The Glade 4.0

I don't know enough about dogs to answer that. Sorry, I forgot which breed we are dealing with in this video. I don't know how much damage this particular dog is capable of causing, whether it is a particularly aggressive dog, a muscular dog, etc...

Perhaps the officer has a fear of dogs; there are many people that do. If that were the case, his first instinct is to protect himself using the most direct method possible. Too much is being assumed by everyone watching this video.

I know that if I were being attacked and carrying a weapon, I would not stop to determine if the attacking dog is capable only of lacerating wounds or mauling me to death. I would shoot it dead before it had a chance at either. I would have to say that I am slightly afraid of large dogs, especially if they are barking agressively, more especially if they were to be charging at me in a threatening manner. There would be no thought other than how I could best incapacitate said dog. Were I carrying a weapon, BANG, dead dog.

Humans (especially myself) first. Dogs come somewhere after that.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

Population density if anything probably had an inverse relationship to the likelihood of owning a dog. I mean how many rural houses don't have a dog? And where do county sheriffs do their work? I'm gonna say it's pretty likely that he's run into tons of dogs.

I have no idea how much damage the average attack causes, but I believe that any damage is too much to expect someone allow themselves to be subjected without defending themselves with whatever force they believe necessary. The owner of the dog doesn't get to decide how much of an attack I experience before I defend myself to the fullest extent I'm capable, you don't get to decide, and a judge and jury doesn't get to decide, I do.

And, I believe every woman and man in this world has the right to make that same decision for themselves. If folks want to let themselves be mauled by an animal without using lethal force to protect themselves, good on them, but I consider the dog in that video capable of mauling someone pretty good, so I'd have shot it too, before it got that chance.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I should also say that I believe the owner of the dog has some culpability in this situation as well. IMHO dogs should be trained so they don't act like hyperactive retards when a visitor comes up to the house.

This post made me LOL.

Hyperactive retards...

...and yes, very true. We also, don't know the motivation of the homeowner. Some people sic their dogs on anyone that sets foot on their property because that is just the way they are.

We don't know if the woman said "CHOPPER, SIC BALLS!" before letting the dog out of the house. If that were the case, you can be damn sure I would have had my weapon drawn and ready. We have no idea what happened on that end. Why was her dog running free (whether agressively or not) when someone was walking up to her house. We can only see what the video has captured.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

I don't disagree, all else being equal, but when all else isn't equal, I arrive at staggered priority list. In this case, it goes something like this:

1. Prevent death of human.
2. Prevent major injury of human.
3. Prevent death of dog.
4. Prevent moderate injury of human.
5. Prevent major injury of dog.
6. Prevent moderate injury of dog.
7. Prevent minor injury of human.
8. Prevent minor injury of dog.

I think in most cases (including the situation shown in the video) where a dog charges an average-sized adult man, the risk is most likely of a minor injury to the human, with a plausible chance of a moderate injury and only an outside chance of a major injury. As a result, I think a response causing major injury to the dog is usually, but not always, unwarranted, while a response causing the death of the dog is unnecessary/inappropriate in all but the rarest of cases.

Do you have the same view with respect to humans attacking other humans? Should lethal force be allowed in response to any assault or only to assaults that reach some threshold of seriousness/danger?

This depends entirely on the individual. Me, I disagree completely, because I am not going to subject myself to a minor dog bite so I can preserve the life of someone's dog.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

If I had commented on what the officer should/shouldn't think then your comments would be a valid counter. As it stands, I've only addressed the actual comments, by posters, on this board. Characterizing it as an "attack" is prejudicial and highlights the bias brought into the discussion by said posters.


I don't disagree, and would further say that I don't believe you don't need to think your life is at risk to use lethal force on a dog.



Foamy, I'm sorry you feel that way.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

It's pretty subjective, but one should always plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Given an attack by a stranger or a strange dog, and given that I didn't knowingly provide provocation, I'd use lethal force as quickly as possible, pretty much as a rule of thumb. I'd have no expectation of them ceasing their attack were I to submit to them, and I'm of the opinion that if someone is going to come to a rude awakening, I'd rather it be thee than me.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I'd use lethal force much more readily on a human than a dog. I know that a human is capable of killing or causing great bodily harm to me nearly instantly. I know that a dog would have a damn hard time, and need a lot of it, to do the same.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Don't get me wrong, I don't plan on going out and killing dogs if they so much as sneeze at me.

What I am saying is that, dog attack impending from a large enough dog (IMO, no one else's), I am not going to stop to think whether or not I can fend off said attack with only minor injuries. Attacking dogs scare me and, if the option were available to me, I am going to shoot the dog dead.

Dogs =\= Humans

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

Like I said, I'm sorry you feel that way, I can understand it, but I'm sorry nonetheless. I'm not trying to be snide here, but I'm guessing that you aren't very familiar with dogs or firearms?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Don't hate cause you've got a huge dog... or a tiny anus.

_________________

I don't mean to be offensive to anyone in particular. That said:

Anyone believing that deadly force is necessary in a situation where a dog runs up on you is a **** pussy. It's a dog. It's what they do. In a rural area, there is absolutely no reason to expect a dog to be restrained at all times on the property. It's absurd, and this cop can lick my balls.

My malamute is only 105 pounds, but she can pull my car out of a ditch if she really wants to.

She's probably on the large side of medium...

That is the second stupidest thing I heard today. Because a dog is a dog and it's what they do, I shouldn't fear them. I'll feel like I damn well please. If a dog is attacking me, I will defend myself the best way i have available, period.

Also, I am sure, were I in the situation, I could tell the difference between if a dog was "runnin' up on me" and attacking. To call someone a pussy because they fear an attacking dog is pretty stupid.

So with your bullshit disclaimer aside, I take offense to being called a pussy.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

To fear a dog when it's not attacking is pretty stupid.

Also, Foamy, I'm not sure that it matters what you would have done in this situation. You might feel threatened and a gunshot might be a reasonable response to you at the time. That said, you're no officer and they are trained to keep their cool no matter the situation, and there was nothing stopping this one from getting back into his car if he felt threatened. Dogs don't just run up to you when they're threatened by your presence, they give a warning first. You know, like crouching down and growling, showing their teeth or putting back their ears. You can't just come onto someone's property and kill their dog when it comes up to you.

The officer **** up and should be punished. Even if you think it was within his rights to shoot the dog, it still doesn't mean he should have.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Today I learned that any level of force is justified by a personal perception of any level of threat.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I have not seen anyone ask yet...

Why is it okay to shoot and kill the dog outright, when a taser would have been really god damned effective?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I perceive a personal threat from any police officer.

WHEEEE!

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville