Tralee

Errh! It's a forum. An open discussion on subjects of public interest. That's what you do. You take a position. The absence of lively debate would make it a dictatorship. You shouldn't let you prejudices colour your responses or let yourself get rankled by arguments that weaken your own position.

How about you start displaying some common sense in your posts? Your lack of ability to see reason and poor moral judgement is more of a concern than anything I have read in this thread regarding the police officers involved in the incident. One would hope someone in your position would be able to display these qualities in your posts instead of the drivel in which you regularly post. It concerns me enough that you are a member of the community with the level of sensationalism and lack of education in your posts, the fact that you are a teacher is extremely concerning and one has to wonder about your ability to be an appropriate role model for the children under your care. I have enough common sense not to get bitten, and doubt very much that I ever would. As to the rest of your post, it does not grant you authority or expertise to single out one poster from another when others express the same view to which you seem to so selectively object. You might take a pseudo-authoritative stance and try to perpetuate your obvious kyriarchal philosophy on some uneducated dupes but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Your last ad hominem criticism doesn't concern me as much as your feigned offense to the opposed point of view in this thread. It only shows the weakness in your arguement. A policeman is just a regular Joe in a uniform. I respect the uniform but not every idiot that puts one on. Yes, you are right. I will make a phone call tonight and have the Crimes Act 1900 deleted as according to some nut job on a dog forum police officers hold no authority and are deemed normal citizens. I am off to work now, try not to overdose overnight on what ever substance you are taking that fills your mind with these delusional thoughts. Now who's talking drivel? Given the motivation behind your initial post, my first response was mild. And what you do with your 'Bat Phone' is of no concern to me. As you know, it is the uniform that holds the authority. A policeman might stand behind their badge but, irrespective of how many times they put it on, or what rank it represents, they can never become the badge. It obviously didn't give this police officer the nous to recognise a dangerous situation. I just hope his ilk are never despatched to an area where people I care about need assistance. But alas. Policeman are only human, and dogs are ... well dogs. That's the issue really. Nothing personal and no agenda. God forbid people advocating for a dog on a dog forum. Beggars belief.

How about you start displaying some common sense in your posts? Your lack of ability to see reason and poor moral judgement is more of a concern than anything I have read in this thread regarding the police officers involved in the incident. One would hope someone in your position would be able to display these qualities in your posts instead of the drivel in which you regularly post. It concerns me enough that you are a member of the community with the level of sensationalism and lack of education in your posts, the fact that you are a teacher is extremely concerning and one has to wonder about your ability to be an appropriate role model for the children under your care. I have enough common sense not to get bitten, and doubt very much that I ever would. As to the rest of your post, it does not grant you authority or expertise to single out one poster from another when others express the same view to which you seem to so selectively object. You might take a pseudo-authoritative stance and try to perpetuate your obvious kyriarchal philosophy on some uneducated dupes but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Your last ad hominem criticism doesn't concern me as much as your feigned offense to the opposed point of view in this thread. It only shows the weakness in your arguement. A policeman is just a regular Joe in a uniform. I respect the uniform but not every idiot that puts one on.

I totally agree. Seconded.

Domestic violence is funny ????? Sorry. I don't get you sense of humour.

I have no doubt that they are adequately addressed at the Academy and during "In-Service" once officers are appointed to their stations. Ooops. Sorry Sarge. I forgot. :rolleyes:

Which is exactly what his Superior should make undeniably clear to him when he gets out of hospital. We expect, and deserve, competent Law Enforcement not Keystone Cops

Funny that. Twice this month they remained outside the premises until invited in and the dogs secured. Perhaps all Policeman, and everyone else, should have the same common sense.

I believe this is correct. People have a legal right to access your front door. This means you are responsible if your dog bites someone who, having entered your property, is going to or coming from the front door. It was established on this very website, nearly six years ago by Jed, that a person/s can be restricted from entering your property, by having a sign clearly displaying: ACCESS DENIED. Then anyone wanting to enter your property has to take alternative steps. Trespass is a French term meaning "a path through" No trespass means no path through. Access denied means 'No! You cannot open the gate and walk up to the front door' ETA: It wouldn't hurt to have a lock on the gate as well.

Domestic violence call out - this guy had breached an AVO.. I think there were grounds to enter the property don't you? Pays to check your facts before asserting that police have no more powers of entry than anyone else. Of course, except no mention is made of an emergency situation, or a domestic call out. He might have breached the PAVO 3 days ago. I suppose the Policeman jumped at the opportunity, just like the dog did. The first thing I learned in doing CPR (Rescue) was to remove the DANGER.

But he was "weally, weally bwave."

Not quite. From the words of the story: As one of the officers went to open the gate of the property he was bitten on the lower face by one of three pit bulls. He began to breach the confines of the property. Being a policeman is irrelevant. People need permission to enter another persons property. Since when has 'every man and his dog' had access to all areas. Note to people entering properties with dogs. Don't

Why? No clarification is needed. Without a warrant the Policeman is just other another Joe doing a job. But even with a warrant, wouldn't they secure the premises if they thought that dogs were a hazard or a risk?

I don't believe that they do. Work Cover will not cover workers who enter properties identified by them as Properties at Risk. A property at risk, as defined by Work Cover, is a property that contains dogs. In NSW, the Companion Animals Act 1998 16 Offences where dog attacks person or animal (1) If a dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal (other than vermin), whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal: (2) It is not an offence under this section if the incident occurred: (a) as a result of the dog being teased, mistreated, attacked or otherwise provoked, or (b) as a result of the person or animal trespassing on the property on which the dog was being kept, or © as a result of the dog acting in reasonable defence of a person or property, or (d) in the course of lawful hunting, or (e) in the course of the working of stock by the dog or the training of the dog in the working of stock. (3) This section does not apply to a police dog. Just being a Policeman doesn't give them the right to enter private property. They still have to be invited. If they have a Court Order --- different. Otherwise they need to observe all the other OH&S guidelines we all do. I bet Mr Invincible thought his Super Hero cape would be enough.

Hell! I plan to retire down near there. Who is stupid enough to put their face in a dogs mouth? Beggars belief. Constable Plod and Detective No Clue again.

Uncle's greyhounds used to get some cooked concoction that absolutely reeked. It took hours to prepare and my Nan had to have it simmering in the kitchen, when I visited. Phew! I couldn't believe anyone would feed that to a dog.

Well it looks like PR for the Movie which explains its quality. This of course means they have an agenda and so it is more than likely, not true. At least not for Dobby anyway. There was something on that Cane Toad that Dobby liked because it would have been unethical to allow the dog to go the whole hog on it like it did. What a mother of a toad it was. I've never seen one that big. And how cool was that carpet. One thing is certain, you don't need cane toads when you have a carpet like that.

Nuh! You must be joking. Number three. He looks engaged in something. I took my new puppy for a play-date with aatainc's Newf and, as her dog came out of a play bow, it knocked my little baby girl clean across the garage floor. Beautiful temperament even if it was a great Baby Huey.

Me too But I think I want to change it.

What a great product. I thought I would never say that about a Financial product. But you still have to pay. Pet insurance is the way to go. My Vet doesn't do accounts either but, I always pay on account. The reason, I must not broadcast it to anybody. However, I expect they do that with a lot of people. My dogs have had tick, broken leg, lacerated paw, ultrasound, etc. They are as 'rough as guts', and need financial backing for veterinary expenses. But it's not all dollars. We had a volunteer take the pups to the vet when we were between cars. Good Thread. Great Product. Excellent Outcome.

That cat looks so intelligent. And I love the second foto. It just looks so "Southern Country" or so very 'bayou.' And why not? I'm going back one day, come what may... I never did photography. Was I supposed to?

I've always walked straight past Bonnie. The packaging always looks a bit nasty. I must get some this week. It's funny, three of my dogs will eat Supercoat Light and Mature, and one won't. There is one type of biscuit I have to take out of it and then it goes. :D

I believe Supercoat is preservative and colour free. However, Pedigree is more cost effective because, where I am, the 15kg bag is cheaper per kilogram than Supercoat. The Natural Pedigree is the same except for one single component. But my dogs also get chicken wings or drumsticks twice a day, red meat bones regularly, and tinned Pedigree when it's on special. They occasionally get milk, ice-cream, banana, eggs, and whatever else they choose not to turn their nose up at. They have also been given vegemite and peanut butter off a spoon. I could go on but they can't drive so they don't get maccas. ;)

I think they have to tell you if they place baits around in the vicinity of your property, erect signs and advise of a time frame.

If the dog is in his name, and it is in writing, then you have a problem. Your only out, as far as i can see, is if the dog was deceased during your two year tenure. I hope it works out.