Pitbulls To Get Bad Name Again

[Tralee]

Any dog that launches an attack directly at a human's face goes well beyond the boundaries of defending property, and as such, this one's owners were charged accordingly. I hope their sentence includes a prohibition order on dog ownership.

There should be ifs or buts, dog owners defending this sort of outrageous dog behaviour in our society give fuel to anti-dog movements.

It was exactly this type of behaviour, by both dogs & their apologists that started the B.S.L rolling in the first place.

It appears we haven't progressed very far have we?

Well, some haven't & that's disappointing.

The arguments will see-saw but it can never be one sided.

It will always be a two way street.

There are responsibilities on both sides.

For my part, I cannot see the inevitability in it at all.

Perhaps the police office is not a dog person.

[Tralee]

Actually, I did not say I had a PhD 6 years ago, I was starting it then so why would I claim to have completed it 6 years ago, your memory playing up again So, didn't you recently post that you were beginning a Masters, not completed a PhD?

While it is common to talk of such things, I think you need taking down a notch or ten because your posts reek of your own desperate need to outsmart the poor "uneducated dupes".

As you might also remember, I have no emotional investment in what others want to say.

And it's funny that you talk about remembering, like I've forgotten everything.

I might go away and come back again in another six years, but I doubt the bullying and intimidation will have changed.

BTW: You should be finished your PhD. Three and a half years should have been more than adequate.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Actually, I did not say I had a PhD 6 years ago, I was starting it then so why would I claim to have completed it 6 years ago, your memory playing up again ;) So, didn't you recently post that you were beginning a Masters, not completed a PhD?

While it is common to talk of such things, I think you need taking down a notch or ten because your posts reek of your own desperate need to outsmart the poor "uneducated dupes".

As you might also remember, I have no emotional investment in what others want to say.

And it's funny that you talk about remembering, like I've forgotten everything.

I might go away and come back again in another six years, but I doubt the bullying and intimidation will have changed.

BTW: You should be finished your PhD. Three and a half years should have been more than adequate.

Well you seemed to have to be shown your old posts to jog your memory earlier, you completely denied saying anything until it was reposted word for word. You called people a bunch of names and then you accuse them of bullying when they talk back

I've taken breaks during the PhD, once to restart in a different state and the second because of debilitating ill health. I don't care if you think I should have finished it earlier, it will be handed in soon and all is fine.

BTW, I've also worked on projects about dog attacks and can say with some authority that you are talking out your bottom on the topic of this thread

[raz]

And you have no right making such an insinuation.

Which is all I can see in most of these threads.

Insinuation and innuendo.

;) Pots and kettles much?

I agree with Jeff - the fact that you're in charge of children as a supposed role model is extremely concerning!

[sandgrubber]

Doesn't take a PhD to see this thread is seriously off topic.

[Tralee]

Well you seemed to have to be shown your old posts to jog your memory earlier, you completely denied saying anything until it was reposted word for word. You called people a bunch of names and then you accuse them of bullying when they talk back

I've taken breaks during the PhD, once to restart in a different state and the second because of debilitating ill health. I don't care if you think I should have finished it earlier, it will be handed in soon and all is fine.

BTW, I've also worked on projects about dog attacks and can say with some authority that you are talking out your bottom on the topic of this thread

You need to show where I've stooped to name calling.

What's your thesis on, 'geographic mobility'?

I cannot identify any capacity in your posts that even approaches a Doctor of Philosophy grade.

Maybe you are really an authority, as you claim, on talking out of bottoms.

What a junket!

If I can suggest you and your ilk need to find another tune. This one's been stuck in a groove for over six years.

On a social networking forum, you people really need to work on being able to accept another persons' point of view.

All my post adopt a particular stance. I do retract or vacillate from them.

Cyber bullying says more about those engaged in it than it does about their target.

If you don't like what people say, put them on ignore.

[gillybob]

Im not going to argue with you, Im just going to keep on reporting you.

Sooner or later you are going to loose it, as you always do.

Then with a bit of luck we will be rid of you.

[raz]

On a social networking forum, you people really need to work on being able to accept another persons' point of view.

You can have whatever opinion you want but I am not going to accept your derision of NSW police officers doing their job and i certainly hope you dont dump that opinion on schoolchildren you teach. I think it's offensive - every bit as offensive as you accusing me of supporting pedophiles yesterday because I didnt agree with your OTT and irrational posts in another thread.

Edited February 20, 2011 by raz

[poodlefan]

On a social networking forum, you people really need to work on being able to accept another persons' point of view.

"you people".. lovely.

This isn't Facebook or RSVP.

It's a dog forum. I think you pointed that out earlier.

I don't have to accept your point of view when it appears motivated by an agenda that has bugger all to do with dogs.

I certainly don't have to accept your point of view when its factually inaccurate. Witness your statements about police having no greater right of entry than the public.

I think blocking your posts will be a better course of action. I'm not into rewarding attention seeking behaviour, particularly when the 'victim' card is played by a person on the losing side of a debate.

And that might mean something if you were 22, which is about the entry age into honours.

Maybe it is for those who never leave the shelter of the educational system. I got my last honours degree in my 40's. I'll await some condescending remark about mature aged students now.

Edited February 20, 2011 by poodlefan

[Robbi]

My sympathies to the police officer who was attacked trying to serve the community. What is just as tragic however is the abuse that this dog must have gone through to become so human aggressive.

For a Bull Breed to become so HA there is almost always a history of abuse and neglect and downright cruelty to bring about such behaviour, the owner should have the book thrown at him and be charged with animal cruelty on top of what ever else he has coming.

Although it sometimes sounds hollow to the ears of people who dont care if BSL is more stongly policed and Bull Breeds more heavily legislated against we really must blame the deed not the breed, it is not the dogs fault that a sadistic criminal chose them-most probably because they wanted a dog that the public percieves as a monster, lets blame the owner not the dog who is as much a victim as the police officer.

[Janba]

As one of the great unwashed who only has a bachelor degree and the odd diploma, therefore a person with limited capabilities of comprehension, can I try understand what is being said here according to Tralee and my interpretation of them.

If a person has a sign on their gate that denies access to the property then a person cannot enter the property without permission. Despite reading the media reports I can find no reference to such a sign on the gate in question but we should assume such a sign was there as any normal person would have such a sign on their gate.

The policeman had limited or no dog skills therefore it was his fault he got bitten despite the fact that he was bitten outside the property boundary (i.e. approaching the gate). If this is the case the same should apply if the mailman was bitten or the child down the road delivering pamphlets, though this is less likely to happen as the dogs would probably not be in a highly aroused state caused by what was going on inside the property (which is entirely an assumption on my part).

The policemen should have stood well back from the gate and called for the dogs owners to come and restrain his dogs and to ask for permission to enter the property despite the fact that they were responding to a call out on a domestic related incident (police media reports wording). The owner of the dogs was charged with domestic-related offences including assault and two counts of breaching an AVO as well as being the owner of an attacking dog but the incident wasn't bad enough that the police needed instant access to the property.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Janba

[Staranais]

I've met some very smart people who went no further than high school, and heard some very dumb things from people with pHDs and medical degrees. Having loads of letters after your name doesn't necessarily make you any smarter than someone who has none.

[wiseguy]

I've met some very smart people who went no further than high school, and heard some very dumb things from people with pHDs and medical degrees. Having loads of letters after your name doesn't necessarily make you any smarter than someone who has none.

That observation is patently obvious simply by reading the off topic snipes on this thread.

Although, some of the on topic comments display a remarkable lack of "smarts" as well

Experience wins over theory every time.

The really smart people are invariably graduates of Wotsamatta U in any case.

[Troy]

Back on topic thanks.

[Jed]

Whilst I believe it is worse than appalling that this dog bit someone on the face - at the gate, inside the gate, outside the gate - it makes no difference. There are no excuses, it doesn't matter what the breed is, or that the dog was abused, or sniffing coke, shooting up heroin, or smoking marijuana. Or simply having a bad day.

No one should own a dog like that. And I agree the poor dog was probably abused.

Tralee is correct about what I said some years ago - rules for entry to property are based on Semaynes case (England) in 1604 - these words are the most important

"That the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose.

"(But) in all cases when the King is party, the Sheriff (if the doors be not open) may break the party's house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K.'s process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors."

The police may enter to issue a warrant.

Plenty vs Dillon (High Court, Australia 1991) reinforced Semaynes case - as quite a few court cases over the years have.

A constable or citizen can also enter premises if a felony has been committed and the felon has been followed to the premises. A constable or citizen can also enter premises to prevent a murder occurring

And there is a sign, which, if attached to the entry gate, legally prevents entry, citing Plenty vs Dillon case as the reason. I have forgotten exactly what it says.

That information was provided to assist owners of bull breed dogs who were faced with illegal entry by council officers, not to argue about whether police could enter or not.

[Pockets]

I believe there is a great different between a dog "protecting" its property and a dog "attacking/biting"

Regardless on if this police officer was dog savy or not, whether he was bending down to open the gate or taken by surprise, short of the story is the dog was left unrestrained in the front yard and bit an officer of the law who was doing his job......

I hope this police officer makes a full recovery and is back on the street protecting the streets soon

OT

I used to deliver dog meat to an older man and his son who had 2 male pit bulls, beautiful animals, well behaved, affectionate and the owners spoilt them rotten...One day the old man fell out of his wheel chair in his front yard, the neighbour went to help and the dogs took it upon themselves to protect there injured owner and would not let the neighbour near him...they did this by barking, growling and standing guard...the neighbour phoned the council and the police, the council attended and secured the dogs safely....

These dogs were protecting there owner, but as a result of their behaviour are now considered dangerous dogs and have to be secured as such and proper signs affixed to the property..

I think this is what is protective behaviour, the dogs didnt attack but instinctivly protected there injured owner

The dog with the police officer attacked for no reason, there was no just cause for this

Edited February 21, 2011 by Pockets

[Monah]

As far as I know police may enter any property if there is cause. I have been involved many times with police having to enter properties when the person does not wish them to do so. this has often been with ambulance in tow (as ambulance CANNOT enter if the person does not wish it or if the door is locked etc.) and also police on their own, for a variety of reasons.

This is such a sad and awful situation all round, really tragic. I hope he recovers quickly and well.

[Dogsrawesome]

Regardless it was the owner of the dog, not the breed (which we have all agreed on i think) or the police officer who i hope gets better soon. It was just poor socialisation and unlucky for the police officer.

I believe there is a great different between a dog "protecting" its property and a dog "attacking/biting"

I agree a dog who is protecting is more likely to bark and growl and stand its ground not just go for the face straight away poor dog i feel for him. I hope the other dogs didnt have anything wrong with them and i hope the owner isnt allowed dogs ever again he obviously cant socialise them properly . Oh and in legal studies which i did in grade 9 i remember clearly learning this a officer has a right to enter your property if he has reasonable doubt somethings wrong.

Thats my two cents

Edited February 21, 2011 by Dogperson

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Whilst I believe it is worse than appalling that this dog bit someone on the face - at the gate, inside the gate, outside the gate - it makes no difference. There are no excuses, it doesn't matter what the breed is, or that the dog was abused, or sniffing coke, shooting up heroin, or smoking marijuana. Or simply having a bad day.

No one should own a dog like that. And I agree the poor dog was probably abused.

Tralee is correct about what I said some years ago - rules for entry to property are based on Semaynes case (England) in 1604 - these words are the most important

"That the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose.

"(But) in all cases when the King is party, the Sheriff (if the doors be not open) may break the party's house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K.'s process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors."

The police may enter to issue a warrant.

Plenty vs Dillon (High Court, Australia 1991) reinforced Semaynes case - as quite a few court cases over the years have.

A constable or citizen can also enter premises if a felony has been committed and the felon has been followed to the premises. A constable or citizen can also enter premises to prevent a murder occurring

And there is a sign, which, if attached to the entry gate, legally prevents entry, citing Plenty vs Dillon case as the reason. I have forgotten exactly what it says.

That information was provided to assist owners of bull breed dogs who were faced with illegal entry by council officers, not to argue about whether police could enter or not.

seriously this is NOT correct.

the police can enter a property without a warrant if they have sufficient reason to believe someone is in danger and (i think) if they believe a crime is being committed

it is nonsense to suggest a sign would keep them out of a drug lab

[twodoggies2001]

If the police are not able to enter a property where they believe a crime is being committed then why have a police force?