TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote:
I am going to give the "mods" a break now ( I know they have been praying for that) and remove myself from the discussion.

Thanks to all who participated, and no hard feelings!

Flint.

KBCraig wrote:

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.

flintknapper wrote:


Wow, I think I know of a park where we can get you a job.




This kind of cool headed logical thinking makes me very secure knowing you are a CHL holder.

Not a personal attack, just an observation my friend.

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.

flintknapper wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:
She was breaking the law in the manner she was handling her dog. She and her dog got what they deserved for such ignorance and irresponsibility on her part. ramble all you want. Make silly long posts quoting what fits your agenda all you want. Nothing you say or post changes that the girl and her dog violated the law. Her actions put a mans children at risk. The man took the appropriate action. Nothing you say or post is going to make anyone who has a lick of intelligence condemn a man for protecting his kids.

Wow, I think I know of a park where we can get you a job.

The dog should have been on a leash...end of story. Oh...if I even see any BIG MUSCULAR VISCIOUS LOOKING DOG running loose in my neighborhood, I get my rifle and go hunting. He doesn't even have to act viscious. he just has to look BIG enough to take out a human.

This kind of cool headed logical thinking makes me very secure knowing you are a CHL holder.

Not a personal attack, just an observation my friend.

KBCraig wrote:

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?

WildBill wrote:This thread is amazing. Two days and 111 posts so far!

A man shoots and kills an illegal alien at night who is running away after stealing a pack of cigarettes from his truck and you want to give him a medal. A man shoots a dog that he believes is going to attack his child and you want to crucify him.

mr.72 wrote:One source says pit bulls are good animals full of all sorts of admirable and lovable qualities, the bad ones are just flukes, and most of the information about pit bulls being bad pets are based on myths.

The other source says pit bulls are basically bad animals, good and lovable ones are flukes, and most of the information supporting their good qualities are full of misinformation.

Looks to me like a classic difference of opinion. Obviously the person who has suffered a pit bull attack has extremely understandable misgivings about these dogs and they don't mince words on their web site. I am not advocating this site, but just saying that it is no more biased than those sites that support pit bulls as benign lovable pets. It's very little different than the obviously in your face web sites written by people who are advocates of self defense and have been victims of violent crime themselves, vs. the generally passive nature of the rest of people who have never been a victim and are apathetic to the whole idea. I figure once you get attacked by a pit bull, you might have cause to change your tune. If you never suffer such an attack then you might not understand why some people are so virulently opposed to these dogs running free.

KD5NRH wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Most of us can fend off a crazed goose without the aid of a firearm.

One of my relatives got a couple of broken hand bones from a goose attack; they have extremely strong wing muscles.

(and no, she wasn't bitten by a m00se later)

"shoot the dog" got 645,000 hits, while "don't shoot the dog" only got 506,000, so there.

BigBlueDodge wrote:I googled "poodle attacks" and came up with 632000 hits. I say we shoot threatening poodles too!!

Also, I googled "goose attack" and it came back with 2,050,000 results, so it appears as though geese are more dangerous than pit pulls. Next goose that starts eyeing me down is gonna have lead chasing him!!