Posted on 01/31/2011 8:21:41 AM PST by Immerito
A Valley neighborhood is outraged after two dogs are shot and killed by local police.
The Shelburn Town Marshal says he was forced to shoot two dogs.
Officer Doug Inman says he was called to a field off Mill Street, where neighbors say a pack of dogs were fighting.
Inman tried to break-up the fight and even fired shots into the ground to scare the dogs.
When that didn't work he shot two mastiff puppies.
The family says he had no right to kill the dogs.
"I'm just glad it wasn't a child out being attacked by these two dogs," Inman said. "They are saying they were pups but you can go over and look at the dogs and see how large they are. They are probably between 75 and 100 pounds each and if that had been a child we would have a dead child out here."
"It makes me very sad, kids are supposed to be able to trust the police department and after seeing something like that, I don't know how they can," said dog owner Angie Waldon.
Neighbors say the two dogs had a history of being aggressive.
“Another “All cops are bad - they murder innocent doggies” thread.”
At least the headline doesn’t read: “Cop Shoots Neighborhood, Dogs Outraged”
No, I think the point was that when the cop comes, he will protect himself from ANY perceived threat. This includes dogs, you, your spouse, your kids, etc. You no longer control the situation, he does. If you call the police because your spouse or kids are being threatening toward you, ANYTHING can happen. While it may be unlikely, sometimes soneone ends up dead.
At the risk of appearing to undermine constitutional property rights, counselor, may I make so bold as to suggest that dogs haven’t any?
I never claimed that dogs had property rights; I did, however, state that dogs that defend their property are doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing. People have bred and encouraged them to engage those protective instincts because those are qualities they value in dogs.
I suspect the fight SOUNDED fiercer than it actually was, since no injuries are reported, other than the gunshot wounds. Given no prior evidence that the mastiffs in question were aggressive, this was an unjustified shooting.
Had he not done this, they might have gotten injured in the dog fight.
I have never claimed to be a dog psychiatrist; I am making observations based on my experience as a dog owner and my experience and observations around other dogs.
It is a rare thing for animals of any species to fight members of their own species to the death.
If a dog WANTS to kill something, it will have done so in less time that it would take for the police to arrive.
Two nearly-year-old mastiffs against a smaller stray? If they wanted to kill it, they could have. But they didn’t.
That is what catch poles are for-—gaining control over loose dogs.
They’re right. He shouldn’t have shot those dogs.
He should have waded in with the baton.
Obviously, every call for assistance doesn’t end up badly, but enough of them do that it pays one to be ready to deal with all sorts of unexpected and unintended consequences. When you, not you as “I Still Care” but the Papal “You” make that call usually your only intention is concern for yourself or a loved one. It never occurs to the average person who is under the stress of having to dial 9-1-1 that things might not go as intended. Everyone who arrives on the scene in response to your call has his or her own agenda and bring with them a wide range of preset notions, some of which can be very troublesome, even dangerous at times.
Your experience is becoming more common as society falls apart and more and more a call to 9-1-1 comes from a very troubled situation. In fact, the disposition to expect trouble is at the top of the list on most calls these days. Time was you could call an ambulance on your own, but now in most areas it’s impossible to get one without going through the 9-1-1 system.
I don’t mean any of this as criticism of those who respond to a call for help. The vast majority of them are there because they want to help. But a lot of things can overcome that very quickly and unexpectedly. Sad, but true.
Chief, the loss of the odd mail carrier, small child, or senior citizen is well worth the hours of pleasure these wonderful warm breeds like the Pit Bull and Mastiff give their owners during those all-too brief periods between incarcerations.
It seems that you require education about dogs.
“Pit bull” is a type, not a breed (just as “spitz” is a type, not a breed), and mastiffs as a rule have a gentle temperament.
To quote Wikipedia:
“The Mastiff breed has a desired temperament, which is reflected in all formal standards and historical descriptions.[5] Though calm and affectionate to its master, it is capable of protection. If an unfamiliar person approaches near the Mastiff’s perceived territory or its master, ideally, it will immediately position itself between its master and the stranger. If the approaching person is perceived as a threat, the Mastiff may take immediate defensive action. Mastiffs will rarely attack an introducer or perceived threat (unless cornered or severely provoked) and instead will generally pin and immobilize the individual. Mastiffs are normally good natured, calm, easygoing, and surprisingly gentle for their size. It is a well-mannered house pet, provided it gets daily exercise and activity. The Mastiff is typically an extremely loyal breed, exceptionally devoted to its family and good with children and small dogs.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Mastiff
Who made that argument?
Every question you asked is not part of this story. Its your “What If” again. Assuptions are not part of the story, you are not sticking to the point of the article.
I’ve asked several questions germane to the story, but I’ll restate two of them here for your convenience:
Why weren’t catchpoles used to separate the dogs?
Why wasn’t animal control called or radioed once it was determined that it was merely a dogfight and that no people were attacked or injured so that they could bring their catchpoles, if the catchpoles the police had available to them were insufficient to separate the dogs?
So the dogs had log chains on them?
Why don't you build a fence so the dogs don't have to suffer teasing and chains?
Wow, I’m so sorry.
I’ve heard of injuries from airbags but this one is new.
Had the airbag NOT inflated and you were seat belted would you have borken them?
And don’t feel foolish. My fingers are fine and I have to retype, reference the dictionary sill seem dyslexic more than I’d care to admit.
There’s a few reasons why there was no fence on the property:
1) Not all cities, towns or even neighborhoods permit people to put up fencing on their own property.
2) The dogs’ owner may not have been able to afford to put up a fence.
3) The dogs’ owner may not have wanted a fence.
Of course, these reasons are not mutually exclusive and the answer may be a combination thereof.
I’m talking about the moral responsibility of the owner. He created the stage for a tragedy.
1) Don’t get a dog if you’re going to chain it.
2) Don’t get a dog if you can’t provide a safe fenced home.
3) Don’t get a dog and leave it unprotected where other dogs can get it.
The owner was acting responsibly; the dogs were contained, until they, enraged by an canine intruder, pulled free by slipping a collar and breaking a chain.
This was a matter for catch poles, and perhaps a fine delivered to the owner for failure to anticipate the growing strength of her dogs and provide a tie-up strong enough to keep a fully grown mastiff contained. Not a shooting.
As has already been mentioned, having a fence on one’s property is legally impossible in some areas of the country. You would deprive Freepers living in those places of the excellent first alert service that a good watch dog provides when the criminal element (or bad cops intruding on private property without just cause) come lurking?
The dogs got loose ergo the owner acted irresponsibly.
It is cruel to chain a dog.
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.