TexasCHLforum.com

Flitnapper wrote:

One thing is clear, Officer Alexander seems to be quite popular among the students and citizens of the town (most of them anyway). This tells me that he must be a friendly and outgoing person.

One problem I have with your argument is you are not applying your standards equally to both sides. You claim the dog is good natured, has never had a problem, been at the park and never attacked any other kids or animals, so why would he all of a sudden attack some children which would be out of character for the dog.

I think you need to apply that same standard to the officer. Why would an officer of the law who has never exhibited bad behaviour in the community, been an outstanding member of the community, has been in parks before with no history of shooting dogs or animals, all of a sudden do something that is completely out of character for him? I am sure the officer has a few more years on this planet exhibiting good character than the dog has.

You might want to watch a few episodes of when animals attack. I think you would be surprised at the number of family pets that never showed aggression that ended up attacking their owners or others.

I would say the chances of the dog acting out of character are far greater then the officer acting out of character and shooting a dog who was no threat to him or his children.

flintknapper wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

Sorry I respectfully disagree. Flintnapper has been going out of his way to show the FATHER acted inappropriately.

Sir, if what you mean by this is the notion that I do not believe the man has an absolute right to defend himself, his children, or any other third party from an obviously aggressive animal then I take exception to your statement.

If you dislike the fact that I have "questions" about whether or not this shooting (potentially dangerous to bystanders) was actually necessary or reasonable....(and feel that I have "gone out of my way" or over labored the subject), well....that is your right.

I think his points were made, and the reference about the pictures appearing to contradict the Father's testimony was nothing more than speculation and an attempt to continue to beat this dead horse.

Absolutely "speculation" (not unlike your own or that of others here). We have little to go on in terms of empirical evidence in this case. I believe I have been the first to point that out. Beating a dead horse? I suppose everyone has their own idea of when that starts. I apologize if my questions have placed a burr under your saddle, I felt as if there was still some useful discussion to be had, even though I violated my pledge earlier in this thread to "bow out". I tried.

I don't think it is an insult to point out what I feel his posts have implied regarding dogs and children

.
It certainly is not, I have the same respect for your opinion/perspective as I do anyone who has presented a contrasting view point. In fairness however, I would ask that you be somewhat specific so that I might at least respond to your objections...or point you to a post I have already made (probably numerous times), surely that is not too much to ask.

I believe the father was pro-active in defending his children instead of waiting for a time that it may have been too late.

This seems to be a popular viewpoint...and you may be right, we don't know.

It is easy to sit here and be a arm chair quarterback and criticize a father for protecting his children from what he deemed as a credible threat.

This keeps coming up. The fault with it however, is that no questions concerning the "reasonableness" of his belief/perception are to be allowed. The dissenter seeks to exploit the Father-Child relationship (a highly emotional thing) to his advantage. The premise seems to be that as long as the Parent feared for the child then any action to correct the perceived threat is acceptable and expected. The law of course, would rightfully demand the action be normal and reasonable and that others (in a similar situation) would have acted in the same way. For me, a dog approaching is NOT a reason for me to jerk my weapon. There must be a compelling reason for me to believe that the animal means me harm.

For another person, perhaps someone not raised around dogs, someone afraid of dogs, someone who doesn't own a dog, whose children aren't familiar with dogs, etc.....the perception of a friendly dog, wagging his tail, tongue hanging out....could be quite different...I realize that.

I have seen to many people put animals above human life, I won't apologize for calling something as I see it.

You've not seen me putting animals above humans, quite the contrary in fact. So since this accusation is apparently leveled at me, then I will require you to show me a post where I have stated or inferred anything of the sort. Again, a perfect example of an unreasonable and inaccurate "perception", yes?

I hate the political correctness that has our society scared to voice opinions that should be voiced

.
With you all the way here. I am not a man to mince words either (although I try not to be purposefully offensive) so I hope I have not been.

I am just calling it the way I see it and if you think it was an insult well that is your prerogative.

I can't speak for anyone else....but I am not insulted by your posts. Glad you made them in fact.

Flint.

IMHO your intent as I perceive is to find a way to lay fault at the fathers feet. The fault in this case is with the girl who violated the law by not having her dog on a leash. I doubt that he would have shot the dog had it been wagging it's tail. The child was obviously fearful of the dog according to the owners own account. Owners see their dog differently than others see them. I have seen large dog owners at the park with leashes way to long for my comfort level when my 7 year old is playing. They walk their dogs through the playground area without one thought about what would happen if their dog would attack a child.

It is my opinion that dog owners think that their dog would never attack anyone, much like most of the sheep think that a crime will never happen to them. We carry our firearms in case it does happen to us.

Again my problem here is that the same people who are questioning the actions of the father are the same ones who I believe would be lambasting him had he done nothing and that dog had mauled or killed his child. Dogs sense fear, and with the owners testimony about the child being scarred there is no way to predict what the intentions of that dog were.

If you want to find fault, find fault with the irresponsible owner, if she had followed the law we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

As far as my comment about People putting value of animals above human life, it wasn't directed at you. If I wanted that comment to be directed at you I would have used your name instead of People. If I have something to say to someone I will either respond to their post or will address them directly in any post that I make on the subject.

I am glad that you didn't take my comment as an insult, that was just my perception of what I had been reading. It was not meant as an insult even though KB PERCIEVED it as such. I think the discussion has been civil. although we disagree on a few things.

I don't get offended easily and sometimes I think society should be a little more thick skinned instead of all this tap dancing around things that some people may find offensive or not politically correct. I abide by the rules set forth here in Charles place out of respect for him and the community.

You are entitled to your opinion and as such I guess we will just have to disagree on the subject at hand. I will grant you that the possibility exists (although a very small one IMHO) that the father may have over-reacted to the situation. I think that unless some other evidence or video of the shoot turns up, that this is and was a good shoot according to the law enforcement agencies.

The father is under no obligation to train his child or socialize his child to animals or animal behaviour. Is it a good idea to do so probably, but he is not obligated to do so. An owner is required to keep his or her pet under control at all times or face the consequences of not doing so, in most places that is the LAW. I know exactly what I would have done had that dog had my child cornered and was growling or snarling. The father attempted to get the owner to call off the dog, according to her accounts she didn't have time, but I would venture a guess that she thought she didn't have to and that was her second mistake.

KBCraig wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

flintknapper wrote:Hmmmmmmmm,

Anyone other than me think that the photos here suggest a different "trajectory" than first reported?

Appears to be an entry wound on the dogs right side, I can see no clear exit wound...but a "blood shot" eye on the opposite side suggests a shot taken from the side or an angle.

http://www.empiretribune.com/articles/2 ... 719923.txt


Doesn't really "jive" with first reports. But who knows........

You're grasping at straws and speculating over photo's that don't show squat. Stop trying to defend the actions of an owner who didn't have her dog on a leash. You have proven your point that you value a dog over the life of a child.

I'm not flintknapper, but I take great umbrage at the insult you've just issued him. He has never defended the owner for having her dog off a leash, and he's certainly never shown the least hint of valuing dogs over children.

You have gravely insulted the man, and you owe him an apology.

Sorry I respectfully disagree. Flintnapper has been going out of his way to show the FATHER acted inappropriately. I think his points were made, and the reference about the pictures appearing to contradict the Father's testimony was nothing more than speculation and an attempt to continue to beat this dead horse.

It was a dog that should have been on a leash end of story. I find it amazing that anyone would sit here and second guess a father who maybe had split seconds to determine the nature of the dog and what to do about it. I don't think it is an insult to point out what I feel his posts have implied regarding dogs and children. I believe the father was pro-active in defending his children instead of waiting for a time that it may have been too late.

It is easy to sit here and be a arm chair quarterback and criticize a father for protecting his children from what he deemed as a credible threat. I would bet the same people on here trying to prove this father over-reacted would be the same ones lambasting him if he had done nothing and his child had been killed or maimed. Hindsight is 20/20.

I have seen to many people put animals above human life, I won't apologize for calling something as I see it. I hate the political correctness that has our society scared to voice opinions that should be voiced. I am just calling it the way I see it and if you think it was an insult well that is your prerogative.

flintknapper wrote:Hmmmmmmmm,

Anyone other than me think that the photos here suggest a different "trajectory" than first reported?

Appears to be an entry wound on the dogs right side, I can see no clear exit wound...but a "blood shot" eye on the opposite side suggests a shot taken from the side or an angle.

http://www.empiretribune.com/articles/2 ... 719923.txt


Doesn't really "jive" with first reports. But who knows........

You're grasping at straws and speculating over photo's that don't show squat. Stop trying to defend the actions of an owner who didn't have her dog on a leash. You have proven your point that you value a dog over the life of a child.

I am absolutely stunned by the discussion on this attack. I am a dog lover, have had dogs all my life and yet I find this FATHER reacted in probably the same way I would have if my children would have been in danger. I can't believe the second guessing going on in this thread about a FATHERS split second decision to protect his kids from a viable threat.

The same paranoid people who see someone walking up to them and perceive that as a threat, are defending a dog who actually showed aggressive behaviour toward a child. The FATHER did what he needed to do and I applaud him for his actions. Why should he wait until the dog is actually attacking the child?

A child is no match for a large dog regardless of the breed. Those of you who sit on here and say you would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six need to remember that maybe that FATHER would rather be judged by 12 than have his child carried by six, or maimed for the rest of their life. The FATHER was justified and the fault of this belongs on the girls who failed to have their dogs on leases. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.