Cowards with guns

[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

[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.