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.
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.