Pitbulls To Get Bad Name Again

[Tralee]

The inquiry might be better focused on how these situations should be dealt with when they do inevitably arise.

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:

[raz]

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

Good point. Next time he tries to open a front gate to answer a DV complaint he should already have his glock out.

[Janba]

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

So he should have shot all 3 dogs so he could gain access to the yard or maybe just waited round till the dogs owner had finished doing whatever he was doing and restrained the dogs. The official police press report said he was attacked as he approached the front gate not when he was on the propery but then again I suppose you think the report is doctored so the police look better and the dog worse.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/latest_r...0bWwmYWxsPTE%3D

[baifra]

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

Good grief!!! You really are a strange one!

If this is the way you feel, don't retire down this way :rolleyes: Please.

Edited February 20, 2011 by baifra

[Are You Serious Jo]

So basically you are saying that they should arrive at the call out, yell out to the occupants and wait for them to come out. Then, they politely ask the resident to secure the dog/s so they can enter the premises. If the resident doesn't come out or refuses to restrain the dog/s then they are powerless and just have to leave. Hostage/domestic violence victim etc just has to take their chances and too bad if they die while the police figure out a way to get past the dog and the ACCESS DENIED sign.

[poodlefan]

The inquiry might be better focused on how these situations should be dealt with when they do inevitably arise.

Given that priority will be given to the safety of all people involved, my guess is that a large calibre firearm will be the solution.

And then of course the cops will be castigated for shooting "pets".

And Tralee will find more reasons to denigrate what can only be described as a hazardous job in which in which you are criticised for almost any course of action.

Can't wait. :rolleyes:

[Crisovar]

Cop : Sir please restrain your dogs so we may enter

Perp: Yep as soon as I stab/shoot/bash my partner

Cop: No worries Sir, be as quick as you can

:rolleyes: ;)

[Tralee]

Cop : Sir please restrain your dogs so we may enter

Perp: Yep as soon as I stab/shoot/bash my partner

Cop: No worries Sir, be as quick as you can

:rolleyes: ;)

Domestic violence is funny ?????

Sorry. I don't get you sense of humour.

[poodlefan]

Cop : Sir please restrain your dogs so we may enter

Perp: Yep as soon as I stab/shoot/bash my partner

Cop: No worries Sir, be as quick as you can

:rolleyes: ;)

Domestic violence is funny ?????

Sorry. I don't get you sense of humour.

You've been taking the p*ss out of this incident since your first post in this thread Tralee.

It's a bit late now to be trying for the moral high ground.

Edited February 20, 2011 by poodlefan

[Jeff Jones]

Perhaps all Policeman, and everyone else, should have the same common sense.

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.

[Staranais]

The inquiry might be better focused on how these situations should be dealt with when they do inevitably arise.

Given that priority will be given to the safety of all people involved, my guess is that a large calibre firearm will be the solution.

And then of course the cops will be castigated for shooting "pets".

Exactly.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Here's an ethical dilemma for you PW, you have a very stupid guy in a house making a very stupid you tube video and the police could stop him uploading it and arrest him, but he has an ACCESS DENIED sign on his fence and a dog out the front barking at them, what should they do :rolleyes:

[raz]

Here's an ethical dilemma for you PW, you have a very stupid guy in a house making a very stupid you tube video and the police could stop him uploading it and arrest him, but he has an ACCESS DENIED sign on his fence and a dog out the front barking at them, what should they do :rolleyes:

;) They should just pull out their glocks and shoot his dog

[Are You Serious Jo]

Well making videos are worthy of execution, so does that trump the rights of the dog? I'm truly confused about how things work in PW land :rolleyes:

[poodlefan]

Here's an ethical dilemma for you PW, you have a very stupid guy in a house making a very stupid you tube video and the police could stop him uploading it and arrest him, but he has an ACCESS DENIED sign on his fence and a dog out the front barking at them, what should they do :rolleyes:

;) They should just pull out their glocks and shoot his dog

Before it attacks them with its lethal rear dew claws.

Edited February 20, 2011 by poodlefan

[wiseguy]

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.

One can not chant the mantra "Deed not breed" on one hand & then defend a dog that attacks the head of a full grown man as he approaches the front entry of a dwelling as just ''a family pet protecting it's territory''.

"Family pet" indeed.

That is just too ridiculous for words.

I am positive I would not like that type of "family pet" living next door to my family. Not even in the same street as a matter of fact, or suburb, or state.

Too many people have worked too hard for too long to let hypocritical idiocy espoused by those with dubious agendas undo all their good work.

And we still have some blaming the victim? Denial is such a weak defence.

We still have a long way to go folks. A long, long way.

[Pockets]

I cant believe the posts I read, why do some people ALWAYS blame the person that gets bitten :rolleyes: dogs should never be in the front yard unless under the supervision of the owner, I beleive this too is a council regulation, thus being so that people have clear access to your front door if needed....

[Zhou Xuanyao]

I support the keeping of pets which guard, I am against BSL, and I blame some of the humans involved in this incident for the destruction of the dog, all of which is perfectly reconcilable with "deed not breed".

A few people have implied that the person who gets bitten should not be apportioned any blame, I don't agree. I understand that there is a taboo about blaming victims or perceived victims, but that does not mean that in any given case the injured could have played no role in facilitating their injury. In this particular case, based on the information at hand, I attribute some of the blame to the police officer who was bitten, and the rest to the dog owners, for reasons stated.

[Rozzie]

Cop : Sir please restrain your dogs so we may enter

Perp: Yep as soon as I stab/shoot/bash my partner

Cop: No worries Sir, be as quick as you can

Domestic violence is funny ?????

Sorry. I don't get you sense of humour.

No it's not, yet you don't want the police to break it up ;)

[geo]

I support the keeping of pets which guard, I am against BSL, and I blame some of the humans involved in this incident for the destruction of the dog, all of which is perfectly reconcilable with "deed not breed".

A few people have implied that the person who gets bitten should not be apportioned any blame, I don't agree. I understand that there is a taboo about blaming victims or perceived victims, but that does not mean that in any given case the injured could have played no role in facilitating their injury. In this particular case, based on the information at hand, I attribute some of the blame to the police officer who was bitten, and the rest to the dog owners, for reasons stated.

I totally agree.