Officer Shoots Dog.

[Blackdogs]

I suggest that if these dogs had been a different breed people would see this video differently and this situation may not have escalated in the first place. I think that preconceived breed notions clouded the judgement of the house occupiers, the police officer and I believe they're also clouding the judgement of some responders here.

Wow, so many people with such clouded judgement. But one online viewer who knows what was really going on.

What intrigues me is that you seem unwilling to consider the concept that the breed of the dogs involved is clouding your judgement.

Of course hearing one's pet dog screaming in terror couldn't possibly influence how anyone would perceive this as playing out. Totally irrelevant.

And here's the thing. You're not standing there, having heard that dog screaming as you walked into the yard, having been called to an "emergency" and being approached by a strange dog and having only a firearm to defend yourself from what you perceive to be an aggressive dog.

Don't you think that might have a teeny bit of influence on how you consider what happens next?

All I can say is its best to judge the behaviour of the dog in front of you and make no assumptions, good OR bad about what its motives are based on its breed. Far safer either way.

Many dogs do NOT react aggressively to humans by the way.. I don't find any reason to justify that dog's aggression.. but nice to know that you saw it for what it was.

I don't believe I'm the only one who has commented who holds this stance.

I don't think we should shoot first and ask questions later. I think we should treat all stray dogs with the care and respect they deserve in a way that doesn't encourage escalation.

I think its aggression was completely justified. If some stranger came up to you as you were walking down the street and started angrily waving a big stick in your face, how would you react? Some dogs, like yours, might respond with a higher flight response, but the fight response in this situation is fairly normal as well.

[Blackdogs]

That situation was not an emergency. It's only perceived to be such because of the look of the dogs involved. I doubt there was imminent danger to anyone and if there was it was due to poor situational handling.

I deal with large aggressive dogs on a regular basis and I still wouldn't shoot in this situation. Everything about the dog's body language suggested defensive behaviour, in my opinion.

The Beagle didn't retaliate and neither you nor I could predict what would happen in that situation.

The tan dog seems to be a little prey driven but there's no follow through and as soon as the Beagle stops the commotion it loses interest.

I think there needs to be less panick and more thinking.

Not an emergency - so you've heard the dispatch call? How do you jump to the conclusion that breed motivates what happens next?

Hard to think straight with a large dog approaching you in a less than friendly manner. I've already said I don't think he should have shot it but I can understand why he did.

What sees you dealing with large aggressive dogs on a regular basis - are you a ranger?

I go and assess the situation and if I don't feel qualified to deal with the situation I call in those who are. Having said that, I think all offficers should have training in the areas in which they are required to work.

I'd prefer not to say what I do for privacy reasons, but I am required to have a very good understanding of dog behaviour and I do deal with a lot of strange/stray dogs.

[Salukifan]

I think its aggression was completely justified. If some stranger came up to you as you were walking down the street and started angrily waving a big stick in your face, how would you react? Some dogs, like yours, might respond with a higher flight response, but the fight response in this situation is fairly normal as well.

And there we can agree to differ. I find little reason for society to tolerate displays of aggression by dogs towards humans outside of their own property when there are options for retreat. I don't consider it 'normal'. Indeed, this dog didn't just not retreat.. it approached a person who wasn't waving a stick at it.. the police officer's posture was cautious but IMO not threatening.

Territorial aggression I'll consider to be a little different. How a dog behaves in defence of its territory is something we've been harnessing for millenia

And for aggressive displays to be tolerated in a breed developed for a very low aggression towards humans.. ah.. no.

As to why it should be tolerated and managed by emergency service workers?? No idea really. If you want to own a dog that behaves like this, that's your business but its also your responsibility to contain it. Human aggressive roaming dogs? Only one likely ending for them really. By any legal definition, such dogs must be considered "dangerous".

Edited February 28, 2012 by Telida Whippets

[erinonthefarm]

I can't watch the video, but as someone privy to an Australian police officers training they are not animal psychologists and they are well within their rights and the rights of the law to destroy an animal that attacks or menaces another animal. Yes the owners are at fault but to shoot the owners would be undue force! If you don't like it either way, you should loby your federal member for parliament

[Blackdogs]

I think its aggression was completely justified. If some stranger came up to you as you were walking down the street and started angrily waving a big stick in your face, how would you react? Some dogs, like yours, might respond with a higher flight response, but the fight response in this situation is fairly normal as well.

And there we can agree to differ. I find little reason for society to tolerate displays of aggression by dogs towards humans outside of their own property when there are options for retreat. I don't consider it 'normal'. Indeed, this dog didn't just not retreat.. it approached a person who wasn't waving a stick at it.. the police officer's posture was cautious but IMO not threatening.

Territorial aggression I'll consider to be a little different. How a dog behaves in defence of its territory is something we've been harnessing for millenia

And for aggressive displays to be tolerated in a breed developed for a very low aggression towards humans.. ah.. no.

As to why it should be tolerated and managed by emergency service workers?? No idea really. If you want to own a dog that behaves like this, that's your business but its also your responsibility to contain it. Human aggressive roaming dogs? Only one likely ending for them really.

The police officer came after the dog had been taunted by the house occupants and even then there was no attempt to bite, there was just barking.

There's no way of knowing what the breed of these dogs was. I'm not sure how that's relevant, though.

A dog responding to a threat is not necessarily 'human aggressive' particularly not one that is barking over biting. It's the dog's way of saying "don't do that".

Certainly when a dog warns a child who is taunting it most people tend to sympathise with the dog.

[Blackdogs]

I can't watch the video, but as someone privy to an Australian police officers training they are not animal psychologists and they are well within their rights and the rights of the law to destroy an animal that attacks or menaces another animal. Yes the owners are at fault but to shoot the owners would be undue force! If you don't like it either way, you should loby your federal member for parliament

They don't have to be animal psychologists, but basic traning would be beneficial.

It might be within their rights, but I think this action should be reserved for extreme situations and I diagree that this situation falls into that category.

[Blackdogs]

I posted this video a while ago, and was quite shocked that a large amount of people defended the officer's actions.

:laugh: Don't be shocked, it's an internet forum! I always expect disagreement.

However, I do have to say that I really don't identify with the position that supports the officer's actions in any way.

[erinonthefarm]

I can't watch the video, but as someone privy to an Australian police officers training they are not animal psychologists and they are well within their rights and the rights of the law to destroy an animal that attacks or menaces another animal. Yes the owners are at fault but to shoot the owners would be undue force! If you don't like it either way, you should loby your federal member for parliament

They don't have to be animal psychologists, but basic traning would be beneficial.

It might be within their rights, but I think this action should be reserved for extreme situations and I diagree that this situation falls into that category.

I don't disagree that this is needed but police already have many things to learn in their cadetship or traineeship. it is of little use offerng animal behaviour as a supplementary course for some either, as who knows which general duties police person would respond to an animal problem

I would imagine that learning a automatic response to such a threat (again I must reiterate that I have not seen the footage) such as trained for the use of deadly force may take longer than GOVERNMENT are willing to allow or facilitate.

I hate cop bashing, and at the end of the day people must remember that they are public servants and therefore if you don't like how they operate voice your opinion to governent.

[Peace_Of_Mind]

Oh I wish I hadn't watched it.

[Blackdogs]

I can't watch the video, but as someone privy to an Australian police officers training they are not animal psychologists and they are well within their rights and the rights of the law to destroy an animal that attacks or menaces another animal. Yes the owners are at fault but to shoot the owners would be undue force! If you don't like it either way, you should loby your federal member for parliament

They don't have to be animal psychologists, but basic traning would be beneficial.

It might be within their rights, but I think this action should be reserved for extreme situations and I diagree that this situation falls into that category.

I don't disagree that this is needed but police already have many things to learn in their cadetship or traineeship. it is of little use offerng animal behaviour as a supplementary course for some either, as who knows which general duties police person would respond to an animal problem

I would imagine that learning a automatic response to such a threat (again I must reiterate that I have not seen the footage) such as trained for the use of deadly force may take longer than GOVERNMENT are willing to allow or facilitate.

I hate cop bashing, and at the end of the day people must remember that they are public servants and therefore if you don't like how they operate voice your opinion to governent.

This isn't about cop bashing. This is about asking people to determine if they believe this situation could have been avoided.

In saying that however, police, like any other member of the public, should have to justify their actions when the end result is the firing of a weapon.

[Greytmate]

I posted this video a while ago, and was quite shocked that a large amount of people defended the officer's actions.

:laugh: Don't be shocked, it's an internet forum! I always expect disagreement.

However, I do have to say that I really don't identify with the position that supports the officer's actions in any way.

I can't identify with your position, it seems to shift. Are you saying the dog was aggressive and its aggression was justified? Or are you saying it wasn't human aggressive?

The property owner had the right to have the dogs removed from his property as quickly as possible. Because the dogs were unsafe to handle, they were shot. If these dogs had been hassling livestock in that manner instead of hassling another dog, nobody would even have bothered to try to handle them before shooting.

[Blackdogs]

I posted this video a while ago, and was quite shocked that a large amount of people defended the officer's actions.

:laugh: Don't be shocked, it's an internet forum! I always expect disagreement.

However, I do have to say that I really don't identify with the position that supports the officer's actions in any way.

I can't identify with your position, it seems to shift. Are you saying the dog was aggressive and its aggression was justified? Or are you saying it wasn't human aggressive?

The property owner had the right to have the dogs removed from his property as quickly as possible. Because the dogs were unsafe to handle, they were shot. If these dogs had been hassling livestock in that manner instead of hassling another dog, nobody would even have bothered to try to handle them before shooting.

I can see why my terminology has confused you. I don't consider a dog who responds aggressively to a genuine threat to be 'human aggressive'. I tend to reserve that term for dogs who regularly display aggression towards humans when unprovoked.

I don't think the dogs were given a chance to show whether or not they were safe to handle. I don't agree with shooting dogs that are near livestock either, though I know a lot of people would disagree with that stance.

[mr.mister]

Why on earth was there not a animal control officer there with a catch pole? Seriously.

[Alyosha]

Because resources rarely match up to daydreams. Or to television based expectations.

If two large stray dogs were in your backyard, attacking your dog, and keeping you from walking out of your back door to help it, would you be wanting to wait for a catchpole? Seriously?

A dog at large, that attacks - which normally by law includes "rushing" - another animal or person is liable for destruction. So the policeman's actions are upheld by law.

Would you do your utmost to stop that immediate aggressive behaviour and try to help the poor victim dog? Or are you going to allow that behaviour to continue while you play soft and cuddly games, and the offending dogs potenttially escape to attack something or someone else.

Not one of the people here condemming that cop's actions in shooting the attacking dog has voiced concerns over whether or not the victim dog may have been injured, whether mortally or not. That is a very disturbing thing indeed.

These dogs and their behaviour should not be defendable. Yes their owners are to blame, but like already said, they are not there to wear the immediate consequences of being shot.

efs

Edited February 28, 2012 by Alyosha

[mr.mister]

Because resources rarely match up to daydreams. Or to television based expectations.

If two large stray dogs were in your backyard, attacking your dog, and keeping you from walking out of your back door to help it, would you be wanting to wait for a catchpole? Seriously?

A dog at large, that attacks - which normally by law includes "rushing" - another animal or person is liable for destruction. So the policeman's actions are upheld by law.

Would you do your utmost to stop that immediate aggressive behaviour and try to help the poor victim dog? Or are you going to allow that behaviour to continue while you play soft and cuddly games, and the offending dogs potenttially escape to attack something or someone else.

Not one of the people here condemming that cop's actions in shooting the attacking dog has voiced concerns over whether or not the victim dog may have been injured, whether mortally or not. That is a very disturbing thing indeed.

These dogs and their behaviour should not be defendable. Yes their owners are to blame, but like already said, they are not there to wear the immediate consequences of being shot.

efs

Woah, was that all aimed at me?

I just don't understand why the police were called first instead of an animal services officer. Surely such a serious situation would have warranted them getting out there pronto. Not trying to be cute and cuddly, just trying to see the logic.

Crikey.

[Alyosha]

No. The first 2 lines were in response to your post, pointing out that the situation may seem a little more urgent if it was your own dog and yard, and that you might accept help from what ever resources were available.

The rest was in reply to the thread. ;)

[mr.mister]

No. The first 2 lines were in response to your post, pointing out that the situation may seem a little more urgent if it was your own dog and yard, and that you might accept help from what ever resources were available.

The rest was in reply to the thread. ;)

Wow, I was going to say that did seem a little intense.

[Flaves]

I dont have an issue with a dangerous dog being shot. Once. To end its life.

In this situation i find it very very sad.

Not only did that dog get shot twice it was still alive and in pain

[BlaznHotAussies]

I dont have an issue with a dangerous dog being shot. Once. To end its life.

In this situation i find it very very sad.

Not only did that dog get shot twice it was still alive and in pain

This

Policemen should have to have a better shot than that??

[Alyosha]

Sorry Mr Mister.

Yes Flaves that is sad. But is the beagle injured? Is it maimed and dying in the background while we all worry about the welfare of the offending dog? Which would've been dispatched asap.

We need to have a think about where our compassion is aimed here.

Loose dogs in the act of attacking animals and rushing people, on those people's own private property. Having been there, done that and taken too many hits from too many ratbag dogs, I would have no hesitation in shooting first. No way a cop or ranger should have to risk serious injury to themselves, anotehr person or another animal to protect the welfare of an attacking dog.

The dog attacking sheep analogy still holds. Who here would question a farmer shooting dogs in a sheep paddock? Yet so many will question this. And so little concern voiced for the beagle...