Dog Shot At Wendouree Home

[WreckitWhippet]

I've found out more about laws in this forum then i have in my own real life experiences and i think that's just down the the fact that most other people have no idea about the law either.

Ignorance is no excuse

If you don't know you don't know. if people want you to follow the law then they should probably make it more accessible to you. Not everyone is going to spend their days trawling through legislations and acts to see if what they are doing is lawful or not.

I'll make it easy for you, as ignorance really is no excuse.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/

Yeah as I said. I don't have time to sit and read through then memorize the companion animals act. If they want us to obey obscure laws they need to provide signage as I won't be carrying the act around in my pocket.

It's hardly " obscure" and the CAA is well written and easily understood. Give it a go and then you won't spend hours whinging about situations that you could easily have avoided , if you'd bothered to read the legislation that applies to you as a dog owner.

[mixeduppup]

I've found out more about laws in this forum then i have in my own real life experiences and i think that's just down the the fact that most other people have no idea about the law either.

Ignorance is no excuse

If you don't know you don't know. if people want you to follow the law then they should probably make it more accessible to you. Not everyone is going to spend their days trawling through legislations and acts to see if what they are doing is lawful or not.

I'll make it easy for you, as ignorance really is no excuse.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/

Yeah as I said. I don't have time to sit and read through then memorize the companion animals act. If they want us to obey obscure laws they need to provide signage as I won't be carrying the act around in my pocket.

It's hardly " obscure" and the CAA is well written and easily understood. Give it a go and then you won't spend hours whinging about situations that you could easily have avoided , if you'd bothered to read the legislation that applies to you as a dog owner.

I didn't whinge, I was confused because other people and their dogs were allowed. I still think she was being large dogist :D

[Tralee]

I've found out more about laws in this forum then i have in my own real life experiences and i think that's just down the the fact that most other people have no idea about the law either.

Ignorance is no excuse

If you don't know you don't know. if people want you to follow the law then they should probably make it more accessible to you. Not everyone is going to spend their days trawling through legislations and acts to see if what they are doing is lawful or not.

I'll make it easy for you, as ignorance really is no excuse.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/

Yeah as I said. I don't have time to sit and read through then memorize the companion animals act. If they want us to obey obscure laws they need to provide signage as I won't be carrying the act around in my pocket.

It should be signed.

Often used as a legal loophole.

[DesertDobes]

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!

It can be.

We gave the Ranger and the City Council Lawyers a lesson they won't forget.

Lawyers are not God and some are not Saints.

They also get things wrong, they're not exempt from human failings.

Because the only person exempt from human failings is you right?

[persephone]

Tralee : Lawyers are not God and some are not Saints.

They also get things wrong, they're not exempt from human failings.

This could apply to those in the police force as well ,

Sometimes , in an instant , they need to rely on a reflex, on an action taught specifically to preserve their life .

Sometimes , this could be so, and it may never be seen as 'right' .

Edited September 8, 2013 by persephone

[Danois]

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.

I'm confused here - arrested and charged indicates it was alleged you committed a criminal offence and the police prosecuted you. Then you say that you hauled their backsides to court - well that can only be done in civil proceedings as only the police or an appointed agency can prosecute people.

So really that statement has nothing to do with your issues with your local council.

[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.

Gold

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

It can be.

We gave the Ranger and the City Council Lawyers a lesson they won't forget.

Lawyers are not God and some are not Saints.

They also get things wrong, they're not exempt from human failings.

Yeah we do get things wrong sometimes. But we get it right more often than unqualified people on Internet forums holding themselves out to be knowledgeable.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Danois

[Salukifan]

MUP you don't have to wade through the legislation to get the basics of the laws of dog ownership.

In NSW, the DLG had laid most of them out here (and for cat ownership too)

Some Councils have websites and/or pamphlets that they hand out when you register a dog. A very simple thing you could do when you place a dog in a new home would be to give a print out of this stuff.

I agree that not a lot dog owners probably have a good grasp of this stuff.

[Angeluca]

I've found out more about laws in this forum then i have in my own real life experiences and i think that's just down the the fact that most other people have no idea about the law either.

Ignorance is no excuse

If you don't know you don't know. if people want you to follow the law then they should probably make it more accessible to you. Not everyone is going to spend their days trawling through legislations and acts to see if what they are doing is lawful or not.

I'll make it easy for you, as ignorance really is no excuse.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/

Yeah as I said. I don't have time to sit and read through then memorize the companion animals act. If they want us to obey obscure laws they need to provide signage as I won't be carrying the act around in my pocket.

It should be signed.

Often used as a legal loophole.

I am only a law student (my lecturers all have qualifications in law, most have practiced.)

And That excuse doesn't have much credit in most circumstances and is mainly used in contractual law from what I've read so far.

[Danois]

Meh - if both parties have clearly agreed and settled the terms of an agreement then signing is a mere formality and lack of a signature does not make it any less binding.

[Angeluca]

Meh - if both parties have clearly agreed and settled the terms of an agreement then signing is a mere formality and lack of a signature does not make it any less binding.

Yeah I was meaning signage as in the terms and conditions that are on a back of a ticket you purchase can be argued unless verbally informed or clearly visible on a sign prior to purchase.

I finding the law actually for the most part straight forward. Back in the old days there was this thing called common sense. Usually if you question if it is against the law it probably is.

This isn't the first dog to be shot by a cop on it's own property, and doubt very much it will be the last. Our cops go through the ringer they have the hardest job, and they to have a right to preform their job as safe as possible.

I have been told by a cop that regardless of padlocks and signage 'trespassers will be prosecuted' or 'beware of dogs' everyone has the right to approach your front door. And if they are injured in the attempt you will be liable.

[Rosetta]

This is really interesting. I have one of those "Do Not Knock" stickers on the front door and understand that constitutes an implied request to leave. Don't know accurate that is though.

[Angeluca]

This is really interesting. I have one of those "Do Not Knock" stickers on the front door and understand that constitutes an implied request to leave. Don't know accurate that is though.

From what I believe your under no obligations to engage with them in any way just so long as they can get to and from your front door safely. Danios would know a lot more then I, but you can also ring your local police station to ask for clarification.

[Danois]

The police are fantastic at what they do but they don't get in depth legal training so you're best to speak to a community law centre for advice rather than the police.

My view is that a Do Not Knock sticker is purely for door to door people and does not override the legislative right for certain people to come to your door.

[mita]

Slghtly O/T. But it was good to see on Brisbane TV News, police doing something decent for a little StaffyX.

Owner among teenage boys who crashed a car, while hooning. Ran off, but the lad carried his dog with him.

Police officers found him & the dog in bushland. Handcuffed the lad to take him for questioning.

But one officer looked after the dog, cradling him in his arms so it wouldn't be distressed. The little dog looked as happy as can be. :) Last comment in the news item was that 'the police will look after the dog.'

Meaning that they'd keep it safe, until the lad was released from questioning... or some family member came to get it.

Edited September 10, 2013 by mita

[Rosetta]

Slghtly O/T. But it was good to see on Brisbane TV News, police doing something decent for a little StaffyX.

Owner among teenage boys who crashed a car, while hooning. Ran off, but the lad carried his dog with him.

Police officers found him & the dog in bushland. Handcuffed the lad to take him for questioning.

But one officer looked after the dog, cradling him in his arms so it wouldn't be distressed. The little dog looked as happy as can be. :) Last comment in the news item was that 'the police will look after the dog.'

Meaning that they'd keep it safe, until the lad was released from questioning... or some family member came to get it.

I saw that too and my thoughts were that it was nice of the policeman to look after the dog but here was another staffy with bogan owners - only a pup too

[BDJ]

I gave up reading this on page 5 - so if I have missed anything since then, that is why

Is it sad that a dog was shot - yes

Is it understandable the owner is devastated - of course

Was it necessary to shoot the dog - how the hell do we know

Are some cops idiots - yes (but so are some members of the public)

But for the bloody idiots (and yes I mean those words) that are having a hissy fit, think about this :

- cops have every right to enter any area of a property if they have due reason - front yard, back yard, in the house and in the ceiling

- there are regulations on when they are armed, it is not an 'option' for them

- things happen bloody fast. dogs attack fast, harmless people pull a gun etc - think 1.5 seconds to go from no gun to one pointed at you

- no cop knows what they are walking in to - how many times do cops get shot at 'everyday' traffic stops, or whilst attending a 'normal sounding' call out - it happens

- how many of you talk/write about having a strange dog rush you/attack your dog and write 'it came from no where, it was so fast, one second I saw it the next it was on me/us'

- dogs are used (by some people, usually the less polite members of society that cops need to deal with) as WEAPONS - they are trained to defend and attack - and like it or lump it, bully and big breeds are what are used

- are owners/neighbours really the best judge of a dogs character ?? - again, how many threads are filled with 'I am sick of people letting their aggressive dog come near me and then telling me its friendly' or stories about a dog biting and people saying 'he never did that before

- and lastly - yep, if I was walking in to an unknown situation, where I had been told to go because there was a problem, I would feel it appropriate to remove any possible threat that could cause an issue. Hopefully it would not involve shooting anything, but if there is a split second situation where violence and danger could erupt in a second, then .........

The above comments are not aimed at the people involved (household, police or dog) - they are in response to the 'awww, was the big blouse fffrightened of a doggie', and 'no one has the right to enter my property'

[Jed]

BJD - if shooting the dog, IN THE BACK OF THE NECK was this big girl's blouse's very first reaction to a dog either running at him, or running backwards before he tried other options, he should reassess his career options. What will he do when it gets really serious? Lots of policemen handle lots of dogs every day, without shooting them.

Yes, police may enter your property - but only with a warrant or by the occupier's invitation.

Defend the policeman all you like, My opinion has not changed.

But don't worry, it's only a dog, those bogans can get another one as quick as you like. Bogans have no feelings anyhow

[Are You Serious Jo]

I don't think the dog being shot in the neck automatically means that the officer was wrong in his decision. Unless you know the positioning of the dog and a second by second account you cannot tell what happened. Do you have a second by second run down from the officers present? If you don't then you have no way of knowing how it went down. Why are you so confident you are right without all the information?

[BDJ]

yep - may have been bitten in the back of the neck, but given the best response time for anyone is 1 second from thought to action (combined thought process, muscle response time etc) I am guessing it is possible the dog could have moved its head (and neck) ???? - just guessing it is in the realm of possibility

And I am fairly sure there are other times that police can enter a property - going by your rules I can just imagine the scenario - mass murderer on the lose, causing havoc etc, etc - police get warrant to arrest him at 5 smith st, guy runs out the back door and jumps the fence to number 7 - would you like the cops to politely knock on number 7 and hope the person answers before the guy has jumped the fences of number 9, 11 and 13? - or would you prefer them all to get back in their car and return to the office to get a warrant (and would that be for number 7, 9, 11 or 13?)

I didnt say it was justified or not - I wasn't there. I just believe that sitting in a lovely quiet world and expecting the baddies to be nice and sensible, and wear a sign stating they are a baddie so that the cops and other members of the public know that is probably not going to happen.

Again - very sad the dog was shot. But no one knows if it was justified or not. And calling someone (aka the cop) a big girls blouse is as rude and unnecessary as stating that every dog with a big square head should be shot.

Perhaps the cop had other options - perhaps not.