megan_ Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 If I was the beagle's owner and my dog landed up being attacked while an officer "rang someone else to deal with the dogs" I'd be ropeable. Police struggle to keep up with crime, now they need to be experts on canine behavior too? Did anyone even read alyosha's background on these dogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaves Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Yes Flaves that is sad. But is the beagle injured? Is it maimed and dying in the background while we all worry about the welfare of the offending dog? Which would've been dispatched asap. We need to have a think about where our compassion is aimed here. Loose dogs in the act of attacking animals and rushing people, on those people's own private property. Having been there, done that and taken too many hits from too many ratbag dogs, I would have no hesitation in shooting first. No way a cop or ranger should have to risk serious injury to themselves, anotehr person or another animal to protect the welfare of an attacking dog. The dog attacking sheep analogy still holds. Who here would question a farmer shooting dogs in a sheep paddock? Yet so many will question this. And so little concern voiced for the beagle... Oh i totally agree. I dont have an issue with the dog being shot. Just how it was done, it didnt seem to be a 'clean' kill for want of a better term - that is what i found sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I dont have an issue with a dangerous dog being shot. Once. To end its life. In this situation i find it very very sad. Not only did that dog get shot twice it was still alive and in pain This Policemen should have to have a better shot than that?? They're not carrying sidearms designed to drop powerful large dogs. My guess is that was part of the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Her Majesty Dogmad Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I'd have been out there defending my dog, I wouldn't have left it at the mercy of these dogs. It is unclear what they did to the dog but it was obviously distressed. I'm sorry that the officer didn't make a clean shot, he did a very poor job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 He did yes, but pistols are pistols and not highly accurate like longarms. What he did was let fly a couple of fast body hits to bring the animal down and stop it escaping so that it could be destroyed with a closer and cleaner shot. And yes, if that was my dog being attacked I would be out there doing anything I possibly could to stop them, which would likely be even less humane in that short time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluedeer Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 It's happened during the day so the police officer might have seen young kids around on properties close by did what he thought was his only option with a "vicious" dog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
❤LovesPoodles❤ Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Why on earth was there not a animal control officer there with a catch pole? Seriously. Or if the police were aware of the situation they were going to why not take darts with them? Shoot them with those and not a bullet. (I too have not watched the video footage) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackdogs Posted February 28, 2012 Author Share Posted February 28, 2012 Because resources rarely match up to daydreams. Or to television based expectations. If two large stray dogs were in your backyard, attacking your dog, and keeping you from walking out of your back door to help it, would you be wanting to wait for a catchpole? Seriously? A dog at large, that attacks - which normally by law includes "rushing" - another animal or person is liable for destruction. So the policeman's actions are upheld by law. Would you do your utmost to stop that immediate aggressive behaviour and try to help the poor victim dog? Or are you going to allow that behaviour to continue while you play soft and cuddly games, and the offending dogs potenttially escape to attack something or someone else. Not one of the people here condemming that cop's actions in shooting the attacking dog has voiced concerns over whether or not the victim dog may have been injured, whether mortally or not. That is a very disturbing thing indeed. These dogs and their behaviour should not be defendable. Yes their owners are to blame, but like already said, they are not there to wear the immediate consequences of being shot. efs The dogs were only mildly interested in the Beagle and there was a lot of play behaviour shown. A dog in high prey or aggression drive will normally be more focussed on the 'victim' and more apt to dispatch it. The Beagle was vocalising in fear when the brindle dog apporached for play. This all indicates to me that it's doubtful there was an attack on the Beagle. Sure the Beagle was frightened, and so were the men in the house, but I don't think is reason enough to shoot. I disagree that the dogs' actions are not defendable. It all seems fairly normal and dog-like to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackdogs Posted February 28, 2012 Author Share Posted February 28, 2012 Because resources rarely match up to daydreams. Or to television based expectations. If two large stray dogs were in your backyard, attacking your dog, and keeping you from walking out of your back door to help it, would you be wanting to wait for a catchpole? Seriously? A dog at large, that attacks - which normally by law includes "rushing" - another animal or person is liable for destruction. So the policeman's actions are upheld by law. Would you do your utmost to stop that immediate aggressive behaviour and try to help the poor victim dog? Or are you going to allow that behaviour to continue while you play soft and cuddly games, and the offending dogs potenttially escape to attack something or someone else. Not one of the people here condemming that cop's actions in shooting the attacking dog has voiced concerns over whether or not the victim dog may have been injured, whether mortally or not. That is a very disturbing thing indeed. These dogs and their behaviour should not be defendable. Yes their owners are to blame, but like already said, they are not there to wear the immediate consequences of being shot. efs Woah, was that all aimed at me? I just don't understand why the police were called first instead of an animal services officer. Surely such a serious situation would have warranted them getting out there pronto. Not trying to be cute and cuddly, just trying to see the logic. Crikey. :laugh: The internet is serious business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaves Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 They're not carrying sidearms designed to drop powerful large dogs. My guess is that was part of the issue. a gun can kill a person. It can certainly kill a dog if the shooters aim is good. What a silly thing to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackdogs Posted February 28, 2012 Author Share Posted February 28, 2012 If I was the beagle's owner and my dog landed up being attacked while an officer "rang someone else to deal with the dogs" I'd be ropeable. Police struggle to keep up with crime, now they need to be experts on canine behavior too? Did anyone even read alyosha's background on these dogs? Aloysha's 'background' was simply a hypothetical. They should have just dispatched more appropriate authorities in the first place if police were unsuitable. I don't think they need to be experts in canine behaviour, but a little basic training wouldn't go astray. A little common sense would be helpful as well. He could have at least observed through the window (the dogs were casually sniffing around the yard at this point) and asked the home occupiers a few questions before charging on to the scene with his gun drawn. He was ready to shoot regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackdogs Posted February 28, 2012 Author Share Posted February 28, 2012 Why on earth was there not a animal control officer there with a catch pole? Seriously. Or if the police were aware of the situation they were going to why not take darts with them? Shoot them with those and not a bullet. (I too have not watched the video footage) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I agree. It's that kind of flipant mentality towards the life of a dog that I dislike. Dispatching an inexperienced person with a gun and no other appropriate tools can only end one way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jade~Harley~Bella Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I'm not going to watch the video. It's a little too disturbing for me. But going off the comments here why did the owners of the beagle not remove it from the situation and contain the two offending dog in the back yard and await animal control to remove them? I know a beagle breeder and these dogs are extremely vocal dogs. The only time I feel shooting a dog is necessary is if it is physically attacking someone/something. If this was not the case then the officer shouldn't have shot the dog twice IMO. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I'm not going to watch the video. It's a little too disturbing for me. But going off the comments here why did the owners of the beagle not remove it from the situation and contain the two offending dog in the back yard and await animal control to remove them? Out of fear for their own safety from the look of it. It is also not clear there was any way to safely contain them in the yard. The Beagle may have been tethered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I wonder if people would be happy to pay extra registration? To fund the instant-response Team Pitbull Crack Squad. Dog getting ripped apart by a Pitbull? Don't call police, they are useless with dogs. Don't call council, too slow. Call Team Pitbull. JUst post your call for help here, and the Team will be on the case ready to defend the Pitbull and explain how it is only just playing a game. Then they will tie a pretty pink ribbon around it's neck and simply remove it from the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOE Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 the only thing I see wrong is the officer should have shot it in the head with an instant kill, and the owner should never be allowed dogs again. dogs and I mean any dogs that do that are not needed in society. friggin irresponsible people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 They're not carrying sidearms designed to drop powerful large dogs. My guess is that was part of the issue. a gun can kill a person. It can certainly kill a dog if the shooters aim is good. What a silly thing to say No it's not a silly thing to say at all. Majority of police sidearms use ammunition designed for maximum punch and minimum penetration. Police are taught to shoot centre body mass, whether animal or human the aim is to bring it down and stop the immediate threat, not a clean kill shot. I like Greyt's idea! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) They're not carrying sidearms designed to drop powerful large dogs. My guess is that was part of the issue. a gun can kill a person. It can certainly kill a dog if the shooters aim is good. What a silly thing to say Know a lot about firearms do you Flaves? Where's the "kill shot" on a big dog with a 38 police issue revolver(pretty sure it was a revolver he used)? Please dont say the head. Dogs skulls are far stronger than ours. Dogs also don't stand upright, displaying their vital organs for a police officer trained to put a shot into the torso to get a fatal shot. They are also not really good at comprehending "stop or I'll shoot". He needed a high calibre hunting rifle - he didn't have one. Results were what you saw. FYI no police force I know has tranquiliser darts and rifles or the skill to estimate the appropriate dose on an animal at large in public. Generally only a vet would have that skill. Tasers on the other hand? Very useful in these situations and they are used on dogs. Edited February 28, 2012 by Telida Whippets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvawilow Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 This is an old one, get over it. Oh the poor dog, tough luck. Attacking and roaming dogs are a bloody public nuisance and impact all responsible dog owners. Does anyone here know the story? Do you know if that was a one off attack? Or is there a vast range of possibilities involved? ;) We need to think with our heads and not our hearts. Agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I wonder if people would be happy to pay extra registration? To fund the instant-response Team Pitbull Crack Squad. Dog getting ripped apart by a Pitbull? Don't call police, they are useless with dogs. Don't call council, too slow. Call Team Pitbull. JUst post your call for help here, and the Team will be on the case ready to defend the Pitbull and explain how it is only just playing a game. Then they will tie a pretty pink ribbon around it's neck and simply remove it from the situation. I have to say I agree here, my experience with animal management officers has been less than impressive, that's not to tar all with the same brush, there are some excellent rangers out there, but I have encountered some who know less than nothing about dogs and their body language/behaviour. If the police officer was worried for the Beagle and the people in the vicinity, then I don't really see what other choice he had. It's very easy to judge when you aren't the one standing there wondering if you don't shoot this dog will it then go on and really hurt another person/dog? Also, in my experience Rangers either take quite a while to attend or cannot even come out at certain times, so who knows if they called them and were told it would be a half hour....so they're going to just let these dogs terrorise their dog till the ranger arrives??? Don't think so. Very sad situation and obviously the fault lies with the owner of the two roaming dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now