TexasCHLforum.com

KD5NRH wrote:"He shouldn't have reacted so fast" when the dog was already within arm's reach. Great thinking there.

I have found no reference to the distance in either of the posted articles. Where did you read that it was "within arm's reach"?

I am pretty handy with a pistol. Having played Longtooth's "shoot the dog" game at the range, I am confident that the dog was not behaving aggressively, because the officer hit it with one shot. A moving dog is just too difficult a target to hit.

I also find it a shame that this man has raised his children to be so terrified of dogs -- and they obviously learned it from him.

As I mentioned earlier, my wife is a groomer, and has been for over 15 years. When we were discussing this story last night, she pointed out that the only breed (group of breeds, actually) that has never bitten her, nor even tried to bite her, nor acted aggressive at all while in her shop, has been pits. Allowing, of course, for statistically significant raw numbers -- she's also never been bitten by a Dogue de Bourdeux nor Irish Wolfhound, having only had one of each as a customer. She's handled hundreds of different individual pits. The greatest threat from them has been undocked tails -- they wag so furiously that it's like getting slapped across the thigh with a sjambok.

Leaving aside the dogs most likely to successfully break skin (Shih Tzus and Pomeranians), and just looking at dogs big enough to do serious damage, then Golden Retrievers, Collies, GSDs, Malinois (a highly trained Arkansas State Police K9, at that), Australian Shepherds, Malamutes, Siberian Huskies, Samoyeds, even lovable lugs like Great Pyrenees, have all tried to do mayhem to her, me, and/or employees. And some of them weren't just mad about the nail trim, some actually wanted to rip out throats.

Once again, let me point out that we've never owned any pit nor pit mix, and have no plans to. We're not defenders of the faith, just trying to speak the truth. (Speaking of, why isn't this dog being called a boxer?)

So... from a source that is biased neither towards nor against pits, there's some impartial data for you.

mr.72 wrote:Flint, you use the terms "perceive" and "perception" as if it is something we choose.

How else you would have me look at it, as something that "happens" to us? Perception by necessity is born of many things: Teachings, past experience, reasoning, comparison, consequences, etc...
If you are not "choosing" to "perceive" then you are "reacting" on a very base level (in other words not thinking). This level of reaction is precisely what I am warning against.

We all have only our perception from which to react. If I perceive the dog is a threat, then as far as my ability as one person thinking is concerned, the dog is a threat.

Agreed. However, what you state speaks only to the action itself and does not necessarily denote reality or reasonableness. Lots of crazy people have inaccurate "perceptions", the thought is tempered only by reasonableness.

I can't decide to rely upon another person's perception or any after-the-fact analysis with which to make an immediate choice. My perception is the whole of my input on the situation.

Well put and true. Especially involving events that allow for little time to assess things (let alone any abstract thought). That said, it would behoove us all to try to educate ourselves and "pre-think" things that concern our safety, a sort of mental rehearsal. Chances are better we will make the correct decision that way, I am sure you would agree.

BTW the dog owner in this case may know the dog better than anyone else, but also they are far and away the most biased witness in this whole thing. The pit bull owner that was my neighbor was in abject denial about the dangerous state of her pet. I would put zero faith in the dog owner's testimony. Zero.

I suspect that person had not witnessed their dog doing anything untoward, but that is no excuse for them to discount your issue with them. They were wrong.

Anyway no hard feelings from my end.

Nor from mine, I hope you would know that even before I said it.

I don't really think you reasonably do think the things that you seem to be suggesting in your posts.

Actually, I am not a person to "beat around the bush" and am known by my friends to be a person of some conviction, so yes....I do believe in what I posted here.

But I do think that you are putting far too much faith in the good nature of this dog or dogs in general, and far too little faith in the good will of normal responsible people.

That is your privilege, thank you for your thoughts.

The whole CHL ideal is predicated upon the trust that regular people are going to make the right choices the majority of the time, so there is no reason to deny them their right to carry a gun. Is this not true for regular people's choices regarding dogs they see as threats, as well as human predators?

It certainly is. Doesn't mean that happened in this case, but your point is well taken.

Respectfully,

Flint.

That may be unbiased data, but it is purely anecdotal and there are numerous anecdotal accounts of people mauled or killed by pit bulls.

It would be very difficult to compile any statistics that would be of any merit to this discussion, much like "gun violence" statistics. It would be too easy to cook the numbers so they support whatever position suits those running the study.

KBCraig wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:"He shouldn't have reacted so fast" when the dog was already within arm's reach. Great thinking there.

I have found no reference to the distance in either of the posted articles. Where did you read that it was "within arm's reach"?

I don't know about arm's reach... but we do have a quote the Chief of police mentioning that the dog was very close.

From this article - http://www.empiretribune.com/articles/2 ... 889780.txt

“We know Chili was not disobeying any laws by carrying his gun in the park,” Tarleton Police Chief Justin Williams said. “The trajectory of the shot and the blood from the dog being on the sidewalk indicates he was close - real close - to Chili and his children, which he perceived as a threat.”

about the undocked tail. I have been whipped more times than I can remember. It basically comes down to the fact that large dogs are the concern. Why they say pits are the bad ones, I will never know. Just seems to me no matter how big the dog the media will always come back and say its a pit and it isnt. This I think gets more viewers and concerns to provide drama I guess. I do feel that owner should have had those dogs on their leashes, and another pet peeve is the dang owners dropping off out here in the woods. It comes down to the owners just being responsible no matter the breed. Please though dont fuel the fire with the media bc chances are it isnt a pit.

mr.72 wrote:That may be unbiased data, but it is purely anecdotal and there are numerous anecdotal accounts of people mauled or killed by pit bulls.

And those numerous anecdotes are outnumbered by accounts of people being mauled or killed by other breeds.

yes KB and any anecdotal reports do not add up to statistically-valid data.

And...with all this being said. The point still remains that the man shot a DOG...a dog that was not on a leash and in the control of it's owner. A dog that was a threat to the well being of the mans children.

This thread is amazing. Two days and 111 posts so far!

A man shoots and kills an illegal alien at night who is running away after stealing a pack of cigarettes from his truck and you want to give him a medal. A man shoots a dog that he believes is going to attack his child and you want to crucify him.

WildBill wrote:This thread is amazing. Two days and 111 posts so far!

A man shoots and kills an illegal alien at night who is running away after stealing a pack of cigarettes from his truck and you want to give him a medal. A man shoots a dog that he believes is going to attack his child and you want to crucify him.

It is amazing isn't it. They were also ready to reward a man who shot two guys in the back as they ran away from stealing a stereo. Strange ideas to say the least.

If you're referring to Joe Horn, the burglars had stolen thousands of dollars' worth of cash and jewelry.

There's a lesson here for those who can learn it: If you kill a dog, at least half the population will consider convicting you of a felony (PC § 42.092). Even other CHL holders.

I am never going to get involved in a dog thread again.

- Jim

03Lightningrocks wrote:

WildBill wrote:This thread is amazing. Two days and 111 posts so far!

A man shoots and kills an illegal alien at night who is running away after stealing a pack of cigarettes from his truck and you want to give him a medal. A man shoots a dog that he believes is going to attack his child and you want to crucify him.

It is amazing isn't it. They were also ready to reward a man who shot two guys in the back as they ran away from stealing a stereo. Strange ideas to say the least.

My example was made up to illustrate a point.

03Lightningrocks wrote:And...with all this being said. The point still remains that the man shot a DOG...a dog that was not on a leash and in the control of it's owner. A dog that was a threat to the well being of the mans children.

This has not been proven by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you have additional information to share... then the only empirical evidence we have concerning this incident is that a dog was in fairly close proximity to a child (possibly more than one child) and another person shot the dog.Everyone is in agreement about that.

Beyond that, all accounts are conflicting.

So, lets all be honest enough to say "We don't know".

flintknapper wrote:
This has not been proven by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you have additional information to share... then the only empirical evidence we have concerning this incident is that a dog was in fairly close proximity to a child (possibly more than one child) and another person shot the dog.Everyone is in agreement about that.

Beyond that, all accounts are conflicting.

So, lets all be honest enough to say "We don't know".

And the fact that we don't know makes it pretty silly to attempt to argue about whether it was justified or not.

All dogs will bite. That is a fact.

The owners who like the fluffy furball types need to know this. Apart from having my thumb nearly torn off by one of my own dogs, the worst bite I ever had was from a chihuahua. Those needle teeth hurt fiercely.

The pit bull lovers who keep praising the breed need to remember this.

The dog owners that ignore leash laws need to remember this. I am one of them.

Our now deceased male Weimaraner sprint tested a jogger once and the jogger lost. We lived in Kali and are lucky we were not sued.

He is the one who bit my thumb and broke it in 3 pieces. He was in a fight with an Akita and was on the losing end of the deal. He did not intend to bite me, it just happened.

He bit a male teen gathering baskets. The dog and I were jammin' to tunes while Mrs. ANygun shopped for vittles. The teen stuck his arm in the truck to pet him. Bad move. He like to lost the arm at the elbow.

I caught him just as he was lunging out the window after a couple who innocently followed my then 76 year old mother out of a drug store. He really liked my mom.

That dog would give up his life for me or any family member or child he knew. Woe be unto you if you crossed him, though.

Dog owners are dog's worst enemies when it comes to PR. I quickly learned when we had our Weim.

I have killed a pit in my yard years ago and it deserved killing. It would have eaten me. I have held them in my lap too and would do so today.

I fully trust no dog.

I am giving the guy the benefit of the doubt here, but the fault in the story that started this thread belongs to both the dog owners and the guy protecting his kids.

Anygunanywhere