Salukifan

Not everyone shares your passion for dogs. Some people don't like dogs. Some people are afraid of dogs. And our challenge as responsible dog owners is to deal with it. No point arcing up over minor set backs.

They didn't order you off the premises. They asked you not to take your dog into the polling booth.

One website is the advice for owners from the Government department responsible for dogs. I rate that a more reliable source of information than you. Others can make their own judgement. I agree about the advice. Quit while you're ahead. You really have no idea. Your legislative interpretation needs a lot of work. I don't see the need to have your dog in a polling booth with you unless its an assistance dog. If you have no right to have your dog there's no point in arcing up about it is there? Most of us manage to get through the voting process without one.

Please tell me you don't teach legal studies. You are only allowed to have your dog at a cafe with the OWNER'S permission. A cafe is NOT a public place. It's all there on the DLG website Tralee. Have a read.

The school was not being used for the purposes prescribed. Note the emphasis on 'prescribed'. I could hire the school out to whoever I deem could assist with fundraising for the school, including Dog Training Clubs because the school is only used for its prescribed purposes during school hours. Where is the exception in the Act for "unless the school is not being used for the purposes prescribed"?? A school does not stop being "any property occupied or used" simply because its out of hours or holidays. If you were the school principal, indeed you could hire the school out to a dog training club. However, as a member of the public, unless you have permission to have your dog on the grounds, its off limits 24/7. If you think that's not correct, you should take it up with the Law Society of NSW. Their interpretation agrees with mine. Next you'll be suggesting that unless a child is in a playground, it is not being used for the "purposes prescribed" and therefore you can have your dog there. Read the DLG brochure - there are no exceptions to the prohibition listed: Don't take my word for it - there's plenty of information about the responsibilities of dog owners in NSW. From the DLG website: Areas from which dogs are prohibited (excludes Police and corrective service dogs and genuine assistance dogs) The fact that few people seem to know or obey the law doesn't change the fact that the ban exists.

Dogs are allowed in outdoor eating areas if there is a public thouroughfare. I've quoted directly from the Act from the NSW legislation website. They are talking about public picnic/BBQ areas I think, not cafes. Cafes are not public places as defined by the Act. Members of the public have no "entitlement" to use them.

I know. That's why the Act quoted is the NSW one. :) I just added that high schools are treated differently here. No issue here.

From the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) I don't see any mention of "during school hours" in the school prohibition. If you're going to get into a stoush about your right to have your dog with you, it pays to check that the law is on your side. I appreciate that this law is a very frequently ignored one but it does exist. What happens on school grounds out of hours doesn't miraculously disappear on school mornings. In the ACT dogs are allowed on high school grounds out of hours but the the primary school ban is 24/7. Given the amount of vandalism schools experience you'd think a bit of dog poo might be considered a decent price to pay for a bit of out of hours presence.

A few of my friends have said the same thing since I posted this. I should have stood my ground but I'm a scaredy cat and run from conflict You'd stand your ground over what? You didn't have a God given right to have your dog there. The best you'd accomplish is every dog getting banned - is that what you want? Seriously people, just accept the fact that you can't take your dog every where you'd like, that some people don't like big dogs and move on. I really don't get all the indignation. Its a voting booth, not a dog park.

Great news. :)

Rates right up there with knowledge of leash and poo pick up laws I expect.

Frankly I'm surprised they let any dogs in. Seems to me that there wouldn't have been a big spectacle if you hadn't argued with her. You don't have a right to take a dog anywhere. Here in the ACT you can't have a dog on primary school grounds without the permission of the principal. Where was the voting booth?

I think what you're looking at is dead coat that needs to come out. I'd say he needs a really good bath and a thorough brush to remove that coat.

Without press follow up, I doubt we ever will.

He who :laugh: last, hardest. Thank-you and Goodnight. I've been here before, its not going to happen again. You shouldn't laugh hard yet. Jessica saw the coppers walk up where Tralee?? She says the dog didn't leave the yard. She does not say the coppers didn't enter and there's the police statement of where the incident occurred. Or are you ignoring that?

but nothing quoted in the article would prove that it wasn't either for me there is just not enough information to have anything approaching an understanding of what occurred I'm not going over the arguments ad infinitum. That's good because yours aren't improving with repetition. Oh dear's right. The police were on the property. Are we reading the same article? Perhaps it would suit your position better to argue it was a drive by shooting. You've got as much basis for that as you have for most of your assertions.

It will take some very special magician to prove this dog was vicious. Or one incident. Which we might just have. Have you never heard the words "he's never done that before?" i have. I did note these words from a family member. But again, we don't know what happened. I don't like what happened at all Tralee. No dog deserves this. I'm just not going to blame the police officer without knowing what happened.

From where I sit there are people suspending judgement because they don't know what happened. They won't put the boot into the police because they have some knowledge of and/or respect for police officers. Where are the statements of bias and prejudice condemning the dog Tralee? Feel free to quote them. You're failing to smother disagreement with your position with a barrage of words so you're switching to personal attack now? Oh well. Deja Vu [note spelling] really. ETA: You should know my views well enough to know that I don't blame dogs for behaving aggressively. I blame owners for failing to prevent it.

It did have teeth didn't it? Are you suggesting that police may only use firearms in self defence if they're about to be shot at? Please provide any kind of evidence of any first hand account of a neighbour vouching that the dog was harmless. Unless we're reading different reports, the only evidence of that is provided by a family member. Even in your court Justice Tralee, I think you'd have to rule that hearsay. I have not stated what the police officer believed by the way. How could I - there is no evidence of his belief. I stated what he would have to have believed to make shooting the dog justifiable. I suspect you found what I said laughable, not laudable, but I could be wrong.

What if the dog wasn't actually coming at them in an aggressive manner. But what if it was??? None of us know.

Does it worry you at all that you're ridiculing a person you've never met and whose side of the story you've never heard? I guess not. The only police officer I know who's shot a person has PTSD. Another who's had a death in custody still has nightmares. A lot of cops LOVE dogs. To conclude that this person would shoot a dog and shrug it off is both presumptive and frankly, unfair.

Was it? There is only one that could justify it. The police officer believed that the dog was going to attack him and that lethal force was necessary to prevent it. Thank you Justice Tralee. Based on very little fact, a demonstrated history of bias and no word from the Defence, you've tried the case and convicted very neatly. I look forward to the appeal. :)

I wondered that myself...say someone called him from the house when they saw the police approaching and he started to turn, could the bullet have entered the back of the neck? Or could the family member who examined the poor dog's corpse have mistaken the exit wound for the entry if the dog was mid leap and the bullet entry was in the throat? It is all speculation at this point anyway. It is a tragedy that could have been prevented. And Jed, it may be too late to hark back, sorry, but just to let you know that having a different opinion from the majority is NOT what I call trolling, and my warning not to feed trolls (though that particular troll has been royally feasted in here since ) was not prompted by your posts in here, but by those of the self-acclaimed "pot stirrer". Or maybe the dog came in head low... or tried to bite him on the leg, or went for the officer beside or behind the one who shot him ..... easy line to the back of the dog's neck then. Maybe the dog was running away from them and the police officer is just an @rsehole.. who knows? No amount of speculation is going to make up for an absence of facts about what happened. Won't stop some folk from trying and convicting the police officer though

"The Law" is a complex beast that goes beyond the letter of any particular piece of legislation or judicial decision. If you're going to argueabout this in Court, your starting point will an understanding of the existing authorities on trespass to property. One of the most important ones in the context of the facts we are discussing is Robson v Hallet. In Robson v Hallett [1967] 2 QB 939, Lord Parker CJ said (at 951): "the occupier of any dwelling-house gives implied licence to any member of the public coming on his lawful business to come through the gate, up the steps, and knock on the door of the house." This implied licence extends to the driveway of a dwelling-house. However, the licence may be withdrawn by giving notice of its withdrawal. A person who enters or remains on property after the withdrawal of the licence is a trespasser." Allow me to interpret. ANYONE conducting lawful business has an implied license to approach your front door, unless you revoke it. The method of revoocation might be a sign, or it might be you revoking the license by asking them to leave. The law allows them a reasonable time to leave. Police conducting investigations, who attend your property to ask questions, in the absence of a revoked license to enter, are not trespassing. If you tell them to bugger off, the law requires them to leave unless they have another lawful reason to remain. So where does that leave us. The police were not trespassing. Because the incident occurred on the owner's property, the dog's behaviour would not result in any charges to the owner. So much for the law. Prevention sure beats cure for incidents like this. For the sake of a sign or a closed door, a dog is dead. The only good that can come of this (as I have said repeatedly) is if people think about these situations and act to protect the safety of their dogs (not to mention the safety of people lawfully upon their property). Anyone who thinks cops enjoy killing family pets hasn't met any cops I know.

You've answered your own question.