Tim'sMum Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 It doesn't matter whether he was inside the gate, outside the gate or anywhere on the property. This was a Policeman who was responding to a domestic violence call. For all he knew there was the possibility of someone inside the house being beaten to death, abused or subjected to violence of some sort. What was he supposed to do....stand outside and yell "Hey you, it's the Police. Can you please stop beating up your wife/partner/whatever long enough to lock up your dogs, so we can come in and arrest you."??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiseguy Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Remembering of course, that if these actually were pitbulls, the B.S.L states they must be kept in a compound of described minimum dimension & security requirements. And when the dogs are outside this compound they are to be muzzled at all times, even when they are inside their owners house. Draconian? definately, but that is the law, whether you agree with it or not. It will be very difficult to overturn the B.S.L as long as people ignored it & incidents like this keep reoccuring. Blaming the victim doesn't help much either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I am no expert, but I believe that every house has to have a clear path to the front door (ie no dogs)Of course police have the right to enter a property especially once a domestic violence report has been received. What if an ambulance had been required? Should they wait for the domestic violence victim, or the perpetrator to restrain the dogs? Keep the dogs in the back yard. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Draconian? definately, but that is the law, whether you agree with it or not.It will be very difficult to overturn the B.S.L as long as people ignored it & incidents like this keep reoccuring. It would make no difference if everyone who had Pitbull's kept them in a secure run, the rate of attacks reportedly involving Pitbulls would not be affected, because for the most part a dogs breed has little bearing on how it is reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiseguy Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Draconian? definately, but that is the law, whether you agree with it or not.It will be very difficult to overturn the B.S.L as long as people ignored it & incidents like this keep reoccuring. It would make no difference if everyone who had Pitbull's kept them in a secure run, the rate of attacks reportedly involving Pitbulls would not be affected, because for the most part a dogs breed has little bearing on how it is reported. I did stipulate "if they actually were pitbulls." If you wish to quote me, please do so in context. What ever they are, at least one of them should have been confined. What ever they are, dogs with the temperament displayed here have no place in society in any case. But then again, it was probably just doing what it was trained do. bogan owner, bogan dog. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 What ever they are, dogs with the temperament displayed here have no place in society in any case. In your opinion. In mine, pet dog's which guard property are welcome in society. It will be very difficult to overturn the B.S.L as long as people ignored it & incidents like this keep reoccuring. This is a general claim and has nothing to do with your alleged reservation of judgement about the breed involved in this case, which is why I did not include it in the quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiseguy Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 What ever they are, dogs with the temperament displayed here have no place in society in any case. In your opinion. In mine, pet dog's which guard property are welcome in society. It will be very difficult to overturn the B.S.L as long as people ignored it & incidents like this keep reoccuring. This is a general claim and has nothing to do with your alleged reservation of judgement about the breed involved in this case, which is why I did not include it in the quote. ''In my opinion'' of course, Another sad display of the recalcitrant attitude of an antisocial minority that has dog ownership as we know it in peril. People who keep unrestrained savage dogs as guards of suburban dwellings should be charged with malicious assault causing grevious bodily harm should the dogs attack anyone. Fine them. Gaol them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) ''In my opinion'' of course, Another sad display of the recalcitrant attitude of an antisocial minority that has dog ownership as we know it in peril. People who keep unrestrained savage dogs as guards of suburban dwellings should be charged with malicious assault causing grevious bodily harm should the dogs attack anyone. Imagine what might have happened if little Johnny had opened the gate to sell some school raffle tickets. IMO dogs don't belong in front yards - they should be confined away from front doors and behind padlocked gates for both their own safety and that of the community. If they must be in the front yard, lock the gate and have an intercom. I'm sure a lot of folk would be happier to walk down the street without dogs barking and throwing themselves on front fences. And if you think your household goods need more protection than locked doors buy a security system and get some insurance. I agree wiseguy. The days of deeming it acceptable to have a dog that's a threat to the safety of an unexpected caller are gone. Those dogs should have been behind locked gates with a dog on premises sign or better. Of course the kind of folk who train dogs to behave in this manner don't tend to give a damn about anyone but themselves. Edited February 20, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) I am no expert, but I believe that every house has to have a clear path to the front door (ie no dogs)Of course police have the right to enter a property especially once a domestic violence report has been received. What if an ambulance had been required? Should they wait for the domestic violence victim, or the perpetrator to restrain the dogs? Keep the dogs in the back yard. 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. Edited February 20, 2011 by Tralee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 I am no expert, but I believe that every house has to have a clear path to the front door (ie no dogs)Of course police have the right to enter a property especially once a domestic violence report has been received. What if an ambulance had been required? Should they wait for the domestic violence victim, or the perpetrator to restrain the dogs? Keep the dogs in the back yard. 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. So I could rob a bank, police see me run into my house, they come after me and I yell out stop, and point to a sign that says ACCESS DENIED and they stop, shake their heads and go away? COOL! :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxx'sBuddy Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) I am no expert, but I believe that every house has to have a clear path to the front door (ie no dogs)Of course police have the right to enter a property especially once a domestic violence report has been received. What if an ambulance had been required? Should they wait for the domestic violence victim, or the perpetrator to restrain the dogs? Keep the dogs in the back yard. 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. :rolleyes: ;) :rofl: :rofl: this is completely wrong....the police can enter ANY property if they have cause to do so. Edited February 20, 2011 by Jaxx'sBuddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 So I could rob a bank, police see me run into my house, they come after me and I yell out stop, and point to a sign that says ACCESS DENIED and they stop, shake their heads and go away? COOL! :rolleyes: Must be a popular sign at the front of drug labs and hydroponic dope houses. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 :rolleyes: ;) :rofl: :rofl: this is completely wrong....the police can enter ANY property if they have cause to do so. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 :rolleyes: ;) :rofl: :rofl: this is completely wrong....the police can enter ANY property if they have cause to do so. 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. Maybe they didn't think you were midway through beating the shite out of someone inside. You need to differentiate between a urgent reponse to an incident and the police making routine enquiries. If they need to get in and they have the power to enter, they'll take whatever reasonable steps they need to do to get in and that means removing any threat your dogs present. Lock them away from the front of the house for their own safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 I am no expert, but I believe that every house has to have a clear path to the front door (ie no dogs)Of course police have the right to enter a property especially once a domestic violence report has been received. What if an ambulance had been required? Should they wait for the domestic violence victim, or the perpetrator to restrain the dogs? Keep the dogs in the back yard. 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. If you choose to set up a property like that, one of the alternative steps the police have is to shoot your dogs on the way in. It isn't acceptable to have dogs attacking police who are responding to calls for help and trying to get people out of danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Wow you are a lucky guy, two visits in a month from the hunky men in blue uniforms :rolleyes: I should have my ACCESS DENIED signs ready for this afternoon, who's with me on a crime spree, we'll clean up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Police have shot dogs to allow ambos access in an emergency before. Something to think about for those who feel the need to have an animal ensure their safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxx'sBuddy Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 :rolleyes: ;) :rofl: :rofl: this is completely wrong....the police can enter ANY property if they have cause to do so. 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. the police will take any measures if it is a matter that is serious, obviously yours was not. i have no idea where you get your facts from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 I didn't address keeping dogs as guards, I addressed keeping pet dogs which do incidentally guard. If you are of the opinion that people who support the keeping of pet dogs which guard (and of course could possibly bite an uninvited intruder) are the peril, as you put it, of dog ownership as we know it, then yours is the opinion which is marginal my friend not mine. Lets be quite clear, I have not said I support dogs blocking access to a front door or intercom, that's not my position. I only said that despite any law or ideal, police do face these situations at times. The inquiry might be better focused on how these situations should be dealt with when they do inevitably arise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tralee Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 It isn't acceptable to have dogs attacking police who are responding to calls for help and trying to get people out of danger. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now