if infection sets in.

My sister-in-law, who was living Alberta, Canada, went on a walk and was purposely across the street from an uncontrolled small dog.

The dog crossed the street and bit her. She is of frail constitution, but worse, when she called in the incident, the dog owners quickly got the dog a rabies shot after the fact, but before animal control got involved. Because the dog had just gotten the shot, there was no way to tell if he had rabies at the time he bit my sister-in-law, so SHE had to get the shots.

The neighbors did not learn their lesson, and a later time when she was walking, the dog ran across the street again. This time my brother-in-law the hockey/soccer player, was with her. He is a mild Canadian, but with a dog attacking his sister, he used his soccer skills to return the dog across the street. The dog died of internal injuries. The owners threatened to call the police, and the brother told them to go ahead, he will wait. They decided against it. Those were bad dog owners responsible for the death of their bad dog.

How can you tell a dog is "relatively harmless" from a still picture presented by the owner?

You can judge the size and the breed. It's not a pit bull. Were it a pit bull, I would be far less ready to condemn someone for shooting it on sight. It's not a huge dog, like a German Shepard or a Rottweiler.

It would be painful if it bit you, but it cannot hardly threaten to do any serious bodily injury to a full grown man.

Dogs act much differently when not in the presence of their owner.

I've known many who were little aggressive sh*ts whether their owner was present or not.

Dogs, genetically, have the capacity of being aggressive and dangerous. A bite from even a small dog can cause significant damage, especially if infection sets in.

That's not a serious likelihood in this day and age.

Owners have the legal responsibility to control their dog. They are responsible for what their dog does.

Sure. *IF* their dog does something. Do we have any evidence that this dog did something? She said his pants wasn't even torn.

If he had bite marks, or even a ripped pants leg, I would say shooting the dog was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. As near as I can tell, he's got nothing.

Me too. @$$holes abound in our lives.