“There has never been a documented case of a dog killing a police officer” [Video NSFW]

“The same can’t be said for police killing dogs,” seattletimes.com opines. “According to the National Canine Research Council, up to half of the intentional shootings by police involve dogs. Sometimes, the animals have been injured and need to be put out of their misery. Sometimes, they are vicious and killed for reasons of public or officer safety. But mostly, they die tragically and needlessly, victims of misunderstanding, prejudice or simple convenience, according to animal-rights and behavior experts.” I wonder if the cops’ hit ratio is as piss poor as it is for two-legged perps. [Although not in this case above.] Mike Carter’s story is decidedly pro-dog and anti-cop, based on a deeply disturbing August 2011 Department of Justice report The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and  Encounters. To which Carter adds the local angle . . .

The Seattle Police Department requires a Firearms Review Board to convene and formally review any incident involving an officer shooting at a person. However, it allows for a less stringent “summary review” of incidents involving dogs, said Becky Roe, a Seattle attorney and the civilian auditor of the SPD’s Firearms Review Board.

Roe said she has not seen a Firearms Review Board report involving a dog shooting in the six years she’s held the job, but that she has no information about the summary reviews. Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said he had no information about dog shootings outside the shooting-review process.

King County sheriff’s Sgt. Cindi West said it has been difficult for her office to track shootings involving animals, since up until just recently, deputies were not required to write a separate report about such incidents. She said all of the shootings are reviewed by command staff.

“It certainly happens,” she said.

Well that’s reassuring. In a nation of dog lovers, training cops to safely deal with dogs makes an awful lot of sense. Because failing to do so is just plain awful.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

139 Responses to “There has never been a documented case of a dog killing a police officer” [Video NSFW]

  1. avatarChris says:

    The people are more worried about the rampaging pitbull than the guy lying unconscious or dead on the sidewalk.

    I’d call this one arguably justified. But, what a messed-up country we’re living in.

    Edit: Even more strange to me is that the video requires a log-in to view directly from Youtube because of “mature content,” yet the comments (which I wanted to check for more info about the incident) are rarely censored and are very often far more offensive than any video I’ve ever watched.

    • avatarDavid W. says:

      http://eastvillage.thelocal.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/police-shooting-star-the-pit-bull-was-justified-plus-video-of-the-aftermath/

      Appears to be a good shoot. Dog has a history of biting people and the dog was over protective of its owner. Sad that it happened…. But it happens. I don’t fault the dog or the cops. Both were doing what they thought was best.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        If you look at the 2nd “aftermath” video in the link above, there’s a scene I like. Starting about 35 seconds in, there’s a guy whose car is apparently blocked in by all the police activity. He’s trying to get help getting unblocked, unsuccessfully. One of the cops says he’s “making it difficult.” Citizen responds, “I’m not making it difficult, I gotta go…” and continues to press the issue until the cop says, “Have a seat in your car. Have a seat in your car your car or you’re gonna get arrested.”

        If you wonder where some of the negative attitude toward law enforcement comes from, it’s from stuff like this. “Move along, nothing to see here.” “But officer, I can’t move along. You’ve got me blocked in.” “Silence, fool. Do not question me.”

    • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

      If you look at the video you’ll note that NEITHER officer does the tactical-double-over-the-shoulder-scan-for-additional-threats-before-re-holstering-maneuver. They need training on this or they’re going to get killed. For all they knew the decedent canine could have been part of a well organized pit bull gang, and there could’ve been anywhere from 4-12 additional pit bulls waiting in the wings to attack the officers when they were experiencing tunnel vision after a shooting.

  2. avatarJohn says:

    So…you’d trust some scumbag to give his mutt all his necessary shots and allow the dog to take a bite out of you? Right…

    • avatarTTACer says:

      “There has never been a documented case of a dog killing a police officer”

      • avatarHal says:

        TTACer, don’t be retarded. The laws of individual states may vary, but generally speaking if you can articulate that you reasonably believed that you would suffer serious bodily harm then you have a green light to use deadly force. It’s the same reason a perp with a club will get shot. A club CAN kill, but more than likely it’s just going to injur you badly. The same goes for a dog and I can assure you there are many documented cases of dogs causing severe lacerations and wounds. I love dogs as much as the next guy… I have three. I also agree that training should be provided to help identify dog behavior in order to reduce or eliminate unnecessary use of force against dogs. However, just because a dog has never killed someone doesn’t mean cops should have to put up with being bit.

        For the record, I am not defending those agencies that serve warrants on incorrect addresses and end up shooting dogs. Those folks should be sued to bankruptcy. I also believe cops should save that option until they really believe they are about to be bit. Too often cops get loosey goosey with the trIgger with dogs. Something must be done.

        • avatarTTACer says:

          “if you can articulate that you reasonably believed”

          If I am on that jury then the standard for “reasonable” is going to be pretty high FLAME DELETED.

          How’s this for “reasonable”?: “There has never been a documented case of a dog killing a police officer”

        • avatarDon says:

          Because they shoot them. see, guns work! Duh.

        • avatarRob says:

          By that logic you must also agree that there are no documented cases of a naked man that eats faces killing a cop, so the officer that shot and killed Eugene in Miami must have been totally unjustified.

          “There has never been a documented case of a dog killing a police officer”, but there are many documented cases of a dog killing a person. Seeing as that dog was in a public area, being aggressive and even made a lunge at the woman before charging the cop, it is completely reasonable to take down the dog before it harmed someone.

          The cops aren’t just there to protect their own lives.

        • avatarTTACer says:

          Rob-I would bet any amount of money that there is no documented case anywhere ever, of ‘a’ dog killing a grownass man. Maybe a pack of dogs killing a passed out drunk, but never in the history of canines and humans has a solo dog killed a man who was awake.

        • avatarRob says:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

          On that list are plenty of infants and advanced senior citizens, but also a fair amount of people in thier formidable years, I suppose this qualifies as “grown ass”.

          Seeing as how in the video there are a couple of senior citizens, a somewhat petite woman, and a woman walking with her son, the grown man theory only could really apply to the officers. But since the officers are supposedly sworn to protect these idiots milling around a potential threat…, I mean innocent bystanders, they are all potential targets if the dog is aggressive.

        • avatarRob says:

          There is an entry on Wikipedia that lists the fatal dog attacks in the U.S. I would like to link it but this comment section automatically flags it as spam.

          On that list are plenty of infants and advanced senior citizens, but also a fair amount of people in thier formidable years, I suppose this qualifies as “grown ass”.

          Seeing as how in the video there are a couple of senior citizens, a somewhat petite woman, and a woman walking with her son, the grown man theory only could really apply to the officers. But since the officers are supposedly sworn to protect these idiots milling around a potential threat…, I mean innocent bystanders, they are all potential targets if the dog is aggressive.

        • avatarRob says:

          That being said, I don’t agree that shooting a dog is always the answer, especially when most times the way the officers are handling the situation worsens the dogs behavior.

        • avatarTTACer says:

          Rob

          I stand (write?) corrected. On that list of 248 fatalities there are nine that may have been a single dog killing a man between the ages of 20 and 70.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Hal, the speed at which flames are removed is determined largely on who’s reading when they go up. In this case, the middle of the night, things slip through.

          One can argue that you threw down the gauntlet with your “don’t be retarded” comment, which some find very offensive (though I personally don’t care.)

          If you see something particularly egregious that isn’t addressed, email guntruth@me.com to make them aware of it.

        • avatarTTACer says:

          @ Hal

          I turned myself in to the site owner.

        • avatarHal says:

          Matt,
          I’m aware. It’s just at 12 hours it was getting a little silly because in the past I’ve seen less offensive comments deleted at 2500 Fps:)

          TTACer,
          That was darn noble of you. Consider my previous negative sentiments and comments retracted. Additionally, please accept my apology for stating ” don’t be retarded.” It’s common speak and not considered offensive in the circles I live and work in. However as Matt pointed out it is offensive outside those environments and I should have been more considerate.

          Good day and good shooting to both of you.
          Hal

  3. avatarshawmutt says:

    “…But mostly, they die tragically and needlessly, victims of misunderstanding, prejudice or simple convenience, according to animal-rights and behavior experts.”

    You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t run out with a picket sign and protest as a result of a shoddy article short on facts and big on appeal to emotion. If an unknown, unleashed large dog approaches me, my (secured, leashed) dog, or my children, it won’t end well for the dog. I have no way of knowing what to expect. I’ve been approached by a dog all wiggling and friendly only to try to take a chunk out of my hand for moving the wrong way (fwiw it was a yellow lab).

    There may not be a document cases of cops being killed by dogs, but people do get killed by them every year. Of course, it’s easy to e-rage when the story of the faithful family pet gets put down by the popo. “She never hurt a soul!” It’s always the same unsubstantiated story.

    • avatarBm9 says:

      Ive never heard of lethal force being justified solely on not knowing on what to expect. Lethal force is just that and with all the rigorous training these professionals undergo, I expect better judgment than defaulting to the gun since it is only a dog. To me criminal damage to property sounds about right.
      More people die in their recliner every year.

      • avatarChris says:

        My question to your statement about lethal force is, do you really think that a dog’s life and rights are equal to a person’s? I ask this because yes, we have to prove lethal force was absolutely necessary in an altercation with another person, but if I have to take a bite on the arm before I put down a charging rottweiler, I have a serious issue with the way you feel.
        Dont get me wrong, I like dogs company more than some people’s but I dont think that providing them the same level of right and protection is normal or intelligent.

      • avatarRob says:

        “Ive never heard of lethal force being justified solely on not knowing on what to expect.”

        So, if I wave a gun the police can’t shoot me because they’d be presumptuously expecting me to shoot?

  4. avatarJohn Fritz says:

    Did I see that right? Did cop A damn near shoot cop B (or God knows who else) with that Hail Mary trigger pull?

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      yes sir!

    • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Yup.

      Nice situational awareness.

      But hey, look on the bright side: If Cop A had hit Cop B, I’m sure that both of them would have enjoyed a taxpayer-funded vacation while an “investigation” was performed… and then they’d be back on the job.

      That is, unless Cop B snuffed it.

  5. avatarPYROhafe says:

    Ok… you don’t know the dog, so you shoot it…. at least finish it. Why let the dog die a slow death?

    • avatarDarren says:

      Hard to kill anything much faster than that GSW. I was actually impressed at how fast the dog was non-operational. I mean, bad that it got shot but whatever duty load that is was seriously effective unless it was a CNS hit.

      Also, bad enough to draw and fire in a public place in the middle of the street with no backstop, a few degrees off-aim and the PO may well have point-shot the guy laying on the ground into the afterlife. Shooting again to “put the dog out of his misery” just risks another injured bystander.

  6. avatarOldLawman says:

    Sorry guys, but virtually all of the police-dog shootings I read about involve scared/poorly trained/trigger-happy cops shooting dogs like Labs. Again, a bunch of wusses. Are there times when an officer truly needs to put down a vicious dog, they probably could not hit them, even given the close ranges involved.

    At my training group, composed in large part of retired officers like myself, the universal sentiment is that the current breed are more afraid than brave.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      How did you deal with dogs? Would a billy club work well on them?

      • avatarTTACer says:

        Sound off like you got a pair? From Bal’mer to South Asia I have found that yelling at the mutts like you are in charge generally engenders compliance. Despite being threatened by feral dogs of all shapes and sizes over the years the last time I was actually bit (spoiler alert, I did not die) was when I was 12 and it was a Lhasa Apso.

      • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Simple: You act like you’re in charge.

        This is basic pack behavior 101. Want to impress a dog? Act impressive. Hint: Shouting “Respect mah authoritah!” doesn’t cut it.

        I once commanded a dog who was a law enforcement K9 to do what I wanted, and not what his officer partner wanted the K9 to do… because I act like the Big Dog. The deputy clearly didn’t have the situation under control.

        Boy, did I ever get an earful of attitude from that sheriff’s deputy. I calmly explained that I know German, and knew that the dog was Schuetzhund trained… and that the deputy’s pronunciation of the commands was unintelligible to me, and I studied German for years. Little wonder the dog couldn’t respond.

        Response? More attitude.

        Are you guys beginning to see why I’m not so charitable towards cops? I’m paying for this incompetence. I’m from the private sector. If I’m paying for someone to do something, they do it correctly or they’re out the door. I’m long since fed up with the institutional incompetence in law enforcement. They can’t command a dog – when there are millions of kids across this country who can, fer chrissakes? Sorry, you’re fired. No donuts for you. No pension, either.

        Months later, I learned that they shuffled the dog off to some other LE agency after it had bitten nearly everyone in the sheriff’s office. I thought it was a nice dog, but they jerked it around on the leash like it was a puppet, then slapped it silly when it misunderstood what they wanted it to do.

        I didn’t find it humorous to hear that the dog had bitten so many people – it was likely later destroyed after the abuse it took at the hands of his “masters.”

        • avatarRydak says:

          Lol..what id you have it do that the officer could not have it do? What, did it balance your checkbook for you on command or something?

          That officer most likely lives with that dog at home and he is his master. Like most K-9 officers do. To assume that because the dog recognized the language of its native trainer and showed a response to you is not a good indicator that the officer did not have total and complete control of the dog.

          And even further, if that dog, even for a second , thought that you were a threat to it’s master, it would have torn you from limb to limb while the officers watched and consumed mass quantities of jelly donuts and DD’s coffee (De-Caffeinated of course)

          Yea, I can see it now, you getting ripped to pieces while screaming (perfectly pronounced) commands in German.

          PS: No it was not destroyed, that dog prob represents about 10 to 20k worth of budget.

        • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          I commanded the dog to lay down and be quiet.

          The deputy couldn’t maintain control of the dog. It was lunging to get off the lead.

          The dog was brought into the town to sniff for dope at the local high school.

          Want to know who was busted for dope?

          Said deputy’s son. Quietly hushed up, of course.

          All of the above also factors into my assessment of cops. They’re corrupt to the core, and those who aren’t cover up for those who are.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Would a billy club work well on them?

        Michael B, as a former dog trainer who worked with so-called vicious dogs, I can answer that question.

        Yes, a billy club works on them. A sharp rap on the muzzle between the eyes and the nose will quell almost any dog, except perhaps rabid ones.

        I used to carry a length of insulated telephone cable for this purpose. Because it had a bit of flex, it caused no injury while providing powerful persuasion. When the alternative is killing the animal, a solid rap on the snout is much more humane, wouldn’t you think?

        • avatarHal says:

          You see, if we had actual SMEs to train LEOs in techniques like this we could reduce the number of dogs who are shot. I would love to see training for:

          1) Observing and interpreting canine behavior. Thus distinguishing normal scared dogs behaving normally from those relatively few dogs that do need to be shot.

          2) Intermediate force as applied to canines. We might have to use what’s on hand (ie a baton) but Ralph’s trick sounds a lot better than shooting a dog even, if it’s performed with a baton. Same goes for the use of tasers and other devices.

          3) Use of force with dogs secured within a private property. If you’re running through a secured yard in pursuit if a fleeing BG, in that dog’s turf, your rules of engagement had better be different. As in, no blood, no bullet. The dog is in his yard and even though you may be doing the right thing by cutting through, you can’t just roll in and shoot a dog who was lawfully secured in its home property.

          What other training would you guys recommend in these instances?

  7. avatarGood bye says:

    COMMENT DELETED

    ED: I’ve noted your remarks but deleted them as off-topic. Please send comments about TTAG’s editorial stance or style to guntruth@me.com.

  8. avatarWLCE says:

    its a pitbull. the officer was completely justified.

    couldnt wait for animal control because it was a medical emergency.

    i certainly wouldnt attempt to contaminate everybody with pepper spray that has no guarantee of working on a vicious animal like that or using a taser. Going toe to toe with a pitbull is also idiocy. A well placed bullet was necessary.

    • avatarpat says:

      Bingo. Shooting justified. Dont own pitbulls. You can hit youtube and see for yourself some situations where these dogs go chomp chomp on people. I am an animal lover and understand there are instances where the cops are trigger happy jerks who kill the mutts without reason…..this aint on of them.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        people just dont understand pitbulls. the irony in this is that it is usually the owner that is ignorant.

        they are bred to bite and fight to the death. they are also bred to feign friendliness while intending to lock sink their teeth into your flesh.

        any naysayers just do some research and compare pitbull bites to the bites of a rottweiler or german shepard. completely different.

        • avatarchris says:

          it’s all in training. all I have ever had its pits and rotts and they have all been the sweetest dogs. My pit was the biggest lap dog I have ever owned. Most people with untrained or poorly trained dogs also have untrained or poorly trained children….. I know which one I think is scarier.

        • avatarTTACer says:

          Exactly! Just like how Spot on the Little Rascals ate all of the little rascals.

          “they are also bred to feign friendliness while intending to lock sink their teeth into your flesh.”

          I am pretty sure that a dog does not have the capacity for object permanence, let alone deception.

        • avatarpat says:

          Of course, much of it has to do with training and or monstrous owners. But, the dogs have a genetic physical and psychological predisposition to inflict instant and potentially catastrophic harm to those around them (only an effing lunatic would have one unsupervised around young children).

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “I am pretty sure that a dog does not have the capacity for object permanence, let alone deception.”

          http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/08/triggers-what-prompts-pit-bull-to.html

          really? i think you dont know much about pitbulls.

        • avatarBuuurr says:

          Completely. Anyone who has been on a pig hunt with a pit bull as the lead knows this to be true. All the other dogs go round and harry the pig. Pit bulls go straight at them, face to face.

    • avatarMike S says:

      In this case, I have no problem with what those officers did (aside from a REALLY dicey shot- good thing it worked out), but it has nothing to do with the dog’s breed. The officer who fired rightly judged that the other officer was in danger. The fact is, this dog did what many dogs would do in a similar situation. He protected his master. What happened is tragic, and it should be recognized as such regardless of breed.

      I own a pitbull. I volunteer at a shelter full of dogs, better than 2/3rds of them pits at any given time. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that I’ve never felt the need to shoot one. Not even once.

      In my experience, (and the experience of most anyone with knowledge of the breed) they are no more likely to act aggressively than any other dog in an apples-to-apples (i.e. similar history of treatment) comparison.

      • avatarJean Paul says:

        ….except you are totally wrong. Pit Bulls are bred to fight, which is DIFFERENT than any other “dangerous breed”. Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, and German Shepherds all have a long genetic history of being working dogs. Pit Bulls are bred for game, and generation of generation of breeding the most “game” dog has created an animal with high aggression and a high pain tolerance.

        No, they’re not supposed to be aggressive towards people, because a fighting dog who attacks people in the ring is pretty useless—-but irresponsible owners can turn the breed’s aggression towards animals toward PEOPLE.

        You are just like every other pit bull owner—you think YOUR personal experience trumps fact and history.

        Are there good pit bulls? Absolutely. Does the breed have a history of being bred for violence and owned by the dregs of society? Absolutely.

        • avatarBuuurr says:

          +1. I agree. Deciding to be ignorant to what you own is silly. I’ve a friendly tiger to sell. Who wants him? He only gets mad when hungry ( he’s always hungry).

        • avatarMike S says:

          Hence my statement about apples-to-apples comparisons….but you were too busy with your little speech to notice that I guess.

        • avatarPaul W says:

          You’re…ignorant. I don’t know another way to put it. A lot of the best dogs I’ve known are pits and pit mixes.

          They used to say a lot of the same crap about GSD’s and rotts, and I grew up with those.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Plott hounds are also bred for game — big game like bears and more recently cougars out west — yet I can think of very few breeds that are as people centric and gentle as a Plott. Good game dogs generally make the best family pets.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “You are just like every other pit bull owner—you think YOUR personal experience trumps fact and history.”

          exactly. +1000

      • avatarBuuurr says:

        “Mike S says:
        December 4, 2012 at 08:59
        Hence my statement about apples-to-apples comparisons….but you were too busy with your little speech to notice that I guess.”

        Yeah, hence apples to apples… hah! Except there are no apples, Mike. Pit bulls are known for attacking children unprovoked. 90+% of attacks on children are unprovoked. In unprovoked attacks other dogs average around 40+%. Citing what many trainers and people with smarts will tell you. Do not leave your dog alone with a child ever. In the case of a pit bull, do not have a child is a fair argument. Other numbers show that in cases involving children being attacked the doctor can flip a coin against all other breeds and still come up with a 50% chance of it being a pit bull. Not good odds methinks. It should also be noted that the majority of these attacks are on ones own family, not strange kids or people out and about.

        Pits ARE more likely to act aggressively. Why do you dispute that the best dog for dog on dog fighting that has been bred to fight is a gentle creature? Are you in denial? Doctors, cities, research and even the pit bulls own DNA makes a case against you.

        Hey, Mike? I have a raccoon to sell. He isn’t dirty but won’t stay out of the trash.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          burrrr,

          LMAO!!!!

          excellent post

        • avatarMike S says:

          Why do I dispute it? Real world experience. My experience is not with one dog. I’ve likely, through my shelter experience, known more pits than you will ever know dogs in your entire life.
          Do some arrive beyond any hope of ever being a pet? Unquestionably. However, here’s where the apples-to-apples thing comes in. What has the dog experienced so far?
          I’ve seen pits come in after having been subjected to sh1t I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy, only to wag their tail when you approach. Sadly, it doesn’t always end that way. Can their fighting instinct be harness by terrible people, and turned on humans? Yeah. It generally takes a lot of encouragement.
          Ignorant? Hardly. I know PRECISELY
          what a pitbull is. The hard thing to wrap my head around sometimes, however, and I have learned it through the dogs, is what some
          people are.

        • avatarbeanfield says:

          “90+% of attacks on children are unprovoked…In the case of a pit bull, do not have a child is a fair argument.”

          The argument is not logical. A statistic that states “90+% of attacks on children are unprovoked” (if true as it’s not cited) is not necessarily the same as a statistic that states “90+% of pitbulls attack children” (which seems to be what you’re inferring). It’s no different than people who make a claim that the vast majority of mass shooting events involve “large capacity” magazines. While that may (or may not) necessarily be true, the vast majority of “large capacity” magazines are not used for mass shootings.

    • avatarEO Guy says:

      So it was dangerous because it was a pitbull ? If you look at the video when the dog is standing on the curb looking at the officers it is wagging it’s tail. Does that look like agression to you. Also saying it is dangerous because it is a pitbull is like saying you could justify shooting someone based on their race or skin color.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        While the dog was initially wagging its tail, when it decided it didn’t appreciate the proximity of the older lady, and subsequently the officer, its tail was decidedly not wagging.

  9. avatarjwm says:

    This video was too short to get the full story on what was happening. But regardless of what my official status is if a pit bull is coming straight at me or another person I’m going to pepper spray or shoot until the dog stops.

    I love dogs. I really do. But I love my fat ass better. Sorry guys, but there’s times if I was in that position I would fire. Near my sister’s in Georgia a couple were killed by a pack of strays. Gotta be a terrible way to go.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      I have no problem with them taking out vicious dogs that are running around and legitimately endangering people. I have a big problem when they raid the wrong houses and blast fido. Or run through a person’s backyard chasing a criminal and shoot a completely innocent family’s mutt. Or kill a dog on a leash after tackling its owner to the ground for being outside his house during their search of the area.

      Kick ‘em, spray ‘em, hit them with an asp or billy club or whatever you need to do but lethal force should be a last resort.

      I know from speaking to a deputy with our local Sheriff’s Department that they don’t even have to write up a report if they shoot a dog. It’s ridiculous.

  10. avatarI_Like_Pie says:

    From what was shown on the video…it was a good shoot.

  11. avatarAl says:

    Maybe there are no cases of cops being killed by dogs because all cops are armed.

  12. avatarBrent says:

    Based on an update story, the dog survived:
    Star the Dog Survives After Being Shot

  13. avatarMark says:

    Law enforcement officers have the right to use leathal force an anyone, or any animal that he/she deems could cause serious bodily injury to that officer (or anyone else) and not necessarily causing death.

  14. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    Apparently some people have never owned or been around a well trained pit bill. I raised them around my kids and grankids for years and never ever had a problem with them around my kids or grankids.
    Any dog can be mean if mistreated or improperly trained. Most of the time the aggressive dog is that way because of the owner.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      Pitbulls are actually great family dogs and Im glad you brought that up in your comment.

      Yes they are incredibly strong which may be an issue with small kids. My ex wifes used to walk me (Im 210lbs and have strong legs) but saying that makes them dangerous is like saying an evil black gun makes me a crimminal.

      But yes how they are raised by their owners is the ultimate make or break. Even feral/stray dogs (of domestic breeds) can be freindly, not that I make habbit of approaching them.

      Back on your point, if I had a family to speak of I would trust a pitbull with kids. They are incredibly affectionate.

      To all you pitbull haters, guess what? They are much like we shooting and gun enthusiasts. Highly misunderstood and more often than not, far from dangerous or aggressive.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        “To all you pitbull haters, guess what? They are much like we shooting and gun enthusiasts.”

        oh so pitbulls are inanimate objects??? LMAO!!!

        nice reasoning there bud. keep telling yourself that.

        anybody that trusts ANY animal with their kids is a ignoramus (be that pitbulls, rottweilers, horses, or boa constrictors). Please use your insurance…i dont feel like footing the medicaid bill.

        i love the pitbull worshippers. no matter how many times you bombard them with facts, they still try and convince everybody that their pitbill will just “lick you to death”.

        the officer’s actions were justified. end of story.

        • avatarPaul W says:

          There’s a difference between letting them be around and letting them babysit. The first? I got no problem with. If he meant the second, then yeah, I wouldn’t do that with *anything*.

      • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

        Amen!! Let me give you a quick rundown of the dogs I had, all at the same time, and how they were.
        I had 4 Staffordshire Pitbulls(2male/2female), a German bloodline Rottweiler, 2 Brindle male Boxers and a Female Boxer(she was the only one that had been fixed). Now all of these dogs resided in the same yard at the same time, along with 2 sons and a granddaughter.
        At any given time I could walk outside, put my granddaughter down an the only thing remotely aggressive the dogs would do is push each other out of the way to be the first to play with her and lick her hands and feet because she would laugh and giggle like crazy and they loved it.
        All of them were very very protective of her and my sons. As an example of how protective and well behave they were, where I lived copperheads were very common, as it was normal to kill 8 or 10 every spring/summer season. I had taken my granddaughter out in the yard, put her down to play, and ran back in to grab a cup of coffee. I heard the craziest bunch of barking and ran back outside to find all 4 pits standing by my g’daughter and the 2 make boxers literally ripping a copperhead to shreds. The female boxer had another copperhead in her mouth and was shaking it to pieces.
        None of the dogs would let any of us near the snakes until they were dead.
        That my friend is the very reason these dogs will always be my first choice for protection and companionship!!!

  15. avatarWLCE says:

    http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs.php

    http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php

    i dont care if your pitbull was “trained” or “docile”. my experience with one wasnt that delightful.

    does the dog being a pitbull justify the use of force even more than any other breed? absolutely. with justifiable reason.

    • avatarMatt in SD says:

      That is a wildly absurd and off base comment, especially for someone in support of gun rights (assuming you are in support of gun rights). Don’t blame the dog (gun), blame the owner. Police have used this socially accepted irrational misconception to justify this behavior. It’s despicable and they aren’t just doing it to Pit Bulls either.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        “That is a wildly absurd and off base comment, especially for someone in support of gun rights (assuming you are in support of gun rights).”

        actually its not. try again cupcake.

        “Don’t blame the dog (gun), blame the owner.”

        that logic only applies to a inanimate object like a gun. a pitbull is a living, breathing creature. A human cannot ultimately control the behavior of a dog or any other living organism…

        and blame the owner??? for having a medical emergency??? /tisk, tisk; not to bright…not to fucking bright.

        “Police have used this socially accepted irrational misconception to justify this behavior. It’s despicable and they aren’t just doing it to Pit Bulls either.”

        the reluctance to coddle pit bulls is justifiable with fact. there is a reason why they are banned in many housing units.

        you can argue all you want that the dog was not at fault. the fact was that the police officer responded correctly based on the circumstances of the situation.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        i take it you didn’t read the citations ive presented.

        oh well. your loss, not mine.

        • avatarDave B says:

          WLCE you gain nothing by citing dogsbite.org. They are so biased against Pitbull type dogs its not even funny. Getting your Pitbull facts from them is like getting your gun facts from the Brady bunch. If you do a little research you will find that the vast majority of the “unprovoked” attacks on dogsbite members are people getting in the middle of a dog fight. If you get in the middle of a dog fight your going to get bit regardless of the breed.
          Now here are some facts about Pitbulls. They have been breed to fight other dogs for hundreds of years. Therefor animal aggression is in their nature. They don’t need any training to be aggressive towards animals any more then a border collie needs training to herd. At the same time Pitbulls were breed to not be human aggressive. There are no less the three people in the “pit” with the two dogs. If any of the people were bit by a dog that dog was taken out back and shot. On the rare occasion that the dog that bit was a winning fighter the money involved with them prevented them from being put down, but they weren’t breed, because no one wants a dog that is going to bite you. The modern Pitbull type dogs do have animal aggression issues while at the same time being some of the most people friendly dogs in the world. If there is a human aggressive Pitbull pity comes down to two reasons, they were trained to be that way (bad owner), or they have bad genes (bad breeders). The common thing here is the people.
          I have been involved in dog rescue for close to eight years and with Pitbull type dog rescue for the past five. In that time I have brought countless strange dogs into my home and have never felt in any danger. The reason for this is I know what I’m doing and know what to look for, this is not saying I won’t ever get bit but it makes more unlikely. With just a little training on what to look for a lot of innocent dog’s lives would be saved at the hands of LE.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “WLCE you gain nothing by citing dogsbite.org. They are so biased against Pitbull type dogs its not even funny.”

          even though you missed the entire library of citations they offer??? i cannot make you read the fucking links and the research so you have nobody to blame but yourself.

          “Getting your Pitbull facts from them is like getting your gun facts from the Brady bunch.”

          not remotely. The brady bunch has little or no bibliography to back up their statistics and they have been effectively debunked.

          and STOP comparing pitbulls to guns. guns are inanimate objects, chuckles. pitbulls are living, breathing creatures.

          “If you do a little research you will find that the vast majority of the “unprovoked” attacks on dogsbite members are people getting in the middle of a dog fight. If you get in the middle of a dog fight your going to get bit regardless of the breed.”

          vast majority? oh my. what a elaborate counter argument LOL. sorry, youre incorrect.

          “Now here are some facts about Pitbulls. They have been breed to fight other dogs for hundreds of years. Therefor animal aggression is in their nature. They don’t need any training to be aggressive towards animals any more then a border collie needs training to herd.”

          yes…

          “At the same time Pitbulls were breed to not be human aggressive.”

          really? if this was the case, then there would be no attacks against humans. this is not the case. next.

          “I have been involved in dog rescue for close to eight years and with Pitbull type dog rescue for the past five. In that time I have brought countless strange dogs into my home and have never felt in any danger. ”

          well good for you. not everybody has had such wonderful experiences, including myself.

          “The reason for this is I know what I’m doing and know what to look for, this is not saying I won’t ever get bit but it makes more unlikely. With just a little training on what to look for a lot of innocent dog’s lives would be saved at the hands of LE.”

          you just dont understand so ill try and make it simple:

          1.) the man on the ground was having a medical emergency; the EMTs could not respond because the dog was protecting the owner. Fine and dandy, except the man’s life was in jeopardy ironically by his own pet.

          2.) a woman already got bit before it decided to go after the officer.

          3.) numerous other bystanders were at risk too. Perhaps other ones that were weaker physically than the officers.

        • avatarJim B says:

          Here is one of interest:

          http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-pregnant-woman-killed-family-pitbull,0,6865737.story

          The pit bull named Gunner killed the pregnant 32 old woman named Darla last year and this despite the woman being a pit bull activist who supposedly knew all about the animals. Forget about arguing facts with pit bull owners. Pointless. It’s more a religion than a thought process with them. In this case the husband buried the damn dog’s ashes with his wife! Talk about being propagandized! If a dog killed my wife and child I would have killed the damn thing and thrown it in the trash. The guy is off his rocker. However beliefs die hard even when one’s family dies I guess.

          Google human deaths from German Wirehaired Pointers. You will find none. Do the same with pit bulls and the list will go on and on. Yeah, sure, it has nothing to do with innate qualities of the breed. Anyone that believes that is an idiot. Sorry, but it’s true. Dogs were bred to do certain things. Anyone that knows just a little about dogs knows this. Unfortunately pit bulls were bred to be aggressive. It can be bred out of them but there doesn’t seem to be a real effort to do so. The fact is people buy them, many people anyway, because they are bad ass.

        • avatarDave B says:

          First no dog of any breed can be compared to a gun. It’s an apples to oranges comparison. I was comparing dogsbite to the Brady campain. They both will take the one study out of five that proves their point and disregard the rest.
          As I said the human aggression is because of people. With the idea that is going around that Pitbulls are tough dogs that every self respecting gang banger needs a lot breeders don’t care if they have a brother and sister making baby’s as long as they get paid. Then there are the bad owners who between abuse and taking advantage of the dogs intense urge to please their people make them mean towards people. The other cases were there is an attack on people is that the person did something to provoke it, out may be that you made a mistake our that you just didn’t know. Not taking away from the tragedy of the out outcome, but if you were to make the same mistake with any dog you would be bit. Watching the video I’m not going to say anything about what the officer did. I would have handled it differently but the dog did run at the officer, which is a lot more aggressive then a lot of other videos that I have seen.
          I’m not trying to change your opinion, everyone has one and you are entitled to yours. On this subject our opinions differ. On a subject that I’m sure we agree I’m off to the local fun store to look for a new friend for my guns.

  16. avatarensitu says:

    Everyone here is crazy for OC in house becsause some BGs are lurking on your door step but a uniformed copper attacked by an unknown agressive dog,, all of a sudden the foot is on a different shoe (yes, I know I did that).
    Yes the dog was an innocent tool of evile men, see WWII for background on that.
    The important thing is that (hopefully) everyhuman went home for Christmas in one piece.

  17. avatarRydak says:

    I do not deserve to be bitten even once by a dog, protecting whatever it thinks its protecting. I do not have to wait till the dog brings me to within an inch of my life to kill it and I wont….if it charges at me, it will be shot. This is common logic. Why Should I suffer injury as a police officer? Or as anyone for that matter?

    This is the same fail logic with the “STOP MILITARIZING POLICE” thing…..it has some good sound bites, but falls short on common sense logic. What makes it even more ironic is that the people saying it are often the ones taking pictures of themselves with tricked out AR’s & AK’s and everything else (that they don’t want the police to have, and then posting them on dating web sites..lol)

    I stopped reading this blog awhile back for the same reasons noted above by others. Unbelievable, logic defying hatred of police and anything to do with them….but only by Fargo, the other authors are what keeps me stopping back every now and again. How simple minded can you be to NOT be able to put yourself in a cops shoes, even if only by imagination. Lets try it for a second…hrm?

    Officer Fargo: Pit-bull charges at you (Hmm, I think I’ll just wait till it tears at my flesh for awhile….im sure PETA will be around to calm this dog before I die. Hmm, I don’t understand ballistics enough to know that most handguns bullets (all of them actually) don’t open up and transfer their energy properly into dogs small body mass, so it just passes right thru them, often without much immediate effect, they bleed out later, which is what leads to the many rounds being expended. This incident was only one shot thank god. Or maybe I’ll hit it with a club, oh wait, the ACLU took them away from police, now we just have this little 12″ folding stick…darn.

    Officer Fargo: Oh no….people going on rampages in schools and killing children, criminals with AR’s and AK’s, shootings engagements with badguys beyond 15 yards. …..Im not going to get one of them things to use on duty (Even though I have many of them in my own home, write stories about them and droll over them on the easternet) but NOOOO, NOT FOR POLICE….WE ARE NOT THE MILITARY!!!! Cant have any of those scary looking guns. I’ll just stick with my .38 Special Police revolver. Ya, that will work. I’m sure the actual military will be around if things get out of control, even though it does take an act of Congress to deploy them on US soil …thats ok, im sure the paperwork will go thru in time.

    This is the same hippocratic nonsense of gun control nut-jobs. Same ideology, different application.

    • avatarpat says:

      It is the FAILED war on drugs that pushed the ‘militarization’ of police equiptment. It is those in law enforcement who push for a tough and extensive incarceration policy who garner no sympathy from me. Anybody with two eyes can see its nothing but a money racket that destroys lives and demonizes cops, and often, rightly so, while many good police are swallowed up in the poopstorm.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      What state are you a cop in? I’d like to know so I can avoid running into your illiterate ass.

      “hippocratic nonsense”

      Jesus ****ing Christ.

      • avatarRydak says:

        Way to destroy my argument….what with all them facts and stuff that you put forth. I am defenseless against you…

        • avatarMichael B. says:

          Maybe when you present an actual argument instead of attacking strawmen I will.

        • avatarRydak says:

          So in the mean time you will attack auto-type ahead misspells? GOOD CALL!

          I know you are….but what I’m I?

        • avatarpat says:

          Nothing on the failed war on drugs leading to the militarization of law enforcement which leads to bad cops while the good cops are being marginalized?
          Stop breeding Pitbulls and decriminalize Weed!
          Or force weed on Pitbulls….so the vicious mutts mellow out.

  18. avatarJoe Grine says:

    Sad to see the dog get shot, but the bottom line is that the shooting was justified. I probably would have drop kicked it instead, because of the risk of a ricochet. Admittedly, that might have not turned out so well for me.

  19. avatarbeanfield says:

    Was lethal force warranted in this situation? I think an argument can be made justifying lethal force.

    The bigger question in this case is what posed a greater threat (both to the police and innocent bystanders)….the dog or the cop shooting in a busy city block? The dog could have severely bitten and injured someone…the bullet could have killed. I respect the police and I understand no one is perfect, but I think he chose poorly. He’s very lucky no one (including his partner) was injured by a ricochet.

    • avatarBuuurr says:

      I think you are completely wrong. This is clearly one of the few times that a dog shooting is justified. Have you ever had a dog grab you? How about this type of dog? It looked like a pit breed to me. These things can shred you in a second and tear off massive chunks of leg if you run from them. Even a non-working/guard breed will mess you up.

      What would you have done?

      Google ‘dog injuries’ for an eye-opener…

      In my opinion his actions were regrettable but sound.

      • avatarbeanfield says:

        Yes, I’m familiar with the breed. I’ve rescued two deaf pitbulls, my brother has one from another rescue group, and my sister fosters them from HSMO. I’ve seen what the bad cases can do in the hands of irresponsible owners (intentional or not). I’ve seen the damage big dogs can do first hand by a boy who needed 17 stitches across his face because their uncle’s docile black lab (who never bit anyone) didn’t like it when he crawled on the dog’s bed (one bite that permanently scarred both sides of the boy’s face). I’m not defending the dog in any way. If the above accounts are true (of the dog’s bite history) then it’s 100% the fault of the owner. He should not have taken the dog any place where it had access to other people…especially un-muzzled. Depending on the severity of the dog’s aggression, it may have been more human to euthanize. Any person walking in range of the man was in danger of being bitten. Believe me, I get it….all dogs can bite, strong ones cause severe damage quickly, and no dog’s life is worth more than a human’s.

        But that’s kind of the point…that importance of human life. While the dog could have severely injured, it’s incredibly unlikely it would be lethal. The cop shooting the dog (whether he missed or not) had the potential to be lethal to innocent bystanders as well as his partner…the fact that did so in on a busy city street severely increased those odds. The worst possible scenario is that someone died and skipping a bullet down a city block had the highest likelihood of doing that.

        Had it been me (a civilian) I would probably be in jail if I tried to shoot a dog in a street like that. If it were me I would have started off with mace (which I’ve used effectively in the past on stray dogs coming after me), followed up with an ASP.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “While the dog could have severely injured, it’s incredibly unlikely it would be lethal.”

          which is COMPLETELY missing the point. nobody is under any obligation to just take a dog mauling like a man because “it is unlikely it would be lethal”. bullshit. hospital visits. missed work. bad juju.

          and would that same argument hold water if the dog veered away after somebody weaker or smaller than the police officer? not remotely.

          “The cop shooting the dog (whether he missed or not) had the potential to be lethal to innocent bystanders as well as his partner”

          which is the nature of the beast when you are a urban beat cop. nothing is 100% guaranteed. in fact, if you want a guarantee, get damned toaster. you have to take some degree of risk, all the while mitigating it with proper training and tools.

          “Had it been me (a civilian) I would probably be in jail if I tried to shoot a dog in a street like that.”

          which is irrelevant. police officers are allowed, within their duties, to exercise certain actions that would land civilians in a jail cell. im not particularly bent out of shape that its illegal for me to drive 30 past the speed limit with lights and a siren.

          “If it were me I would have started off with mace (which I’ve used effectively in the past on stray dogs coming after me), followed up with an ASP.”

          OC spray does work, although you risk contaminating the onlookers and the man laying on the ground for a medical emergency. Not good.

          A ASP? against a animal that is already characteristically resilient against pain and blunt objects? not good.

          EMTs need to respond to a safe, secure scene. a pitbull acting aggressively against anybody around the owner is not a safe, secure scene.

        • avatarbeanfield says:

          ‘which is COMPLETELY missing the point. nobody is under any obligation to just take a dog mauling like a man because “it is unlikely it would be lethal”. bullshit. hospital visits. missed work. bad juju.

          and would that same argument hold water if the dog veered away after somebody weaker or smaller than the police officer? not remotely.’

          Agreed, but you can’t ignore the same logic in the choice of the cop shooting in the public street…that no one is under any obligation to take a stray bullet. bullshit. hospital visits. missed work. bad juju and/or DEATH.

          I completely understand the cop was under duress, he had to make a decision quickly and all of the possible solutions were pretty crappy. However, he chose the one option that posed the greatest threat to his fellow officer and innocent bystanders. Had someone in the bus behind the shooting been hit, I doubt most people would be backing him up. Had he shot his partner (which he came very close to doing), it would have been a resume generating event.

        • avatarBuuurr says:

          The fact is that dogs are prone to outbursts… when a pit has a fit it is never good. My uncle was a very good pit owner. He had one for years and trained it quite well for show and sport. That didn’t stop the dog once it got it in its head to jump into a truck that was trundling down the road and tear the steering wheel and seats to bits while the truck owner high-tailed it out the passenger door. We couldn’t get the dog out of the truck for hours until someone decided to turn the engine off to which the dog immediately calmed down and resumed what it thought was a relaxing walk to the lake. What if there had been folks in the car besides the owner? Who knows? Fact is that the breed is built to attack aggressively to a threat IT perceives and will not stop attacking no matter the owners actions except for ammonia sprays and lever sticks (which I would like to point out doesn’t stop the dog from biting but merely pry’s its jaws apart with a crowbar-like tool). It is a very dangerous animal for this reason. My Rhodesian may bite someone but he sure as hell will stop if I say so (like many other dog breeds) but a pit will not. Many will argue up and down the board about this. But studies since the 70’s have consistently concluded the same thing about pit bulls AND the owners of the breed. So I will stop there.

  20. avatarA. Lee says:

    “National Canine Research Council” <– LOL

    I love dogs. But I'll roll my eyes at any "study" produced by such a laughably named organization.

    If you take away nightsticks and batons, and all the cops have are guns, don't be surprised if they use the guns more often. Force continuum is your friend.

  21. avatarBuuurr says:

    “Why did you shoot the dog!?” – random dumbass.

    The dog charged and was a threat. Bang!

  22. avatarChristopher says:

    If a man had lunged at the police officer after trying to attack the lady walking by, lets say with a knife, then far fewer people would have an issue with this.

  23. avatarIn Memphis says:

    Regarding all of the pitbull bashing in here, I am very well aware of this breeds strength and ability both proffesionaly and personaly. Anyone who says its okay to shoot a pitbull ONLY because of the breed needs to lay off the MSM hype a little.

    Yes, they are very strong animals. I have been walked by them many times and I wiegh 200lbs. Does that make them dangerous? Does owning an AK-47 make you dangerous?

    I am not saying that the police are wrong for shooting dogs. Its a case by case scenario that I can do nothing more than armchair quarterback.

    BUT For thoes who judge a pitbull soley on its breed and abilities, maybe you should think about how the gun grabbers judge us. You are essentialy no different than the media for your judgements nor are you different than the breed for your POTENTIAL ability.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      red herring much?

      a gun is inanimate. a dog is a living breathing creature.
      two completely different things. MSM hype? try doing some homework instead of self-justifying because you own pitbulls.

      the officer has no obligation to get chomped on, require hospitalization, risk debilitating injury (which happens), and compromise work. The other bystanders (no matter how FUCKING stupid they may be) have no obligation to get bit on either.

      stupid people. let me guess…cobras are like another breed of snake too /facepalm.

  24. avatarRydak says:

    This is kinda nice is it not? Being able to sit here….think and ponder about this incident and similar ones. Sitting at your computer desk or whatever. Ahh so nice and relaxing and don’t forget thought provoking. Nothing like a good convo to enlighten the mind and broaden the spirit.

    Oh course the officer had about a fraction of a second to make a decision before his nutsack became Fido’s next snack.

    This of course with about about ten million other things in his mind at the time, like the incident that brought him there, the man on the ground, the “intellectuals” gathering around him, the dept policies (all 3 million of them), his supervisor showing up on scene, where are the witnesses, the actor?, weapons, the law and how it applies to this situation, if he even knows what the situation is at that piont and time, the six calls he has pending and what their priority is to this call, the unknown, the unknown unknown, any other issues at home or whatever else people think and stress about (His is human is he not?), how close is the medic…..etc. Then all of a sudden, boom, a charge from the dog. Id say he reacted pretty fast, good job officer, you can now maintain your family linage….since the ever benevolent internet population has decreed that you can. You should feel lucky. Thats a good word for it right? lucky

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      Haha yes this +1000!

      Armchair Quarterbacking FTW!

      I will defend the pitbull from personal experiences but I will not bash a cop for actions I can only hope I never have to take.

      • avatarPaul W says:

        Exactly right. The pitt bashing is getting old, but you know what? If I was charged by a large dog, I’d shoot it too.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      +1000 again

      people need to grow up.

  25. avatarKendahl says:

    While dogs have been unnecessarily shot by police, this wasn’t one of them. The cops found a guy lying in the street and unresponsive. They couldn’t even assess his condition because the dog wouldn’t let them get close enough. I’m surprised they waited so long before taking action. For all they knew, the guy might have needed immediate help to save his life.

    The shooting was precipitated by the stupid, incompetent bitch who set the dog off. It didn’t charge until she interfered. In the interests of justice, she should be convicted of something.

    The guy on the ground was a homeless man with alcohol and drug problems. Supposedly, he adopted the dog from a shelter. I wonder about this since the shelters I know are very careful to ensure that an adopter has the resources to take proper care of a dog. Someone with this guy’s issues wouldn’t qualify.

    Maybe it was just luck, but the cop who fired did very well. He hit a small, fast moving target with one shot. Compare that to the pair who fired sixteen shots at an armed suspect and wounded nine bystanders near the Empire State Building last summer.

  26. avatarBad Matt says:

    1. What a typical bunch of public employees. Someone should take away their pensions. That dog wasn’t going to hurt anybody;

    2. Did you see how those two cops stayed on alert as that dog lay dying in the street. How ludicrous. They had no idea what they were doing

  27. avatarJim B says:

    Don’t compare what the Seattle Police department does to any other police department. The SPD is totally incompetent and corrupt, really nothing but a bunch of bullies with badges. They beat people for no reason (when they are handcuffed and helpless), shoot unarmed people for no reason other than they are walking in a crosswalk and then lie and cover for themselves. “Oh the security tape just disappeared!” It got so bad that the DOJ threatened to take over the department. Yeah, really. What the SPD does means nothing in the scheme of things. They are NOT normal cops. Why they are even mentioned is beyond me. They’re nothing but a bunch of steroid taking yahoos. A few years ago the police chief left his Glock in his unlocked car and it was stolen! Yeah, real professionals those guys. Wothless is what they are.

  28. avatarGreg says:

    Good on the cops. I’m not getting my balls bitten by anything let alone a pitbull. People let their dogs run rampent and then get pissed when someone has to defend themselves against the dog. The only person at fault here is the owner for not controlling his animal.

  29. avatarJoatmon says:

    Exactly Greg. I would have done the same thing as the officers had. Would the dog have killed the LEO’s? Probably not but you don’t know for sure. I got attacked by a dog about 15 years ago and it was going for my throat. I still bear the scars on my arms. Luckily, some people were near by and saved me. The local police were called, the dog was euthanized and the owner of the dog was fined because it wasn’t the first incident. I like dogs, I like cats, and pretty much all animals but I put my life and safety above all else.

  30. avatarDon says:

    People are weird. It is unreasonable to expect a person to chance being bitten by an animal, regardless of whether or not it is one of the animals we arbitrarily decide to care about enough to treat well. Animals are not people, they aren’t equal members in society, and if no one is around being responsible for one of them no one else is obligated to that role.

  31. avatarSteve says:

    It seems that our nation’s police force need to re-acquaint themselves with the phrase “more flies with honey than vinegar”.

    Get some doughnuts out of the cruiser, feed them to the dog and while you are doing that, put a leash around the dog and tie him to a post. Problem solved.

    Or, if all else fails….call Animal Control and have them show you how its done.

    Sigh….

  32. avatarTRP says:

    Pepper spray would have been equally effective. Discharging several rounds into a crowded public area could have resulted in innocent bystanders being injured or killed, and some major law suits against the city. If they felt their only option was to use deadly force, at least they could have put one through the dogs head instead of letting it suffer…

    • avatarHinshelworld says:

      Pepper spray MAY have been effective. I have seen plenty of people who are unaffected by it. I imagine there are plenty of dogs it wouldn’t phase either.

  33. avatarMatt in FL says:

    In other news, the dog survived, and will likely be put up for adoption. Stories here and here.

  34. avatartdiinva says:

    Here is my two cents, which is overvaluing my opinion.

    I have have two coonhounds, an English and a Plott, and I spend a lot of time outdoors with them. I have encountered many friendly pitbulls. As they say some of my English’s best friends are pits. She loves to roughhouse. However, in a crisis a dog will go with its instincts. For my dogs that is run four legged things up a a tree or attack them if they run them down. (My Plott is a little deficient in that respect. If he catches them he holds them gentlily in his mouth for a few seconds and lets them go.) If they are frightened their instinct is to find a person for help.

    If a Pitbull is in the same situation their instinct is to attack anything that appears as threat. It doesn’t matter that this dog was apparently protecting its owner it was still a threat. Pepper spay will not stop a pit before it chomps down on you. (See why George Zimmerman got his gun.) Personally, I would never own a Pitbull. If you own one treat it well, train it and hope it never ends in a situation where instincts take over.

  35. avatarCarl says:

    Cowardly dickless cops

  36. avatarBuuurr says:

    @”beanfield says:

    December 4, 2012 at 14:43

    “90+% of attacks on children are unprovoked…In the case of a pit bull, do not have a child is a fair argument.”

    The argument is not logical. A statistic that states “90+% of attacks on children are unprovoked” (if true as it’s not cited) is not necessarily the same as a statistic that states “90+% of pit bulls attack children” (which seems to be what you’re inferring). It’s no different than people who make a claim that the vast majority of mass shooting events involve “large capacity” magazines. While that may (or may not) necessarily be true, the vast majority of “large capacity” magazines are not used for mass shootings.”

    Google it. It isn’t hard to find. There have been many studies since the 1970′s. I don’t need to cite as it is is a well known fact that these dogs are viscous and bred for killing other dogs which often spills over into people attacks. Google deaths by Rhodesian Ridgeback and then side by side them with Pits of any mix… or a Doberman for that matter…be my guest.

    And please stop comparing an inanimate object to a living, thinking creature. It really make no argument.

    @”Mike S says:
    December 4, 2012 at 14:30
    Why do I dispute it? Real world experience. My experience is not with one dog. I’ve likely, through my shelter experience, known more pits than you will ever know dogs in your entire life.
    Do some arrive beyond any hope of ever being a pet? Unquestionably. However, here’s where the apples-to-apples thing comes in. What has the dog experienced so far?
    I’ve seen pits come in after having been subjected to sh1t I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy, only to wag their tail when you approach. Sadly, it doesn’t always end that way. Can their fighting instinct be harness by terrible people, and turned on humans? Yeah. It generally takes a lot of encouragement.
    Ignorant? Hardly. I know PRECISELY
    what a pitbull is. The hard thing to wrap my head around sometimes, however, and I have learned it through the dogs, is what some
    people are.”

    Frankly, I could care less about your real world experience. I have seen the studies and the reports and have seen a pit go nuts and be nothing like what you describe them to be. Its great that you love them – someone has to. I have been around enough dogs through my life and my training that I know that a pit is a different breed by a long shot. Bred for killing and fighting with all the ‘hesitant’ traits bred out or simply killed for not fighting.

    Many dogs are submitted to crap on a daily basis. But that is just the nature of man and little will change that. This not only happens to pits but pretty much anything that breathes on this planet.

    You keep saying apples to apples. On the genetic level you are not getting apples to apples from the start. Pits were bred purely for fighting in dog fights in England and Ireland. The two main groups of dog that they came from have since died out. There are few dogs that you can apples to apples a pit with. Some Brazilian fighting dogs or Asian pit dogs maybe. But don’t try and compare a pit to even a Doberman or Rott. By doing this you are lowering the tolerance people have for these relatively sane dogs.

    Most dogs will wag their tail when you approach no matter what they have been through. Don’t let this fool you and trick you into getting too close. Most dog trainers can tell you that a wagging tail is not always a sign that a dog wants to see you. In my dog’s breeds case it generally means he does not want to see you.

    Pits are a dangerous fighting dog. Don’t try and jam anything else but that down my throat because I am not eating it.

    BTW I have a badger for sale that is very friendly. He only gets mad when near his den. I should add, he never leaves his den.

    • avatarbeanfield says:

      Whether it’s a person, a dog, or an object is irrelevant. It’s the logic of the arguement that is flawed. I’m trying to prevent you from using the same misleading tactics that gun grabbers use on gun owners. You’re citing an unattributed statistic that compares relative bite rates between breeds, but you’re not making the case that the OVERALL human attack rate of the breed is enough to warrant the statement that owners with pitbulls “shouldn’t have a child”. It’s no different than the anti’s that cite the lethality and prevalence of so called assault weapons used in mass shootings, yet ignore the fact over 99% of assault weapons in the U.S. are not used in mass shootings.

      For example, if there’s 10 million pitbulls in the US, 10 bites per year and 9 of them were unprovoked; that would mean that 90% of the attacks were unprovoked. It would also mean that 99.99991% of pitbulls have no issues…hardly worth condemning the entire breed to the point where owners shouldn’t have children. On the flip side, if there were 1 million bites per year and 900,000 of them were unprovoked, you’d still have 90% of the attacks unprovoked. However, it would also mean that 10% of pitbulls have issues which is definitely a cause for concern among parents. Further complicating the arguement is the overall lack of statistics. Pitbull is not a breed in and of itself. There’s 3 breeds that commonly make up what’s called a pitbull and many other breeds are crossbred and/or mistaken for pitbulls. They’re also one of the most populated breeds in the US (making raw numbers of bites look large, when in fact they could be small compared to the overall population). Our local humane society (St Louis City) is generally made up of ~50% pitbull/pitbull mix dogs…many of them from abused homes…which also complicates the arguement on whether the abuse significantly increases the bite rate (and how to determine the bite likelihood for a child that lives in a home with a pitbull that is not abused).

      I’m not saying this as someone defending or attacking the breed. I am not currently, nor have I at any point in this thread, tried to make qualifying statements on the breed as a whole. I’m not getting into any part of that argument. I’ve learned over the years that internet discussions on the topic are mostly pointless. You’re free to make the whatever argument you like; however you like. Just be specific in the stats following up your case (no, telling someone to go google something is not the same citing your work) and don’t use them with the same flawed logic the anti’s have used against us. Otherwise be prepared to have people point out the obvious hypocrisy in the arguement that on one hand pitbulls are bad because they make up a large percentage of recorded bite attacks, but on the other hand assault weapons are ok because despite the fact they make up a similar percent of weapons used in mass shootings. You can’t have it both ways based solely on those arguments.

      • avatarBuuurr says:

        “beanfield says:

        December 4, 2012 at 20:24

        Whether it’s a person, a dog, or an object is irrelevant. It’s the logic of the arguement that is flawed. I’m trying to prevent you from using the same misleading tactics that gun grabbers use on gun owners. You’re citing an unattributed statistic that compares relative bite rates between breeds, but you’re not making the case that the OVERALL human attack rate of the breed is enough to warrant the statement that owners with pitbulls “shouldn’t have a child”. It’s no different than the anti’s that cite the lethality and prevalence of so called assault weapons used in mass shootings, yet ignore the fact over 99% of assault weapons in the U.S. are not used in mass shootings.

        For example, if there’s 10 million pitbulls in the US, 10 bites per year and 9 of them were unprovoked; that would mean that 90% of the attacks were unprovoked. It would also mean that 99.99991% of pitbulls have no issues…hardly worth condemning the entire breed to the point where owners shouldn’t have children. On the flip side, if there were 1 million bites per year and 900,000 of them were unprovoked, you’d still have 90% of the attacks unprovoked. However, it would also mean that 10% of pitbulls have issues which is definitely a cause for concern among parents. Further complicating the arguement is the overall lack of statistics. Pitbull is not a breed in and of itself. There’s 3 breeds that commonly make up what’s called a pitbull and many other breeds are crossbred and/or mistaken for pitbulls. They’re also one of the most populated breeds in the US (making raw numbers of bites look large, when in fact they could be small compared to the overall population). Our local humane society (St Louis City) is generally made up of ~50% pitbull/pitbull mix dogs…many of them from abused homes…which also complicates the arguement on whether the abuse significantly increases the bite rate (and how to determine the bite likelihood for a child that lives in a home with a pitbull that is not abused).

        I’m not saying this as someone defending or attacking the breed. I am not currently, nor have I at any point in this thread, tried to make qualifying statements on the breed as a whole. I’m not getting into any part of that argument. I’ve learned over the years that internet discussions on the topic are mostly pointless. You’re free to make the whatever argument you like; however you like. Just be specific in the stats following up your case (no, telling someone to go google something is not the same citing your work) and don’t use them with the same flawed logic the anti’s have used against us. Otherwise be prepared to have people point out the obvious hypocrisy in the arguement that on one hand pitbulls are bad because they make up a large percentage of recorded bite attacks, but on the other hand assault weapons are ok because despite the fact they make up a similar percent of weapons used in mass shootings. You can’t have it both ways based solely on those arguments.”

        You are stuck on gun views vs. a pit bull. Neither are the same and have nothing to do with the other or the stats presented. You are really reaching in what you are saying and it is pointless to argue with you. I know a Google reply is not citing a topic but I really don’t care. I am not writing a term paper over here. If you can’t take a quick look and see for yourself well that is perfectly fine with me. Just don’t act all surprised when yet another city bans the breed.

        Whether it is the combination of the types of breed or the treatment of said breed again is irrelevant. Pits consistently react badly and very aggressively towards people and other dogs when this is the case. Also what you deem to be abuse in the case of these dogs could simply be a person who just doesn’t know how to treat a pit bull. A simple collar pop (which is used gently by thousands of trainers across this country and others) may be enough to trigger a savage attack from the pit. Not so with most other dogs but we will bury our heads in the sand on that one.

        The hypocrisy you speak of does not exist. There is no connection between the two arguments and it is very reaching to try and connect them. One is inanimate and how it is viewed depends entirely on the person using it (cop = safe public. Terrorist = anarchy), the other has the ability to cause its own actions and how it is perceived (the eating of another child’s face). Stop trying to connect the two it is ridiculous.

        I should add that your logic in comparing what I am doing to the antis is completely flawed. I am not saying ban all dogs because pit bulls attack children. I am saying ban pit bulls because they are PIT DOGS. Using your logic you would think that I don’t want 7.62 rounds banned but rather 5.45 because they are more likely to kill. Silliness’.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      burrrr, once again, excellent post.

      it amazes me how willfully ignorant many pit bull owners are. I dont care about your stupidity, but if it leads to the death of another animal or child, all because you HAD to pick a pit bull, then i guess the burden is on you.

      “its are a dangerous fighting dog. Don’t try and jam anything else but that down my throat because I am not eating it.”

      exactly. couldnt have said it better. remember, if your beloved “rover” decides to take a bite out of me or my dog, im going to shoot it. homeowners associations do the right thing in banning their ownership.

      “BTW I have a badger for sale that is very friendly. He only gets mad when near his den. I should add, he never leaves his den.”

      ROTFLMAO!!!!

      and beanfield, can you spin any faster!? LMAO!!! you might dig yourself a oil field under your feet.

      nice, lengthy post to ultimately say “NUH-UH!!!”

      • avatarbeanfield says:

        Again….off the mark. Completely missing the point, which has nothing to do with pitbulls.

        “it amazes me how willfully ignorant many ak47 owners are. I dont care about your stupidity, but if it leads to the death of another animal or child, all because you HAD to pick an ak47, then i guess the burden is on you.

        “its (sic) are a dangerous assault weapon. Don’t try and jam anything else but that down my throat because I am not eating it.”

        exactly. couldnt have said it better. remember, if your beloved “kalishnikov” is stolen and used to shoot me or my dog, im going to sue you. states do the right thing in banning their ownership.”

        You’re making the argument for them. Don’t use the same simple minded argument here that anti gunners use against us. It sets the rest of us back in our efforts.

        • avatarBuuurr says:

          Methinks you want off the end of the pool, Bro. Swim on back. Its okay. There are no sharks over here.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          dont be slow. try and follow along

          a pitbull is a living creature. a AK47 is a mechanical, inanimate object. that is a invalid comparison, thus it is irrelevant no matter how many times you continue to bring it up.

          and you need to do some research on liabilities.

          there are no statistics that back the assertion that AK47s are “more dangerous”. there are plenty of statistics that back the assertion that pitbulls are more dangerous than other breeds.

    • avatarMolon_lab says:

      Wow! Reading through these comments has really been a disappointing experience for me. This is possibly the first time on this wonderful site where so many people are absolutely free-flow pontificating out of their backsides without an inkling of insight other than a quick Google search to look for statistics and articles to support their already set-in-stone beliefs. I had more respect for posters on this site before reading so much of this close-minded tunnel-vision garbage. I REALLY DO expect more from a community whose accepted position is that we are a maligned group of responsible people who should not be judged by the actions of others or a few isolated incidents, but enlightened by truth and are willing to share data in support of shining a light on the plight of a calumniated minority by the mainstream media machine–on a site whose mission statement claims the same thing. SHAME ON YOU! It makes me think that you also think that minorities bred for violence as well, simply because statistics show that more minorities end up being arrested for violent crimes. Give me a break. Locking jaws? Ignore master’s commands to desist when engaged? Bred only for fighting? Untrustworthy? Capable of lure-and-attack deception? Can’t compare dog ownership to gun ownership, but you can to lion or badger ownership? The more you all type, the more of an idiot(s) you look like. Realize, that is pure libel being spread by those with an agenda, and you are demonstrating that you are a fool by repeating their talking points. Trainers and veterinarians alike know these are lies as well. I have many many friends and clients in both professions and have had lengthy discussions with them about the pit bull “problem”. One thing they all agree on is the breed isn’t the problem. Like people, dogs should be assessed on an individual basis, and the owners should be held as or more responsible than the animal itself. If a dog is a habitual criminal, then sentence it AND it’s owner properly. Let’s just not get too hasty in your desires of creating the canine Auschwitz just yet, Adolf(s). That is unless you like the gene-pool cleansing policy and don’t mind it being applied to you, because it will eventually if you support this kind of mentality.

      Thumbs down to so many of you for showing your backsides in public like this. We are supposed to represent a thinking group backed by values of personal responsibility and liberty, a real “cut-above” if you will. I’m disappointed in many of you, and your inability to hold yourself to that standard while representing the rest of us in this community. I didn’t expect to see so many of you get so frothy-mouthed over this–like an election season democrat. Appalling really.

      • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

        +100. Pitbulls are a great breed based on proper breeding and training. Most people on here who would blatantly condemn the breed based on statistics alone and having never owned one are just like the liberal media.
        They are simply spewing forth te same poison regardless of whether it is based on fact or lie’s!!

        • avatarMolon_lab says:

          Thank you SpeedRacer. Funny how only professionals and actual pit bull owners realize the insanity of it all.
          http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297764_567399923286840_269359197_n.jpg

        • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

          You are welcome!! Thanks for the link also. Pitbulls are like any other canine, how they act and behave will depend 99.9% on how their owner(s) raise and treat them. The only thing that might change their behavior other than how they are treated is either illness(rabies,etc) or being badly injured.
          If we are to believe the people on here who are so “knowledgeable” about how dangerous Pitbulls are then they would have really shit their pants to have seen my best friend and I walking to the creek to go fishing when we were 13/14 yrs old with a full grown timber wolf (rescued as a 5 day old cub) on a dog leash and it just happy and having fun as we were. He would lie down behind us and sleep or watch our backs while we fished all day long!!! Loved him to death and cried when he died of old age!!

  37. avatarbeanfield says:

    I’m stuck on the logic and reasoning of the arguement, which (based on your uncited example) seems to be a hasty generalization. It’s a logical fallacy in the construction of the argument.

    “Most of the athletes in the news are criminals and irresponsible. Therefore athletes can’t be trusted with firearms”
    Problem: The athletes mentioned in the news aren’t representative of the everyone that plays sports.

    “Pitbulls represent the highest number of unprovoked attacks. Therefore pitbulls can’t be trusted with children.”
    Problem: The sample of pitbulls that have attacked aren’t representative of the entire population of pitbulls.

    “Assault Weapons are the firearms of choice when monsters commit mass shootings. Therefore all assault weapons are unsafe should be banned”
    Problem: The sample of assault weapons used in mass shootings is statistically insignificant to the total number of assault weapons which are handled safely.

    If the number of scientifically scrutinized articles backing your claims are so numerous, then use those in your argument. “That can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”.

    Edit: I’m not using the term “assault weapon” from the perspective of the person making the argument…I think everyone here understands the difference between what they claim is an assault weapon and what is really a modern sporting rifle.

  38. avatarbeanfield says:

    “a pitbull is a living creature. a AK47 is a mechanical, inanimate object. that is a invalid comparison, thus it is irrelevant no matter how many times you continue to bring it up.”

    “there are no statistics that back the assertion that AK47s are “more dangerous”. there are plenty of statistics that back the assertion that pitbulls are more dangerous than other breeds.”

    It’s easy to agrue your own strawman, but you should pay attention to what I’m saying. For about the 3rd or 4th time….the problem with the argument is not the relative degree of aggression between breeds (whether real or not), but whether the OVERALL rate of attacks is enough to warrant the statement that people children shouldn’t own pitbulls. The argument that’s been presented thus far is an identifiable logical fallacy. http://goo.gl/sWDF0 It doesn’t identify the number of pitbulls that bite humans as compared to the total population. If you say there are “plenty of statistics” to back up your claim, it should be relatively easy to find them and make your claim based on a logically constructed argument with proper citation.

    The antis assault weapons arguments are not my own, I’m not attributing anything to an inanimate object; they are. The ideas that they are making a fallacious argument (the same way you too are) and at the same time wrong on other points (attributing attributes to an inanimate object) are not mutually exclusive; which is the case here. You are both wrong on the logical construction of the argument, however they are also wrong on attributing living characteristics to inanimate objects.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      “It’s easy to agrue your own strawman,”

      do you even know what a strawman is? obviously you dont because you used the term incorrectly. here’s the definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

      “but you should pay attention to what I’m saying.”

      im not the one bringing up assault weapons and their controversy and trying to plug the same logic into living, breathing animals. /facepalm; christ on a fucking peach tree.

      “For about the 3rd or 4th time….the problem with the argument is not the relative degree of aggression between breeds (whether real or not), but whether the OVERALL rate of attacks is enough to warrant the statement that people children shouldn’t own pitbulls. ”

      have you been paying attention at all? myself and others have backed up the pitbull assertion but you seem to willingly ignore those and think they’re somehow the same as other breeds. they’re not. That is the entire point of this discussion. Try to stay on subject.

      “If you say there are “plenty of statistics” to back up your claim, it should be relatively easy to find them and make your claim based on a logically constructed argument with proper citation.”

      Yeah i posted them. Its not my fault you refuse to click on the links. You willfully ignoring presented evidence is not a “hasty generalization” on my part. Sorry. Try again.

      “You are both wrong on the logical construction of the argument, however they are also wrong on attributing living characteristics to inanimate objects.”

      right…just because you disagree, therefore it must be “wrong”. Thats logical /sarcasm.

      anyways, were done here. end of discussion.

  39. avatarbeanfield says:

    Excuse typos/grammar…only have a tablet available.

  40. avatarbeanfield says:

    “do you even know what a strawman is? obviously you dont because you used the term incorrectly. here’s the definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    The straw man that you continue to perpetuate is that I am making any argument either for against the breed of pitbulls. At no time have I made any statement for or against the breed. I’ve deliberately stayed out of it. It’s not about the dogs, it’s about the construction of a logical argument (or lack thereof) presented by buuurr when he made the statement “In the case of a pit bull, do not have a child is a fair argument”. So the logical construction of that argument is: “Parents shouldn’t own dogs that bite people. In studies where dogs have bitten people, pitbulls are the most frequent; therefore parents shouldn’t own pitbulls”. The logical fallacy is that a study of dogs that have already bitten people is not representative of the entire population of pitbulls. It’s like taking a poll of crime rates in Detroit City and the applying it to the rest of the US. It doesn’t work that way.

    “im not the one bringing up assault weapons and their controversy and trying to plug the same logic into living, breathing animals.”

    Whether the object is a human, dog, gun, motorcycle, or rock is irrelevant; you’re still making the same logical fallacy. Heaven forbid I district your pitbull diatribe (on a gun website) and bring it back to something as off topic as guns. There’s an inherit danger in the way the argument is made and how it’s also used against gun owners. I would prefer not to perpetuate the hypocrisy.

    “have you been paying attention at all? myself and others have backed up the pitbull assertion but you seem to willingly ignore those and think they’re somehow the same as other breeds. they’re not.”

    Back to the straw man. At no time have I made any statement for or against the breed.

    “Yeah i posted them. Its not my fault you refuse to click on the links. You willfully ignoring presented evidence is not a “hasty generalization” on my part. Sorry. Try again.”

    Saying I “refuse to click the links” is an inaccurate assumption. I read the links posted (including the dogsbite.org links). I have not seen a stat that demonstrates a relationship between the overall bite rate of pitbulls that should warrant enough concern for pitbulls to say they shouldn’t be owned by parents. The majority seem to go right back to the logical fallacy mentioned above.

    “right…just because you disagree, therefore it must be “wrong”.”

    Back to the straw man on me disagreeing about pitbulls. At no time have I made any statement for or against the breed.

    “anyways, were done here. end of discussion.”

    Sounds good to me. I hope you have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

  41. avatarpat says:

    Bottom line: Only bangers and white trash own the dangerous mutts. Get a shepard or golden retriever and go duck and pheasant hunting instead and get yo head out da guetto. Peace out beeoochezz.

    • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

      Bangers and white trash huh?? Well!! Glad to see somebody has been practicing their bias quotient for the week!!
      Am former military(15yrs), combat vet, married and kids and grankids, work my ass of everyday in a limestone quarry, law abiding CHCL holder with a very clean record, not a banger or white trash and have owned 4 awesome Staffordshire Pitbulls.
      Why the hell would I want a retriever?? Don’t bird hunt so….!
      Before you go throwing biased and unsupported bullshit around about people you ought to pull your head out of your ass and be a little more Accurate in your accusations.
      And by the way….quit acting like a fucktard wanna be and act like an adult..if you know how!!!!

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.