Replies

You can't sit here and tell me that I'm injecting any facts when I knowingly used words of supposition. I never intended my initial post or response to you to be a matter of fact. Please point out where I definitively stated that the events transpired exactly as I stated, and I will gladly apologize.

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.

You can't sit here and tell me that I'm injecting any facts when I knowingly used words of supposition.

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.