Posted on 02/22/2013 2:46:11 PM PST by Arthurio
*scratches head*
You’re one of those FReepers, huh? Fair enough.
I noticed that you haven't asked for my address to address your opinion of the similarity of the biting capacity of a springer verses a pit. You are welcome to come here and break in or jump the fence to prove your point that all bites and dogs are equal threats.
Are you all talk?
Otherwise, you're just someone who enjoys argument for the sake of arguing. I'm not flattering, self-aggrandizing, or otherwise glorifying myself, my position, or my opinion.
You said you wouldn't put up with a loose, ill-tempered dog. This woman was on her own property, and a cop came on to her property to ask about a report of a copper theft. The dog was reacting the way any dog would to a stranger on their turf. The officer and the chief of police mentioned in the article never offered any explanation, so we don't know if the dog "lunged" or was otherwise aggressive.
From my view (this means I'm about to state an opinion), after reading the article linked on this thread (I'm basing my opinion on what was written in the article), a family pet was murdered by a cop for no reason. That's how the article is selling it, that's how I'm buying it.
I don't care about your opinions on my opinions, sir. You said you wouldn't "put up with an attack by a loose untrained ill-tempered dog." There's nothing in the article that indicates that the dog was any of those things. It was on its owner's property. There's no commentary on training background or temperament.
Nope.
Here's the way you began your tale:
That being said, put yourself in the shoes of the woman in this story.
Then you continued to spin out a figment of your imagination? Your comment sure didn't sound like that. It sounded like the article but with embellishment to be taken as fact. And here is how you wound it up: This is a situation of an officer mishandling, misreading, and poorly maintaining his composure in a situation that warranted professionalism.
Thus condemning the officer and relieving the owner of any responsibility.
All I did was try to draw you back to the article, which itself had a few surmises by the dog owner that were not factual.
You didn't like it that I put myself in the shoes of a casual reader, and in that role asked several reasonable questions that ought to be answered before jumping in to defend the dog and its owner, and condemn the officer, without further information.
If you wish, go back and reread what I first wrote. If one or more of these simple questions can be answered affirmatively, the dog owner(s) is as much to blame for the dog's demise as the officer.
And this is where I'm ending any further response. I'm not wrangling with you any more.
Are you all threat?
What makes the policeman different from a meter reader, letter carrier, or delivery driver, in the same situation? Other than that he's allowed to carry a gun?
Carrying a gun comes with the expectation of responsible use. Shooting a dog at first sound of a bark is not a responsible action of any kind.
-PJ
You’ll do well in the new normal. You appear to know your place.
Appears the officer knocked on the door to talk to Hitcho regarding a dispute with a neighbor when the owners dogs may have attacked him or had him cornered and he was attempting to use a taser when the owner shot him in the back of the head at point blank range.
Little different than this story or the one where they taxed and shot the 5 lb chiuaua or the mayor's dogs in MD.
That is completely different from my memory. Could be, as usual with today’s very excellent reporting, that additional info came out after the initial reports.
Got a link?
I do like to be accurate.
Your comment does not alter what I wrote. In practice the utilities, Post Office, or UPS guys can walk away from a menace, the law officer may decide otherwise. His job description allows him more latitude than the others in pursuing his duties.
"We cannot allow the lesser classes to dictate to those designated to govern. That was lies madness." (Alfred, Lord Tennyson 1809-1892) /sarc
The police officer feels emboldened to act because of the shield and gun, and the perception that government trumps private in all cases, because the government has unlimited resources at their disposal when private does not.
Also, if you see past this one story to the larger trend of police on pet dog shootings (not stray dogs), you will see that it is not the dobermans, pit bulls, and rotweillers that are being shot, but the labradors, collies, huskies, and corgies.
What has happened is that the phrase "fear for their lives" has become "fear for their safety." "Safety" now includes scratches and bites, none of which are lethal.
It's an attitude problem, backed by a bureaucracy inculcated to circle the wagons in all cases.
-PJ
If "fear for their safety" applies to police officers, why wouldn't it also apply to meter readers and letter carriers, too?
Should we arm them as well, if "safety" is the test?
Why should only police officers be allowed to be "safe" in everyday situations, not just when in imminent danger?
And walking onto someone's property while investigating a copper theft that already occurred is not an imminent danger.
-PJ
Service people can walk way from a menace if treats, ammonia, or dog psychology doesn't work. A law officer;s work has other priorities.
Should we arm them as well, if "safety" is the test?
Safety isn't the test -- only a secondary issue. Obstructing a policeman in the performance of his duties is the issue here.
Why should only police officers be allowed to be "safe" in everyday situations, not just when in imminent danger?
Everyone should be safe, and they are when animal owners are responsible for their pets' conduct. But most Americans disregard their citizenship in this area, IMO -- they just brush it aside. They refuse to accept the duty to train the dog that he/she is also its absolute master.
According to researches reported by dogbitelaw.com, factors that determine whether a dog will bite includes the observations:
"There is much in the scientific literature of animal behavior that sheds light on the causes of dog attacks. As you review the literature, it is interesting to note that a dog owner is directly responsible for the presence or absence of most factors that determine whether a dog will bite."
and
"Training of the dog: the nature, degree and quality of training. A dog that has been trained to threaten people is an obvious danger, but so is a dog that has been poorly trained or not trained at all."
There's a lot more on this, if you are really interested and care enough to chase the available information down.
And walking onto someone's property while investigating a copper theft that already occurred is not an imminent danger.
It is if there's a contentious, territorial dog not being restrained by its owner, there is. For a LEO, when he does not know the people or neighborhood, he is going to view any scenario he walks into different than you do. Keep that in mind.
Here's some pertinent facts:
"The most recent USA survey of dog bites, conducted by CDC researchers and based on data collected during 2001-2003, concluded that dogs bite 4.5 million Americans per year (1.5% of the entire population). Sacks JJ, Kresnow M. Dog bites: still a problem? Injury Prevention 2008 Oct;14(5):296-301."
"The number of Americans who had to be hospitalized as a result of dog bites went up 86% in the past 16 years, from 5,100 hospitalizations in 1993, to 9,500 in 2008. The average cost of treatment was $18,200 per patient. The patients generally were kids under 5 years old and seniors over 65. (US Dept. of Health and Human Services.)"
"16,476 dog bites to persons aged 16 years or greater were work related in 2001. (Ibid., Nonfatal Dog Bite–Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments — United States, 2001, MMWR 2003;52:608.)"
Are you getting this down? We're not talking here about dog-lovers stoking each other into a rage. We're talking about people getting hurt on the job from irresponsible pet owners trying to blame such inconveniences on the bitee. These visitors with business to conduct for your convenience deserve a better break than they are getting. In particular, when the officer is visiting your property on business, it would be a good idea to start out your conversation with an attitude of respect and attention, rather than considering it an unwanted interruption of your day. And if you have such a pet, be ready to curb it as you would for any other visitor.
Now, perhaps you could turn over questions like this and ponder on them with an open mind. With a little effort, you'll be able to arrive at your own sensible answers.
Respectfully --
With a closing sentence like that, it is hardly respectful. Condescending is more like it.
What is not clear from the article is at what point in the encounter did the officer realize that he was at the wrong location - before or after he shot the dog. Once he realizes that he is not at the scene of the crime he is investigating, he ceases to be performing his duties if his duty was to investigate the copper theft.
If you are of the opinion that a police officer is on the lookout for crime 24/7, and that he is therefore a super-citizen with a gun and a badge, and that he is entitled to special rules that none of the rest of us have to live by, then maybe you can argue your point.
Barking is not biting. A barking dog is not a dog that will inevitably bite if given the chance. That is where this repeated issue always falls. The officer shoots at the first sign of barking out of "fear for his safety," without waiting for the dog to lunge. There are too many reports of officers shooting at dogs with children nearby, shooting on lawns and sidewalks with neighbors around, etc. The irrational fear for their own safety is not translating into concern for those around them.
And what about the kevlar vests they wear for protection? They get all armored up in the morning and yet cower in fear of a family pet?
-PJ
Thanks.
Nothing short of amazing how different this account is from the original report.
I’m going to try to find what I originally read and compare the two. Either I’m losing my mind or the reporter who wrote the initial piece got it entirely wrong.
The original article had nothing to do with with what a doosh this guy is. It sounded as though he was just an ordinary citizen sticking up for his rights.
Glad you corrected me on this so that I don’t any further make myself sound like an idiot.
Exposes a popular notion, that police services are misusing you?
The police officer feels emboldened to act because of the shield and gun, and the perception that government trumps private in all cases, because the government has unlimited resources at their disposal when private does not.
Or it can be an increasing deviancy of so-called "law-abiding" citizens (and millions of non-citizens) who have increasingly been trained in the schools to believe that everything is relative, and the world was put into existence for their own benefit, whose obedience to the law is to barely stay within the envelope of tolerance, and whose intent is to observe only those laws that are convenient to them (but in practice they are pilferers, dope-smokers, casual fornicators, sodomites, cursers, liars, etc, etc,) and to whom enforcement of laws are beneath their consideration. And in the matter we are discussing, neither do they wish to be held accountable to standards of behavior for their pets (or children) (W. C. Fields: "A man that hates dogs and kids can't be all wrong --"); who equate lawmen as common criminals, and corrupted politicians as folk heroes.
I hope I've distorted this view as much as you've distorted yours. But it is exactly along this trend of irresponsibility that the general problem of uncontrolled pets that truly has given rise to a great increase in biting injuries.
"Also, if you see past this one story to the larger trend of police on pet dog shootings (not stray dogs), you will see that it is not the dobermans, pit bulls, and rotweillers that are being shot, but the labradors, collies, huskies, and corgies."
You may be quite correct in this, for the statistics show that it is exactly the collies, huskies, corgies, pomeranians, mutts, etc. (personally I would not include pedigreed labs or cockers or such gentler breeds) that are causing most of this epidemic of dog-biting that is flooding the country. Not my opinion. A fact. Hence perhaps correspondingly more shooting of untrained, ill-tempered, nuisance pets that are terrorizing not only their neighbors but whose owners are also difficult to deal with.
What has happened is that the phrase "fear for their lives" has become "fear for their safety." "Safety" now includes scratches and bites, none of which are lethal.
That's your opinion. Actually, in the U. S. over $200 million are spent for hospitalization every year-- this excludes non-hospital treatments, let alone perhaps fifty times as many unreported incidents. Don't you think this poses kind of a problem? Some 4 to 5 million bites per year?
Suppose I socked you in the face -- gave you a black eye, but did not break teeth or cut your flesh. Not lethal, but would you just kind of figure that's the way the cookie crumbles, and just forget it? Especially if you did nothing to earn it? Now picture just striking out at a police officer. Think there might be a response, even if you only made a motion? Well, that is what a dog may be effectively doing, obstructing and interfering with his work. That will probably not be appreciated, especially if you made no effort to restrain your pet immediately.
It's an attitude problem, backed by a bureaucracy inculcated to circle the wagons in all cases.
Looks to me like you might possibly have an attitude problem also? Somehow, I sense that might be.
Or it can be an increasing deviancy of so-called "law-abiding" citizens (and millions of non-citizens) who have increasingly been trained in the schools to believe that everything is relative, and the world was put into existence for their own benefit, whose obedience to the law is to barely stay within the envelope of tolerance, and whose intent is to observe only those laws that are convenient to them...
How much of this do you attribute to the uncontrolled influx of people from other countries who bring their cultures here where regard for the law is barely above subsistence, as opposed to the general decay of generational Americans?
-PJ
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.