Posted on 01/25/2006 10:45:07 AM PST by iPod Shuffle
Now that I would agree with.
Not to some Freepers they aren't. Conspiracies and hidden motives everywhere, you know.
So I've seen. You gotta wonder what their real lives are like.
The young son of friends got his scarf tangled in a snowblower. Close call but happy ending, fortunately.
"As a boy I used to play the same way with my 80 pounder and all I had to do was play dead and/or be inactive and the dog knew playtime was over."
I agree. Something is not right with that dog. If it were another breed people would be all over it.
"because he put his mouth around her HEAD and just gave it one shake -- one shake only."
You think that's okay?
"The dog was a golden retriever, not a pit-bull or a rotweiler."
Meaning what?
The way I read this the dog was wild with a child. Parents should know who their dog is, personality not breed wise, and act accordingly.
My dog would never pull full strength with a child and would let go if the child slacked off. She acts like she's walking on eggs when little ones are around.
Quote ; "Your point is silly. You expect me to do a background check on you before I respond to your post?"
Silly you say? No, I don`t think so. I expect someone who accuses someone of being a heartless, sick individual to at least have a good foundation to make that accusation.
Quote: "Who you are has nothing to do with this discussion."
I`m sorry but you accused me of being a sick heartless person. Who I am has everything to do with your charge !
Quote: "Unless you live next door to these people and have some inside information, get over yourself."
Do you live next door to these people? Do you know these people? Do you know this history of this family? What if it is found that there is a history of abuse in this family? Would you change your opinion about investigating this death then?
This was my whole point why you have to look into these matters. You have only what is written in the article ( which is limited of facts I might add ), which is the same information I have ( unless you know these people directly, which you should have mentioned ). So how you can come to a conclusion, without any shadow of a doubt, that this death occured exactly as the articles states I just don`t understand.
Bringing up some questions , doesn`t make me a sick heartless person ( as you called me ), it is simply me asking a few questions.
Quote : ref, physical evidence :"This one did. That's the point. And unless some of the evidence is contrary then there is no point to continuing it."
The article doesn`t state all of the physical evidence that was present. The article has very little information to be honest. It has some statements about the family at the time this event unfolded. Could you please tell me all the physical evidence that was present at this scene?
And you are absolutely wrong about the lack of any contrary physical evidence means no further investigation should take place. Sometimes you find contrary evidence during the investigation. This happens all the time.
Quote : "Or you could be like the liberals and say, "The seriousness of the charge against George Bush, Sr., requires that we investigate."
You could be like the liberals and ignore reality. It is a fact that everything you see is not always as it appears. How you cannot understand that leaves me baffled.
And I am not charging anyone with anything as of yet, and have not charged anyone. Please show me were I made some kind of charge. I simply brought up some questions, that is all. You jumped all over me for that and accused me of being heartless and sick.
There are some things I just don`t like to do. One is believe everything I read in the newspaper, another is make assumptions about people ( or at least I try hard not to ).
You charged that I was sick and heartless for simply asking some questions. I found that to be a little brash and from the hip, and stated that to you.
I have maintained that the dog could have caused this girls death. I stated this several times in this thread.
I also stated that this death could have resulted by other means. But that cannot be ultimately be determined until an investigation is complete.
Quote : "There's a difference between a fishing expedition and an investigation."
Sometimes you go fishing, and catch a fish. Same goes with an investigation.
But I will say, after a preliminary investigation has been completed, and no evidence is found to lead to another conclusion, then you end the investigation.
My thoughts exactly. Parents should know their dog and act accordingly. For sure this was not the only time this dog was wild with small kids.
"I think it might have been a conspiracy involving the CFR, The Free Masons and the Rosicrucians.
Yeah, that's what it was......"
Nah, that is too far fetched. Even for CSI....
". I expect someone who accuses someone of being a heartless, sick individual to at least have a good foundation to make that accusation."
It's a reasonable foundation when someone suggests that a family who has been through this kind of tragedy deserves to be suspected of a crime in lieu of any evidence. There was no mention of any contradictory evidence, so you have no reason to suggest they pursue this as though there was foul play.
"Sometimes you go fishing, and catch a fish. Same goes with an investigation."
You just showed how clueless you are with that comment. As I mentioned more than once, there is a difference between a fishing expedition and an investigation. There has to be some evidence or reasonable suspicion, or else you can't start an investigation. A fishing expedition is what the Democrats like to do with Republicans, for example, when they appoint a special prosecutor and the guy goes on a fishing expedition for years trying to find some wrongdoing. But you said you don't have a problem with a fishing expedition.
There's a principle of assumption of innocence in the legal system.
Your skepticism is good. It sounds like the cause of death is known to be strangulation however whether the dog did it or someone else is speculation.
I don't think I'd close the books on this right away either.
Can you show me where I said anything CLOSE to that? I can wait.
Well, my husband fell down the steps tonight at my stepdaughter's house; steps we KNEW were "tricky."
Somebody come and arrest us.
"I hope we're being too cynical."
I think you're being WAAAAY too cynical.
"Can you show me where I said anything CLOSE to that? I can wait."
I asked a question. Will you answer it?
Not a strawman, I won't.
We seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. I honestly can not tell what your position is on the dog who "put his mouth around her[child's]HEAD and just gave it one shake -- one shake only."
My take is that the dog is dangerous even if it is "one shake only." I would hope you see it that way too.
Why you won't respond, or what the "straw man" is I really don't get. It was your story.
I told a simple story. It wasn't real involved.
I made no comment on the dog's movement; if I had thought it was threatening, I would have said so. If I had thought it was threatening, there would have been a part of the story that said "and I rushed over there and beat the dog."
But I'm not LOOKING for something wrong here; kids poke dogs in the eye (or wherever) and dogs defend themselves.
Now, I have five grandchildren under five; they poke and pull my dogs and cats; when my dogs snap at them or the cats scratch them, should I put the animals to sleep?
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.