Pit Bulls and Pit Mixes (Page 5)

Ding ding ding.
Which is very disheartening to a lot of people in this thread (as I'm sure you've noticed) as those dogs are our "babies" and part of our families. Things, happen, dogs get loose. If I shot every loose dog I saw just because I thought there was "more than 0% chance of threat" I would have murdered probably 50 dogs by now. There is *always* a threat with a loose dog. Always. Does that mean you should shoot them at will? Of course not.

Instead, I chose to see if I could help them get back home. I've found pitts, rottweilers, labs, dobie-mix, weimies, pointers, mutts, all kinds of dogs small and large that could easily hurt me if they wanted. I could have easily assumed they were killer dogs but instead, I assessed the situation like a rational person and showed a little compassion. I would hope someone would do the same if they found my dog loose.





Edited by lisac957 2011-01-27 9:29 AM

there are lots of things that put your child in a greater than 0% chance of being hurt.  are you going to be equally vigilant in protecting your child from them?

I cannot believe you are a dog owner. That makes me sick to my stomach.

Your sense of risk assessment is not based in reality....

You better barricade yourself in your house and never EVER let you or your kids leave, if you are worried about a 'more than 0% threat' on your lives. In fact, NEVER drive a car, because your odds of dying in a car accident are 1 in 18,585, whereas your odds of being killed by a dog are 1 in 700,000.

You should also stop eating because your chance of dying from choking on food is 1 in 370,035, you should also avoid ALL heights because your chance of dying from any kind of fall is 1 in 20,666. I also suggest you give up triathlons and never bathe your children, because your chance of dying from accidental drowning is 1 in 79,065, while your odds of fatally slipping in bath or shower are 2,232 to 1. Oh yeah- life has a 100% fatality rate- YIKES!

http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm

It completely depends on the situation.  It is a risk reward situation.  In this example, the risk of ending a dogs life (whose owner has not properly contained) is not a greater value than the risk of my child being injured.   Each situation is unique, and I should be allowed to decide the course of action.  It's been pointed out that myself and many on this thread have a complete different value of dogs. I see dogs as property that (just like a gun) are capable of negatively affecting another person, and are completely under my realm of responsibility to control. If I am unable to control, the results of that are my fault.

In my scenario, I'm not infringing on the owners rights. The owner was negligent with their property. It all goes back to our disagreement on the value and rights of an animal. I don't think bad analogies from either of us will get us to agree on that.

If you see a drunk driver, do you shoot at them?  Because that is someone being negligent with their property.  I don't think drunk driving is right, but I call the police and report them and get out of the area.  If there were a dangerous animal in my neighborhood, I'd follow a very similar response -- GTFO and call the proper authorities.

*partial flame suit on*

I actually see my dogs life as more valuable than your childs.  So if your child is not properly contained, due to a negligent parent, and comes up to me and kicks me (this has happenned) I can retaliate in the same manner?

I mean...I feared for my life.  Your 5 yr old was posing a great risk to me and my dog.  And you failed to contain it.

You see dogs as property, and that's fine.  I see other people's kids as property and capable of negatively affeting another person.

This would be killing a person.  Again, dogs are not people therefore the risk/reward dramatically changes.

a drunk driver is FAR more likely to kill someone than an unleashed pup. 

You live in the US.  Kids are not property, but dogs are.  You can feel free to start a political movement based on this, but it would likely be difficult to meet your goals. 

Agreed.  But killing a person who may be innocent (even though less likely), still a much worse scenario than killing an innocent dog.

Value of human life infinitely more than value of dog life.

As a parent, you are responsible for your kid, aka property, until I believe 18.  So just like my dog does something, it's on me.  If your kid does something it's on you.  And, FWIW, my dog is better behaved than many kids I have encountered.

Same rules if you take the emotion out of it. 

Let me get this straight- you are saying that you truly would shoot a dog in the face if it stepped onto your property, tail-wagging and tongue out, simply because it got loose from it's owner and had the gall to put it's paw within 100 feet of you?

drunk driving IS a crime.  they are already guilty.

I'm a pit bull owner, I'm in Law Enforcement and I'm strongly anti-gun. 
Some of the comments I've read, and the 'qiuickness' some have displayed to use Lethal Force are shocking.  As well as ill placed. 

Let's just talk about how much we love our dogs.

Not at all.  I think some poster's emotional connection to this topic is causing them misconstrue my message.  I am saying it is acceptable to kill a dog if someone believes there is a threat. Like I noted above, you may have less than 10 seconds to make this decision. So based on all of the information one would have (including breed of dog, size, visible temperament) to use their best judgment.  No one else should be able to judge their action as incorrect.  I think one's judgment should way heavily on ensuring you or your child are safe.

Exactly!

If you feel the need to go around killing dogs, get your own "Have Gun, Will kill dog" thread.

Since you have less than 10 seconds to make this decision, do you carry a loaded gun at all times? I'm honestly curious.
 

REAL WORLD SITUATION - this actually happened to me in the summer of 1995 [my hands still have a slight tremor when of think of this.]

background info - Richmond, Va [highest murder per capita rate in the US]

location: just off the corner of Davis & Main Street, the Fan 10:30 on a Friday night.

scenario: I get home from being out and go inside my rented apartment. I (30 years old, 6' - 195 lbs - athletic build w/ 11% body fat) forget something in my car so I back to get. Three black teens (aprx. 15 years old each) are walking down the street. I cross in front of them... roughly 10-15 feet heading to my car...

kid in the middle: "who the f**k do you think you is mother f**ker"
me: confused "excuse me?"
kid: "I don't need no s**t from yo' punk a**"
me: blank stare & thinking - what the hell did I do?
kid: lifts his shirt to show a gun tucked into his waist band "I put a f***'n bullet in yo' chest"

What do yo do?

I came up with 4 scenarios in my head hyper fast:

1) kid in the middle [primary threat] - break nose or attempt to push it into his brain stem - either kills him or at least knocks him out; kid to my left - step and drop my left leg with all of my weight through his right knee - shattered knee and ligaments, serious time in rehab most likely will always walk with a limp; kid to my right - [my back is to him] throw right elbow into face, turn, throw multiple punches till kid is down.

2) same as above [s**t goes wrong] - kid on left or right has a gun or knife - I am most likely going down.

3) exit stage left, dial 911 - pretty confident I live to see another day.

4) try to exit stage left, kid steps forward, see No. 1 and 2 above.

I chose option 3. At the time, I had no question in my mind this kid WOULD shoot. Somehow in his mind I had disrespected him and he was NOT going to back down in front of his friends. When the police got there they knew the kid... apparently they had shot this kids brother six months ago because he pulled a gun on the Richmond Police.

OK, you can argue humans and dogs don't rationalize in the same manner and that human life is greater than a animals - fair enough. BUT if you switch out the kids for a dog, you have a very similar situation you talk about. I have no idea whether a dog/ human will attack or if they will back down - is it just a show of strength, a bluff, or a real threat. Why should the first reaction be offensive? Shouldn't you try to get out of the situation and leave things to someone trained to deal with offending party?

I don't own a gun.  I just think it should be legal and it is acceptable.

You've never said anything about size, visible temperament, etc. What you HAVE said, is that you believe any (or all) loose animals COULD pose a threat, just by the fact that they are loose. You've also stated that if there's a 'more than 0 threat to my child' that you would use lethal force. And, from that, what you are saying is that you would use lethal force on any dog that is loose and goes within 100 feet of you. What, exactly, am I misconstruing?

To be specific- your words:
"I do believe that any time an animal is loose and within a hundred feet of a person, shooting the unknown animal is completely acceptable. No reason to risk someone being hurt. If a loose animal does hurt someone, the owner should be held criminally liable."
"The risk that you may kill a dog that wasn't going to cause a problem, is definitely worth the risk you or a child is killed or hurt."
"10-15 seconds may not enough time to react in a manner that will ensure you or your child are not hurt. Which is why I believe it should be legal to use lethal force on an animal when there is a possibility myself or my child could be killed or injured. We have to remember this is a an animal. There is 0 reason for me to risk my child getting hurt because someone improperly secured their animal."
"if a person feels a loose dog could be a threat they should have the legal right to kill them."
"If I feel there is a more than 0 threat to my child from a loose animal that I do not know, then I believe it would be acceptable to kill the animal. In this scenario it is a freakin dog that has owners who were negligent."

What, again, am I misconstruing? Where are you NOT saying that it is OK to just shoot any loose dog, due to the simple fact that there is a more than 0% chance that someone could get injured? With your warped view of risk-reward assessment, I still cannot believe that you can justify owning a gun, driving a car or can even leaving the house.

Furthermore, how could emotions not be involved when we're talking about people's pets? You must truly be heartless if HONESTLY think that someone wouldn't be upset if you shot their dog, or even if you go around saying you'll shoot a loose dog if it poses a 'more than 0 threat' to your safety. You didn't say- I 'might shoot a dog if it is snarling and growling and charging at my children, teeth barred'. You have very clearly said that you find it perfectly acceptable to shoot loose dogs and think that everyone else should find that perfectly acceptable.

I think it is acceptable to kill a dog if a person believes there is a risk of danger, and that no one outside of that situation should be able to judge their actions.  The bar for believing you need to kill a dog would be very low.   For some people the bar could just be that the dog is loose.  They get 10 seconds and should obviously err on the side of the human life.  The fault would be that of the owner because they failed to properly contain their dog.

The posters on this thread are taking this way more seriously than I would have thought, so maybe I wasn't careful enough in choosing my words. This is just a off topic tri forum, we aren't debating in front of Congress.

If I got you worked up, go on a run or pet your dog or something.

Not much has changed in that neighborhood...

So (if we going to use some hyperbole here)....Hitler>>>>>>>>>>>Lassie?