Comments on: Dead Dog Debate

By: Observer

Observer — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:05:09 +0000

Actually, the event took place an an area know by police to be a dog park. I gact, several police offciers use the park themselves to walk their canines. Not only that, it is a school yard surrounded by apartment buildings. More than that, some police do not know the difference between a dog bounding up to them or one getting ready to attack. Moreover, police have rules to follow with respect to the use of force. In the case, the offcier should have conisdered using: his knee, his baton, pepper spray, tazer and then and only then, his gun. It is not dogs I am concerend about with htis offcier, but humans and him. It sounds very much to me that this unfortunate situation could have been avoided with some fundamental training. It would be interesting to know exactly what kind of training police get in this regard.

By: Presman

Presman — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:45:53 +0000

The 50 dollar fine is assessed to the owner, not the dog. If the cop had shot the owner, then you would be right. A dead dog equals property damage.
I, and any sane, reasonable person, would also argue that dog injuries are disproprtionate to the number of dog owners, and furthermore are fully preventable by owners using leashes like they are supposed to, an activity that requires zero skill, judgment, or experience, not adversely affected by environmental conditions, unlike driving.

I’ll marvel at your lack of wits for a while, then ultimately pity your foolishness. Grow up, wise up.

By: Tony.Lumpkin

Tony.Lumpkin — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:44:30 +0000

You are clearly casting your lot with the irrational beasts. I’ll try to remember to throw you some table scraps.
The 50 dollar fine is assessed to the owner, not the dog. If the cop had shot the owner, then you would be right. A dead dog equals property damage.
I, and any sane, reasonable person, would also argue that dog injuries are disproprtionate to the number of dog owners, and furthermore are fully preventable by owners using leashes like they are supposed to, an activity that requires zero skill, judgment, or experience, not adversely affected by environmental conditions, unlike driving.

I’ll marvel at your lack of wits for a while, then ultimately pity your foolishness. Grow up, wise up.

By: Tony.Lumpkin

Tony.Lumpkin — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:42:34 +0000

Jaimie,
You are clearly casting your lot with the irrational beasts. I’ll try to remember to throw you some table scraps.
The 50 dollar fine is assessed to the owner, not the dog. If the cop had shot the owner, then you would be right. A dead dog equals property damage.
I, and any sane, reasonable person, would also argue that dog injuries are disproprtionate to the number of dog owners, and furthermore are fully preventable by owners using leashes like they are supposed to, an activity that requires zero skill, judgment, or experience, not adversely affected by environmental conditions, unlike driving.

I’ll marvel at your lack of wits for a while, then ultimately pity your foolishness. Grow up, wise up.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:49:36 +0000

… as for human beings being capable of being reasoned with, not really sure I understand your point. Human beings are irrational and commit violent crimes a lot more than dogs in this city. Despite generally being capable of much more serious harm, the police rarely shoot them down. I’m not saying dogs have equal rights as humans, but rather that the risk to the officer from the dog almost certainly did not equate the response. In fact, the officer almost certainly created a much greater risk by firing his weapon in a public place.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:35:27 +0000

In this case, it is you that cannot tell the difference between an appropriate response and one that is not. The fine for a dog off leash is $50, which is half the fine for parking in rush-hour traffic. Our government has determined that this is a minor violation of the law, and consequently the fine is on the same order.

Apart from that, your proposition is wrong. There were 755 accidents as a result of running a red light in DC in 2004, 266 of them resulting in injury or death. I look forward to comparing this to your statistics on dog bite injuries and deaths due to _unleashed dogs in public places_ (versus bites or attacks that occur on private property, a risk which is the owner’s choice to take and not a violation of any law).

I seriously doubt that the number of deaths is above one and the number of injuries is anywhere near that.

By: Tony Lumpkin

Tony Lumpkin — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:23:33 +0000

Jaimie,

In all three cases, the replacements you suggest are humans that are intelligent and rational and can be reasoned with. I am sorry you cannot tell the difference.

Unleashed and stray dogs are a menace. I (as a child) and my son have both been attacked by someone’s cutie fwuffy wuffy. Amazingly, both owners protested that their “babies” never acted that way before, like we had done something to goad their unreasoning beasts into attack.

And dog attacks are near the top of the list of child injuries. I am glad that municipalities still have the good sense to kill these animals. Banning their owners from ever owning dogs again would be a great follow up.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:21:06 +0000

A useful comment. Replace “dog” with “jaywalker” or “panhandler” or “red-light runner”. You think breaking a law, which in this case apparently isn’t even a misdemeanor, is grounds for any sort of police response? The cops are trigger-happy.

By: Adams Morgan

Adams Morgan — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:54:26 +0000

had the dog been on a leash, as is the law, none of this would have happened…