Dog Shot At Wendouree Home

[Danois]

In any issue of fear, the law is clear.

Force can only be met with equal force.

Gun vs Dog. My scales of justice tend to have the dog riding much higher than the gun

But we have some bwave police officers in Victoria.

Maybe he could have just climbed a tree.

What law is that Tralee?

To defend yourself you can use such reasonable force as is necessary to preserve yourself from harm. It's about what is a reasonable response to the circumstances as the person in question perceives them.

That's what the defence of self defence goes into.

[Tralee]

In any issue of fear, the law is clear.

Force can only be met with equal force.

Gun vs Dog. My scales of justice tend to have the dog riding much higher than the gun

But we have some bwave police officers in Victoria.

Maybe he could have just climbed a tree.

What law is that Tralee?

To defend yourself you can use such reasonable force as is necessary to preserve yourself from harm. It's about what is a reasonable response to the circumstances as the person in question perceives them.

That's what the defence of self defence goes into.

Its common knowledge from Law.

Its been discussed exaustively.

An example might help.

If an intruder to my home attacks me with a baseball bat, then I can defend myself with a baseball bat. I cannot take the Samurai sword off the wall and cut one of their legs off.

Similarly, if they attacked me with a bread knife then I could defend myself with a large knife.

I can shoot tback if they shoot at me, but presumably, I can only shoot to kill if they shoot me dead. :D

Self defence is restrained by this edict.

I cannot kill someone in my home just because they slapped me.

However, force can be confidently met with equal force.

[Danois]

Thanks but you don't need to give me examples - I've actually had real life experience of standing in court and running such arguments before a judge.

And you're still wrong - the law does not say you can use equal force. It allows you to use a reasonable response to prevent harm/ death.

[persephone]

I

cannot take the Samurai sword off the wall and cut one of their legs off.

*whew*

I'm glad it says samurai swords .. I use a machete on the arms ;)

Edited September 7, 2013 by persephone

[m-j]

http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1749179/police-shoot-and-kill-dog-at-wendouree-home/?cs=61

WENDOUREE residents are outraged today after the shooting of a pet Bullmastiff dog by police at a house in Willow Grove. ...

Owner Caroline Elliott has mental health issues and said she was dependent on six-year-old Bruiser's company. ...

"I can't understand, in the whole time he has been here he has never bitten anyone. They shot him in my own driveway."

Renee Fraser, who is the partner of Mrs Elliott's son Craig, said Bruiser was registered and had never been aggressive in the past. ...

"Everyone in this street knows our dog. That's got to say something," Ms Elliot said, pointing to the crowd who had gathered outside their house to mourn Bruiser.

"He was so docile. There was no reason to kill him." ...

"He's never attacked anyone. He'd lick you to death first.

"He growls and barks and that but that's all he would do."

Ballarat City Council said there was no record of complaints or incidents filed against Bruiser.

It will take some very special magician to prove this dog was vicious.

If growling is directed at a stranger it's a big heads up the dog isn't happy and if the growling doesn't work the dog may up the ante.

A stranger walking up the driveway generally provokes a very different attitude in a dog compared to the same dog walking around the neighbourhood with it's owner or neighbours visiting the owner .

[Tralee]

Thanks but you don't need to give me examples - I've actually had real life experience of standing in court and running such arguments before a judge.

And you're still wrong - the law does not say you can use equal force. It allows you to use a reasonable response to prevent harm/ death.

So you think you can go from the specific back to the general and make the case more explicit.

I have a Barrister, I keep her because she takes my instructions and I take her counsel.

She doesn't go around in circles and if she did I would find some else.

[Are You Serious Jo]

You do know Danois is a solicitor don't you Tralee. I'd say she has a better grasp of law than you, in fact I'd guarantee it.

[persephone]

You do know Danois is a solicitor don't you Tralee. I'd say she has a better grasp of law than you, in fact I'd guarantee it.

[casowner]

Tralee are you suggesting that the police officers should have just started growling, barking and then just rush at the dog?

[Roova]

In any issue of fear, the law is clear.

Force can only be met with equal force.

Gun vs Dog. My scales of justice tend to have the dog riding much higher than the gun

But we have some bwave police officers in Victoria.

Maybe he could have just climbed a tree.

What law is that Tralee?

To defend yourself you can use such reasonable force as is necessary to preserve yourself from harm. It's about what is a reasonable response to the circumstances as the person in question perceives them.

That's what the defence of self defence goes into.

Its common knowledge from Law.

Its been discussed exaustively.

An example might help.

If an intruder to my home attacks me with a baseball bat, then I can defend myself with a baseball bat. I cannot take the Samurai sword off the wall and cut one of their legs off.

Similarly, if they attacked me with a bread knife then I could defend myself with a large knife.

I can shoot tback if they shoot at me, but presumably, I can only shoot to kill if they shoot me dead. :D

Self defence is restrained by this edict.

I cannot kill someone in my home just because they slapped me.

However, force can be confidently met with equal force.

Wouldn't size or danger have some relevancy to your theory of like to like self defence? A woman with a baseball bat is generally not equal to a huge man with a baseball bat! I don't think people looking to defend themselves against an assailant would be lucky enough to have the exact same weapons ready to pick up, or even know how to use it. What would you expect a policeman to do with a 50kg dog running toward them? Get down on all fours and bare his teeth??

[Alyosha]

Tralee, under your example, if an intruder attacks me with a bat, do I have to ask them to wait while I find something equivalent? Or can I use whatever force is necessary to save myself from their attack? And, you would hope, therefore reasonable...

I had this hilarious mental image of asking an attacker to wait while I assess what I can use that is equivalent to their weapon. :laugh:

[Danois]

Thanks but you don't need to give me examples - I've actually had real life experience of standing in court and running such arguments before a judge.

And you're still wrong - the law does not say you can use equal force. It allows you to use a reasonable response to prevent harm/ death.

So you think you can go from the specific back to the general and make the case more explicit.

I have a Barrister, I keep her because she takes my instructions and I take her counsel.

She doesn't go around in circles and if she did I would find some else.

Lucky you to have a barrister like that as the majority don't accept instructions except from a briefing solicitor. You must have complex specialised legal issues to 'have a barrister' that 'you keep'.

[persephone]

I had this hilarious mental image of asking an attacker to wait while I assess what I can use that is equivalent to their weapon.

yes ....

[Tralee]

Tralee are you suggesting that the police officers should have just started growling, barking and then just rush at the dog?

Lets not venture into the ridiculous.

I've been in the position where all my dogs were threatened by a rogue Ranger.

It is time consuming, expensive and zaps your energy.

We won, BTW, but not without keeping our heads and going beyond our obligations and embracing the greater concerns of social justice and the interests of the wider community.

Police should be 'au fait' with dogs on premises.

The loss of any dog is a tragedy, but I grieve for a complete stranger that was taken so wantonly.

I put a young bitch down, unnecessarily as it turns out, on the say so of a Ranger.

I'll never do it again, and I'll never forget it.

The nonchalant support and the attitude of panache in the rush to support a person with serious responsibility who has IMO overreached their authority rankles my spirit.

School children, K - 6, have been inducted on the approach and treatment of dogs, how much more then an adult person and even more a full grown-up, trained and educated to protect our lives, our limbs and our property. To those who are given more, we expect more.

I'd expect a burgular to shoot the dog, not a policeman.

I'm not buying the bleeding heart, wet blanket advocacy for some nonce who thinks he can go flouncing about in unifrom, brandishing a gun and expecting to be given carte blanche for the indiscriminate use of a weapon which ends in a fatality.

Not in my value system, and not in my experience.

I've been falsely arrested and charged.

Its amazing how quickly the attitude changes when you haul their backsides into court, and pay council to point out their failings.

If the local judge allows themselves to have the wool pulled over their eyes the appeal judge is too learned to be fooled by Keystone Cops.

Dog ownership, and the "responsible ownership" touted here, requires more than feeding, housing, exercising and caring for their health needs.

It demands advocacy against those who encroach on their right to share this planet, and sometimes huge expense, heartache, and exposure through the legal system.

They cannot speak for themselves, and many people, like Bruiser's owner, cannot speak for them either.

I am obligated to meet social justice issues head on.

I don't shirk from this responsibility.

Now you know!

:)

Edited September 7, 2013 by Tralee

[Roova]

I understand you're upset at the injustice you feel happened to you but I don't feel your reply covers what options there are for a policeman confronted by potential injury in every day life?

Its all well and good In theory but In the situation in this thread, they have a large growling dog running at them from a house. I'm sure they wished the dog came out with a wagging tail but it didnt. How do they protect themselves from what looks like potential injury? Capsicum spray could be used when the dog was closer but if it was running at them they might have two seconds to decide if its going to stop or launch at their face! In rougher areas like these police were attending, how would they know what type of behaviour has been previously encouraged in the dog? Maybe the occupants encourage extreme protection? Should they door knock the neighbours first to ask what the dogs are like? What if their front door is inside their yard and they might have a dog?

What do you think being 'au fait' entails? What should they do if there's a dog on premises, or ready to be released at them if they enter the property?

If part of their job requires them to talk to the occupants of a house and they have no choice but to walk to the front door, how are they over reaching their authority when they're protecting themselves from a threat in carrying out that duty?

[Salukifan]

Dog ownership, and the "responsible ownership" touted here, requires more than feeding, housing, exercising and caring for their health needs.

It demands advocacy against those who encroach on their right to share this planet, and sometimes huge expense, heartache, and exposure through the legal system.

They cannot speak for themselves, and many people, like Bruiser's owner, cannot speak for them either.

I am obligated to meet social justice issues head on.

I don't shirk from this responsibility.

Now you know!

:)

No Tralee, WE DON'T KNOW.

And you donning the cape of self-appointed social justice defender doesn't alter the fact that you have no idea what really happened in this incident. Your negative experience with police and your own dogs doesn't mean that every case is the same as yours.

You instruct "counsel" by the way not "council".

All of this over an incident that a closed door or a hand in a collar might have prevented. I agree that feeding, housing, exercising and caring for a dog's needs is not enough. You have to keep them safe. An ounce of prevention....

An automatic assumption that the police were wrong and a whole bunch of rhetoric about rights won't save other dogs whose owners allow them access to the front yard and to "bark and growl and that". How hard is it to lock your front gate or keep your dog away from access to the front door? You don't get police having to deal with aggressive dogs if the dogs' owners don't put them in these situations. I call that win/win.

Education is a far more powerful tool than litigation. You should know that better than most. Want to be a defender of dog owner's rights? Then educate them on their responsibilities. That includes telling them what the law is as it pertains to their dogs and their property.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[DesertDobes]

Dog ownership, and the "responsible ownership" touted here, requires more than feeding, housing, exercising and caring for their health needs.

It demands advocacy against those who encroach on their right to share this planet, and sometimes huge expense, heartache, and exposure through the legal system.

They cannot speak for themselves, and many people, like Bruiser's owner, cannot speak for them either.

I am obligated to meet social justice issues head on.

I don't shirk from this responsibility.

Now you know!

:)

No Tralee, WE DON'T KNOW.

And you donning the cape of self-appointed social justice defender doesn't alter the fact that you have no idea what really happened in this incident. Your negative experience with police and your own dogs doesn't mean that every case is the same as yours.

You instruct "counsel" by the way not "council".

All of this over an incident that a closed door or a hand in a collar might have prevented. I agree that feeding, housing, exercising and caring for a dog's needs is not enough. You have to keep them safe. An ounce of prevention....

An automatic assumption that the police were wrong and a whole bunch of rhetoric about rights won't save other dogs whose owners allow them access to the front yard and to "bark and growl and that". How hard is it to lock your front gate or keep your dog away from access to the front door? You don't get police having to deal with aggressive dogs if the dogs' owners don't put them in these situations. I call that win/win.

Education is a far more powerful tool than litigation. You should know that better than most. Want to be a defender of dog owner's rights? Then educate them on their responsibilities. That includes telling them what the law is as it pertains to their dogs and their property.

Well said HW

[WreckitWhippet]

Thanks but you don't need to give me examples - I've actually had real life experience of standing in court and running such arguments before a judge.

And you're still wrong - the law does not say you can use equal force. It allows you to use a reasonable response to prevent harm/ death.

Gold

[JulesP]

Thanks but you don't need to give me examples - I've actually had real life experience of standing in court and running such arguments before a judge.

And you're still wrong - the law does not say you can use equal force. It allows you to use a reasonable response to prevent harm/ death.

Gold

Giving a lawyer a lesson in law was really quite funny!

[persephone]

Thanks but you don't need to give me examples - I've actually had real life experience of standing in court and running such arguments before a judge.

And you're still wrong - the law does not say you can use equal force. It allows you to use a reasonable response to prevent harm/ death.

Gold

Giving a lawyer a lesson in law was really quite funny!

Why I love D O L .. it is one huge learning experience!