Are You Serious Jo

The problem is you aren't presenting an opinion but as a fact. He was wrong, wrong, wrong. I haven't seen anything from you in this thread other than condemnation and insults to the officer involved, not once have you conceded that you may be wrong. Everything you say rests on the dog being shot in the back of the neck and that this means he was wrong. If you do believe that the officer might have had justification you haven't mentioned that anywhere, just that he was a frightened big girl's blouse. If you are open minded and waiting for details you aren't coming across that way.

I'd say it's not legal to use a cattle prod on dogs.

Its a bit late trying to close the gate after the bull/dog has bolted. Council should have checked the fences as soon as the dog was registered. One day Councils will do the job they're paid for. You're assuming the dog is registered. "Does not have a history with domestic animal services" could mean exactly that. It's not known to DAS because it isn't registered, rather than it isn't known to DAS because it has never attacked anyone before. Seriously, you're kidding. Right?? What is wrong with what j wrote, sounds entirely possible.

Which is why most of us here keep our dogs safely contained, because we know what they are capable of.

Well we nailed it. The only thing missing is the owner running up while he was nomming on a leg yelling don't worry he's friendly.

What do you think they should have done in this case? Get down on all fours and bite that damn dog on the leg?

It was a park, they could climb trees!

I don't think the dog being shot in the neck automatically means that the officer was wrong in his decision. Unless you know the positioning of the dog and a second by second account you cannot tell what happened. Do you have a second by second run down from the officers present? If you don't then you have no way of knowing how it went down. Why are you so confident you are right without all the information?

I'm sure I know how this one goes according to the owner, first time he has ever escaped and would never hurt a fly.

I've already given my thoughts, lack of consideration for others.

There was freedom, it was abused so that freedom was restricted. If you let those people who let their out of control dogs off leash go more places all that happens is those of us who are responsible never take our dogs out. I take it you have never read any of those threads about some $#@@^* having their dog offlead and how it has attacked someone else's dog. It is naive to think just asking nicely will change the entrenched I do what I want and eff you bro attitude we have here. A lot of us don't take our dogs out because of them now, imagine if they were everywhere

But would they be just as out of control if they were allowed most places and had the socialisation and training they required just by a change in lifestyle? Right now most dogs are kept so fenced in, caged up, locked up that we wouldn't have any idea what it would be like to let them have more access and be with their people. I loved being in America as dogs were allowed so many places that we deny them. You make it sound like dogs are required to be kept caged all their life whereas the truth is we have lots of places dogs can go and do. Yet with this freedom it is abused with dogs continually let off leash and other on lead dogs attacked. If those dog owners cannot manage to socialise and train their dogs with the large amount of freedom they currently have what makes you think more freedom will make that change? There is no point comparing us to other countries because we have an entirely different culture, too many people with no respect for anyone else.

Australian dog owners aren't considerate enough for the government to allow dogs to go everywhere. Don't worry he is friendly would be heard everywhere as dogs were chewing on legs or other dogs. We can't even get people to keep leads on. IF people were more responsible I'd like to see dogs able to go more places. Not everywhere because non dog people have rights too. I don't want to be confronted with the nuf nufs we have now with their out of control dogs.

Someone has to teach the Lawyers. The list of the greatest thinkers who ever lived is predominately made up of teachers. Well since you are a high school teacher and not a law lecturer I think my point still stands It might if your lawyer friends have a Masters in Law. So let me see, if you have friends who are lawyers you are qualified to teach law? So since I know Danois and Haredown by default I will absorb their law knowledge and be good enough to teach law, sweeeeeeeeeet! :rofl: Since I have already taught courses at uni it should be even easier for me than you, I'm going to make some calls tomorrow, teaching law here I come!

Someone has to teach the Lawyers. The list of the greatest thinkers who ever lived is predominately made up of teachers. Well since you are a high school teacher and not a law lecturer I think my point still stands

Teachers are also not lawyers.

What about the rights of people who are allergic or are frightened of dogs, don't you think they have rights too? I love dogs but there are times I want to do people things with no dogs. Tralee, do you realise you are arguing law with two solicitors now? You clearly don't understand the laws they are discussing. If I were you I'd be listening closely because you are getting some good hints on how to keeps your dogs safe and you out of trouble.

You do know Danois is a solicitor don't you Tralee. I'd say she has a better grasp of law than you, in fact I'd guarantee it.

I don't think any of the dogs should be allowed in, there are places dogs just don't need to go.

Tralee, you are aware that dogs have killed people right? A dog that size could inflict a great deal of damage and ruin that officers career permanently if it grabbed him in the wrong spot. We aren't talking about fluffy baby kittens but a large very powerful dog that caused enough concern that the officer shot him. he has to go through the wringer and he knows it because he discharged a weapon, they don't do it lightly. Climb a tree, are you for real

Well judges go by the spirit of the law too, they are the ones that decide outcomes. If you don't believe me look it up. I won a civil case based on the spirit of the law so have first hand experience on a small scale. The officers coming to your place might have had something that wasn't important enough to argue with you over, so they didn't push it. edited for derp

As it's a simple and correct explanation I'll paste a quote from the dreaded wiki, "The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording."

BlackJaq, look up the spirit of the law, it explains why you cannot always take the literal legislation as absolute in all cases.

Where you there Jed? If not, how can you know exactly what happened?

Time will tell. I did :) - having only skimmed the thread it made me go back and check what had been actually been written (it seems rather rude and childish to alter someones words when quoting, so I wanted to clarify what had or had not been said) Someone on the internet offended me. Oh the horror!Fact is there a A LOT of corrupt police officers who lie through their teeth. That's common knowledge. Before you put words in my mouth. I said a lot, not all. ;) You're probably trying to stir the pot but your "fact" I don't buy into much :laugh: Of course I am. :p But just google and check out some youtube vids. You'll find your evidence there. ;) Do you know the difference between having an opinion and claiming something as fact? You made the claim that police were corrupt and you had evidence, youtube videos :laugh: And news reports on google. Don't twist my words. I'd love to see your evidence that no police officer EVER has never been corrupt. :) Seriously, reread your own posts. So where did I say that there are no corrupt police? I never said that, I objected to your initial accusation that all police are liars. No one has said there aren't corrupt police, don't start making things up because you are embarrassed about your posts.