I did not mean to imply you don't care about your children. My sentiments are that I don't care what kind of dog it is. If I don't feel I can imediately over power it in the case of an attack, I will immediately revert to deadly force. Pit bulls just happened to be the example on this thread. I would react quickly in the case of a doberman, german shepard or a mut that looked tough and muscular. Just like the officer in this situation did.KBCraig wrote:03Lightningrocks wrote: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.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.
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.
To use the word movie, implies fake as if it is not a real threat. A pit bull terrior is a REAL threat...not a movie.