Cowards with guns

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A dog doesn't have to be a danger to the life of a person , an uncontroled dog in a public place unattended can be shot , because any uncontrolled dog can be potentialy dangerous .

You should not kill things based on potential danger.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A dog doesn't have to be a danger to the life of a person , an uncontroled dog in a public place unattended can be shot , because any uncontrolled dog can be potentialy dangerous .
Whats up with you people ? havn't you ever shot a dog ?

No, they can't be. You're talking out of your ass.
North Carolina laws on dangerous dogs:
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusncst67_4.htm

(2) "Potentially dangerous dog" means a dog that the person or Board designated by the county or municipal authority responsible for animal control determines to have:

a. Inflicted a bite on a person that resulted in broken bones or disfiguring lacerations or required cosmetic surgery or hospitalization; or

b. Killed or inflicted severe injury upon a domestic animal when not on the owner's real property; or

c. Approached a person when not on the owner's property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack.

So no, not just any uncontrolled dog is labeled a "potentially dangerous dog" under the law. And there's no mention of shooting such dogs.

EDIT: The town mayor disagrees with you as well:

[Mount Olive Mayor Ray] McDonald Sr. disagrees.

"I don't know of any rule or regulation that we have got that permits an officer to kill somebody's pet," he said. "It sounds like we made a horrible mistake. ... It's wrong. Absolutely wrong. I'm sure my board feels the same way."

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archiv...rible_mistake/

CR

[Tribesman]

if you want your dogs to be safe, keep them inside when you're not at home or make sure your neighbors do not call the police and tell them your dog is being aggressive.

Or hope that your neighbour hasn't got a gun and shoots the dog without calling the police .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Or hope that your neighbour hasn't got a gun and shoots the dog without calling the police .

Did it make a difference in this case?

[KarlXII]

You should not kill things based on potential danger.

Sure you should. You don't give a potentially dangerous creature a chance to hurt anyone, which may or may not have been the case. If the dog was, say, growling and about to strike, sure, I can see the shooting being justified.

[Xiahou]

So instead they shoot it like a berzerk grizzly. With a 12-gague pump shotgun. And it doesn't occur to anyone to just call animal control, the people actually trained to handle situations like this?

I hear these work pretty well:


The sensible thing to do would've been to wait for someone to show up with one of those to apprehend the animal. Had the vicious 45lb dog charged the officers, sure, you have to shoot it, but since it was apparently out of mace range, I don't think it was an imminent threat.

Let's go over this again- A neighbor hears a commotion, comes to look and sees the 45lb neighbor's dog barking at officers. She says 'Please don't shoot that dog. He won't hurt you,'... and they shoot the dog. The dog that they claim was out of the range of mace spray. Something doesn't add up here.

If the dog was roaming outside of the owner's yard, then the owner certainly bears some responsibility for what happened- but that fact alone isn't justification for the police to take free reign to do whatever they want.

[Tribesman]

No, they can't be. You're talking out of your ass.

My my don't you have silly laws over there

[Crazed Rabbit]

Just glad we agree you were wrong.

CR

[Tribesman]

Let's go over this again- A neighbor hears a commotion, comes to look and sees the 45lb neighbor's dog barking at officers.

Yes lets , you missed the part where the police turned up after being told there was a dangerous dog according to section c of that legislation Rabbit supplied .

I hear these work pretty well:

The sensible thing to do would've been to wait for someone to show up with one of those to apprehend the animal.

Fiscal conservatives and second amendment advocates wanting to waste taxpayers money and resources on a negligent owners mutt ...classicoh sorry the dogs owner wasn't actually the owner was it , her little baby son was someone elses mutt
This topic is too funny .

[Xiahou]

Fiscal conservatives and gun nuts wanting to waste taxpayers money and resources on a negligent owners mutt ...classicoh sorry the dogs owner wasn't actually the owner was it , her little baby son was someone elses mutt
This topic is too funny .

What are you talking about?

[Koga No Goshi]

Sure you should. You don't give a potentially dangerous creature a chance to hurt anyone, which may or may not have been the case. If the dog was, say, growling and about to strike, sure, I can see the shooting being justified.

By this logic, why not just start a world-wide cooperative effort to eradicate sharks? Of course, that would completely collapse the sea ecosystem and fish population even worse than we have already done, but who cares, right? It would eliminate even the chance of a dangerous animal (sharks) harming someone.

[RabidGibbon]

The article doesn't make clear if the officer wielding the shotgun was in the car or not when he fired.
This extract seems to imply the officers took part in a kind of drive/stop by shooting

Posted bt First Article

She saw a Mount Olive Police Department cruiser pull up to the house behind hers.

Then she noticed the shotgun in one of the officer's hands, aimed at her neighbor's 45-pound Labrador retriever.

"I said, 'Please don't shoot that dog. He won't hurt you,'" Mrs. Kulers said.

The officer looked at her, then back at the dog.

A shot rang out -- then, another.

Its possible the officer was out of the vehicle at the time - after all its hard to see how he could be threatened by the dog otherwise, but then given the tale of the mayor whose house was stormed by police men who'd decided to dress up like commandos and who then chased down and shot his dogs it seems like perhaps the police guide lines on shooting dogs are a bit too lax?

However to counterbalance this, I was watching one of those fly on the wall documentaries about police men. An officer was being chased by a dog and he was backing off like crazy with his gun pointed at it, and even my liberal anti establishment dog loving soul thought "why doesn't he just shoot it?" but then his policeman buddy zapped it with a taser and it just went "Yiiiiiiiiiiip!" and took off.

So I suspect some cops realise that its free fire zone on dogs, whilst others are calm and considerate on the subject. I'd like to say the answer is better training and selection, but better training and selection is probably the answer to every government recruitment problem.

[KarlXII]

By this logic, why not just start a world-wide cooperative effort to eradicate sharks? Of course, that would completely collapse the sea ecosystem and fish population even worse than we have already done, but who cares, right? It would eliminate even the chance of a dangerous animal (sharks) harming someone.

If that shark was circling your boat and looking to lunge, I would shoot it.

Again, didn't read the article, my two cents. If an animal is in a threatening pose and looks like it will strike, do not give it that chance.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why would anyone shoot a dog, the kindest creatures there are. This is sick happy hunting.

Dogs aren't kind when strangers are approaching their turf.

"Some people view their pets as children, and I am one of those people."

Usually the people with this attitude are the people with the least well trained dogs...mind you most people haven't trained their dogs well. I assume the officer had had a bad experience but he must be a huge nancy.

The article is ridiculously melodromatic.

[KarlXII]

The article is ridiculously melodromatic.

Yes, the paragraph quoted sounds like it should've ended in "He then put the now severely hurt dog into a meatgrinder, crushing his remains to fill his power hungry stomach, maybe, just maybe, a symbol of America."

[Koga No Goshi]

It's one thing if a vicious unleashed dog is running around. It's quite another for a dog to be barking at strangers, which is their natural inclination. I think that if mailmen can handle it on a daily basis, a cop should be expected to have one-quarter the common sense required to make a humane decision based on the context.

[Tribesman]

What are you talking about?

I am talking about you who is always complaining about wasting tax money and police taking too long when people call them wanting either police eqipped with dog nooses and anti bite gauntlets or having two officers with a car getting paid to wait doing nothing until they can contact a dog warden and get them to turn up when someone says a loose dog is being aggresive .
Just shoot the mutt , its quicker simpler safer and cheaper .

[Koga No Goshi]

I am talking about you who is always complaining about wasting tax money and police taking too long when people call them wanting either police eqipped with dog nooses and anti bite gauntlets or having two officers with a car getting paid to wait doing nothing until they can contact a dog warden and get them to turn up when someone says a loose dog is being aggresive .
Just shoot the mutt , its quicker simpler safer and cheaper .

I've rescued half a dozen stray dogs who ranged from terrified of me to hostile. I didn't need any special gear, I wasn't injured, and I didn't need to put a bullet into its skull to do it. And I have no special training whatsoever. I think the issue we're tapdancing around is an NRA-esque mentality about how we have to defend any quasi-remotely-justifiable use of firearms to stave off boogeyman gun bans.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes lets , you missed the part where the police turned up after being told there was a dangerous dog according to section c of that legislation Rabbit supplied .

Oh man, you didn't read that link, did you? Hilarious!

From my previous link:

(c) The county or municipal authority responsible for animal control shall designate a person or a Board to be responsible for determining when a dog is a "potentially dangerous dog" and shall designate a separate Board to hear any appeal. The person or Board making the determination that a dog is a "potentially dangerous dog" must notify the owner in writing, giving the reasons for the determination, before the dog may be considered potentially dangerous under this Article. The owner may appeal the determination by filing written objections with the appellate Board within three days. The appellate Board shall schedule a hearing within 10 days of the filing of the objections. Any appeal from the final decision of such appellate Board shall be taken to the superior court by filing notice of appeal and a petition for review within 10 days of the final decision of the appellate Board. Appeals from rulings of the appellate Board shall be heard in the superior court division. The appeal shall be heard de novo before a superior court judge sitting in the county in which the appellate Board whose ruling is being appealed is located.

Go on and see if you can stick your foot deeper into your mouth.

Just shoot the mutt , its quicker simpler safer and cheaper .

No, that's really stupid. It's never a good idea to approve the wanton use of firearms in neighborhoods simply because it's convenient.

And you're dead wrong; people have died from police using their guns for pest control:
http://newsok.com/article/3098884

NOBLE — The first shot was so loud it made the hair stand straight up on Jack Tracy's arm. The bullet hit the water just a few feet in front of the boat dock where he was standing.

Instinctively, he pulled his 5-year-old grandson, Austin Haley, close to his left side and began yelling that there were people down by the pond.

Then came the second shot, and the unforgettable thump of a 9 mm bullet penetrating a young boy's skull.

"It went right through the back of his head and came out the front,” Tracy said. "He was just bleeding severely and I knew, right then, he was most likely dead, right there.”

Tracy thought he and his grandson were under attack by someone trying to kill them both, so he threw the boy into the back of a 4-wheeler and drove to his daughter's house about 200 yards away.

"Then two officers came out of the brush over there,” he said. "They didn't tell us they were the ones who had been shooting or that they had shot him. They didn't admit a doggone thing.”

Much later, Tracy said, he found out one of the officers had fired two shots in the Crest Lane neighborhood, trying to kill a snake that had become lodged in a birdhouse on the back porch of a house just up the hill from Tracy's pond.

Somehow smilies don't capture the tragic reality of how very wrong you are.

I think the issue we're tapdancing around is an NRA-esque mentality about how we have to defend any quasi-remotely-justifiable use of firearms to stave off boogeyman gun bans.

This hasn't got to do with the NRA (the people defending this are likely anti-NRA, whilst I am very pro-NRA and I started this topic) - its got to do with the mentality of certain police to react with deadly force to any perceived threat and the system that will always back them up.

CR

[Crazed Rabbit]

And another dog dies in Texas:

Haltom City officer under investigation for killing dog
By DOMINGO RAMIREZ JR.
ramirez@star-telegram.com

HALTOM CITY — An internal investigation is under way after a Haltom City police officer fatally shot a Jack Russell terrier Monday afternoon while officers were serving a search warrant.

The officer, who was not identified, remained on duty, police said Friday.

But family members at the house where the shooting occurred said Friday that Willy, the 40-pound terrier, never attacked the officer.

"I was sitting on the couch when the door busted open," said Don Burns, 85, of Haltom City. "I heard someone say, 'Everyone on the floor. Police.’ "

Burns said Willy was sitting in a chair, jumped down and stood in front of the officer when he was shot. "It all happened so fast," Burns said. "But he [Willy] never attacked the officer."

Burns noted that another dog in the room, a pit bull terrier named Janie, ran to a bedroom when she heard the gunshot.

Haltom City police Sgt. Terry Stayer said Friday that a preliminary report on the incident showed that the animal was aggressive.

Of course they found it was aggressive! And of course it deserved to die for not cowering and wimpering the instant police burst in, and daring to act like any dog when hostile strangers burst in.

CR

[Veho Nex]

Sounds like a jerk with a gun whos only doing it for kicks and giggles... What we need is police officers who actually do it to help people, not to use excessive force when ever they feel butt hurt

[PanzerJaeger]

I think the issue we're tapdancing around is an NRA-esque mentality about how we have to defend any quasi-remotely-justifiable use of firearms to stave off boogeyman gun bans.

Wait what?

The OP is pro-gun rights and so are many of those who have posted against this kind of shooting. You'll find the evil NRA crowd is quite vocal against the misuse of firearms, especially by agents of the government.

Oh and Tribesman is just reaching to find some sort of hypocrisy in that. Its a far, far reach, but if it can be done, he's the guy to do it.

[Husar]

Meh, it's like it is with animals on a road, if you brake, you lose. Exceptions may apply to elephants, hippos and rhinos.

Concerning them evil SWAT officers storming houses it's either time to stop inviting them by selling drugs/murdering/saying really bad words or it's about time American citizens take the second amendment seriously, get their lazy fat butts off their couches and overthrow the government to reinstate freedom and democracy!

[Ronin]

From my previous link:
"(c) The county or municipal authority responsible for animal control shall designate a person or a Board to be responsible for determining when a dog is a "potentially dangerous dog" and shall designate a separate Board to hear any appeal. The person or Board making the determination that a dog is a "potentially dangerous dog" must notify the owner in writing, giving the reasons for the determination, before the dog may be considered potentially dangerous under this Article. The owner may appeal the determination by filing written objections with the appellate Board within three days. The appellate Board shall schedule a hearing within 10 days of the filing of the objections. Any appeal from the final decision of such appellate Board shall be taken to the superior court by filing notice of appeal and a petition for review within 10 days of the final decision of the appellate Board. Appeals from rulings of the appellate Board shall be heard in the superior court division. The appeal shall be heard de novo before a superior court judge sitting in the county in which the appellate Board whose ruling is being appealed is located."

Just because it´s written in the law doesn´t make it a good idea.......so a cop that comes to a scene and finds a dog behaving aggressively must fill out all the red tape in the world before doing something about it? ridiculous ....you guys over there are a puzzle to me....on one hand you find it natural that all people can have guns...some of you even object to a minimal background check before letting a people buying a gun....but a police officer can´t handle a dangerous dog without 30 volumes of properly filled out documents??

the problem here is that people over humanize their pets.....don´t get me wrong...I love dogs....and on general they are not agressive but I would kill one if it even looked at me or any other human wrong...without hesitation.

I've rescued half a dozen stray dogs who ranged from terrified of me to hostile. I didn't need any special gear, I wasn't injured, and I didn't need to put a bullet into its skull to do it. And I have no special training whatsoever.

the fact that you are willing to risk yourself in such a manner does not mean that the police officers can be expected to do the same.......the simple fact is that if a dog is kept locked up in the owners property or on a leash at all times it can´t endanger anyone and therefore the police would have no excuse to shoot it...if it´s running around loose there´s always a chance something can happen and this is the result of that.

I think the issue we're tapdancing around is an NRA-esque mentality about how we have to defend any quasi-remotely-justifiable use of firearms to stave off boogeyman gun bans.

I don´t see how this is NRA related....the firearms where used by police officers...so I don´t see how it relates. Me myself I am firmly in disagreement with the basic ideas behind the NRA but I don´t have a problem with police officers having guns and using them when necessary.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Meh, it's like it is with animals on a road, if you brake, you lose. Exceptions may apply to elephants, hippos and rhinos.

Or deer, moose, elk, perhaps boar...

[Slyspy]

The interesting thing here is that if the dog had savaged someone while the police stood by doing nothing then context this thread would be completely different, but the message about police incompetence from the OP (and indeed the thread title) would be pretty much the same.

[Husar]

Or deer, moose, elk, perhaps boar...

No, those may damage your car but hitting that tree next to them will not only damage your car.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, those may damage your car but hitting that tree next to them will not only damage your car.

A moose is the worst animal to hit with your car. They have a big, heavy body and long spindly legs. The body goes right through the windshield, almost always fatal.

[Ronin]

No, those may damage your car but hitting that tree next to them will not only damage your car.

The Mythbusters have proven that speeding up in such a situation with such an animal (the used a moose dummy) does not improve your chances.....the moose is still gonna crash with the windshild and dent the roof of your car.

[Goofball]

Wait what?

The OP is pro-gun rights and so are many of those who have posted against this kind of shooting. You'll find the evil NRA crowd is quite vocal against the misuse of firearms, especially by agents of the government.

Oh and Tribesman is just reaching to find some sort of hypocrisy in that. Its a far, far reach, but if it can be done, he's the guy to do it.

In fairness to Tribes, there is some hypocricy here. I recall another thread about a guy who shot two men to death when they were fleeing a neighbor's house with stolen goods. They were running away from the shooter and posed absolutely no threat to him, yet he said he feared for his life and had no choice but to gun them down (in the back, as they ran away) even after the 911 operator he was talking to advised him to just stay in his house and wait for police.

Some of the same people who are in this thread saying the cop should not have shot the dog because it posed no threat to him (even though they weren't there and can not possibly have any idea whether or not the cop felt threatened) defended the shooter in the other article, saying that the fleeing suspects posed a threat to him and he was absolutely justified in murdering them.

But illegal Mexican immigrants aren't cute, soft and furry, so I can see where they are coming from on this one...