Jan Williamson wrote 08/30/2007 10:59 AM Local Shooting Incident #153850 - 08/30/2007 10:59 AM
Jan Williamson Webboard User Reg: 08-10-2005 Posts: 483 Loc: NE Pennsylvania Offline	I'm embarrassed to say this happened in the small town where I work. I will be very surprised if the cop suffers any repercussions at all. http://www.pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-13/118836037830840.xml&coll=2&thispage=1 As you think, so shall you be.
Top
Jennifer Mullen wrote 08/30/2007 11:12 AM Re: Local Shooting Incident [Re: Jan Williamson ] #153854 - 08/30/2007 11:12 AM
Jennifer Mullen Webboard User Reg: 08-16-2007 Posts: 2365 Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Offline	that sounds horribly sad. but, not to sound harsh (but) - if the dog had a habit of opening the back door and getting out - doesn't the owner bear some responsibility for not supervising her dog, not fixing the door or properly fencing her yard? the officer shot a dog that was apparently (there being two versions in the article) trying play, not being aggressive, but isn't the animal coming to harm a risk of letting it roam loose and unsupervised, which it sounds like was occuring from the article. stuff like this makes me sad b/c it happened, but it also makes me angry that people don't bother more with their dogs. ...unless i'm reading too much into this. Teagan!
Top
Jan Williamson wrote 08/30/2007 11:24 AM Re: Local Shooting Incident [Re: Jan Williamson ] #153857 - 08/30/2007 11:24 AM
Jan Williamson Webboard User Reg: 08-10-2005 Posts: 483 Loc: NE Pennsylvania Offline	Sorry, Steve, but I'm opening up a story about a doctor on drugs?? As you think, so shall you be.
Top
Jan Williamson wrote 08/30/2007 11:36 AM Re: Local Shooting Incident [Re: Jennifer Mullen ] #153859 - 08/30/2007 11:36 AM
Jan Williamson Webboard User Reg: 08-10-2005 Posts: 483 Loc: NE Pennsylvania Offline	Yes, Jennifer, I agree that any owner has to bear the responsibility and pay the fines and be issued a warning, etc., but this is such a small town that if one person knows a "menacing" dog is on the loose, the whole town knows it. There was no menacing dog - at least within a 2-mile radius of the shooting site. I am not trying to excuse the owner by any means. She has a personal obligation/responsibility to make sure the dog is crated or kept securely behind doors or a fence, or even tied out (<shudder>. As you think, so shall you be.
Top
Guest1 wrote 08/30/2007 11:53 AM Re: Local Shooting Incident [Re: Jan Williamson ] #153864 - 08/30/2007 11:53 AM
Guest1 Webboard User Reg: 07-17-2002 Posts: 860 Loc: Iowa Offline	Quote: but this is such a small town that if one person knows a "menacing" dog is on the loose, the whole town knows it. So who was left out of the loop and felt the need to call? There are a variety of tasks which occupy the time of cops, for which they recieve no training, equipment, or even very much direction; yet the implicit expectation is to deal with the problem, otherwise it looks like it's being blown off. Snake, rabbits, deer, horse, goat, dog, cat, hawk, toad, bat, turtle, raccoon, opossum... How many of these have I been expected to deal with? All. How many times has an embarassing situation resulted from an impromptu solution to a dynamic and evolving situation involving a loose animal? MANY. And how much training or handling equipment have I or my co-workers been provided to deal with any of these, before or even after the fact? ZERO. I would expect the same elsewhere.
Top
Sandy Moore wrote 08/30/2007 12:17 PM Re: Local Shooting Incident [Re: Guest1 ] #153868 - 08/30/2007 12:17 PM
Sandy Moore Webboard User Reg: 07-25-2006 Posts: 2665 Loc: AZ Offline	Absolutely the owner of that poor ill-fated dog has TOTAL responsibility for the dog's death. They should be ashamed of themselves for trying to sue the police dept or the officer. The officer should turn around and sue them for making him live with the fact that he had to shoot a dog. From the story, it's obvious the dog was always loose and other people "would bring the dog back". The officer went out on a complaint of a dog chasing a child. Not everyone understands dog body language (if indeed the dog was in a playful mood when he saw the cop). These owners that espouse how much they love their dogs then let them run loose all over the neighborhood - they're pathetic and completely unconvincing about their "love". There's not a person with any brain that doesn't know that dogs get hit by cars and that cars can horribly hurt a dog, etc etc, ad nauseum. What does it take, a master's degree?? A dog that is allowed to continually run loose in a neighborhood is NOT loved - period.
Top
David Eagle wrote 08/30/2007 12:57 PM Re: Local Shooting Incident [Re: Guest1 ] #153883 - 08/30/2007 12:57 PM
David Eagle Webboard User Reg: 08-17-2007 Posts: 528 Loc: La Habra, California Offline	Quote: steven lepic And how much training or handling equipment have I or my co-workers been provided to deal with any of these, before or even after the fact? ZERO. You'd think they could at least get you a butterfly net or something. Man. Talk about McGyver'ing it.  Quote: sandy moore Absolutely the owner of that poor ill-fated dog has TOTAL responsibility for the dog's death. They should be ashamed of themselves for trying to sue the police dept or the officer. The officer should turn around and sue them for making him live with the fact that he had to shoot a dog. From the story, it's obvious the dog was always loose and other people "would bring the dog back". The officer went out on a complaint of a dog chasing a child. Not everyone understands dog body language (if indeed the dog was in a playful mood when he saw the cop). I 100% agree with you, Sandy. Some dogs hate hats.
Top
John J. Miller wrote 08/30/2007 01:07 PM Re: Local Shooting Incident [Re: David Eagle ] #153885 - 08/30/2007 01:07 PM
John J. Miller Webboard User Reg: 05-09-2007 Posts: 268 Loc: Chicago, IL Offline	I shoulder the responsibility every day of keeping my dog safely secure on my property. When off my property, my dog has to be 100% under my control which includes having a rock solid recall along with being able to command my dog to spit out whatever is in her mouth immediately. The lack of ANY of these puts my dogs life in danger. Period. By letting her dog loose she put his life in danger. Passing cars, other animals, and countless other accidents including misunderstandings about the dogs intentions all come into play. The owner is 100% at fault here, regardless of the officer's judgement call at the scene. John
Top
John J. Miller wrote 08/30/2007 01:11 PM Re: Local Shooting Incident [Re: John J. Miller ] #153886 - 08/30/2007 01:11 PM
John J. Miller Webboard User Reg: 05-09-2007 Posts: 268 Loc: Chicago, IL Offline	Combine my last post with the fact that the owner admits to letting the dog run free regularly and probably breeding mutts (she has his mother) for profit tells me all that I need to know about her character. John
Top
Jim Tompkins wrote 08/30/2007 01:19 PM Re: Local Shooting Incident [Re: John J. Miller ] #153888 - 08/30/2007 01:19 PM
Jim Tompkins Webboard User Reg: 06-06-2007 Posts: 29 Loc: Jasper, Florida Offline	Yes, the dog owner has to assume responsibiliy for his/her dog. The owner should have fixed or repaired the door so the dog could not exit. Should the officer have shot the dog? I have no clue since I was not there nor have any idea of the officer's knowledge of dogs. One thing is certain, the officer could not just leave the dog. Since he was responding to a call of a child being chased by a dog, can you imagine the reprecussions if a child had been bitten/mauled after the officer made contact with the situation. This incident shows both our lawsuit happy society and lack of personal responsibility. The owner did not assume proper responsibility, control and supervision of their dog and then wants to sue someone else because their actions (or lack of action) created a bad outcome for the dog.
Top

Previous Topic

Index

Next Topic

Page 1 of 2 12>>

When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.

Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional. The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.

Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc. By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.