TexasCHLforum.com

Here's an unrelated blog from a Fort Worth cop, dealing with pits.

http://cowtowncop.blogspot.com/2008/08/good-dog.html

TB820 wrote:I just found this site this morning,

Welcome! Hope you stick around; this is a great place to learn about CHL matters.

This is so cut and dry, i cannot believe there is this much discussion about it.

Apparently it's not, because there is.

flintknapper wrote:Hmmmmmmmm,

Anyone other than me think that the photos here suggest a different "trajectory" than first reported?

Looks to me like he was just nicked.

If he being barked across the snout made him run off, it strengthens my opinion that this was not a vicious dog in attack mode.

Right2Carry wrote:

flintknapper wrote:Hmmmmmmmm,

Anyone other than me think that the photos here suggest a different "trajectory" than first reported?

Appears to be an entry wound on the dogs right side, I can see no clear exit wound...but a "blood shot" eye on the opposite side suggests a shot taken from the side or an angle.

http://www.empiretribune.com/articles/2 ... 719923.txt


Doesn't really "jive" with first reports. But who knows........

You're grasping at straws and speculating over photo's that don't show squat. Stop trying to defend the actions of an owner who didn't have her dog on a leash. You have proven your point that you value a dog over the life of a child.

I'm not flintknapper, but I take great umbrage at the insult you've just issued him. He has never defended the owner for having her dog off a leash, and he's certainly never shown the least hint of valuing dogs over children.

You have gravely insulted the man, and you owe him an apology.

mr.72 wrote:

KBCraig wrote:and, the unlikelihood, given the details as reported, that this was an actual attack.

That is all.

Of course it was not an actual attack. It was a prevented attack.

If it was a prevented attack, then the dog was attacking until shot. Under the circumstances as reported, Todd Jarrett needs to go ahead and retire, because Chili can recognize the threat, draw from concealment, fire a single shot, and hit an attacking dog in the head.

The_Vigilante wrote:Let's see. The officer shot the dog in the head at almost point blank range with a .40 Caliber. And the dog survived!!! What does this say about the stopping power of the .40?

It says nothing at all. It was apparently a glancing shot that hit nothing vital. The same shot with a .50 BMG would have had the same effect.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

KBCraig wrote:It's obvious that people have cemented within their minds their own internal movie version of what happened, and they refer to that version in support of their stance.

Further discussion seems pointless.

To some extent, I agree on this. I differ in that I believe it has to do with the desire to protect ones children from harm. Those of us that have children we love and want to protect, can invision ourselves in the same situation and would not be willing to put our childrens safety over a dogs safety.

Thank you for an example that makes my point. Your "internal movie" of this incident tells you that anyone questioning whether this was a good shoot, must love dogs more than children.

I have five children, thank you, all of whom I love and want to protect. I also have five dogs. I have never argued against protecting one's children; I would shoot any dog, including my own, who attacked a child.

My argument has been based on a couple of things: the likelihood of being attacked by one breed over another; and, the unlikelihood, given the details as reported, that this was an actual attack.

That is all.

It's obvious that people have cemented within their minds their own internal movie version of what happened, and they refer to that version in support of their stance.

Further discussion seems pointless.

KD5NRH wrote:

“One of the boys ran and the oldest boy backed up against the fence and was trying to wave Jackson off,” Reyes said. “I could tell he was terrified of dogs.”

The boy, based on *her* description of the event, was in a panicked state out of fear that *she recognised* as being caused by her dog, yet she chose to do nothing at that point.

Huge supposition on your part. It sounds like you believe she ignored the situation completely, when it was most likely one that was rapidly unfolding. Just how many minutes do you think passed between Chili yelling at her, and firing a shot? Or was it seconds instead of minutes?

By "chose to do nothing", do you mean that she started up the slope to get her dog, but didn't reach it in time? Turned her back? Opened her mouth to answer Chili's demands, only to find he already had a gun in his hand?

You don't know. Don't pretend this was just some polite rational debate, where we can analyze people's words at our leisure.

IMO, this, and the fact that she was previously dwelling on Chili's failure to identify himself as an officer, point to her not caring enough to do anything as long as she thought she would face no consequences for her inaction. After all, the only difference I can see between a peace officer and any other concerned father in this situation is that the peace officer can cite her for the violation, while anyone else would only be able to yell at her.

Whether it was an unidentified peace officer, or just a concerned father, the owner was still facing a big angry man with a gun in his hand. Being cited or yelled at would be the least of her concerns.

Given Chili's (and his children's) obvious fear of dogs based on their appearance, perhaps he should be more aware of people's prejudices and fears. For instance, many people would be frightened of a big, bald, black man yelling at them with a gun in his hand. Would you advise her to approach this unknown man in order to retrieve her dog?

mr.72 wrote:That may be unbiased data, but it is purely anecdotal and there are numerous anecdotal accounts of people mauled or killed by pit bulls.

And those numerous anecdotes are outnumbered by accounts of people being mauled or killed by other breeds.

KD5NRH wrote:"He shouldn't have reacted so fast" when the dog was already within arm's reach. Great thinking there.

I have found no reference to the distance in either of the posted articles. Where did you read that it was "within arm's reach"?

I am pretty handy with a pistol. Having played Longtooth's "shoot the dog" game at the range, I am confident that the dog was not behaving aggressively, because the officer hit it with one shot. A moving dog is just too difficult a target to hit.

I also find it a shame that this man has raised his children to be so terrified of dogs -- and they obviously learned it from him.

As I mentioned earlier, my wife is a groomer, and has been for over 15 years. When we were discussing this story last night, she pointed out that the only breed (group of breeds, actually) that has never bitten her, nor even tried to bite her, nor acted aggressive at all while in her shop, has been pits. Allowing, of course, for statistically significant raw numbers -- she's also never been bitten by a Dogue de Bourdeux nor Irish Wolfhound, having only had one of each as a customer. She's handled hundreds of different individual pits. The greatest threat from them has been undocked tails -- they wag so furiously that it's like getting slapped across the thigh with a sjambok.

Leaving aside the dogs most likely to successfully break skin (Shih Tzus and Pomeranians), and just looking at dogs big enough to do serious damage, then Golden Retrievers, Collies, GSDs, Malinois (a highly trained Arkansas State Police K9, at that), Australian Shepherds, Malamutes, Siberian Huskies, Samoyeds, even lovable lugs like Great Pyrenees, have all tried to do mayhem to her, me, and/or employees. And some of them weren't just mad about the nail trim, some actually wanted to rip out throats.

Once again, let me point out that we've never owned any pit nor pit mix, and have no plans to. We're not defenders of the faith, just trying to speak the truth. (Speaking of, why isn't this dog being called a boxer?)

So... from a source that is biased neither towards nor against pits, there's some impartial data for you.

flintknapper wrote:And just to clear things up... in case anyone is wondering: I do not own any pit-bulls, never have and never will, but not because I believe them to be the "devil dogs" that some here espouse.

Same here. I've encountered dozens of them over the years, what with my wife being a groomer and both of us generally being "dog people".

The biggest kick I get out of people's visceral reaction to "pit bulls", is that the majority of the time they couldn't identify a pit if their life depended on it. Any time a stocky short-hair dog bites someone, it's attributed as a "pit bull attack", even when it's just a mutt.

See if you can spot the pit bull:
http://understand-a-bull.com/Findthebul ... ll_v3.html

Statistically speaking, there was most likely only one person there that day with a gun. Isn't it odd, then, how the dogs weren't a threat to anyone except that person's kids?

http://www.politickermd.com/robtornoe/3 ... ges-police



I don't know if the shooting was justified. But I am certain that the official police response would be quite different if the shooter was Joe CHL, or Joe Unlicensed. Justification is justification regardless of the shooter's legal status, but you can bet the official response would be different.