Posted on 02/22/2013 2:46:11 PM PST by Arthurio
This week’s Static discusses the police shooting of Lily the border collie, and the training program and potential legislation that were prompted by that tragedy.
Mark and Cindy Boling weren’t available for comment last night as Static was being written, but I spoke at length with Cindy Boling this morning and she remains upbeat despite all she’s been through.
Imagine unloading groceries at your house and a police officer approaches you on your property. He’s responding to a routine copper theft call but ends up at the wrong address — yours.
Your dog (who is like a child to you) barks at the officer, who pulls his gun and shoots your pet in the back. Then you watch it bleed to death.
(Excerpt) Read more at fwweekly.com ...
Dogs owned by private citizens are mere dogs.
Dogs owned by government employees with shiny badges are *people*.
I was talking about the owner's involvement, and what I said stands. Police have no business in fenced back yards without a probable cause or a warrant. Don't drag in a factor that is was not an issue here.
That you are reaching for excuses for the thuggish behaviour of MANY cops tells me you haven’t had an unpleasant experience with your local constabulary yet.
You will. Guaranteed.
I have had experiences with both courteously professional and thuggish behavior with state and county police. It all depends on the attitude of the policeman.
Don't pull this "my dog is a good dog" BS on me. Some dogs are good and some dogs are bad, just as lawmen can be. Some owners are poor owners, not willing to train or manage their dogs. Your attitude bespeaks of being a poor owner, not willing to be accountable for those factors which fall on your back, not on the lawman or the dog.
I am not a lawman, and going out for a walk or jog I do not intend to put up with an attack by a loose untrained ill-tempered dog. I have been bitten. A border collie can do just as much damage as a pinscher, and I won't put up with it any more than I will stand to be attacked without cause by another human. Neither do I expect a law officer to.
Guaranteed.
There is a modern truism that I learned here at FR that applies:
Few situations are so bad they cannot be made worse by the addition of a cop.
He's currently on death row.
George Hitcho Jr. sentenced to death for murder of Freemansburg police officer Robert Lasso
Absolutely ZERO mention of precipitating events. They just paint this guy as a psychopath and state that law enforcement is the "only barrier" between chaos and order. As such, law enforcement is allowed to make their own rules, I suppose?
There was a fine line between law enforcement and peace officer, and it was breached decades ago.
A random dog out sniffing around or “hunting” near a jogging path or public space, I’ll give you some leeway on protecting yourself against it. No owner in sight means the owner is irresponsible, the dog escaped, or it’s a stray. The first two aren’t the dog’s fault, the latter could mean anything.
That being said, put yourself in the shoes of the woman in this story. She’s on her private property, she’s unloading groceries from the back of her car. She’s approached by a stranger with a badge. The dog’s very first instinct, even in the best obedience-trained border collie, is to warn. In herding animals, the bark usually loud and very startling if not expected.
The cop, likely startled by the bark, and likely in a fit of rage, pulls his gun and shoots the dog in the back.
Private property, no warrant, owner is not offering any sort of threat or instructing the dog to attack, defend, or retreat. The LEO’s job is to assess a situation for threats, and in this situation, he did an abysmally poor job at that.
This is a situation of an officer mishandling, misreading, and poorly maintaining his composure in a situation that warranted professionalism.
I have scars from wrist to shoulder on my right arm from where a doberman attacked me as a teen. I’ll never forget that day or that dog. All of the signs were there that the dog was threatened by me, and I didn’t read them. I didn’t want to kill the dog or have it put down, it was my fault for misreading the situation. That was a doberman. A border collie, a dog I happen to own, is no more a threat than a chihuahua.
This cop was in the wrong, period.
Pittsburgh, PA?
LOL cats don’t take shit from anyone.....they can also bite your hand down to the bone....much worse than a dog bite...can end up with a bone infection...had the experience with a feral cat living in my garage...Finally caught it but forgot the leather gloves...by the time I got him to the pound, my had had swelled up and got a call from the health department to see a doctor within 72 hours. They kept the cat for 10s and being sickly sent the head to the department in charge of rabies possibilities. He wouldn’t let go of my hand until I got the box open and threw him in it.....
What a darling! Looks like a natural photobomber too. :)
Apparently you must be told that you were not there, you did not witness the event. You have made a series of unwarranted assumptions, then converted them to "fact." You therefore have no basis for your opinion. You just proved you are not an impartial reader. Your opinion on this event is so biased that it is less than worthless.
This is not being said to offend you, it is just a statement of fact. You may acknowledge that or be offended. That decision is up to you.
Not only is your assessment of this event invalid, but you have wrongly convinced yourself in another situation that it was your fault that a dog attacked you. On the one hand, the mere fact that the owner knew that the dog had the dangerous propensity to cause harm, such as by biting, makes him/her strictly liable for its action, whether or not he/she could also be proven negligent. On the other hand, if it was a stray and had a propensity of biting, you may have been negligent in approaching it, but the dog was at fault for the biting, not you. This is not opinion, it is law in this state.
In either case it should be put down, immediately, in my opinion, whether it is a Rottweiler, collie, or chihuahua.
He is a beautiful dog.
As to photobombing - our last dog was a smiler - so goofy with showing his pearly whites. (no pictures for online) People were afraid of him because he looked dangerous....actually he was very protective and was dangerous if he sensed danger or someone didn’t like him:) But, if he approached someone that was afraid of dogs, he would greet them overly calmly, he knew.
Our house Insurance premiums were up because of him.
The post office, FedX, UPS - all of them - had ‘bad dog’ as a reference to our house. The delivery people that knew his smile- would play with him :)
We made sure every cop we knew, knew our dog - because he looked mean. Thank goodness we are friends with many police in our town.
You say you have been bitten. That bespeaks of a misread of a dog's attitude or motivation. To that dog for reasons known only to it, you presented a threat, and it protected itself and/or its owner. By stopping and slowly backing away without looking the dog in the eye you would most likely have defused the situation. Unless it's in full-on attack mode (which I've never seen), a border collie can and may nip and lightly worry at an intruder. That's how they move whatever they're herding.
I'll let Salamander tell you what a Dobie can do.
With a lot of practice, I would have beaten him to the draw.
If you are afraid of a springer then you are a pussy.
If you think a springer can do the damage my pit could do you are an idiot.
Break into my home and you will find out.
I practice every day but if you don't start first, you are likely to finish last. Of course, they way cops shoot a guy could likely give him the first shot and and still finish ahead.
Here we go again. I must announce to you that your statement is without your presence when that incident took place, and it is presumptuous. Your assumptions are wrong, as are your conclusions. Don't dabble in giving your opinion based only on your preconceptions. But I will tell you that I will not surrender my right to come and go as I please, to a state of being required to psychoanalyze every dog I come across.
In other matters, respectfully --
Imagine unloading groceries at your house and a police officer approaches you on your property. He’s responding to a routine copper theft call but ends up at the wrong address — yours.
Your dog (who is like a child to you) barks at the officer, who pulls his gun and shoots your pet in the back. Then you watch it bleed to death.
Also from the article:
She’s even seen something promising: “Frank Brown signed up and attended the very first training session,” she said. “He wasn’t told to do that but he did it.”
Boling thinks Brown panicked that day.
“He wasn’t thinking,” she said. “If he would have had training, he would have been thinking. Frank Brown didn’t want that to happen to him anymore than we wanted this to happen to us.”
You said, " You have made a series of unwarranted assumptions, then converted them to 'fact.'"
The officer, upon his own conscience, decided to apprise himself of how to read and understand the actions and reactions of dogs. That, to me, is an implied admission that he acted AND reacted poorly, and it was thus the basis for my warrant. It's not a matter of what factually happened, it's a matter of my response and reaction to what was stated in the article. I never posted an admission or recollection of fact. As a result, I have EVERY basis and warrant for my opinion thanks, in part, to the recollection of the events put forth in the article.
I would advise you not to shoot off at the mouth so quickly, sir. If you have a gripe with the way the story is told, take it up with the article writer and not a commenter on this thread. Your response is not appropriate considering I was referring to the article and responding to your post.
Now, if you wish to see a textbook example of an unwarranted point of discussion, take a look at your own post:
you have wrongly convinced yourself in another situation that it was your fault that a dog attacked you. On the one hand, the mere fact that the owner knew that the dog had the dangerous propensity to cause harm, such as by biting, makes him/her strictly liable for its action, whether or not he/she could also be proven negligent.
Under no circumstances in any legal or debatable discussion could you state that I convinced myself (an unwarranted assumption based on facts not evident) that I was or was not at fault in a situation involving a pet. The person you refer to as the owner was my father, and the dog was 6 years old and had never so much as chased a rabbit out of the back yard let alone attacked or showed aggression toward anyone, including my, at the time, 4 year old half-brother.
The FACT in that situation was that I was a volunteer at a local vet's office and had helped to deliver a litter of puppies earlier that day. My father's doberman had smelled something on my clothes or shoes that made it anxious. The biting was not malicious but out of fear. The dog's ears were back, and I was kneeling next to him and roughhousing, of sorts. Had I been looking for it, I would've seen the signs, and the dog ran away and cowered after the assault. A dog biting out of malice or aggression would continue to attack, not retreat.
Based on your post, and in my opinion based solely on observation, you either do not like dogs or are not intimately familiar with them as I am. You would be quick to put down any dog, and I believe that's not only unnecessary but ignorant of canine behavior as a whole. Again, my opinion, warranted or otherwise.
My years of dog training, handling and ownership are irrelevant to your feelings and opinion. I wonder where else we can see that kind of "reasoning".
Good day.
I believe so.
Article: Your dog (who is like a child to you) barks at the officer, who pulls his gun and shoots your pet in the back. Then you watch it bleed to death.
You (Post #45): The cop, likely startled by the bark, and likely in a fit of rage, pulls his gun and shoots the dog in the back. (Your gratuitous injection of non-existent "facts" underlined)
Article: She’s even seen something promising: “Frank Brown signed up and attended the very first training session,” she said. “He wasn’t told to do that but he did it.” (Her opinions, not facts: she has no indication why the officer signed up for the training. I can think of several reasons why that does not indicate sorrow, but does relate to having his way paid for the training, and earning some extra money and atta-boy credits for training other officers to offset his reprimand. But I do not know, nor does she, and neither do you.)
You (this post): The officer, upon his own conscience, decided to apprise himself of how to read and understand the actions and reactions of dogs. (You have no idea what his conscience told him, or what his reasons were for undertaking the training. You flatter yourself for reading his mind and interpreting his thoughts for me. Absolutely presumptuous!)
Your Post #45: Private property, no warrant, owner is not offering any sort of threat or instructing the dog to attack, defend, or retreat. (Nowhere in the article was there any indication whether the officer had a warrant or not, or what the owner did regarding restraining the dog. These are simply assumptions you made and introduced as fact. You expect me not to respond to this gratuitous addition to the tale?)
Without dwelling on other assumptions you or the article have made, here is this:
Your Post #45: I didn’t want to kill the dog or have it put down, it was my fault for misreading the situation. (About the doberman, my emphasis)
My Post #49: ... you have wrongly convinced yourself in another situation that it was your fault that a dog attacked you ... (You did writ this, did you not? That you had convinced yourself that you were at fault was obvious, on the very face of it, unarguable --)
Your retort here: Under no circumstances in any legal or debatable discussion could you state that I convinced myself (an unwarranted assumption based on facts not evident) that I was or was not at fault in a situation involving a pet. (Huh? Not warranted? Come on!)
And:
Your further presumption: Based on your post, and in my opinion based solely on observation, you either do not like dogs ...
You basically have no idea whether I do or do not like dogs, or what experience I have with them. In fact, your bias is so plain that you have trouble separating facts from opinions, and known factors from assumptions. What I said to you before still stands. And I do not like dogs who are ill-trained, who bark and snap and bite as they choose. And I am really not impressed with owners who do not give their animals a fair shake. If you want to know more about dogs' behavior, their owners, and the law, go to http://dogbitelaw.com/statutory-strict-liability-state/delaware-dog-bite-law.html and search through it, especially what the legal term "scienter" means. An owner who does not, or is incapable of restraining his/her animal who is in attack-the-invader mode is responsible for the harm that comes to it.
I did not speak to your first paragraph inasmuch as it stood for itself. So did your theory expressed in the second paragraph, except that apparently you assumed that your estimate of the circumstances was correct, which it was not. That is why I wrote that in other things, respectful. And I am.
I hate to make an adversary, but if you think so, I cannot help that. It's not my intention.
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.