What Is Your Opinion On This Video?

[mr.mister]

Also 3 shots....sorry but it got hit the first time anything after that was overkill the dog wasn't going to be coming back for more after the first hit. Disgusting.

Just to clarify here.. are you suggesting the officer should only have shot once, even if that meant leaving the animal seriously wounded?

I thought the dog was wounded and not killed regardless? But then again, it could well have died after the footage stopped and that wouldn't surprise me.

[Keira&Phoenix]

Also 3 shots....sorry but it got hit the first time anything after that was overkill the dog wasn't going to be coming back for more after the first hit. Disgusting.

Just to clarify here.. are you suggesting the officer should only have shot once, even if that meant leaving the animal seriously wounded?

I thought the dog was wounded and not killed regardless? But then again, it could well have died after the footage stopped and that wouldn't surprise me.

Yeah I thought maybe Hardy was asking whether I thought he shouldn't have shot the dog a 2nd time to "put it out of its misery" but it doesn't sound like the poor thing dies after the 2nd shot just was even more hurt...

but wasn't sure if she meant this or if I thought the officer should have shot at all.

[Maddy]

Also 3 shots....sorry but it got hit the first time anything after that was overkill the dog wasn't going to be coming back for more after the first hit. Disgusting.

Just to clarify here.. are you suggesting the officer should only have shot once, even if that meant leaving the animal seriously wounded?

I thought the dog was wounded and not killed regardless? But then again, it could well have died after the footage stopped and that wouldn't surprise me.

Yeah I thought maybe Hardy was asking whether I thought he shouldn't have shot the dog a 2nd time to "put it out of its misery" but it doesn't sound like the poor thing dies after the 2nd shot just was even more hurt...

but wasn't sure if she meant this or if I thought the officer should have shot at all.

Obviously shooting isn't the ideal way to resolve a situation like that but given the officer shot once (and, by the sound of it, wounded the dog), the next question has to be "What do you do with an animal possibly severly wounded by gunshot?"

Personally, I doubt that the additional shots were fired with the intention of getting the dog to back off. In similar videos I've seen, it's been one shot to drop the dog/whatever to allow the officer to approach and then a second shot to kill the animal. Likely, his intention was to destroy the dog to allow safe access to the beagle. It's hard to say as the video cuts out there but I'd be guessing the second dog met the same fate.

[Jeff Jones]

The police officer did not have the luxury of watching the dogs interact for 2 minutes like everyone else has. Going from the audio the police officer was given information that a couple of dogs were attacking another dog and the occupants of the house. The police officer entered the yard, the dog rushed at the police officer in an agressive manner and was shot.

I can tell from the dogs body language that it would be unlikely that he was going to bite the police officer in that instance, a lot of you can see the same thing, but we are able to see it having an above average ability in reading dogs. His actions are justified and I am not going to criticize them. He perceived the dog was going to attack him and acted accordingly.

[corvus]

I am. When is it ever justified to shoot a dog that is not posing a serious risk and is not dying slowly and painfully? Not being able to read the dog in the heat of the moment doesn't make it justified to shoot it. That is backwards logic.

In the field I have been responsible for animal deaths that should not have happened. Just because it was an accident or the result of poor judgement doesn't mean those deaths were justified or that I should be absolved of responsibility for them.

[poodlefan]

I am. When is it ever justified to shoot a dog that is not posing a serious risk and is not dying slowly and painfully? Not being able to read the dog in the heat of the moment doesn't make it justified to shoot it. That is backwards logic.

In the field I have been responsible for animal deaths that should not have happened. Just because it was an accident or the result of poor judgement doesn't mean those deaths were justified or that I should be absolved of responsibility for them.

If you're responding to calls a dog "is attacking" and you have no training or knowledge of dogs, how do you make such a call?

Simple solution - don't send police in response to such calls - send people with training.

[SpotTheDog]

Saying that, if I found two uncontrolled dogs in my yard harassing my pets, my first instinct would not be to make an effort to be understanding of the interlopers, especially not if they were stressing my pets out. If they were just in my yard and behaved as displayed in the video towards me, I'd be happier trying to win them around with food / leashes etc. However if they were in high drive and one of my pets was out there and at risk, I'd be more likely to be out with boots and the yard brush and the garden hose I'm afraid.

Boots and a garden hose are a fair bit different to bullets, don't you think?

Yes, absolutely. (And I'm probably a better shot with boots and a garden hose than that cop was with his sidearm.)

[Jeff Jones]

I am. When is it ever justified to shoot a dog that is not posing a serious risk and is not dying slowly and painfully? Not being able to read the dog in the heat of the moment doesn't make it justified to shoot it. That is backwards logic.

In the field I have been responsible for animal deaths that should not have happened. Just because it was an accident or the result of poor judgement doesn't mean those deaths were justified or that I should be absolved of responsibility for them. :D

The police officer believed the dog posed a serious risk, that is why it was shot. He is justified in his actions, just because you do not like his actions does not mean they were not justified.

[Boxerheart]

Assuming they could hurt your dog and shooting them are two different things IMO.

ETA I would judge the risk of predatory drift in this scenario to be high, especially given the noises that Beagle was making. Again, doesn't mean it's necessary to shoot the dogs. It's not a matter of choosing which dogs get hurt. If there's a way that no dogs get hurt it's kind of obvious that is the preferred way to handle it. It's all speculation, but I've seen that kind of behaviour at the dog park every now and then and I wouldn't consider it risky for me to intervene. I might get an inhibited bite, but I'm unlikely to get mauled. I think how the behaviour is interpreted is beside the point. It's not acceptable to shoot a dog on a misunderstanding.

Dogs at large in Australia or on someone else's property chasing another animal or person can be shot. I watched this video, both pits displayed very dominant behavior. The beagle was submissive and still got nailed (by the sound) before and when the policeman arrive on the scene and the blue one rushed him. Pack behavior of a serious nature. If the beagle was not submitting he would be attacked. Blue dog was attacking land owners, barking, growling, hackles up standing tall and stiffly wagging upright tail means business. Red dog had a few goes at beagle.

These dogs were on someone else's property. The Policeman did the right thing considering the situation

Edited April 18, 2011 by Boxerheart

[Alyosha]

And if someone came on here complaining that their dog had been shot (whether killed or injured) while harrassing or attacking sheep on a neighbours property?

Would we criticise the shooter?

Why is it different that it's another dog being harrassed or attacked instead of a different domestic animal?

[corvus]

And if someone came on here complaining that their dog had been shot (whether killed or injured) while harrassing or attacking sheep on a neighbours property?

Would we criticise the shooter?

Why is it different that it's another dog being harrassed or attacked instead of a different domestic animal?

IMO you're asking the wrong questions. It's not as simple as "the dog was harrassing sheep". Was the dog chasing the sheep at an easy lope? Was the dog chasing the sheep and barking at them? Was the dog getting the sheep so panicked they were stampeding? Piling in a corner? Was it biting sheep? Did it dash after them and then wander off to do something else? There is a vast array of behaviour ranging in threat that could be considered 'harassing sheep'. I don't really care whether the land owner has the right to shoot the dog or not. To me it is a side issue. My aunt and uncle had a dog with practically no prey drive shot because she crossed someone's sheep paddock. Should she have been there? No. Should she have been shot? Not in my opinion, given the threat she represented to the sheep at the time.

I think that when we make these sorts of ethical decisions we only really have our own moral compass to guide us. I don't care what right land owners have to shoot a dog on their land. And I don't care who can accurately assess the threat a dog poses. I make my judgement on the information I have and that's that. It is my belief that a dog should not be shot if it's not necessary. That is based on what I deem necessary, not the one with the gun. My opinion on the video (which is what was asked for) is that it was not necessary to shoot the dog. :D Whether I have all the information or not is as irrelevant as whether the police officer went in expecting a vicious dog that would need to be shot. Neither of us knew the full story.

[iltby]

That dog's yelps were so, so distressing. Feel like crying now. The comment that the dogs were trying to attack the people at one point was absolutely ridiculous. They were not being aggressive IMO, they were being playful and boisterous. And as someone else said, if they had wanted to kill the Beagle, they would have. Shooting him was completely and utterly over the top and if I were the owner of the two Pitbulls, I'd seriously be questioning why my dog had been shot. I'd also like to know why the owner was standing there videoing the whole thing rather than intervening. I find the whole thing sickening.

Edited April 18, 2011 by iltby™

[poodlefan]

That dog's yelps were so, so distressing. Feel like crying now. The comment that the dogs were trying to attack the people at one point was absolutely ridiculous. They were not being aggressive IMO, they were being playful and boisterous. And as someone else said, if they had wanted to kill the Beagle, they would have. Shooting him was completely and utterly over the top and if I were the owner of the two Pitbulls, I'd seriously be questioning why my dog had been shot. I'd also like to know why the owner was standing there videoing the whole thing rather than intervening. I find the whole thing sickening.

I thought the behaviour towards the Beagle bordered on predatory at times (although they clearly didn't mean business) and the behaviour towards the person with the stick was anything but friendly.

As the owner of the pitbulls the question of why the dogs were shot is pretty obvious - they weren't in your yard and were harassing a dog in someone elses.

All the indignation at the shooting doesn't change the fact that the dogs should never have been there. Blame the owner if you want to blame anyone.

Edited April 18, 2011 by poodlefan

[iltby]

That dog's yelps were so, so distressing. Feel like crying now. The comment that the dogs were trying to attack the people at one point was absolutely ridiculous. They were not being aggressive IMO, they were being playful and boisterous. And as someone else said, if they had wanted to kill the Beagle, they would have. Shooting him was completely and utterly over the top and if I were the owner of the two Pitbulls, I'd seriously be questioning why my dog had been shot. I'd also like to know why the owner was standing there videoing the whole thing rather than intervening. I find the whole thing sickening.

I thought the behaviour towards the Beagle bordered on predatory at times (although they clearly didn't mean business) and the behaviour towards the person with the stick was anything but friendly.

As the owner of the pitbulls the question of why the dogs were shot is pretty obvious - they weren't in your yard and were harassing a dog in someone elses.

All the indignation at the shooting doesn't change the fact that the dogs should never have been there. Blame the owner if you want to blame anyone.

I thought the behaviour towards the Beagle was quite aggressive, though not as bad as it could have been. I didn't think the behaviour towards the humans was aggressive, though. Maybe dominant but it didn't feel to me like they would've attacked them. I think they could've been subdued and taken away quite easily - by the right person anyway.

And I understand why he was shot, I'm just questioning why so many other viable options weren't used.

I also understand that they shouldn't have been there, and I do blame the owner for that, but sometimes dogs DO get out and accidents happen. The dog didn't deserve to be shot 3 times.

JMO.

Edited April 19, 2011 by iltby™

[~Anne~]

Wow, I jumped when the Police officer fired his gun. I simply didn't expect it to happen then, even though I was well aware it does happen at some point.

I can only guess, but I would guess that the end result would not have been pretty anyway had the situation not altered as it did. In the end, the eventual outcome was heart wrenching as well.

The owner of the Beagle can clearly be heard to be saying he was "f*&%$g sick of this" whihc leaves you with the impression he has had trouble before with these two dogs roaming and invading his yard.

I do think the Police officer reacted too quickly without completely assesing what was happening. However, in having said that, these guys are trained to act and act quickly and they are trained to make quick jusdgements. His judgement may have been off in this instance.

[Leelaa17]

Please - I hope no one takes offense to this - but could we possibly keep these posts to the in the news (cruelty) section? I saw the heading and immediately felt sick...

I really hope no one is offended by this... I would just prefer not to see this kind of awful stuff.

[Nekhbet]

If you notice the beagle was tethered to a stake in the yard - wouldn't have helped its behaviour at all.

The dogs probably would not have bitten the officer, probably were just riled up by being harassed. But if there is now way of extracting the dogs and getting them out safely FROM SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY it's the officers call. Do we like it? No. I didn't like it either. But remember in the USA aggressive and engaging dogs are a hell of a lot more common then they are here.

IMO you're asking the wrong questions. It's not as simple as "the dog was harrassing sheep". Was the dog chasing the sheep at an easy lope? Was the dog chasing the sheep and barking at them? Was the dog getting the sheep so panicked they were stampeding? Piling in a corner? Was it biting sheep? Did it dash after them and then wander off to do something else? There is a vast array of behaviour ranging in threat that could be considered 'harassing sheep'. I don't really care whether the land owner has the right to shoot the dog or not. To me it is a side issue. My aunt and uncle had a dog with practically no prey drive shot because she crossed someone's sheep paddock. Should she have been there? No. Should she have been shot? Not in my opinion, given the threat she represented to the sheep at the time.

What does it matter - sheep can frighten themselves and either injure each other or abandon lambs etc due to the presence of a dog in the paddock despite it's behaviour. Plus a dog suddenly confronted with terrorised sheep can become a totally different animal no matter how little prey drive the owners think it has. If you dont want your dog shot you keep it out of stock paddocks - considering for some people that stud male or breeding females could be worth a small fortune to them.

[corvus]

What does it matter - sheep can frighten themselves and either injure each other or abandon lambs etc due to the presence of a dog in the paddock despite it's behaviour.

It matters because the dog is not the only element in the situation. There is always a balance of risk and cost. I'm saying you can't assess that balance if you only look at whether the dog is 'harassing' sheep or not. Maybe the risk is high and the potential cost high, maybe the risk is moderate but the potential cost extremely high... whatever, no situation will be the same and therefore shouldn't be judged on one side of the coin alone. What is the risk of things going wrong, how badly wrong are they likely to go, and what would be the potential cost if they did go wrong? That's how we make decisions about OH&S, and I think it is how we make decisions whenever we are not purely driven by emotion.

[Sayreovi]

That dog's yelps were so, so distressing. Feel like crying now. The comment that the dogs were trying to attack the people at one point was absolutely ridiculous. They were not being aggressive IMO, they were being playful and boisterous. And as someone else said, if they had wanted to kill the Beagle, they would have. Shooting him was completely and utterly over the top and if I were the owner of the two Pitbulls, I'd seriously be questioning why my dog had been shot. I'd also like to know why the owner was standing there videoing the whole thing rather than intervening. I find the whole thing sickening.

I thought the behaviour towards the Beagle bordered on predatory at times (although they clearly didn't mean business) and the behaviour towards the person with the stick was anything but friendly.

As the owner of the pitbulls the question of why the dogs were shot is pretty obvious - they weren't in your yard and were harassing a dog in someone elses.

All the indignation at the shooting doesn't change the fact that the dogs should never have been there. Blame the owner if you want to blame anyone.

I agree.

If I saw those two dogs behaving that way towards one of mine (and they were reacting the same way as the Beagle) and they wouldn't let me approach by behaving aggressively, I would want to the police to do what ever is necessary to protect my dogs. I love dogs, but I love my dogs MORE.

I feel sorry for those dogs for having a crappy owner but no other dogs should not suffer as a result, sure the cop might have been a little hasty in shooting but who knows how many times these dogs have gotten out and harassed another dog or person. The fact is the dog rushed at the police officer and he dealt with it.

[jacqui835]

I knew I shouldn't have watched this video and sure enough I now feel terrible. Those dogs did not seem aggressive, they were just being dominant and harassing the beagle. The people weren't even scared of them from what you could hear in their voices - just sounded arrogant and like dropkicks. The cop walked right up to the dog, and was just asking, which one is the problem etc, the dog keeping it's distance the whole time - the cop obviously didn't fear it. It didn't hurt any people or the beagle, so I'm not sure how the killing can be justified in this instance - it certainly wasn't self-defense or use of reasonable force.