TexasCHLforum.com

"A whole park full of people failed to notice a pit-bull "growling and snarling" at a small child?
The officer had time to "warn" the owner "three times" to get the dogs away from his sons, but didn't move between them and the dogs? Are we to believe that the owner of the dogs simply "ignored" the warnings of the officer, or did she not see the incident as threatening (because it was not)?"

Have you ever played a game of tag or chase with a dog? If not then you have no idea how hard it is to stand in between a fixed object and a mobile animal. Dogs, especially medium sized agile dogs like a pitt, have extremely fast reaction times. They can make 2 moves to every counter you throw at it. Add in the factor that the children, being children, most likely were not sitting stationary. These factors make it almost impossible for an individual to "get between his children and an aggressive animal." My primary concern would be trying to discern what the dog was doing, not noticing where my children were in regards to the animal. The only thing I would be more worried about would be making 3 white dots align horizontally on the dogs head. Kudos to the officer for acting to protect his offspring.
"

KD5NRH wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Most of us can fend off a crazed goose without the aid of a firearm.

One of my relatives got a couple of broken hand bones from a goose attack; they have extremely strong wing muscles.

(and no, she wasn't bitten by a m00se later)

"shoot the dog" got 645,000 hits, while "don't shoot the dog" only got 506,000, so there.

Well there you have it. I have changed my mind. I would wait for my child to actually be attacked and mauled before shooting the dog. You guys have convinced me of the error of my ways. I now love vicous attack dogs. Especially the ones bred specifically for fighting and killing other dogs. What did it was the analogy to crazed geese.

Not really...but I wanted to temporarily give the illusion that an internet debate actually changed someones mind about something. I am pretty sure that when all is said and done on this thread, everyone will maintain the same opinion they had when the thread started.

k6gixx wrote:"A whole park full of people failed to notice a pit-bull "growling and snarling" at a small child?

Well, they weren't close enough to hear him yelling at the owner, but were close enough to know that the dog didn't growl.

There's a followup story in today's paper, but it won't hit the online edition until sometime this afternoon, and I'll probably be asleep until late evening. If anybody wants to watch for it at http://www.empiretribune.com, the title should be "Dog to Make Full Recovery."

Suffice it to say that the dog owner's story changes significantly yet again, but still doesn't make sense. There's also a photo of the dog, and I wouldn't guess it as pit or boxer at first glance.

The argument that "most people can't identify a pit bull anyway" makes no sense.

If the officer thought this was a pit bull and shot it just because it was a pit bull, but "most people can't identify a pit bull" then I guess it was just luck that the dog he shot actually is a pit bull?

Maybe if people were better at identifying pit bulls there would be fewer successful pit bull attacks, because we dog bigots would just shoot them first rather than waiting for the dog expert to come in after the fact and tell us that indeed our child was killed by a pit bull.

I had to read the topic title twice, that 'o' in 'shot' could be easily replaced by another letter and it'd be a typical day in the park.



-Cain

03Lightningrocks wrote:They are only doing what they were bred to do. http://pit-bull-awareness-center.christ ... cestry.htm

Well now....that was certainly an "unbiased" editorial....wasn't it.

I don't see how that's any more biased than a pro pit bull source.

k6gixx wrote:

Have you ever played a game of tag or chase with a dog? If not then you have no idea how hard it is to stand in between a fixed object and a mobile animal. "

Yes I have. I have owned and interacted with many dogs (mine and others) for more than 50 years, so I am somewhat familiar with what they are capable of.

Dogs, especially medium sized agile dogs like a pit, have extremely fast reaction times. They can make 2 moves to every counter you throw at it.

No question about it.

Add in the factor that the children, being children, most likely were not sitting stationary.

The article states the officer claims his children were "pinned against the fence". That rather suggests they were stationary to some degree (if not totally).

These factors make it almost impossible for an individual to "get between his children and an aggressive animal."

The reason I asked this question to begin with was to establish the location of the officer at the time of the shooting (something I would still like to know). Also, to try to understand why the dog would continue any aggressive behavior if now confronted by a much larger grown-up when supposedly the target was the children. I also find it curious that the dog(s) are not reported to have bothered anyone else or the numerous ducks or squirrel that someone graciously submitted...but instead chose a group of children? Doesn't make sense.

What does make sense to me is that the dogs were playing in the water below the children....spotted them, and approached (not unusual for social dogs). The children and the parent quite possibly "freaked out" and the whole incident resulted in a shooting. Is that possible?

Now, I am NOT saying that you don't have the absolute right to defend yourself (or others) against an obviously aggressive animal (pit-bull, poodle, whatever). I am just questioning if this was really case here.

Another thing that concerns me is where the shot was taken from. If the dog was on the sidewalk and the officer was on the sidewalk then he was either between his children, shot over their heads, (or was on the tennis court shooting through the fence). The chance of the bullet ricocheting off the concrete in the event of a miss is excellent (but acceptable is the need to shoot really existed). If the shot was taken while the dog(s) were down hill and the account in the paper is wrong about the sidewalk then I applaud the officer for at least taking that into consideration.

There is just too much about this story that doesn't add up, combined with the obvious fear and outright hatred of pit-like dogs (as clearly demonstrated here) makes me think there is more to it.

My primary concern would be trying to discern what the dog was doing, not noticing where my children were in regards to the animal.

According to the claims of the officer the dogs were very close, you couldn't help but notice both. But, if you didn't know where your children were in relation to the dog then it seems a patently bad idea to start shooting.

The only thing I would be more worried about would be making 3 white dots align horizontally on the dogs head.

This would be the preferred shot when attempting to stop an aggressive animal.

Kudos to the officer for acting to protect his offspring.

And my support also IF that is what happened.

mr.72 wrote:I don't see how that's any more biased than a pro pit bull source.

Do you see that anyone here has submitted an obviously "pro pit-bull source" in order to make a point?

I hope the intentions of the poster are as readily transparent to others as it to me.

flintknapper wrote:

mr.72 wrote:I don't see how that's any more biased than a pro pit bull source.

Do you see that anyone here has submitted an obviously "pro pit-bull source" in order to make a point?

you mean like this one posted earlier?

http://www.austinlostpets.com/kidskorne ... itbull.htm

mr.72 wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

mr.72 wrote:I don't see how that's any more biased than a pro pit bull source.

Do you see that anyone here has submitted an obviously "pro pit-bull source" in order to make a point?

you mean like this one posted earlier?

http://www.austinlostpets.com/kidskorne ... itbull.htm

I read that as a reasonable "rebuttal" to the outlandish claims some choose to make concerning pit-bulls as a breed. However, I encourage everyone to read both articles and decide for themselves.

If you see the "link" as obviously pro-pit then fine, I would challenge you find anything as clearly biased (bordering on lunatic) as some of the quotes from the source I cited:

They were bred, born to BE BAD, now the majority are in the hands of Bad owners. No more than we can stop drugs or murder in the world, can we stop the rampage the pit bulls will trod. If we don’t take a stand and ban and fine the BREEDERS. You can kill all the pits you want, but if you don’t get rid of the ones who are creating this disaster, your children and mine for generations to come will continue to be mauled and shredded unto death.

Now they are being bred BIGGER and BADDER, MEANER and FASTER.
They are being bred in VAST NUMBERS. Now It is time to BAN
The BREEDERS and grandfather clause in the BREED.

But if you really think the two are the same.............you are certainly entitled

One source says pit bulls are good animals full of all sorts of admirable and lovable qualities, the bad ones are just flukes, and most of the information about pit bulls being bad pets are based on myths.

The other source says pit bulls are basically bad animals, good and lovable ones are flukes, and most of the information supporting their good qualities are full of misinformation.

Looks to me like a classic difference of opinion. Obviously the person who has suffered a pit bull attack has extremely understandable misgivings about these dogs and they don't mince words on their web site. I am not advocating this site, but just saying that it is no more biased than those sites that support pit bulls as benign lovable pets. It's very little different than the obviously in your face web sites written by people who are advocates of self defense and have been victims of violent crime themselves, vs. the generally passive nature of the rest of people who have never been a victim and are apathetic to the whole idea. I figure once you get attacked by a pit bull, you might have cause to change your tune. If you never suffer such an attack then you might not understand why some people are so virulently opposed to these dogs running free.

mr.72 wrote:One source says pit bulls are good animals full of all sorts of admirable and lovable qualities, the bad ones are just flukes, and most of the information about pit bulls being bad pets are based on myths.

The other source says pit bulls are basically bad animals, good and lovable ones are flukes, and most of the information supporting their good qualities are full of misinformation.

That mentality can be applied to just about anything from guns to soap to Kids crafting scissors to the ham samich that you are about to eat for lunch. You will find and article that rebuts and has a different view on just about everything in this world.

As for the view of things that a tricky one. I have learned a long time ago not to judge a book by its cover. Mainly cause everyone I have met or come across has automatically done that to me. Some of you on this forum that have met me might understand why. I’m a big scary guy. Maybe not as much these days but I have been accused of that before. People label me a someone that going to beat them up if I look at them wrong or I’m just in their store to rob them of steal from them(Yes I have been followed more than once around a store). It’s kind of funny some times when a coworker and I get onto an elevator here at work and there is a kid there. The kid normally looks at the coworker first and smiles and what not but then glances over to me and practically starts crying. I don’t do it on purpose it’s just the look I have. But those of you that have met me and see how I really am can tell that I don’t really fall into that stereotype cept for my looks. Should that mean I should be shot on site for saying hi to stranger in a park?

One more thing that nobody has touched on (unless I missed it somewhere). How were the kids interacting with the dog before it became aggressive? Were they being mean to the dog and that’s what causes it to become aggressive. Did they run up to it and that what caused the dog to become startled. Not saying they were but it’s just another, what if scenario. Because I tell you what, I might be a nice guy in a big scary wrapper but when you cross me or treat me like crap I am not going to come across as a nice guy. But that’s just me and my opinion.

Now would I have done the same? I can’t say. I was not there. But I can tell you this. I do not agree with the way it was reported.

mr.72 wrote:One source says pit bulls are good animals full of all sorts of admirable and lovable qualities, the bad ones are just flukes, and most of the information about pit bulls being bad pets are based on myths.

The other source says pit bulls are basically bad animals, good and lovable ones are flukes, and most of the information supporting their good qualities are full of misinformation.

Looks to me like a classic difference of opinion. Obviously the person who has suffered a pit bull attack has extremely understandable misgivings about these dogs and they don't mince words on their web site. I am not advocating this site, but just saying that it is no more biased than those sites that support pit bulls as benign lovable pets. It's very little different than the obviously in your face web sites written by people who are advocates of self defense and have been victims of violent crime themselves, vs. the generally passive nature of the rest of people who have never been a victim and are apathetic to the whole idea. I figure once you get attacked by a pit bull, you might have cause to change your tune. If you never suffer such an attack then you might not understand why some people are so virulently opposed to these dogs running free.

I am opposed to dogs (of any type) running free in a "park/public" environment. I think it highly irresponsible of the lady to have allowed this and worse yet to have made this her habit. Just the same, I recognize that not every dog (that is untethered) is an animal intent on tearing your throat out.

The bottom line for me is this:
IF the officer responded to a threat (real or reasonably perceived) then I will be the first to try to contact him and offer my support.

I have made no hard and fast assertions here regarding his actions, I have been careful to submit my opinions and doubts as questions. IF it was a good shooting and subsequent information bears that out...I will happily concede to being wrong. I will never apologize for having "questions" though.

With the little bit of information we have and the obvious hatred/distrust of an entire breed I can not help but "question" certain aspects of this incident.

I will say that this discussion has been enlightening for me and scary at the same time. I am truly shocked at the mindset of some folks here. It seems many are willing (some eager) to summarily dispatch any free roaming animal they encounter that could "possibly" pose a threat. You have to wonder if they carry this same "fear" into their daily lives and how they would react to a "perceived" human threat? The law will judge them based on the "reasonableness" of their actions. But when it comes to using deadly force against an animal, this same standard is thrown out the window.

Edit: I do want to make one apology here though. To the poor "mods" that have had to suffer through this thread, I offer my apologies and thank you for your patience.