TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

KBCraig wrote:It's obvious that people have cemented within their minds their own internal movie version of what happened, and they refer to that version in support of their stance.

Further discussion seems pointless.

To some extent, I agree on this. I differ in that I believe it has to do with the desire to protect ones children from harm. Those of us that have children we love and want to protect, can invision ourselves in the same situation and would not be willing to put our childrens safety over a dogs safety.

Thank you for an example that makes my point. Your "internal movie" of this incident tells you that anyone questioning whether this was a good shoot, must love dogs more than children.

I have five children, thank you, all of whom I love and want to protect. I also have five dogs. I have never argued against protecting one's children; I would shoot any dog, including my own, who attacked a child.

My argument has been based on a couple of things: the likelihood of being attacked by one breed over another; and, the unlikelihood, given the details as reported, that this was an actual attack.

That is all.

I did not mean to imply you don't care about your children. My sentiments are that I don't care what kind of dog it is. If I don't feel I can imediately over power it in the case of an attack, I will immediately revert to deadly force. Pit bulls just happened to be the example on this thread. I would react quickly in the case of a doberman, german shepard or a mut that looked tough and muscular. Just like the officer in this situation did.

To use the word movie, implies fake as if it is not a real threat. A pit bull terrior is a REAL threat...not a movie.

KBCraig wrote:and, the unlikelihood, given the details as reported, that this was an actual attack.

That is all.

Of course it was not an actual attack. It was a prevented attack.

I don't see how anyone can read the dog's mind and determine whether the animal is going to carry out an attack.

Not all of us are "dog whisperers" who can intimate the feelings and motivations of canines. It's ridiculous to expect the average, normal person to be able to discern all of the finer points of animal behavior to predict an attack. Even experts get it wrong sometimes, just ask Steve Irwin and Sigfried and Roy. There is simply no way to know if inaction on the part of the shooter would have resulted in the dog carrying out the attack or not.

IMHO we just have to trust people to make reasonable decisions more than we trust our opinion of the good nature of all dogs.

I would like to thank everyone who participated in this thread for finally curing my O-C need to read every post made in the forum.

I've lasted through all of the CHL badge, Post Office carry, and open carry threads, but this one finally ended my compulsion.

Thanks,

KD5NRH wrote:

dihappy wrote:KB, my fiance is also a dog groomer. Safe to say that not many "pits" come in for a "groom", however they do come in for baths and nail clips. She has also never had a problem with "pits", she has however been bitten by Chow Chows, Labs, Mix breeds, and the many, many, "toy" sized dogs out there. Her co worker was scared badly on the face by a lab.

Does she deal with a lot of junkyard dogs? Special bulk pricing for dogfighting rings? Actual working (not show) herd dogs? She's probably not dealing with the dregs of doggy society, or even the "blue collar" working dogs unless she's grooming a few police or security animals, and yet these well-cared for dogs with owners who could easily afford enough obedience training for them to qualify as command-restrained in areas that recognise such (Stephenville doesn't, but a couple of towns around here do) are still injuring people who have a lot of experience in dealing with animals.

Neither Chili nor his kids had any way of knowing whether this dog had any such training, or what its disposition normally would be. Nor did they have enough time once it was "approximately three feet away" to evaluate its behavior any further.

Junkyard dogs? Only if junkyard owners care enough for their dogs to bring them in for a groom. The dogs she deals with could be called "spoiled", or at minimum cared for enough by their owners to get them groomed, yet some of these "family" dogs have no social training that they are a danger to anyone other than their owners who pamper them.

Let's see. The officer shot the dog in the head at almost point blank range with a .40 Caliber. And the dog survived!!! What does this say about the stopping power of the .40? I think I am going to stick with my .357 Mag. I guarantee you that dog would have been dead if shot in the head with a .357 Magnum.

The_Vigilante wrote:Let's see. The officer shot the dog in the head at almost point blank range with a .40 Caliber. And the dog survived!!! What does this say about the stopping power of the .40?

It says nothing at all. It was apparently a glancing shot that hit nothing vital. The same shot with a .50 BMG would have had the same effect.

mr.72 wrote:

KBCraig wrote:and, the unlikelihood, given the details as reported, that this was an actual attack.

That is all.

Of course it was not an actual attack. It was a prevented attack.

If it was a prevented attack, then the dog was attacking until shot. Under the circumstances as reported, Todd Jarrett needs to go ahead and retire, because Chili can recognize the threat, draw from concealment, fire a single shot, and hit an attacking dog in the head.

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.

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........

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.

KD5NRH wrote:Got it first try.


Know your target.

And carry extra magazines.

Right2Carry wrote: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 think there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll.

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.

flintknapper wrote:Hmmmmmmmm,

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

Looks to me like he was just nicked.

If he being barked across the snout made him run off, it strengthens my opinion that this was not a vicious dog in attack mode.

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.

Its O.K., I expect a certain amount of that. Even a cursory reading of my posts would reveal what you have said....but I understand the "emotional" nature of the discussion, so folks will sometimes speak without benefit of any real forethought.

I am not offended.... and hope I have not offended others with MY opinions.