Dog shot in city park

[flintknapper]

As you can see, it's not a great place to be approached, especially with the dog coming up from the water. There is a gate in that fence well out of frame to the right, but it's too far away for kids to have any chance of outrunning a dog to get to it, and if the dog made it in too, they'd be corralled with it.

As a correction to this, I checked again today, and all gates on this side of the tennis courts are locked, eliminating that option. It's hard to tell in the photo, but the slope to the water is pretty steep, and the water is fairly deep there, so trying to run that way would have been risky as well. The netting on the chainlink also makes it more difficult to climb than normal, so just climbing out of the dog's reach would take more time than they had. The sidewalk itself is wide enough for two people to comfortably pass, but they were effectively trapped in a navigable area of about six feet wide and 180-240 feet (three or four tennis court widths) long.

I think we all agree this spot offered no good opportunity for the boys to retreat (assuming they even had time). In fact, I think the older boy (who stayed still) did the correct thing if he thought he was in danger from the dog.

The feeling of being "trapped" would only add to the Lad's distress as well as to that of the Father.

That is part of the reason I say I can easily envision the dog approaching from below (he would have run up the hill as dogs do), the boy(s) (perhaps being fearful of dogs) had a bad reaction to it and the Father following parental instincts shot the animal (even though there MAY not have been any real threat).

Now, that is a lot of supposition on my part I know, but I still am having trouble understanding why this dog would have targeted the children unless his intention was to go play with them (not attack them).

This would certainly explain why the owner didn't "turn herself inside out" in trying to stop it. She was probably standing there in disbelief or trying to assimilate what all the ruckus was about.

[flintknapper]

edit: duplicate

[flintknapper]

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.

[KD5NRH]

I don't see anything in the story that would lead me to believe she was doing nothing? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Seems unlikely that she wouldn't mention it if she was doing anything, or that the paper which has so far been pretty sympathetic to her would leave that part out if she did mention it.

And what "injury" do you suppose would befall a young healthy boy standing on a sidewalk next to a tennis court, come on........

He could try to climb the fence; the netting makes it difficult, but not impossible, and fall. He could try to lash out at the dog, causing it to defend itself. He could try so hard to shrink that he actually becomes a small black hole (hey, it's almost as likely as the bullet missing from that angle and hitting a child on the playground) which would cause the entire Dallas city council to condemn him.

I don't see what difference this should make....but thought it odd that she brought this up as well.

I'd also think the fact that she didn't recognise him as such speaks volumes against her observation skills; she's supposedly been walking the dogs at the park for months, which indicates she's been here for at least a semester, Chili is very outspoken, (He used to also be the only LEO in the county with Tazmanian Devil and Bugs Bunny body armor covers, courtesy of my granmother's sewing skills. Not exactly the sort of personality that blends in.) he's the only black LEO in the county, there are only a few officers at Tarleton, only a few blacks in the area, and, as granddad used to say, "if Chili was about two inches taller, he'd be round." He's not an easy guy to miss on campus, and usually the only cop students know by name within a month of arriving.

[flintknapper]

Seems unlikely that she wouldn't mention it if she was doing anything, or that the paper which has so far been pretty sympathetic to her would leave that part out if she did mention it.

IIRC she is reported to have been calling the dog and it turned back toward her, that is not exactly inaction...but perhaps not aggressive enough action given the circumstance. Anything else is supposition on your part and mine.

He could try to climb the fence; the netting makes it difficult, but not impossible, and fall. He could try to lash out at the dog, causing it to defend itself. He could try so hard to shrink that he actually becomes a small black hole (hey, it's almost as likely as the bullet missing from that angle and hitting a child on the playground) which would cause the entire Dallas city council to condemn him.

Yeah.

I'd also think the fact that she didn't recognise him as such speaks volumes against her observation skills; she's supposedly been walking the dogs at the park for months, which indicates she's been here for at least a semester, Chili is very outspoken, (He used to also be the only LEO in the county with Tazmanian Devil and Bugs Bunny body armor covers, courtesy of my granmother's sewing skills. Not exactly the sort of personality that blends in.) he's the only black LEO in the county, there are only a few officers at Tarleton, only a few blacks in the area, and, as granddad used to say, "if Chili was about two inches taller, he'd be round." He's not an easy guy to miss on campus, and usually the only cop students know by name within a month of arriving.

You understand...I am not questioning the mans character or his popularity in the community, I googled his name and did a little research. I have no doubt that if I met him we would get along fabulously.

I only wonder (in this case) if he possibly over reacted in regards to this shooting. I am not trying to denigrate the man in any way.

I don't know if he owns any dogs (perhaps you know), I don't know if he has a fear of certain dogs (perhaps you know), I don't know if his children have any exposure to dogs or how they feel about them. Lots of unanswered questions that may have a bearing on what happened.

One thing is certain though: The girl should have had her animals restrained. She claims she did not know about the leash law...but it is incumbent upon her to know and observe park rules and city ordinances concerning animals.

I am NOT a person that puts the welfare of a animal above that of human safety. You will never find me personifying animals either. But, I do properly value them and recognize that as their stewards we owe them proper care, training, and should not abuse them.

Now, we can take this discussion into how different people view dogs in general. We can discuss the possible effects of regional influences, ethnicity, cultural lines, socio-economics, educational levels, etc....that might have an influence on how a person perceives dogs. But, it would serve no useful purpose in this case.

IMO, mistakes were probably made on both ends and hopefully all have learned from this unfortunate incident.

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.

[03Lightningrocks]

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.

Your comments bring to mind a trailer house with broken down cars all over the yard. Rebel flags for curtains and a toothless old man sitting on the porch drinking cold beer. Also not a personal attack my friend. Just a logical observation.

But back on topic again. Here are the facts.

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.

[Sport Coach]

My two cents: I had a moment when a dog came from a front yard at my son, a baby in a stroller, and me with high intensity barking and charging behavior. It was a beagle-sized and type of dog. I stepped between the dog and my son and the dog moved into the street around me, toward the stroller. I knew in an instant I'd do anything to protect my son. The owner was just out of sight but heard the barking and called the dog which, luckily for all involved stopped the dog's charge. In about 2 seconds the dog looked again like a playful pet but I'm quite convinced of what its intent was just moments before. I'm siding with the officer who shot the dog.

[flintknapper]

Your comments bring to mind a trailer house with broken down cars all over the yard. Rebel flags for curtains and a toothless old man sitting on the porch drinking cold beer. Also not a personal attack my friend. Just a logical observation.

Somehow....I already knew that.

[KBCraig]

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.

[03Lightningrocks]

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. There is no dog on this earth worth the risk of any child having to go through life with their face ripped off. This situation is the very reason Cities have leash laws. People who truly care about their pets would show this by obeying the laws.

[03Lightningrocks]

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.

Just responding in kind to your post flintknapper. Nothing personal.

[WildBill]

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.

I think the reason dog threads get so heated is that discussion is really about people who love their dogs. The issue I see is that the people who own or have owned pit bulls [or dogs that might be mistaken as pit bulls or other large dogs with big teeth] believe that their dog would never attack another person without being provoked or otherwise justified. To me it is analogous to a parent's feelings about their own children. They can't imagine that their child or could "go off" and hurt someone. It would reflect on themselves as a parent.

I have seen a four year old girl who had her face literally ripped off by a doberman. The little girl "provoked" the dog by trying to pet him while he was eating. The dog turned around, took a chunk out of the girl's face, and then calmly turned back to his bowl to finish his dog chow. My friend kept the doberman until his dog started growling and showing his canines to him.

Even though I just threw out another provocative statement, I also agree with KB that further discussion seems pointless.
Anygun summed it up pretty well when he said "all dogs will bite."

[Venus Pax]

Obviously there is a fine line between necessary deadly force and animal cruelty.

[KBCraig]

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]

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.

+1