Posted on 01/18/2014 11:04:19 AM PST by nickcarraway
A Jennings resident claims one of his pit bulldogs was shot to death for no reason by a Jefferson Davis Parish Sheriff's Deputy.
Jeff Davis Sheriff Ivy Woods told KPLc that the shooting happened Thursday as a deputy was on a call in the area where Jacob Authement lives. The deputy was responding to a complaint from neighbors about four-wheelers being driven in the area.
(Excerpt) Read more at greenfieldreporter.com ...
Bred to not warn you they are about to attack. Made that one up, did you?
I’m not a supporter of pit bulls, but even I know that many are quite friendly.
bootlicker ping!
I have only been bitten once after decades around dogs and that was when I was about six years old and stepped on the dog’s tail. Bite release = Get OFF my TAIL! This is domestic dog behavior WHEN they bite. Pits go hunting. I’ve read so many accounts of the pit bull breed or crossbreed maiming and killing people because the dogs “got out.”
Yes, because not warning of attack is a strategic advantage. I first read about this when reading of an animal behavior specialist investigating a pit bull that had mauled someone. As he approached the fence where the pit bull was penned, the dog bounced forward, bowed and wagged it’s tail - the way dogs invite you to play. Bow and wag, bow and wag, playful little bounds. The behaviorist drew close enough to the fence and was gesturing friendliness when the dog launched at the fence trying to get to his face while snarling and trying to rip the fencing apart to get to him. And the behaviorist said “That would work. In a pit fighting scenario it’s the sneak attack.” He went on to say that the problem with pits is that they lie. Other dogs signal their intent - even a dog trying to steal snacks tends to give itself away by its behavior. But pits lie and the ones used to fight tended to die quick (leaving fewer offspring) than the ones who lied well and reproduced for more years. Oh I know that not every pit lies - but it is impossible to tell them apart until someone is maimed or dies.
corrections to clarify text:
Yes, because not warning of attack is a strategic advantage. I first read about this when reading of an animal behavior specialist investigating a pit bull that had mauled someone. As he approached the fence where the pit bull was penned, the dog bounced forward, bowed and wagged it’s tail - the way dogs invite you to play. Bow and wag, bow and wag, playful little bounds. The behaviorist drew close enough to the fence and was gesturing friendliness when the dog launched at the fence trying to get to his face while snarling and trying to rip the fencing apart to get to him. And the behaviorist said “That would work. In a pit fighting scenario it’s the sneak attack.” He went on to say that the problem with pits is that they lie. Other dogs signal their intent - even a dog trying to steal snacks tends to give itself away by its behavior. But pits lie and the ones used to fight and revealed their intentions tended to die quick (leaving fewer offspring) than the ones who lied well (sneak attack) and reproduced for more years. Oh I know that not every pit lies - but it is impossible to tell them apart until someone is maimed or dies.
ping
was that pit bull one that had been “trained to fight”?
If so, then it is not indicative of all pits
I don't know.
I strongly suspect that it is the result of indoctrination to blindly accept the authority claimed by someone in a position of authority as pushed by our public schooling system. — The acceptance of the War on Drugs (WOD) illustrates this perfectly.
The federal government claims the authority by way regulating the intrastate commerce which comes from its regulation of interstate commerce… it even accepts that non-commerce can be regulated by the interstate commerce clause — this completely ignores that the similar federal prohibition on alcohol required a Constitutional amendment. Oddly enough, though they claim the authority via the interstate commerce clause there is no notice that the full clause cites the power as the same regarding foreign nations: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
This means that the power to regulate interstate commerce is the same power as to regulate commerce with foreign countries. This in turn means that the actions the federal government does to enforce their intrastate commerce ought to be regarded on the same level as if they tried to do it in a foreign country: this would be an act of war, and it's enforcement would be the waging thereof. — The constitution defines this as a crime: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Therefore, to support the WOD is to support treason against the States. — I have never encountered a coherent defense against this argument because to do so is to defend the indefensible.
(The above mentality is also illustrated in things like the particulars of Fast & Furious, as well as the [lack of] consequence to those responsible for it.)
The police state is here even if they legalized ALL drugs.
This isn’t happening because of the sweaty night dreams of WOD, we are growing a tyranny in this country.
Good grief. Calm down. You’re scaring the horses.
You said the following, some of which are just idiotic and some of which are just untrue:
1) Pits will run up to you with their tails wagging and attack completely unprovoked;
2) Officers are justified in shooting pits simply for approaching them regardless of temperament;
3) Officers are justified in shooting pits simply because it can’t be proven that they won’t attack; (!!?) and
4) Pits are bred to attack without warning.
I have two questions - first, how is any of that misinterpreted, and second, how are you not a moron?
I didn't say that the War on Drugs was the cause, I said that its acceptance is illustrative of the problem.
Or do you disagree with the line of reasoning: that the acceptance of injustice "because they're in authority"1 is not a/the problem?
Do you disagree that this blind acceptance of authority is taught in our schools?
Do you disagree that the self-justification of usurped powers2, even to the literal point of treason3, is not a problem?
1 — Respect my authority!
2 — The exigent circumstances
exception to the absolute requirement of the 4TH amendment, for example.
3 — The equipping of drug cartels in Fast & Furious, the legal protections given them by the DEA and FBI, etc.
Great analysis and so very true.
Not enough info to call this one.
The dog has a right to it’d territory
The officer has a right to hid life.
The officer has a duty to retreat if practicable
If not .....
Coming from people who think denying a 12 year old pot is tyranny, I don’t take them seriously
Who mentioned a 12 year old?
My argument was based purely on the proper authority in the matter, the Constitution.
If my reasoning is wrong, I welcome you pointing out the flaws.
My God man, how did you EVER do your job without shooting some vicious, out of control, natural born killing land sharks?? BTW my brother, a street cop of 23 yrs, has dealt with dozens of dogs(including ‘pits’) he wasn’t sure of. Has not shot one yet. Secret——pepper spray.
So is mace and pepper spray but try using them on a cop and see how many times he shoots you. Your analogy does not hold up when rational thought is applied. As a long time dog handler I have used a dog (less than deadly force) to distract and detain someone so I can deploy deadly force.
Cops have a right to go home every night whole and undamaged. All cops do not make good decisions in every situation, that is true. Another absolute truth is that they are not going to just do nothing and let their ability to defend themselves be compromised when responding to a a violent or unknown situation.
Last night just down the road from us there was an attack by two loose pit bulls on a calf. The livestock owner saw the attack, attempted to stop it but was unable to, went back into their house to retrieve a firearm but the pit bulls left before they could get back out to where the calf was. This all happened in about one minute. I would post the pictures but they are very graphic and gruesome but the are on face book. The pit bulls ripped off both ears, half of the calf's face and nose and large chunks of mussel from it's body. The calf had to be destroyed because of this pit bull attack.
As soon as they find the pit bulls who savagely attacked this calf they will be detained by animal control and put down unless the owner can convince a judge to decide otherwise. The owners of these dogs will be held libel for the cost of the calf and will face very expensive fines. I will predict here and now, and for the hundredth time, that this will happen again. There will be more attacks on animals and people by pit bulls at a rate that greatly exceeds that of any other dog breed. Anyone want to bet???
Well, that was a different thread.
You are correct, no where in the Constitution does it say you can not keep children in the basement for sex, therefore there should be no federal law against it.
Isn’t that the libertarian argument?
I wonder which will be the first state libertarians and leftists will legalize pedophilia in?
Isn't it also the Constitutionalist's argument?
Amendment Xand James Madison's?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
— James Madison, The Federalist No. 45
Why do you insist on taking my claim "X is not legitimately a federal matter, not supported by the Constitution" to mean "no law respecting X should exist"?
The two are vastly different statements.
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.