Kodi: why is this forum quiet about it?

[Jed]

Sorry, by "him" I meant the GSD Kobi, not my friend's dog.

 

[Two Best Dogs!]

Here you go, a 'formal' statement of events from taspol

 

 

 

[Maddy]

14 hours ago, Thistle the dog said:

Here you go, a 'formal' statement of events from taspol

 

 

 

Wow, it's almost as if everything the dog's owner said was a lie. How surprising.

Not that the statement has stopped Kodi's Army at all. I guess once you're fully invested in that pile of crazy, it's hard to step back and admit that everything you believed was a lie and that the "horrible monster children" were the unfortunate victims of the sort of mistake many of US might have made as kids- took a shortcut home, got badly mauled by a dog and then accused of being an animal abuser and general incorrigible monster on social media. From the comments on TasPol's FB page..

Quote

They still trespassed !!

As if this justifies being mauled by a dog, and then torn apart by adults who were arguably even more vicious than the dog.
 

Quote

 And kids never bend the truth to save their skin 
Unfortunately it's only one side of the story the police got

This herplerderper, who is politely ignoring the fact that the ONLY story the media ran was the dog owner's side of things. As if the dog owner didn't loudly spread her version of events, every chance she got?
 

Quote

Those kids trespassed, those kids got bit. End of story.

Yeah, being severely mauled and ending up in hospital, that'll teach those little delinquents. 
 

Quote

This post is vile coming from Tasmania police. They have no right to interfere in a case like this. You have divided the community and this post needs to be deleted. A formal complaint has been written to the commissioner with screen shots or post and every single opinion.

I guess some people are really not happy to see the truth has been made public. Yeah, shame on TasPol for posting the facts of a case, instead of letting one side stir up threats of violence and general nastiness, completely unabated. How very dare they (TasPol) interfere (in a police case?) that has nothing to do with them (that they, as the police, were rightfully investigating?) because it casts the side they personally favoured in a less than favourable way.

On the internet, even if you are completely, demonstrably wrong, if you screech and carry on loudly enough, you can pretend you were right almost indefinitely. Kodi's Army is a perfect example of that. 

[teekay]

Unfortunately this kind of case is always going to bring out the loonies on both sides. People just cannot settle for the fact that we will never know what actually happened. Unless an independent person witnessed events or a camera recorded it, the accounts will always be skewed in favour of the person giving them.

 

Is this Taspol account the 'truth'? Who knows. 

 

Are their loonies on the internet? Definitely

 

Personally, I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the owner's and the kid's account. Does seem a little strange that an aggressive dog would be in the front yard with gates open though. 

[~Anne~]

Teekay, I would think the Police would be pretty confident of the facts to post so publicly about it.

[The Spotted Devil]

Not a comment on the case but in the diagnosis of PTSD. What absolute rubbish. There is no denying animals can experience  fear and trauma but that does not mean they suffer from PTSD. If you listen to the experts on PTSD it's about experiencing too much (flashbacks, hyperarousal, hypervigilance) or experiencing too little (avoidance, numbing, amnesia) and dissociation amongst other things. Many of these issues arise BECAUSE humans have a higher level of consciousness and self awareness. As PC said, not everyone who experiences trauma develops PTSD either. 

 

This sort of diagnosis is unhelpful because it doesn't actually identify what is wrong or help the animal. It's a label. Treat the symptoms not what you think the animal is thinking/experiencing and you'll have a much better welfare outcome. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by The Spotted Devil

[melzawelza]

Looks like the post has been deleted, can anyone who saw it fill us in?

[~Anne~]

It stated it was correcting the misinformation circulating. The boys were not trespassing; the gate was not locked; the dog was stabbed in self defence during the attack; the children and their families were unjustly being vilified.

 

They were the main points I took from it. Others may have gleaned more. 

[karen15]

It said the gate was open and the dog loose in the front yard. I find that difficult to believe as it sounds like the dog was normally double fenced. Given that level of security, it makes no sense that the owner would leave the front gate open and the dog loose while they were not at home. Only witnesses to the open gate were the boys and their mother and her friend. Apparently the boys were cutting through the yard to get home when one was attacked. The statement made no mention of the boys carrying the alleged weapons - knife and arrows. The comments strongly requested definition of trespass, asked why the boys weren't charged for carrying a knife as apparently that's illegal, there were suggestions the statement linked above was inconsistent with police comments released after the initial investigation and statements questioning whether the police should have posted anything at all as the incident is apparently going before the courts.

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by karen15