What the hell is going on?!! (dangerous dogs)

[TheFederalistWeasel]

What the hell is going on?!!?!??!

In the last week my agency and our surrounding partners have had to destroy 6 dogs and we’ve had 2 officers bitten, one pretty badly, needed 20 stitches!!!

Why MUST people find dogs such as Pit bulls and large Shepards and raise them in such a manor they become vicious towards anybody except a very small hand full the animal will encounter daily?

Pretty stupid if you ask me, we had an EMS call which started all of this where a large Shepard ran both medics back to the truck on a person down call, we responded to assist EMS.

Dogs owners were walking around like the dog wasn’t even there, we tried pepper spray with no effect and asked the owner to secure the dog to which he responded, she just don’t know you yet.

Dog was shot and killed by a SGT

EMS entered the adjacent house and found a person having a stroke.

The hood in my jurisdiction is just plain over run with poorly treated Pit bulls, every black male has one nowadays it seems to be the in-thing or at least that’s what were told.

Trailer parks around here are over run as well, what the hell is wrong with people?

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, perception always outweighs reality, for the average Dudley Doofus. "Got my Guard Dog, man!"

People don't discipline themselves; why would anyone think they discipline their kids or dogs? So the untrained dog does what dogs do: Bites the wrong person.

Bummer.

Art

 

[LeonCarr]

I have had to put down two pit bulls in my LEO career. Both of them were at dope houses, and both of them were trying to eat me . In my experience, the owners/controllers of the dogs are more at fault than the breed. The reason that the dogs are vicious like that is because of lack of socialization and interaction with other people except for the few people the dog encounters daily. Keeping the dog penned up or chained up all day is the absolute worst thing you can do to a dog. The drug dealer is not going to properly train the dog, he/she is too busy making or selling dope.

Mr. Weasel: one thing you might try doing is get you local ASPCA involved, and file charges on the owners for both the dope and the mistreatment of the animals. And if the owners refuse to call the dog off, see if the EMTs will file assault charges. Jurisdictions are different, but it has worked here in Texas.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Beren]

"Dogs owners were walking around like the dog wasn’t even there, we tried pepper spray with no effect and asked the owner to secure the dog to which he responded, she just don’t know you yet.

Dog was shot and killed by a SGT"

Hmm. Sounds like a scene out of a future movie:


Cop, preferably played by Dennis Leary while trying to secure the scene for paramedics to respond. Dog exhibits HIGH levels of aggression and will not let the paramedics attend the wounded. "Ma'am, secure your dog!"

"Awww, she just don't know you yet."

"Fine. Let's get aquainted." *blam blam blam blam blam* "That's a good girl."

I know, I know, not funny, and it really does bother me when owners raise animals in such a manner that, for the safety of the community, the animals must later be detroyed. It really is not the dog's fault, but there's no choice but to put it down.

 

[middy]

Beren, I don't know... I thought that was pretty funny.

Weasel, hopefully you'll start to get more calls about these dogs eating their owners.

 

[GhostRider66]

The hood in my jurisdiction is just plain over run with poorly treated Pit bulls, every black male has one nowadays it seems to be the in-thing or at least that’s what were told.

Profiling...I call profiling. Just kidding. I grew up in the barrio and there it was Chows mostly. Fortunately, they have a bit of a cowardly streak unless you get a couple or more together. Hey, I wonder how long before protocol will be to taze them first.

 

[El Tejon]

Fed, maybe you should try to get the makers of rap videos to include poodles or toy Yorkies in their videos instead of the big, nasty dogs.

Or, you can do what I do. I mean a big chain about my neck and have my teef gold-plated and carry around a large goblet. The dogs ignore me.

 

[Arc-Lite]

responsibility is a lost art, deal with the dog, and deal with the owner in any fashion to get your point accross. last time I was bit, it was the last thing the dog did, and the start of a very very bad year...for the EX dog owner. F.W. ...come down on these air heads HARD....you desire change, be the change.

 

[Sam]

Dogs are a reflection of the owner.
People with bad attitudes get dogs that have a rep for bad attitudes.
Makes them feel good, vindicated in their idiocy.
Runs right up and down the leash like an electric current.

It's why I own Australian Shepherds, 11 of them.



Get some Glasers, dogs are only thing they are good for, and they are relatively safe to use in the close environment, minimal penetration, ricochet etc, that comes with shooting dogs.
Probably have a bit of time to slip one in the chamber on a call like that.
Make sure that you charge on all the related dog offenses, failure to control, vicious dog, etc.... The assault charge works here too.


Sam

 

[GunGoBoom]

State legislator here just introduced legislation to ban pit bulls from the state, in response to a recent attack in his district, in which a 3 year old boy's arm was amputated after a pit bull attack. I am in a mental quandry myself, struggling with this issue, because I find myself having a first reaction of backing the measure, since the average joe dufus can't be trusted with such a dangerous instrumentality. Of course, this is directly analygous to guns, but I have thus far rationalized the difference in that there is a fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms; and there is of course no such right to own a dangerous breed of dog, and therefore the negative consequences of gun ownership must be accepted along with the good, in order to maintain the civil right; cost of liberty etc., but no corresponding reason to tolerate the negatives of pit bull ownership, which seem to outweigh the positives in our society. In other words, the use of a cost-benefit calculus is a proper idea for a non-fundamental right or a non-right in the case of pit bull ownership; whereas, cost-benefit analysis is not properly applied to fundamental civil rights. This makes sense, yet I can't help but feeling somewhat hypocritical in my stance, just due to the elistist attitude I have. Seriously, however, it sure does appear that the average redneck (of any skin color), for better or worse, doesn't control his dogs, and pit bull terriers are particularly dangerous due to their temperaments (made bad by poor breeding practices for viciousness by dumbutt backyard breeders - the breed was not originally 'vicious' - it was agressive, but not vicious - there's a difference), their persistence, and their powerful natural tools - their jaws and muscularity.

 

[TonyB]

it's fine for a LEO to shoot a dog,but here in the great state of NY...there's "buster's law"....if I shot a dog I'd probably get more time than if I shot the owner......I know the intent of the law is to stop animal abuse..but it's gone too far..... :banghead:

 

[taliv]

the answer is that owners should be responsible for their dogs legally. i.e. if YOU bit the arm off a 3 yr old, you'd go to jail for a long time. if your dog bites the arm off a 3 yr old, the dog dies and you go to jail for the same time.

 

[Cosmoline]

That's why Dennis Leary is not allowed onto my property. Neither is Gary Busey, for that matter. When the celebs in question are stranger and more dangerous than their most psychotic fans, that's when I draw the line

 

[MMcCall]

it's fine for a LEO to shoot a dog,but here in the great state of NY...there's "buster's law"....if I shot a dog I'd probably get more time than if I shot the owner......I know the intent of the law is to stop animal abuse..but it's gone too far.....

Not only that, but you have sworn SPCA officers with full police powers to come arrest your a** if they don't like the way you looked at Sparky

 

[pcf]

Gungoboom,
Are you serious? According to the CDC in 2000
-there were about 108 million emergency room visits, approximately 350,000 of those were related to dog bites. About .3% of all ER visits.
-About 6,000 required hospitalization.
-the are less than 20 dog attack related deaths a year.
-Over half of all dog bites involve children (I don't know what age qualifies as children)
-2/3 of all dog attacks involve the dog's owner or family, on the owners property.

Dog bites are problem, but if people are going to go on one of those "for the children" campaigns, taxpayers money is better spent. Poor diets, Houses, doctors, alcohol, and cars are all more dangerous than dogs.

Pit Bulls are very aggressive dogs, as the "pit" in their names denote they were placed in pits to fight other animals (usually dogs and hogs). One of their best qualities as fighting dogs are their lack of aggression towards humans. A handler could work with their dog without fear of being attacked. Raised and socialized properly, pit bulls are pathetic guard dogs. Improperly raised ANY DOG is very dangerous.

Ban pit bulls, problem with Dobermans, Rottweilers, Shepards, and other "aggressive breeds" skyrocket . Prince Georges County, Maryland is a perfect example of this. It's not a dog problem (just like guns aren't a problem), it's a people problem.

 

[GunGoBoom]

One of their best qualities as fighting dogs are their lack of aggression towards humans. A handler could work with their dog without fear of being attacked. Raised and socialized properly, pit bulls are pathetic guard dogs. Improperly raised ANY DOG is very dangerous.

Ahh, but there's the key. As I said, there is a difference between 'vicious' and aggressive:

One of their best qualities as fighting dogs are their lack of aggression towards humans

This is NOT any longer true! It *used to* be true when the breed was first bred and continued to be true as long as good, thoughtful, rational, and caring breeders bred the animals. But when idiot backyard breeders took over (when the breed became popular), the were no longer bred to be aggressive fighting dogs, but *vicious* dogs, with 'vicious' meaning showing natural undue aggressiveness towards *HUMANS*, not just other dogs - that's the definition of viciousness I'm talking about. So their genes have actually been changed in most dogs, to the detriment of the once-great breed, and to that of society. Sure, there are still a very few fine, high-quality breeders that can turn out a hell of a fighting dog (better in the pit than the dogs of the backyard breeders), but which is not 'vicious'; that is, dangerous to humans due to a pre-disposition to unprovoked attacks on humans, and children in particular. The breed used to be a fine fine aggressive breed. Now, due to backyard breeders, and the people who patronize them, the breed is a extremely dangerous breed, when viewed as a whole, in the big picture.

A handler could work with their dog without fear of being attacked. Raised and socialized properly, pit bulls are pathetic guard dogs.

Yes, 'could'. Past tense. No longer true.

Improperly raised ANY DOG is very dangerous.

Yes and no. Improperly raised, ANY dog is somewhat dangerous. Improperly raised, pit bulls are *EXTRAORDINARILY* dangerous!
Believe me, I'm not a fan of the "banners" in the gov't, "for the children". I'm usually diehard opposed to banning anything. And in truth, the proper remedy is to require strict licensing fees and requirements for backyard breeders, so that good breeders will once again control the breed. Or as mentioned, make people much more exposed to harsh criminal liability for their negligence in allowing a breed to roam freely and do harm. But *failing* those measures, then banning the breed is not the worst of ideas in truth. Certainly the legislators should look to those other 2 measures FIRST, that much is correct. But making people *civilly* liable ain't gonna cut it, cuz they're already civilly liable, and joe sixpack ain't got nothing to take in a lawsuit since all he owns is a 79 ford bronco, a 12 pack of pabst blue ribbon, some wife-beater tank tops, and a zz top tape.

[[Side note: I'm personally against people fighting their dogs, but I understand it, and don't consider it a societal ill, unlike owners of pit bulls run amok, and therefore children with one eye left, one arm left, extensive lifelong scarring, or in the graveyard from unprovoked pit bull attacks - that I do consider a societal problem.]]

 

[scubie02]

well, i love my dog and I personally don't find it that amusing to kill dogs--its most likely not THEIR fault that they behave the way they do, its the owners, and sadly they are the type who won't give a crap that you just killed their dog.

maybe you should save up the "bad dogs" and just swap owners...

 

[No_Brakes23]

Ban pit bulls, problem with Dobermans, Rottweilers, Shepards, and other "aggressive breeds" skyrocket

+1
And if you ban those breeds, then all large dogs will become problems. If all the pitts, labs, shepards, and dobies all magically disappeared, then dog attacks would still occur. Labs, St Bernards, and Basset Hounds are the hunting rifles of the dog world in that sense. Maybe the last to get banned, but certainly not unable to be vicous if mistreated enough.

Besides, just like gun control, it is largely reliant upon those who obeythe law. There will still be illegal pits if they ban pits. They will just call them Mastiffordshirefieldville Terriers or something.

I don't much like pit bulls, modern rotts, or any ghetto-status dogs. (Which is weird, I grew up with dobermans.) But banning them is not the answer. Owner responsibility is the answer. And maybe, if the nanny-stater bliss-ninnies just HAVE to spend taxpayer money on the "problem", they should start by teaching kids how to react to dog attacks and how to at least attempt to defend themselves.

 

[Joejojoba111]

"This is NOT any longer true! It *used to* be true when the breed was first bred and continued to be true as long as good, thoughtful, rational, and caring breeders bred the animals. But when idiot backyard breeders took over (when the breed became popular), the were no longer bred to be aggressive fighting dogs, but *vicious* dogs, with 'vicious' meaning showing natural undue aggressiveness towards *HUMANS*, not just other dogs - that's the definition of viciousness I'm talking about. So their genes have actually been changed in most dogs, to the detriment of the once-great breed, and to that of society."

I'm not sure that mates sense, I'm pretty sure that's a bunch of balloney.

Idiot backyard breeders have been re-sequencing the genome of their dogs? Yea, I don't think so.

Idiot backyard breeders have been sytematically killing every puppy that doesn't bite them as soon as it leaves the womb?
Yea, I doubt that too, if the breeders are as low-life as you imply, they'll sell every puppy they can, especially the 'defective' cuddly loving ones.


This just sounds more like another excuse to ban something that makes it harder to trespass on someone's property. I mean, if you want open and free access to all people's properties for whatever reason, then by all means put forth legislation and let's have a vote on it. But making a zillion little laws to do the same thing is just so inefficient, I don't care about the sneaky insidious aspect - I expect that, but the inefficiency really galls me.

 

[rock jock]

Yep, these people treat their dogs just like they treat their kids. Difference is the kids become viscious with a gun. Same result though.

 

[ksnecktieman]

I have a question for you "gunsgoboom" that I think will clarify your thinking........ dogs do what they are trained, or not trained, to do,,,,,A pit bull, or a Rottweiller, or a German shorthair wil respond as their master desires,,,,, THEY SHOULD,,,,,, That is good,,,, it is no different than a gun. A little bit more "autonomous" than a gun, but if a dog is trained that everyone is the "enemy" that is the way they will react........

I BELIEVE my bird dog (a german shorthaired pointer) would repulse your entry to my house. I BELIEVE he would attack you if you tried to rob me. I BELIEVE I am safe from physical attack when he is present. He has no aggressive or defensive training,,,,, but, if I am afraid,,,,, He KNOWS IT. I have the utmost faith in my dog. I do not think he would bite, if you entered when I am not here,,,,, He would tell you that he knows you do not belong. I do not KNOW if he would bite. IF I AM HERE, and I am terrified of you, my safety and well being are concerned? SORRY,,,,, Ranger will know,,, and he will deal with the threat to the best of his ability,,,, with claw and fangs... I REALLY think that my bird dog will kill you, if I am present and I have extreme fear for my wellbeing.

 

[Mannlicher]

thanks for sharing your epiphany. Guess ya found out that there are dogs, and there are dogs. Just like people, not all are warm and fuzzy.

 

[san408]

Gungoboom: I'm assuming you're in Oklahoma. I am also. You are flawed in you statement about how the dogs have been bred to be human-aggressive. That isn't true. I have a female whose father was a rescued fighter. He was definately a "ghetto" dog. Just over 100 lbs, and aggressive.

My little dog is only a little over 45 lbs and you could rob my house literally with a rolled up newspaper. The only thing I worry about is the neighbors dogs who won't quit trying to dig under my fence (and all the squirrels.)

Dogs behave how they are treated. I believe that 100%.

Now, with all that being said, I have a buddy who has a couple of beautiful pitbull terriers next to him. We went over to look at them the other day, and the male (again a beautiful blue) literally tried to get through the fence at us. He asked what I thought (about the looks). My only comment was "someone needs to put a bullet in that dogs heads before it hurts someone".

Irresponsible dog ownership is just that, irresponisble. Let's enforce that crime. I certainly don't plan to explain to my little girls why we have to get rid of a part of the family. Losing my Aussie was hard enough.

 

[P95Carry]

Indeed - people are by a long way the biggest problem. It does seem tho that some breeds, if trained or encouraged in the wrong way - do more easily seem to come out on the bad side.

Anyways - not to get into deep stuff here but to ask - keep things cool! We have had ''Pit" discussions (arguments) before and folks sometimes get pretty heated.

Try and keep discussion constructive and not personal - otherwise ''poof'' goes the thread.

 

[Joejojoba111]

I think that before they pass laws against certain breeds of dogs, they should get some damn proof. Do a damned study, instead of playing on peoples fears.

'ooh that dog looks scary, it must be dangerous' 'aww, that one's fluffy, it must be harmless'

What BS, the least scientific thing I've ever heard. Perhaps, as people mention, just maybe bad owners buy dogs that 'look scary' and make them into bad dogs... If that same person bought a poodle they could make it blood thirsty just as easily. Prove me wrong.

Prove me wrong!

Because the BURDEN OF PROOF lies on those trying to make an entire sub-species' RIGHT TO EXIST illegal.

...and 'one of them bit my partner, and I heard about another guy who got bit once...' is NOT proof, it is NOT a reason to ban an entire breed from existing.

Remember now, you reap what you sow, remember that.