Dog Shot At Wendouree Home

[bertie]

Don't twist my words.

Seriously?????????????

Unintentional gold.

I can't quite convey how wild I am at what you have done with SOMEONE ELSE'S words, but I assure you I will find a way if you ever do it to mine.

you might be wild, I am disgusted and have acted upon it

Yes, I did that too.

[Tralee]

OMG!

Not again, the contentious and inflamatory 'Policeman shoots dog'

Here, it is not an offence if the dog is protecting property.

Peoples rights include the protection of life, limb and property.

Dogs are property.

It seems to me Mrs Elliott has had her common liberties denied by by a rogue. IMO

There are many false negatives, and I've had more than my fair share.

They are expensive, time consuming, frustratingly annoying and innane.

Police don't enter my property, but maybe NSW police personel have more brains.

Beggars belief really.

RIP Bruiser.

[Salukifan]

Peoples rights include the protection of life, limb and property.

Bang on Tralee.

Police are people with lives and limbs. When they come to your front door, they are not trespassing or infringing your liberty - they have a right of access. Pays to remember that when considering how to contain your dog. Post a warning about the dog being on the property or keep it away from the access. No surprises mean no action in self defence, no reports to council and no DD declarations.

Pretty much every tine this happens, the incident might reasonably have been prevented. All the argument about whether dogs get shot doesn't change that.

Strangers don't know your dog. Keep it safe by letting people know its there. YOU are responsible for its safety. All this talk about liberties and rights needs to factor that in.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[Salukifan]

Double post

Edited September 5, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[Tralee]

I'm not going over this territory again.

Posting a sign "Access Denied" has been canvased before. re: Jed

My dogs are Maremma, they're not harmless when protecting property and either should they be when protecting property.

Police in the UK don't carry a gun.

We have a US gun madness situation here.

Police are supposed to protect our property from "other police" too.

They're not exempt.

Maybe they could make a note to themselves: "don't shoot the dog"

Edited September 5, 2013 by Tralee

[Salukifan]

Police are supposed to protect our property from "other police" too.

They're not exempt.

Maybe they could make a note to themselves: "don't shoot the dog"

So when 65kg of dog rushes a police officer Tralee, what's your recommended action for protection of life and limb?

What part of "you cannot deny access to the police" don't you grasp by the way?

Edited September 5, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[Tralee]

It could be a 200kg brute, it doesn't matter.

Shoot to kill is a last resort, and for Chris' sake, a puppy.

Victorian Police are trigger happy.

Its well documented.

HW You haven't read the comments to the article.

A Jury would not condone this Mavericks' actions.

[BlackJaq]

What part of "you cannot deny access to the police" don't you grasp by the way?

Yea you can, unless they bring a warrant

[BlackJaq]

And fyi, this article says Vic Police now carry a 40 cal. pistol. That is nothing like a 9 mm, which is what some people have been saying

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-29/new-pistol-chosen-for-victoria-police/415184

This is a 40 cal round we are talking, I seriously doubt that dog was shot with a 40 cal hollow point because the head would probably be missing. Where do you people get your information?

Edited September 5, 2013 by BlackJaq

[Salukifan]

What part of "you cannot deny access to the police" don't you grasp by the way?

Yea you can, unless they bring a warrant

That's access to your house, NOT your property.

[BlackJaq]

Well, I guess I would have to check with a solicitor if a "Do Not Trespass" sign applies to police or not.

[Salukifan]

It could be a 200kg brute, it doesn't matter.

Shoot to kill is a last resort, and for Chris' sake, a puppy.

Victorian Police are trigger happy.

Its well documented.

HW You haven't read the comments to the article.

A Jury would not condone this Mavericks' actions.

What would see have him charged with Tralee - property damage? You'd expect a jury would hear both sides of the incident before pronouncing judgement - something no one here has done.

I'll ask again - what do you think the police officer should have done? Swung a boot at the dog? I have an acquaintance who recently sustained a bite to the leg from a mastiff breed. She's had to deal with massive bruising, the first operation to stitch and place drains, a raging infection, now plastic surgery and so far a month off work...

Big dogs do big damage.

I know quite a bit about VICPOL and their history of gun incidents. What I will tell you is that they have excellent firearms training and they are trained to react quickly to serious threat. So confront them with a serious threat and this is what can happen.

So how about people don't do that? How about they keep their dogs safe?

Edited September 5, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[Salukifan]

Well, I guess I would have to check with a solicitor if a "Do Not Trespass" sign applies to police or not.

Yep. You should. It certainly applies to the public.

[BlackJaq]

Here you go, this is the legal situation for police entering your property in Vic:

http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch10s02s03.php

Officials on your land

The law allows some people to come onto your land without your permission.

POLICE

Police are allowed onto your land if they have a warrant, which they should show you when seeking entry to your land. If they don't have a warrant, they may only enter your land if you invite them, or if particular circumstances arise, such as making an arrest, stopping a breach of the peace or ensuring that the SOA is being complied with (see: "Power to search without warrant", in Chapter 3*2 Arrest and Interrogation).

:) So unless Police were invited or had a warrant or a legitimate reason under the law to be there (note: questioning occupants is not on the list), then there may be a case for the owner to bring civil charges of trespass and potentially damage of property as well.

The article seems to imply the owner is pretty emotionally unstable so I doubt she herself will take any legal action in any case....

[BlackJaq]

This is interesting also, I am sure the rulings can be verified against the public court information by somebody with more time on their hands, the blog lists some charges and their rulings of trespass brought against Police:

http://peopleofthecommonwealth.blogspot.com.au/2009/12/high-court-rulings-on-trespass.html

Edited September 5, 2013 by BlackJaq

[Salukifan]

Here you go, this is the legal situation for police entering your property in Vic:

http://www.lawhandbo.../ch10s02s03.php

Officials on your land

The law allows some people to come onto your land without your permission.

POLICE

Police are allowed onto your land if they have a warrant, which they should show you when seeking entry to your land. If they don't have a warrant, they may only enter your land if you invite them, or if particular circumstances arise, such as making an arrest, stopping a breach of the peace or ensuring that the SOA is being complied with (see: "Power to search without warrant", in Chapter 3*2 Arrest and Interrogation).

:) So unless Police were invited or had a warrant or a legitimate reason under the law to be there (note: questioning occupants is not on the list), then there may be a case for the owner to bring civil charges of trespass and potentially damage of property as well.

The article seems to imply the owner is pretty emotionally unstable so I doubt she herself will take any legal action in any case....

BlackJaq, like all law, its not that straight forward. Where the line of "private property" is drawn is variable. Generally there is an implied license to enter residential property that goes as far as the front door. You can revoke that license for the general public but both legislation and common law give police and a range of other people limited powers to enter for the performance of particular duties. And of course there are also easements on most properties that permit essential services workers access to maintain them.

Generally a police officer does not need to be invited to attend your property to knock on your front door and ask you a question. They cannot enter your house without your permission unless they are in possession of a warrant that authorises them to do something that would otherwise be unlawful. It's also worth noting that for the incident we are discussing, the police were not conducting a search.

Of course this is far more straightforward in the ACT where, by law, we are not permitted to have front fences.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[Alyosha]

And fyi, this article says Vic Police now carry a 40 cal. pistol. That is nothing like a 9 mm, which is what some people have been saying

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-29/new-pistol-chosen-for-victoria-police/415184

This is a 40 cal round we are talking, I seriously doubt that dog was shot with a 40 cal hollow point because the head would probably be missing. Where do you people get your information?

From having carried and used a 9mm, 40cal S&W pistol with hollow point rounds as part of standard gear in a former job, and during that job, having used it to euthanase numerous injured animals... and then obviously seeing the results.

Some people don't just pluck information off the internet and take it as gospel, they may actually have life experience.

[BlackJaq]

Here you go, this is the legal situation for police entering your property in Vic:

http://www.lawhandbo.../ch10s02s03.php

Officials on your land

The law allows some people to come onto your land without your permission.

POLICE

Police are allowed onto your land if they have a warrant, which they should show you when seeking entry to your land. If they don't have a warrant, they may only enter your land if you invite them, or if particular circumstances arise, such as making an arrest, stopping a breach of the peace or ensuring that the SOA is being complied with (see: "Power to search without warrant", in Chapter 3*2 Arrest and Interrogation).

:) So unless Police were invited or had a warrant or a legitimate reason under the law to be there (note: questioning occupants is not on the list), then there may be a case for the owner to bring civil charges of trespass and potentially damage of property as well.

The article seems to imply the owner is pretty emotionally unstable so I doubt she herself will take any legal action in any case....

BlackJaq, like all law, its not that straight forward. Where the line of "private property" is drawn is variable. Generally there is an implied license to enter residential property that goes as far as the front door. You can revoke that license for the general public but both legislation and common law give police and a range of other people limited powers to enter for the performance of particular duties. And of course there are also easements on most properties that permit essential services workers access to maintain them.

Generally a police officer does not need to be invited to attend your property to knock on your front door and ask you a question. They cannot enter your house without your permission unless they are in possession of a warrant that authorises them to do something that would otherwise be unlawful. It's also worth noting that for the incident we are discussing, the police were not conducting a search.

Of course this is far more straightforward in the ACT where, by law, we are not permitted to have front fences.

Um as far as I can see this is a quote from the actual legislation. So I assumed that the actual law is.. You know.. The actual law. Just because they do not adhere to the law and people do not challenge them when they do not, how does that negate the law?

In a situation where police were on my property uninvited and with no legitimate reason as per the act I can and have asked them to leave and they did. If they shot my dog in the process then I would certainly take legal steps because they had no authority to be there.

If they could see me strangling somebody through the window or if they pursued somebody onto my property, then obviously they now have a legitimate reason to be there.

I m not about to give up my personal rights just because other people are cool with that...

[BlackJaq]

And fyi, this article says Vic Police now carry a 40 cal. pistol. That is nothing like a 9 mm, which is what some people have been saying

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-29/new-pistol-chosen-for-victoria-police/415184

This is a 40 cal round we are talking, I seriously doubt that dog was shot with a 40 cal hollow point because the head would probably be missing. Where do you people get your information?

From having carried and used a 9mm, 40cal S&W pistol with hollow point rounds as part of standard gear in a former job, and during that job, having used it to euthanase numerous injured animals... and then obviously seeing the results.

Some people don't just pluck information off the internet and take it as gospel, they may actually have life experience.

Ok well my real life experience from hunting with various hollow point rounds of different calibres is that it's an immediate drop with a big mess. I guess the big mess could be on the inside of that dog, depending on the trajectory. They will find out if they autopsy it.

Sorry for not relying purely on the internet for my information, oh sorry, I mean taking it as gospel...

Edited September 6, 2013 by BlackJaq

[Alyosha]

The difference here being that the police appear to have legitimately approached the property, as they are legally empowered to do. The owners of that property have not asked them to leave. The dog incident has occurred before any human interaction. So the above analogy doesn't compare at all.

Yes to your second. :) The mess is indeed in the inside. But little penetrative power.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Alyosha