TexasCHLforum.com

Excaliber wrote:You folks have made good points and on reconsideration I agree with you.

I withdraw the rule suggestion.

I would still strongly encourage citing sources for statistics if the intent is to advance the discussion rather than to just stir the pot.

There you go.

matriculated wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

matriculated wrote:

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Seems to me that implementing a new rule to require documentation of stated "facts" would constitute "growth" of the rule base. This is the logic behind the expansion of tax regulations, and government growth in general.

Some rules are necessary, and I believe already in place. The internet in general is a place where there are few "rules", and I like it that way. I agree with DragonFighter that statements can be challenged if someone disagrees with them. I think that's all that is necessary. More rules, more laws, more regulation, who needs it? At this rate, someday they'll even have 1500 page laws, and even want to prevent talking on cell phones while driving... oh, wait...

Down with rules!

Mutiny in the making?

Never thought of myself as a fire-bomb throwing anarchist! Usually more of a

I don't know. I detect a very subtle, almost subliminal anarchist message in your writing. We should talk. Not that I'm an anarchist or anything...

(Enter Keith B to get thread back on topic in 3...2...1...)

First, this tangent was STARTED by a moderator. And since they NEVER break the rules, this MUST be OK.

Second, if you take the first letter of every third word that I've written in this forum since first joining, in order, you'll find I've reproduced the collected works of Karl Marx -- pretty cleaver, right? (Shhhhhh! Don't tell anybody!)

I think I'll put this in my signature line ...

sjfcontrol wrote:Second, if you take the first letter of every third word that I've written in this forum since first joining, in order, you'll find I've reproduced the collected works of Karl Marx -- pretty cleaver, right? (Shhhhhh! Don't tell anybody!)

Very impressive.

edit: BTW, I think this particular emoticon is having a seizure.

atouk wrote:The penalty for shooting a police dog is pretty hefty. I think the penalty for police shooting a family pet should be the same, unless they're stopping an actual deadly force attack. Lets get back to a country that really supports Liberty and Justice for All.

Ridiculous. Waiting for an "actual deadly force attack"? Are you serious?

Sorry, but I am not waiting for a bite to gauge whether it is ""actual deadly force", "pretend deadly force", or just "actual semi-serious . . . "

Since I do not trespass, in general, if someone does not want their dog shot they can control their dog.

Jumping Frog wrote:

atouk wrote:The penalty for shooting a police dog is pretty hefty. I think the penalty for police shooting a family pet should be the same, unless they're stopping an actual deadly force attack. Lets get back to a country that really supports Liberty and Justice for All.

Ridiculous. Waiting for an "actual deadly force attack"? Are you serious?

Sorry, but I am not waiting for a bite to gauge whether it is ""actual deadly force", "pretend deadly force", or just "actual semi-serious . . . "

Since I do not trespass, in general, if someone does not want their dog shot they can control their dog.

Here's my issue with this type of response. Define "control their dog" for us. Is a dog that standing and growling "out of control". How about a dog that's standing and baring his teeth? How about a dog that's standing and baring his teeth and barking in a menacing way? Is that dog "out of control"?

How about if he's doing it to an armed human, who is screaming at the top of his lungs, holding a weapon pointed at his master? Which of the two are "out of control"? Maybe the poor dog is wondering why the humans in charge don't get their charges "in control"...

Don't get me wrong, I don't have an answer to all of this. But I don't think the real answers are so cut and dried as some try to make it sound.

From the dog's point of view -- it's the humans that are out of control. The dog is just doing his job. And after thinking about it, they just might be right!

Jumping Frog wrote:

atouk wrote:The penalty for shooting a police dog is pretty hefty. I think the penalty for police shooting a family pet should be the same, unless they're stopping an actual deadly force attack. Lets get back to a country that really supports Liberty and Justice for All.

Ridiculous. Waiting for an "actual deadly force attack"? Are you serious?

Sorry, but I am not waiting for a bite to gauge whether it is ""actual deadly force", "pretend deadly force", or just "actual semi-serious . . . "

Since I do not trespass, in general, if someone does not want their dog shot they can control their dog.

If I remember the right puppy shooting (there are so many) Cisco was killed on his owner's property. I agree with atouk that the penalty for inappropriately shooting a family's pet on the family's property should be the same as inappropriately shooting a police dog.

Violet wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

atouk wrote:The penalty for shooting a police dog is pretty hefty. I think the penalty for police shooting a family pet should be the same, unless they're stopping an actual deadly force attack. Lets get back to a country that really supports Liberty and Justice for All.

Ridiculous. Waiting for an "actual deadly force attack"? Are you serious?

Sorry, but I am not waiting for a bite to gauge whether it is ""actual deadly force", "pretend deadly force", or just "actual semi-serious . . . "

Since I do not trespass, in general, if someone does not want their dog shot they can control their dog.

If I remember the right puppy shooting (there are so many) Cisco was killed on his owner's property. I agree with atouk that the penalty for inappropriately shooting a family's pet on the family's property should be the same as inappropriately shooting a police dog.

Please define how to shoot a police dog appropriately.

Anygunanywhere

Ahhh! Emotion vs Intellect. It is always amazing to me the way that Emotion can take a normally quite intelligent person into places and positions that he would normally avoid. Human weakness or Human strength? Does love of a lower life form overcome love of a fellow member of ones own species?

Dogs are not our children, no matter how much we may try to substitute them as such. I love my dogs. I rescued all of them from the street. I never forget though that on this planet, most everywhere that I know of, dogs are property or wild animals. If a LEO shoots one of mine, I will be sad, but I will not be mad. Intellect still rules Emotion within me, and LEO is a fellow good guy, one with an incredibly difficult job.

My condolences go out to the owner who lost his dog. My assurance to him is that there are many wonderful dogs out there in rescue organizations just waiting for a good owner like him to come along. And the police department should pick up the tab.

sugar land dave wrote:Ahhh! Emotion vs Intellect. It is always amazing to me the way that Emotion can take a normally quite intelligent person into places and positions that he would normally avoid. Human weakness or Human strength? Does love of a lower life form overcome love of a fellow member of ones own species?

Dogs are not our children, no matter how much we may try to substitute them as such. I love my dogs. I rescued all of them from the street. I never forget though that on this planet, most everywhere that I know of, dogs are property or wild animals. If a LEO shoots one of mine, I will be sad, but I will not be mad. Intellect still rules Emotion within me, and LEO is a fellow good guy, one with an incredibly difficult job.

My condolences go out to the owner who lost his dog. My assurance to him is that there are many wonderful dogs out there in rescue organizations just waiting for a good owner like him to come along. And the police department should pick up the tab.

So, anyone who isn't fine with a LEO killing their dog, from negligence, is ruled by their emotions....but those who have no problem with it, like you apparently, are masters of intellect, unlike the rest of us knuckle draggers. You're a funny guy....it seems to me that you're in fact just the opposite of what you claim to be....you're just ruled by a different emotion and conditioned response, or are afraid to face what intellect tells you is wrong: that a LEO can enter private property without cause, or due to negligence, and kill someone's dog. Since a dog is merely "property" to you, then you're apparently OK with LEO entering private property and destroying it --due to negligence. How "intellectual" of you.

My intellect tells me that allowing LEOs to get away with this kind of behavior is bad for property owners, dog owners, and society at large. My intellect also tells me that a dog is not merely "property" and that one dog is not interchangeable with another, as you seem to believe. Where's that prized intellect when it comes to observing dog behavior? Dogs are obviously individuals, have different personalities, and different levels of intelligence, making them much more than property, and not interchangeable or replaceable like a TV set....your rather glib and condescending assurance to the contrary not withstanding.

OK folks, quit taking jabs at others and making personal attacks or the thread will be locked.

VMI77 wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:Ahhh! Emotion vs Intellect. It is always amazing to me the way that Emotion can take a normally quite intelligent person into places and positions that he would normally avoid. Human weakness or Human strength? Does love of a lower life form overcome love of a fellow member of ones own species?

Dogs are not our children, no matter how much we may try to substitute them as such. I love my dogs. I rescued all of them from the street. I never forget though that on this planet, most everywhere that I know of, dogs are property or wild animals. If a LEO shoots one of mine, I will be sad, but I will not be mad. Intellect still rules Emotion within me, and LEO is a fellow good guy, one with an incredibly difficult job.

My condolences go out to the owner who lost his dog. My assurance to him is that there are many wonderful dogs out there in rescue organizations just waiting for a good owner like him to come along. And the police department should pick up the tab.

So, anyone who isn't fine with a LEO killing their dog, from negligence, is ruled by their emotions....but those who have no problem with it, like you apparently, are masters of intellect, unlike the rest of us knuckle draggers. You're a funny guy....it seems to me that you're in fact just the opposite of what you claim to be....you're just ruled by a different emotion and conditioned response, or are afraid to face what intellect tells you is wrong: that a LEO can enter private property without cause, or due to negligence, and kill someone's dog. Since a dog is merely "property" to you, then you're apparently OK with LEO entering private property and destroying it --due to negligence. How "intellectual" of you.

My intellect tells me that allowing LEOs to get away with this kind of behavior is bad for property owners, dog owners, and society at large. My intellect also tells me that a dog is not merely "property" and that one dog is not interchangeable with another, as you seem to believe. Where's that prized intellect when it comes to observing dog behavior? Dogs are obviously individuals, have different personalities, and different levels of intelligence, making them much more than property, and not interchangeable or replaceable like a TV set....your rather glib and condescending assurance to the contrary not withstanding.

VMI77, you're spot on. I don't quite understand how one arrives at the idea that unless you're ok with your dog getting unnecessarily shot you must be an emotional basket case.

...if a person wrongly kills one of my dogs, I'm going to see to it that they pay a penalty...as much as I can get put on them within the law...and I would sue for money damages...no matter who it is...if an LEO, a meter reader, or any other person has reason to kill one of my dogs that I have not properly restrained...it's my fault...and I'll just have to suck it up and bury him...I won't give up my right to have emotions and love my dogs...and I won't give up or fail to act on my legal rights...but neither will I neglect my legal responsibilities...

For those who attack me personally, you prove my point. Dogs can bring forth strong emotions. I just do not discount fear produced in others. An LEO should not have to suffer a bite or potential thereof. I recognize him as human with the ability to fear and make mistakes. If one should shoot my dogs, I will grieve, but I will not rage. As for my intellect, it is north of 150, but I like to say that I am just as smart as I need to be. In this case, it means not engaging in a fruitless internet squabble over something which does not personally involve me. Sticks and stones may break my bones......

I rescue dogs and find good homes for them even though I am not a member of any animal group. My own dogs are controlled within a 7 foot privacy fence which I personally built to surround all but my front door. They dogs have space to roam on my property while allowing visitors safe access to visit me. I rescued them as pups and never taught them to bite. The yard dog will not bark unless someone enters inside of his fence. He has been trained by me not to charge anyone or jump up on them even though he is a big 90 pound dog. The inside 12 pound dog has the same training. My dogs do not even fear or cower from fireworks and thunder. I took the time to teach them to be the dogs I expected them to be. In return, I spoil them gloriously.

In spite of my love for dogs, I will still not choose them over my fellow man in all his glory of strength and weakness. Accidents happen. Mistakes happen. Intellect or Emotion? It's an intriguing question for me I choose one, but another chooses me. Paradox.

Excaliber wrote:If you don't have time to look up the source, it would be appreciated if you'd refrain from wasting ours by posting unsupported statistical garbage that even you don't believe anyway.

Tossing a highly controversial but unsupported statistic into an already heated debate inevitably sheds much more heat than light, and causes those of us who care about leaving unrefuted misinformation on the Forum to spend time hunting down its roots instead of on more productive endeavors.

In my book, going silent, for whatever reason, and failing to respond to an immediate request from a moderator for a reference right after posting that statistic does not enhance a member's credibility either.

Let's use this experience as an opportunity to improve our Forum submissions. My request to all would be to provide a link to the source of any statistic cited so the rest of us can easily do the homework to assess its value.

I'd even like to see it elevated to a Forum rule.

Mods? Charles?

Yes, I should have provided a source. However, it wouldn't change much, especially in this case. In the first place, while a source reference is perhaps better than nothing...how much better is it? If, for example, the source was supposed to be a news article that referenced a study, or even a study itself, what would it tell you? Pretty much nothing more than I didn't just make up the numbers cited --that's it. It wouldn't tell you that the "source" didn't make up the numbers, no matter how supposedly reputable the source might be. For that you'd have to see the study AND the raw data, not someone's description of the study. Secondly, who is to say the source claimed is the actual source? The source you say you found is the not source I see referenced for this particular statistic. I looked around for a few minutes and found the statistic attributed to Don B. Kates and/or Gary Kleck: http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/89/104/03_1_m.html and http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... sp?ID=1776. So who's correct?

There is no statistic, no matter the source, that isn't conditional and debatable. Sources can be cited all day long but it's rare, very rare, to see the actual methodology, and the raw data that a statistical result is compiled from, on the internet, so we're always taking someone's word that a given statistic is relevant and meaningful. Even when a report is available it provides the results, not the raw data, and there is no way of determining whether or not the statistic given is close enough to something we can call "truth" to be meaningful. And that's assuming complete objectively and honestly on the part of the person compiling the statistic --something that is also very rare.

In the case of this particular statistic I'm surprised you find it controversial.....it seems to me that it's pretty much what one would expect --which is why I mentioned it even though I couldn't remember the reference. LEO's are in the business of seeking out and confronting criminals, and they're often introduced into a situation where they can't be certain of who the good guys are. In any case, even if you considered the source to be reliable, it seems to me that the numbers just point to something that could be true: to make a judgment from these numbers would require more data --at a minimum the population each percentage is based on, in addition to much more subjective information like the definitions of LEO, civilian, and "innocent." Any mention of a statistic presupposes some reasonable level of understanding of statistics and logic.

I'm probably not communicating the concept properly, but I don't "believe" any statistic. I view every statistic as suspect, and at best, a guide to making an informed judgement. A statistic can represent something close enough to the truth to be meaningful; it can be "truthful" and yet meaningless; it can be "truthful" and misleading; it can be deceptive; it can be mostly false and yet still meaningful; and a host of other possibilities.

To me, it's not doing your homework just to check on a link provided as a reference. I typed in a few phrases like "how often do police shoot the wrong person" and in a few minutes found links citing Don Kates and Gary Kleck. It seems to me that doing my homework entails my own independent search for and evaluation of references.I don't know how you're going to "fact check" any reference, especially one that is obscure. It's one thing to "fact check" some statement someone claims Obama made --you may find a preponderance of agreement that he did or didn't make such a statement-- it's another thing entirely to "fact check" a reference to a study of any kind, much less one this obscure.

Excaliber wrote:In my book, going silent, for whatever reason, and failing to respond to an immediate request from a moderator for a reference right after posting that statistic does not enhance a member's credibility either.

Seriously? Whatever reason? Checking and answering blog posts is pretty far down on my list of priorities. Furthermore, I don't see what it has to do with my "credibility." I made a remark that I qualified with "supposedly" to indicate that there is reason for doubt --that it shouldn't be taken at face value, and I gave a statistic that doesn't even seem controversial to me, but what one might expect, given the inherent differences between LEO's and non-LEO's. But of course, you're free to make whatever judgement you wish about my credibility --I'm content to let whatever I've posted here stand on its own.