[WillC310]

Originally Posted by quagmire

I didn't say all dogs. I was talking about the dog in this case.

Can you say with 100% certainty that the dog in this case would have not attacked anyone unless he was approached?

The point I'm disagreeing with you on is that you can't successfully read a dog 100% of the time. Yeah, there are some tell-tale signs if dogs are going to be hostile, but that's not guaranteed. If I had known my neighbors dog was going to bite me I would have moved the f- out of the way. I had no reason to suspect it. I knew my neighbors dog (and he knew me), he was just standing there, and then suddenly he went after my nuts. If you had asked me 5 seconds before if I thought it was possible I would have said no. As I've stated before I don't condone the officer shooting the dog. But IMO you can never tell what an animal will do. If you are able to recognize a situation when a dog seems to be quite calm and cool, then a split second later decides to bite someone you should teach some classes on it.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

We kill other species, why not dogs. I am fully supportive of the cops in this case. Dogs are animals.

We kill other species to eat or keep warm. We generally don't kill other animals for the sake of it. We kill cows, chickens, etc for their meat or skin. And I am against hunting for sport. People who hunt for sport in my view are just potential murderers taking their blood lust into a legal form of killing animals just for the sake of it.

You're clearly not a dog person. We have a greyhound. She is family. Yes, in a house fire and I could only save my kid or my dog, I would save my kid. But, it doesn't mean my conscious is clear. I will still feel like shit about the loss of my dog in the fire.

Originally Posted by WillC310

Can you say with 100% certainty that the dog in this case would have not attacked anyone unless he was approached?

The point I'm disagreeing with you on is that you can't successfully read a dog 100% of the time. Yeah, there are some tell-tale signs if dogs are going to be hostile, but that's not guaranteed. If I had known my neighbors dog was going to bite me I would have moved the f- out of the way. I had no reason to suspect it. I knew my neighbors dog (and he knew me), he was just standing there, and then suddenly he went after my nuts. If you had asked me 5 seconds before if I thought it was possible I would have said no. As I've stated before I don't condone the officer shooting the dog. But IMO you can never tell what an animal will do. If you are able to recognize a situation when a dog seems to be quite calm and cool, then a split second later decides to bite someone you should teach some classes on it.

No, I can't say with 100% that the dog would not attack unless approached. I would say I am 70-80% positive it wouldn't. All I am saying there wasn't a need at the time for a life or death split second decision to be made. The cops had time to figure out a way to secure the dog. If the dog did go to tackle a cop, then I would be fine with shooting it. But, not once did the dog do anything to attack the cops except an attempt to bite the cops when they approached. I did not see any justification for the shooting up to that point.

[Amini77]

Originally Posted by Endless619

You are the minority. How old are you? You sound very young.

I'm the minority? Elaborate please. And please, instead of asking me meaningless questions and putting out useless statements, tell me what your argument is against mine.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by quagmire

We kill other species to eat or keep warm. We generally don't kill other animals for the sake of it. We kill cows, chickens, etc for their meat or skin. And I am against hunting for sport. People who hunt for sport in my view are just potential murderers taking their blood lust into a legal form of killing animals just for the sake of it.

You're clearly not a dog person. We have a greyhound. She is family. Yes, in a house fire and I could only save my kid or my dog, I would save my kid. But, it doesn't mean my conscious is clear. I will still feel like shit about the loss of my dog in the fire.




No, I can't say with 100% that the dog would not attack unless approached. I would say I am 70-80% positive it wouldn't. All I am saying there wasn't a need at the time for a life or death split second decision to be made. The cops had time to figure out a way to secure the dog. If the dog did go to tackle a cop, then I would be fine with shooting it. But, not once did the dog do anything to attack the cops except an attempt to bite the cops when they approached. I did not see any justification for the shooting up to that point.

That is the problem with dog people or any other (enter animal) people. For them "their" animal is more than other animals, sometimes (often?) even more than humans. I'm not saying humans can't be 'animals'.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by Levi

That is the problem with dog people or any other (enter animal) people. For them "their" animal is more than other animals, sometimes (often?) even more than humans. I'm not saying humans can't be 'animals'.

It's not a problem though. Animals that are domesticated are on a different social level than a cow or chicken in the US at least. Here the thought of eating a dog is disgusting. But, in other cultures like in Asia have no issues with it. It's because dogs and cats are almost human by how we view them. We generally care about them.

[Endless619]

Originally Posted by Amini77

I'm the minority? Elaborate please. And please, instead of asking me meaningless questions and putting out useless statements, tell me what your argument is against mine.

It's very relevant.

"I don't see anything wrong with what the cop did. The guy was asking for trouble."

You put you didn't think the police did anything wrong. You are far from correct. Simple. Nothing rocket science about it. LE are trained to defend themselves against animals such as this dog and larger animals without killing them. Tell me how I know? Look I am not here to argue and point fingers. Both sides are clearly in the wrong but the police went overboard here.

So again, how old are you?

[stealth.pilot]

Originally Posted by quagmire

It's not a problem though. Animals that are domesticated are on a different social level than a cow or chicken in the US at least. Here the thought of eating a dog is disgusting. But, in other cultures like in Asia have no issues with it. It's because dogs and cats are almost human by how we view them. We generally care about them.

I find the entire concept of humans being affectionate with animals such as dogs to be disgusting. It is a form of bestiality. It's uncivilized and filthy.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

I find the entire concept of humans being affectionate with animals such as dogs to be disgusting. It is a form of bestiality. It's uncivilized and filthy.

So do you consider siblings being close/care about each other to be incest?

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Endless619

LE are trained to defend themselves against animals such as this dog and larger animals without killing them.

Could you explain how to do this?
It would come in handy in a hairy situation one day..

Kick it in the head? okay.. let me try next time I come across a 150lb dog..

[WillC310]

Originally Posted by quagmire

No, I can't say with 100% that the dog would not attack unless approached. I would say I am 70-80% positive it wouldn't. All I am saying there wasn't a need at the time for a life or death split second decision to be made. The cops had time to figure out a way to secure the dog. If the dog did go to tackle a cop, then I would be fine with shooting it. But, not once did the dog do anything to attack the cops except an attempt to bite the cops when they approached. I did not see any justification for the shooting up to that point.

(my bolding)

Definition of unless:
- except on the condition that
- without the accompanying circumstance or condition

By using the word "unless" you are introducing a necessary condition for the dog to attack. There are many things that could cause the dog to attack - a loud noise, someone yelling "squirrel!", etc. Because of that word your argument falls short. If you had said, "I feel pretty sure that the dog would not have attacked" it's a different argument. This may be mincing words, but since lawyers will get involved, that's the kind of word wrangling they will do.

I don't know what the officer was thinking at the time, and that's something that they will certainly ask him to try to determine if it was a split second decision.

[Amini77]

Originally Posted by Endless619

It's very relevant.

"I don't see anything wrong with what the cop did. The guy was asking for trouble."

You put you didn't think the police did anything wrong. You are far from correct. Simple. Nothing rocket science about it. LE are trained to defend themselves against animals such as this dog and larger animals without killing them. Tell me how I know? Look I am not here to argue and point fingers. Both sides are clearly in the wrong but the police went overboard here.

So again, how old are you?

And that's my opinion, I would have shot a dog thats attacking me. Especially when its a rotweiler. Like I said the situation they were in with their guns already out left them with no option.

Do you want my SSN too?..jesus chris get the hell out of here with that "how old are you" shit. Do I have anything to prove to you?? Just sit down, think about what you're saying for a minute, slap yourself and see if you come to your senses.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by quagmire

Yeah and all it was doing when it approached the cop was continue to bark unless the cops tried to approach it. Like I said, there was time to think how to handle the situation just as long as the cops didn't try to approach it( that is when it would try to bite them). I know the dog had to dealt with. Just shooting it was the wrong way to go because the dog wasn't attacking without provocation.

So what were the cops supposed to do? Just stand there? They had just detained the owner, and they were preparing to move the owner. If they just ignored the dog, the most likely outcome was that the dog was going to follow them. It was entirely possible that the dog would have attacked when they were moving the owner. You seem to forget that the DOG was the aggressor here. It was the DOG that jumped from the vehicle. It was the DOG that approached the officers. it was the DOG that started barking at the officers. And when one of the officers made an attempt to restrain the dog, it was the DOG that lunged at the officer. Up until the actual shooting, tell me, what did the officer do wrong? Absolutely nothing. Your argument rests on the sole premise that the officer had no right to attempt to restrain the dog, which is ridiculous.

EDIT: To put it in a different light, your argument is akin to the following:
Let's say a burglar breaks into my house with the sole intent to steal, and I attempt to restrain or deter the burglar. The burglar takes a swing at me, and I shoot the burglar. According to your argument, I'm at fault because I "provoked" the burglar by trying to restrain or deter the burglar. And just to preempt your counterargument that a burglar and a barking dog are not the same, I say in this situation is fairly similar as both the burglar and the dog was the initiating aggressor in contravention of the law.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by schoy

So what were the cops supposed to do? Just stand there? They had just detained the owner, and they were preparing to move the owner. If they just ignored the dog, the most likely outcome was that the dog was going to follow them. It was entirely possible that the dog would have attacked when they were moving the owner. You seem to forget that the DOG was the aggressor here. It was the DOG that jumped from the vehicle. It was the DOG that approached the officers. it was the DOG that started barking at the officers. And when one of the officers made an attempt to restrain the dog, it was the DOG that lunged at the officer. Up until the actual shooting, tell me, what did the officer do wrong? Absolutely nothing. Your argument rests on the sole premise that the officer had no right to attempt to restrain the dog, which is ridiculous.

Now you're just repeating yourself asking me what they should have done when I have been answering that over and over......

I never said they had no right to restrain the dog. I know the dog had to be dealt with. They couldn't just stand there forever, but they had time to decide on a non-lethal way to restrain it. That's all I am saying. The dog wasn't aggressive. He was just barking for the most part.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by quagmire

Now you're just repeating yourself asking me what they should have done when I have been answering that over and over......

I never said they had no right to restrain the dog. I know the dog had to be dealt with. They couldn't just stand there forever, but they had time to decide on a non-lethal way to restrain it. That's all I am saying. The dog wasn't aggressive. He was just barking for the most part.

Really? They're already in a stressful situation, they've just detained the owner, and now a 150-lb Rott just jumped from the car and approached them and is barking at them. So, you're expecting the officers to do what? Stand there and have a cool conversation about how to restrain the dog?

And yes, the officer did use non-lethal means to restrain the dog; he was trying to collar the dog (or get its leash; it's a bit unclear). It wasn't only until the dog lunged did the officer fire his weapon. Again, until the actual shooting, the officers did absolutely nothing wrong. Do you disagree? It wasn't the dog barking that caused the officer to shoot; it was the dog LUNGING. Again, the dog was the aggressor.

Finally, how about if I go to your place of work, and while you're on a conference call or meeting, I'll run into your office/cubicle/conference room and start barking at you. Let me see how calm and collected you would be.

EDIT: Did want to add one more thing from a legal aspect. The law only asks whether the officers acted prudently and reasonably given the circumstances, NOT what the officers could have done differently. Sure, the officers probably had other options, even maybe non-lethal options. But taking all of the circumstances and factors into consideration, I'd say the officer was reasonable for shooting the dog once the dog lunged at him, at that point in time presenting an imminent threat of serious bodily harm.

[uberschnell]

Originally Posted by quagmire

So do you consider siblings being close/care about each other to be incest?

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by uberschnell

What's so funny? He suggested that caring for a dog, cat, etc is beastiality. So why not apply the same logic to siblings?

[uberschnell]

Originally Posted by quagmire

What's so funny? He suggested that caring for a dog, cat, etc is beastiality. So why not apply the same logic to siblings?

I'm with you. My dogs are family and I think he's a twit for suggesting that's somehow wrong.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Levi

That is the problem with dog people or any other (enter animal) people. For them "their" animal is more than other animals, sometimes (often?) even more than humans. I'm not saying humans can't be 'animals'.

Do you consider that a problem with "kid people"? Meaning people with kids? Because we all know that as you said, their kids are better than other peoples kids.

[Eagle1oh7]

Read through the thread, but nobody asked the question, do either of the cops in the video/incident(especially the shooter) come from a K9 Unit or had experience with one? If he did, perhaps he made the right call in killing Fido. Either way, the owner could have thought things through better when putting the dog in the car, he could have rolled the windows up a bit more. :/

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Do you consider that a problem with "kid people"? Meaning people with kids? Because we all know that as you said, their kids are better than other peoples kids.

Well, I was not very clear. What I meant by "other animals" was the the animals of other people, the their animal race/type compared to other animal race/type.

By that I mean, now most dog-people are sad for the animal because the animal in the incident is a dog and those people have/like dogs. If it was another animal (not in this specific situation), they probably would not care. Take a snake for example, I like reptiles and can attach to them, if a snake was killed, many would not care, but it also is an animal.

[xzibit a]

I think all of you except the one person that posted the link from this guys previous settlement are missing the point.

This after reading more background information, and post incident interviews, its clear to me that the guy was "trying" to get arrested. He got a million bucks from the last run-in with the police( i know little about that incident). So now he provokes officers by "pushing" limits of his "rights" knowing that other people are filming it so he will have proof of the officers being "violent." In one interview the owner claimed that he recognized one of the cops as being one involved in the prior incident. And that they singled him out because of who he was. Does this make sense to you guys? looks to me like he was the only one causing a scene while others were on the other side of the street NOT interfering/causing a distraction.


I could go on but This irresponsible dog owner was fishing for a lawsuit. He now has one and knowing that he has large sum of money from the last settlement, he will probably get a good lawyer and win another large sum of money. American greed at its finest.


It made me sick to watch the poor innocent dog die. But the cops actions are justified. An agitated large dog is not something you want on the loose to create a public safety concern.

Also to all the idiots that suggest that the cop should have put his gun away and pulled out his taser/pepper spray(assuming he had one). Clearly have not done research as it is not an effective means of controlling an agitated animal.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by xzibit a

I think all of you except the one person that posted the link from this guys previous settlement are missing the point.

This after reading more background information, and post incident interviews, its clear to me that the guy was "trying" to get arrested. He got a million bucks from the last run-in with the police( i know little about that incident). So now he provokes officers by "pushing" limits of his "rights" knowing that other people are filming it so he will have proof of the officers being "violent." In one interview the owner claimed that he recognized one of the cops as being one involved in the prior incident. And that they singled him out because of who he was. Does this make sense to you guys? looks to me like he was the only one causing a scene while others were on the other side of the street NOT interfering/causing a distraction.


I could go on but This irresponsible dog owner was fishing for a lawsuit. He now has one and knowing that he has large sum of money from the last settlement, he will probably get a good lawyer and win another large sum of money. American greed at its finest.


It made me sick to watch the poor innocent dog die. But the cops actions are justified. An agitated large dog is not something you want on the loose to create a public safety concern.

Also to all the idiots that suggest that the cop should have put his gun away and pulled out his taser/pepper spray(assuming he had one). Clearly have not done research as it is not an effective means of controlling an agitated animal.

No one is saying the owner is innocent in all of this. He is an idiot.

All the taser has to do is give the cops a window to grab the leash. It doesn't have to completely subdue to the dog.