With pit bulls, the only way you know if they are going to attack you or not, when they run up to you wagging their tail, is whether they sink their teeth deep into your leg and start thrashing like a shark to use their body weight to help rip away chunks of muscle (with or without your femoral) so I am slowly beginning to understand why a police officer might shoot a pit bull that is not secured and approached him. Now if that pit stayed in place and didn’t approach - then probably unjustified unless the man was using the dog as a weapon (preparing to flee using the dog as a weapon to keep the officer in place.) I’d need to know more but I believe it is likely that this shooting was legit. That’s my way of saying you shouldn’t have to “prove” a pit is going to attack you by letting it grab your flesh and unfortunately, pits are bred not to warn you that they are about to attack you.
So pit bulls should be shot on sight?
Congratulations, you just won the dumbest post of the month award.
This is classic pit bull attack (video link below). This is when I started thinking it may be justified to harm a pit bull running up to you. The videos I’ve watched often show a dog running up with their tail wagging, and then the tail wags faster while they rip and tear. So with this video, if someone shot the running pit bull, waging it’s tail, pit lovers would be saying “He just wanted to play. He LOVES children!” By the time the dog is ripping the child apart - too late.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOmW4BBdi1s
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!
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 .....