Posted on 11/22/2012 4:50:18 AM PST by marktwain
Oh okay. So fanny pack man was mistaken:
The dogs weren't across the street, as he claimed in his statement, but were really down the block somewhere much further away.
And he didn't yell "get back", as he claimed, but more like "stop running all that distance towards me".
Either that or he already had the gun in his hands when he saw them. It wasn't still in his fanny pack as he claimed.
Hey it wouldn't be the first time that a shooter lied about what happened and it won't be the last.
“Across the street” doesn’t have to mean the dog was on the opposite curb perpendicular to the man. In general parlance it means the property or the hous across the way, or even a house down the street yet still across.
No, the only one mistaken here is you. The police cleared Gross for the shooting of the dog.
Either that or he already had the gun in his hands when he saw them. It wasn't still in his fanny pack as he claimed.
Again, you're drawing conclusions not based upon the reported facts.
The eyewitness said he saw the dogs charge at Gross, and then saw Gross take the handgun from his fanny pack and shoot one of the dogs.
It's not real complicated. A man, who walking down the street was minding his own business, felt threatened and used his handgun in self-defense.
Hey it wouldn't be the first time that a shooter lied about what happened and it won't be the last.
Or, do you now claim that not only was Gross lying, but that the eyewitness was lying, too?
Do you have a source for this?
I asked, but you declined to answer, but at what point is a human justified in shooting what he perceives to be an aggressive animal? Should the human wait until he's actually attacked and injured?
From what you've written, it seems like you're saying that the human should not shoot until the dog actually sinks his teeth into the human's leg and draws blood.
According to the owner they were not aggressive. You do believe the dog owner, don't you??? or do you just believe gunslingers???
BTW dogs often have a sixth sense about approaching danger and whether someone approaching is friend or foe, can be trusted or can't. Interesting how in this case the dogs happened to have acted aggressively not toward one of the many unarmed strangers who use the street, but toward the one armed stranger that was packing heat.
End of Story
If he meant down the street then why didn't he say so.
Funny how he knew the precise address of the house and watched the owner open the door and let the dogs out and made the point about being "without leashes".
What should leashes have anything to do with it??? Who opens the door and lets the dogs out "with leashes"???
If a dog is out on the street, unleashed and unsupervised, it deserves to be shot. End of story.
I do notice you've continued to avoid the question about when a human is justified in shooting what they perceive to be an aggressive animal. Your lack of response tells me that you think that, like Bustamante, the dogs' owner in this story, you think dogs are human.
BTW dogs often have a sixth sense about approaching danger and whether someone approaching is friend or foe, can be trusted or can't.
Really? Do you have a source for this tidbit of information, or is it made up out of whole cloth like all of your previous assertions?
Tell me this, oh prescient one, which of these humans in the story below presented an approaching danger?
Marauding dogs attack 5 in Everett:
A pair of dogs that had bitten at least one person before ran wild in Everett on Saturday, attacking five people and prompting police to warn residents to stay indoors.
In the first attack on Saturday, officers were called to the 1300 block of Lombard Avenue around 6:30 a.m. after a 44-year-old man suffered bites to his legs and back, according to Snell.
The victim told officers that the two dogs crossed the street and attacked him. The attack was interrupted by a passer-by who scared the dogs away, police said. (Ed. This sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?)
"The dogs were wagging their tails and were all friendly, but when he got in close proximity they started snarling," Snell said of the officer. (Ed. Now, the police officer is lying, right?)
Snell said investigators believe the man was bitten while he was sleeping in the 1800 block of Broadway before 6:30 a.m. Police didn't learn about the mauling until the man went to Providence Regional Medical Center, where he complained of injuries to his feet. (Ed. Surely, this was the approaching danger of which you spoke?)
The 27-year-old woman was bitten after she got out of her car at work. (Ed. Another approaching danger?)
The 54-year-old woman was attacked by the dogs while she was in her driveway, police said. After the dogs left, the woman noticed her pants had punctures in them, but she was not injured.
Only irresponsible dog owners, like Bustamante:
Bustamante, 28, who confirmed he let “Astro” a 2½ year old 65-pound boxer, and “Libby” a 4-year old 60 pound boxer, outside without leashes to “do their business in the yard.”
Or, is the dog's owner lying, too?
Ah, so you're saying that the dogs (Boxers, BTW) in the story below, sensed that they were in danger from the 18-month-old baby and that they determined through their sixth sense that the baby was a foe and couldn't be trusted, and the dogs were therefore justified in attacking the baby?
I'm sorry but I was just taking the shooter at his word. You are right -- we shouldn't do that.
The eyewitness said he saw the dogs charge at Gross, and then saw Gross take the handgun from his fanny pack and shoot one of the dogs.
That's not true. The eyewitness said nothing about it coming from out of his fanny pack. For all we know he could have had it in his front pocket or in his hand as he was walking by.
I asked, but you declined to answer, but at what point is a human justified in shooting what he perceives to be an aggressive animal? Should the human wait until he's actually attacked and injured?
If his perception is flawed then he best just keep on walking. He knew the exact address of these dogs. If bitten then call animal control and make the owner pay up. That's what civil people do.
Thank You for all of us here for telling us who you really are and what you really think about man's best friend, particularly the many dogs who have no homes, and the many generous people who don't shoot them but pick them up, take them to a shelter and try to find homes for them.
Reading comprehension isn't really your strong suit, is it?
The eyewitness said he saw the dogs charge at Gross, and then saw Gross take the handgun from his fanny pack and shoot one of the dogs.
If bitten then call animal control and make the owner pay up. That's what civil people do.
Well, there it is. From what you say, no human is justified in defending themselves from what they perceive to be an aggressive animal. Not dog, not bear, not cougar or wolf. Just let the animal have its way with you, then, if you're still alive, call the authorities and let them handle the animal and then sue the owner.
How about humans? Do you think humans are justified in using a handgun against another human being who is acting aggressive? Or, should they also just 'lay back and enjoy it'?
You're right. In the news story, there's nothing about from where the shooter pulled his gun:
Deputies talked to a witness who said he saw the dogs charging across the street towards the man and saw him pull out a gun and shoot at the dogs that were barking and charging at him.
So, if Gross didn't pull his gun from the fanny pack as he told officers, from where did he pull it?
Would this be the owner who, like you, believes that dogs are human beings?
"It sounds funny because it's a dog, but dogs are human too. They're just like people and he was a true man's best friend." says Bustamante.
<>Reading comprehension isn’t really your strong suit, is it?<>
Not really — but exposing prefabricators is.
<>The eyewitness said he saw the dogs charge at Gross, and then saw Gross take the handgun from his fanny pack and shoot one of the dogs.<>
Really??? You must have reached down pretty deep to pull that one out of your fanny pack. The article actually reads:
“Deputies talked to a witness who said he saw the dogs charging across the street towards the man and saw him pull out a gun and shoot at the dogs that were barking and charging at him.”
Did you see the words “fanny pack” in there anywhere???
Take all the time you need. Look carefully.... Time’s up.
And here is more from the eyewitness:
“Didn’t see any gun or anything like that, but the first dog went down and the second dog stopped in it’s tracks turned around and went running back to the house.” says witness Lou Alfieri.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49919463#.ULAZoOT7Jg8
The only one here pulling anything out of his fanny pack is you.
He either had it in his pants or jacket pocket where he quickly grabbed it, or had it in his hand which may have been in his pants or jacket pocket, or he had it in his hand the whole time.
Witness says nothing about a fanny pack.
Deputies say that the witness saw him pull out a gun, but the witness says otherwise.
The witness says: "didn’t see any gun or anything like that, but the first dog went down ...."
How did the witness miss him reaching for his gun -- unless he didn't have to reach for it but had it in his hand the whole time.
Because some of them believe like Ol' Dan here that:
"If a dog is out on the street, unleashed and unsupervised, it deserves to be shot. End of story." [Ol' Dan Tucker: Post #126]
I’ve read your numerous posts and you are absurdly off the deep end.
“How did the witness miss him reaching for his gun — unless he didn’t have to reach for it but had it in his hand the whole time.”
Witness said he NEVER SAW A GUN, so how does that translate to the man had it open carry in his hand?
Why does this even matter? Fanny packs, pockets, open carry - who cares? Ridiculous.
I never cease to be amazed at how weird these threads get.
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.