Posted on 04/27/2010 2:17:16 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
>>This is a bad article that’s short on facts<<
Fact, dog off leash.
Anything can happen.
The question is, what DID happen. Not a lot of people quoted in the article. No angry neighbors. Curious.
For the record, I’m a man who can get misty-eyed over a dog. That being said, I am also a firm believer in the owner being totally responsible for the behavior of his dog, whether Rover bites someone or poops on a neighbor’s lawn.
I love pits. I have akitas.
I take ten times the precautions with them that I would a regular dog, because I know the legal ramifications.
I’ll sometimes sit on the porch in the middle of the night with them about five feet from me. And I watch the street like a hawk to make sure no one walks down it. That’s the limit of their unleashed freedom. They are good and obedient but that’s part of having a guard breed.
If I had a pit, as sweet as it might be, I would never, never, let it anywhere without a leash.
Finally! Someone to take over the ping list.
Here ya go... the list and graphic is all yours....
>>The question is, what DID happen<<
What DID happen was the woman had her precious pup running the streets and the cop felt threatened enough to shoot it.
I’ve threatened Wasp spray and Bear strength pepper spray on a dog off a leash and if a dog charged me, you bet your butt, I’d shoot it before it got to me.
I think the officer exercised a good deal of restraint. I would have emptied the clip.
The Clarksville Police Department has launched an internal investigation to determine if the officer made the appropriate choice.
>>The question is what DID happen?<<
The dog was running free, unleashed.
Officer was called to the scene with a report of terrorizing children. I’m sure there is a record of that call.
Watch the film. The dog’s injury was non-life threatening. And if you think that anyone from that neighborhood is going to stand up for an officer over a neighbor, you haven’t been in the inner city recently.
If my husband was that officer, he better protect himself. You may not like the idea that the pitbull is “profiled”, but I can tell you that the officers who have to see drug dogs ever day, they ARE a threat. It has to be proven otherwise.
If she didn’t want her dog hurt, she should have restrained him.
Police don't know who the kids were.
>>Police don’t know who the kids were. <<
I’ll bet the caller didn’t either, but the police got a report that a dog was attacking kids.
Would it be better that they just ignored that?
Were there any kids?
>>Were there any kids?<<
There was a call to the Police Department stating so.
The Police have a job. They answer calls and respond with the information given to them.
The call came in that a dog was attacking kids.
The officer was rushed by an unleashed dog.
So you want him to take the chance of being mauled, understanding the information he was given and look around for the kids? What if the kids got away and he was the next target of the dog? He did his job.
The dog has a non-lethal wound. From the look of it, the owner didn’t even have it treated. No stitches, no bandage.
This owner needs to control her dog. Problem solved. He could have been hit by a car, attacked by another dog or even shot by a civilian.
Control your dog, you don’t have any problems.
So? No kids. No mad Mamas.............
>>So? No kids. No mad Mamas............. <<
Huh?
Me neither.
The question is what DID happen? Where are witnesses?
Goodnight.
>>The question is what DID happen? <<
No, the question is, when did ESP become part of a police job?
Ya don’t need CSI to figure out when a dog is running at you, you need to act.
Again, where are the angry mamas? Were there any kids?
This story lacks details. Lousy job of investigative reporting. But it said the magic name: Pit Bull.
I am done. Have a Good Night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.