k6gixx wrote:
Have you ever played a game of tag or chase with a dog? If not then you have no idea how hard it is to stand in between a fixed object and a mobile animal. "
Yes I have. I have owned and interacted with many dogs (mine and others) for more than 50 years, so I am somewhat familiar with what they are capable of.
Dogs, especially medium sized agile dogs like a pit, have extremely fast reaction times. They can make 2 moves to every counter you throw at it.
No question about it.
Add in the factor that the children, being children, most likely were not sitting stationary.
The article states the officer claims his children were "pinned against the fence". That rather suggests they were stationary to some degree (if not totally).
These factors make it almost impossible for an individual to "get between his children and an aggressive animal."
The reason I asked this question to begin with was to establish the location of the officer at the time of the shooting (something I would still like to know). Also, to try to understand why the dog would continue any aggressive behavior if now confronted by a much larger grown-up when supposedly the target was the children. I also find it curious that the dog(s) are not reported to have bothered anyone else or the numerous ducks or squirrel that someone graciously submitted...but instead chose a group of children? Doesn't make sense.
What does make sense to me is that the dogs were playing in the water below the children....spotted them, and approached (not unusual for social dogs). The children and the parent quite possibly "freaked out" and the whole incident resulted in a shooting. Is that possible?
Now, I am NOT saying that you don't have the absolute right to defend yourself (or others) against an obviously aggressive animal (pit-bull, poodle, whatever). I am just questioning if this was really case here.
Another thing that concerns me is where the shot was taken from. If the dog was on the sidewalk and the officer was on the sidewalk then he was either between his children, shot over their heads, (or was on the tennis court shooting through the fence). The chance of the bullet ricocheting off the concrete in the event of a miss is excellent (but acceptable is the need to shoot really existed). If the shot was taken while the dog(s) were down hill and the account in the paper is wrong about the sidewalk then I applaud the officer for at least taking that into consideration.
There is just too much about this story that doesn't add up, combined with the obvious fear and outright hatred of pit-like dogs (as clearly demonstrated here) makes me think there is more to it.
My primary concern would be trying to discern what the dog was doing, not noticing where my children were in regards to the animal.
According to the claims of the officer the dogs were very close, you couldn't help but notice both. But, if you didn't know where your children were in relation to the dog then it seems a patently bad idea to start shooting.
The only thing I would be more worried about would be making 3 white dots align horizontally on the dogs head.
This would be the preferred shot when attempting to stop an aggressive animal.
Kudos to the officer for acting to protect his offspring.
And my support also IF that is what happened.
Well there you have it. I have changed my mind. I would wait for my child to actually be attacked and mauled before shooting the dog. You guys have convinced me of the error of my ways. I now love vicous attack dogs. Especially the ones bred specifically for fighting and killing other dogs. What did it was the analogy to crazed geese. 
