Article: Your dog (who is like a child to you) barks at the officer, who pulls his gun and shoots your pet in the back. Then you watch it bleed to death.
You (Post #45): The cop, likely startled by the bark, and likely in a fit of rage, pulls his gun and shoots the dog in the back. (Your gratuitous injection of non-existent "facts" underlined)
Article: She’s even seen something promising: “Frank Brown signed up and attended the very first training session,” she said. “He wasn’t told to do that but he did it.” (Her opinions, not facts: she has no indication why the officer signed up for the training. I can think of several reasons why that does not indicate sorrow, but does relate to having his way paid for the training, and earning some extra money and atta-boy credits for training other officers to offset his reprimand. But I do not know, nor does she, and neither do you.)
You (this post): The officer, upon his own conscience, decided to apprise himself of how to read and understand the actions and reactions of dogs. (You have no idea what his conscience told him, or what his reasons were for undertaking the training. You flatter yourself for reading his mind and interpreting his thoughts for me. Absolutely presumptuous!)
Your Post #45: Private property, no warrant, owner is not offering any sort of threat or instructing the dog to attack, defend, or retreat. (Nowhere in the article was there any indication whether the officer had a warrant or not, or what the owner did regarding restraining the dog. These are simply assumptions you made and introduced as fact. You expect me not to respond to this gratuitous addition to the tale?)
Without dwelling on other assumptions you or the article have made, here is this:
Your Post #45: I didn’t want to kill the dog or have it put down, it was my fault for misreading the situation. (About the doberman, my emphasis)
My Post #49: ... you have wrongly convinced yourself in another situation that it was your fault that a dog attacked you ... (You did writ this, did you not? That you had convinced yourself that you were at fault was obvious, on the very face of it, unarguable --)
Your retort here: Under no circumstances in any legal or debatable discussion could you state that I convinced myself (an unwarranted assumption based on facts not evident) that I was or was not at fault in a situation involving a pet. (Huh? Not warranted? Come on!)
And:
Your further presumption: Based on your post, and in my opinion based solely on observation, you either do not like dogs ...
You basically have no idea whether I do or do not like dogs, or what experience I have with them. In fact, your bias is so plain that you have trouble separating facts from opinions, and known factors from assumptions. What I said to you before still stands. And I do not like dogs who are ill-trained, who bark and snap and bite as they choose. And I am really not impressed with owners who do not give their animals a fair shake. If you want to know more about dogs' behavior, their owners, and the law, go to http://dogbitelaw.com/statutory-strict-liability-state/delaware-dog-bite-law.html and search through it, especially what the legal term "scienter" means. An owner who does not, or is incapable of restraining his/her animal who is in attack-the-invader mode is responsible for the harm that comes to it.
*scratches head*
You’re one of those FReepers, huh? Fair enough.
Otherwise, you're just someone who enjoys argument for the sake of arguing. I'm not flattering, self-aggrandizing, or otherwise glorifying myself, my position, or my opinion.
You said you wouldn't put up with a loose, ill-tempered dog. This woman was on her own property, and a cop came on to her property to ask about a report of a copper theft. The dog was reacting the way any dog would to a stranger on their turf. The officer and the chief of police mentioned in the article never offered any explanation, so we don't know if the dog "lunged" or was otherwise aggressive.
From my view (this means I'm about to state an opinion), after reading the article linked on this thread (I'm basing my opinion on what was written in the article), a family pet was murdered by a cop for no reason. That's how the article is selling it, that's how I'm buying it.
I don't care about your opinions on my opinions, sir. You said you wouldn't "put up with an attack by a loose untrained ill-tempered dog." There's nothing in the article that indicates that the dog was any of those things. It was on its owner's property. There's no commentary on training background or temperament.