Posted on 04/15/2006 12:59:11 PM PDT by Wristpin
KDKA) AMBRIDGE A Beaver County man is upset because he says police didn't have to kill his dog.
Kevin Corlew of Ambridge says police shot his one-year-old pit bull on Saturday.
Police tell KDKA that they received complaints from neighbors the dog was loose.
When officers tried to restrain the dog, they say the animal charged at a boy and then at an officer.
Then, an officer shot the dog.
Corlew says the dog was harmless.
RACISM!
How did I know that this was another pit bull story after reading only the headline?
I would have shot it too.
It is now.
Why can't people keep their dogs in their yards? I don't care what it is. If it is charging, shoot it.
Unleashed pit bulls should be shot on sight as a matter of course, the danger is too great to take a chance that it might be one of the few well-adjusted pit bulls ever to exist.
You KNOW it...!
[Corlew says the dog was harmless.]
Maybe it was as far as Corlew, but it charged a boy and the officer.
Canine racial profiling.
[Canine racial profiling.]
LOL
>>Corlew says the dog was harmless.
>It is now
!
:~)
I know that if I were in the same situation I'm NOT going to ask myself...is this a gentle Pit Bull that just wants to lick my hand or will I need the Fire Department's jaws of life to get him off my arm?
I'm shooting until it stops twitching.
That's just silly and cowardly I think.
Dogs should be controlled and they can be dangerous, but I think you're over the top with this one.
How about shooting the owner?
That way there's no discrimination whatsoever against the dog. It gets shot after the owner does.
Saying that pit bulls are harmless is like saying that liberals are right.
If there was an unleashed pit bull without any apparent owner in the neighborhood of your children, how much risk would you be willing to take? In the case of an officer, if he didn't act to stop the animal and it injured someone, don't you think he would be more likely to be liable for it than with any other animal short of a tiger?
"Unleashed pit bulls should be shot on sight as a matter of course, the danger is too great to take a chance that it might be one of the few well-adjusted pit bulls ever to exist."
I take it you are in the "solid Law Enforcement" Column. The Pit Bull crowd will be along to reflexively attack your claim like a Pit mauling a widow's poodle.
Thank goodness the boy (and the police officer) weren't hurt. I am sick of stories about children killed by dogs. I used to work in Ambridge. It's named after the old American Bridge Plant. Blue collar rust belt town, never recovered from the 82 recession. A lot of guys have tough dogs as status symbols, or weapons. A dog should not have been loose there. This wasn't in a rural area. People need to control their dogs.
No, I'm in the Genesis Chapter 1 column. We have dominion over animals on a writ from God, and I'll be damned if I'll let a loose, dangerous beast have a chance to injure or kill a human being.
You don't have to convince me. I'm a retired firefighter and I've had several unpleasant experiences with Pitbulls. Fortunately on all 3 occasions we outnumbered them. They are hard to discourage and if I'd have been armed they would have gone to doggie heaven. I have no sympathy for the owners who complain the police shot their dog, it's as much the owners fault in many cases as the dogs.
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.