"I knew I should'na called that porcupine, "porky."
Posted on 06/22/2007 12:14:47 PM PDT by Cecily
What a rediculous question. It didn't happen. The good samaritan with the .45 is a hero, and I would bet he's a good shot. I also bet he knew who or what was behind his target. It's an analysis of a situation that happens naturally for gun enthusiasts such as myself. If it was my daughter, wife, son, or even my dog being attacked by a pit bull or any other dangerous breed, I wouldn't hesitate to grab my gun and do some vicious dog killing.
The victim denies that she was trying to pet the dog.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2007/06/25/0626pitbull.html
"I knew I should'na called that porcupine, "porky."
Interesting article. Sounds like the owners are lying big time. The neighbors stories corroborate with the woman’s.
I read the article. As usual, the owner comments on how the monster was a very loving animal and then tries to blame the victim. Pit Bulls and any pit bull mix should be outlawed and destroyed. And before pit Bull owners start the usual nonsense about how the bad ones are not purebreds, yadda-yadda-yadda, everyone can recognize them, the head features are very easy to spot. And if there is any doubt, err on the side of caution and kill it anyway.
You are being serious here? Having a gun in this situation was a bad thing? Reading your other posts it is clear you are one of the typical owners. Blame the victim, fault the good neighbor who shoots the sweet dog. Unlike you, I was able to deduce from the article that if the woman had a poor command english she may have also been limited in her understanding of it when she was told not to pet the dog. I am betting any neighbors near you have a much different opinion of your precious little killers than you do.
“no its not a good thing the man had a gun”
Next time you resort to using all caps try using your entire statement and do not carefully omit the important part. By saying it is not a good thing you did indeed say it was a bad thing.
I read the article, thanks. Given a choice of deciding who is the lier I will lean toward the pit bull owner. Hope he likes the way his desire to own a badass dog to feel like a real man is gonna cost him when the woman sues him for everything he has. With luck he can eat the leftover pit bull kibble.
I don’t understand. Why didn’t they call 911? How much damage can a pit bull do in, say, 45 minutes?
I like your style.
Read the link in post 42. It sheds some interesting light on the situation. According to the neighbors testimony, the lady was scared of all dogs and would not have petted one. It fits with what she said.
Just for once, I’d like to hear the dog owner say, “ Well, he never gave any indication of turning like that, but I’m glad someone shot the &*$#*& since he attacked someone.”.
I’d still think they were lying about the first part, though. I simply cannot believe that a dog who would attack like that NEVER gave any indication of aggressiveness.
:)
I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. If I saw someone being attacked by a dog like that, calling 911 isn't the first thing I'd think to do. I'd want to save her first.
You can practice for a fire drill or bomb threat, but not this. You just don't always think clearly.
And maybe they did. Sometimes the police don't respond too quickly.
Well the first thing we know is that people who don't have arguments tend to compensate by YELLING!
The second thing we know is what happened -- what actually happened, when this dog was out of control. But the answer to your question has to be not knowledge but speculation.
He did not miss. He did not hit someone. The dog didn't miss either but did hit someone.
You write:
no its not a good thing the man had a gun...
and then
i never said the gun was bad ...
So guns aren't bad, having them or using them successfully is? And it's better for little old ladies to be chewed up -- because it's somehow their fault -- than having or using a gun to stop their being chewed up? Is that really the argument you want to make?
Sometimes the police don't respond too quickly.
Oh my, yes! But in the interest of the dog's imputed 14th Amendment rights to substantive due process and out of my concern that nobody 4 blocks away accidentally be struck by a shard of asphalt which might have been launched if the bullet had over-penetrated or the gunman had (gasp!) missed with one of the 7 rounds I would have launched into that dog -- considering all those things and more, I think the good citizen would as a matter of fact, FIRST called PETA, then an attorney and THEN have called 911 - and then knelt by the woman and tried to convey to her past the language barrier that the police would be here in an hour, possibly even less, and she should relax, close what's left of her eyes, and try to look on the bright side. It's the American way, don't you agree?
Personally I prefer my Sig p226 in 357 SIG, but that's just me.
That was a major understatement.
I figured you were about as upset about the shameful abuse of the dog's civil right to chew up the head of a grandmother as I was -- and am! Oh Yes!
Looks like a certain pit lover joined to post 4 posts on one thread, try to cause trouble, and leave.
Do I sense a troll?
Either that or he's consulting with PETA to hire a hit man to take out the brute who shot the poor innocent dog.
I just hope for the sake of others, that his experience isn't having one of HIS babies maul or kill someone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.