"Another" Family angry after police shoot dog - Page 2

 I have a problem with finding a home owner with a tall wire fence with chain link gates and signs saying beware of dog catigorized as beinging at fault about his dog. And a dog confronted by strangers on it,s own property with guns drawn and sneaking around (my opinion of how they would enter said property) will get bite at my house and if shots are fired at them i will return fire...

No one will protect your family or property if you won,t yourself.

Right On Bob..

However, For legal reasons, Ive heard its best not to 'advertise' the Dog Warning signs, (Guilt Admission)

Its Real easy, knock on my door,  and I'll answer politely.

Kick it in unannounced &/or shoot my dog,  & I will respond with 12ga Slugs, right through any vest you might be wearing.

I will then call it a Job Hazard.  And a jury can decide if this is something that is indefensible in America.

 My father taught me at a young age to respect the law, and I do and I support our local sheriffs I donated a dog to our dept this year so they could start a K 9 program. Many of my friends are on the Dept. maybe it,s because we have not had such things happen around here that makes me very angry when i hear it. It seems to be more prevellent i city settings as to the county who knows but I agree if you come to my door and knock I will answer and show the same respect shown me. sneak on and invade my rights and the storm will start blowing.  

Bob,

If you read the story and see the photo's, this was not in my opinion that kind of situation.

And once you fire on law enforcement it's all over, you will no longer control the situation.  Itsa done deal from there on.

I still believe the dog owner has some responcablility here.   No doubt the cop's were wrong here period.

But once you start shooting people die, and you will be one of the dead.  Its a losing battle all way round.

When the day come's, and anarchy rule's, I too will hone my shooting skill's.    But not hold up in my house.

I think we are screwed no matter how you look at it.

FUBAR

 I just get pissed when in my opinion this sensless shit happens and then they could not even suffer the poor animal a killing shot!!! dam they hit it 9 times? and didnt kill it? and the owner even asked for it to happen. 

Just a couple weeks ago there was a young dog shooting in Texas on here, officer comes on a gated property  see,s a young dog coming at him on the tape he had plenty of time to get back in his car but draws a weapon and kills the dog then come to find out he was stoping to ask for directions???????

I guess i,m just getting tired of all the shit  latley economy,politics,bankers,lawers,c.e.o.s , stupid people breeding more stupid people,  

2 moons and Bob,   Both of you have good points.

2 moons dont be defeatist.  If TSHTF, once some begin firing on the 'goon squads'  (domestic or international) sent to disarm US citizens, as they tried to do which led  to the American Revolution,  'incidents' every 30 houses or so,  things will all change.  Talk about disheartening for them.

90 Million gun owners.  I like those odds.  If only 1% have balls, thats a million.

The IRA defeated the Brits with only 400 members.   Freedom Fighters dont have to win, just survive. Now, I certainly hope it never comes to that. Im also a realist.

Keep your head up and in the words of Birdman Bryant.....'If your gonna fight, fight smart'

http://volokh.com/posts/1227228105.shtml

Eric Holder on firearms policy:  (BAD, BAD, BAD)

Earlier this year, Eric Holder––along with Janet Reno and several other former officials from the Clinton Department of Justice––co-signed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The brief was filed in support of DC's Ban on All handguns, and Ban on the use of Any Firearm for Self-defense in the home. The brief argued that the Second Amendment is a "collective" right, not an individual one, and asserted that belief in the collective right had been the consistent policy of the U.S. Department of Justice since the FDR administration. A brief filed by some other former DOJ officials (including several AGs, and Stuart Gerson, who was Acting AG until Janet Reno was confirmed)took issue with the Reno-Holder brief's characterization of DOJ's viewpoint.

But at the least, the Reno-Holder brief accurately expressed the position of the Department of Justice when Janet Reno was Attorney General and Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General. At the oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, the Assistant U.S. Attorney told the panel that the Second Amendment was no barrier to gun confiscation, not even of the confiscation of guns from on-duty National Guardsmen.

As Deputy AG, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday). He also promoted the factoid that "Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence"––a statistic is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as "children."(Sources: Holder testimony before House Judiciary Committee, Subcommitee on Crime, May 27,1999; Holder Weekly Briefing, May 20, 2000. One of the bills that Holder endorsed is detailed in my 1999 Issue Paper "Unfair and Unconstitutional.")

After 9/11, he penned a Washington Post op-ed, "Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists" arguing that a new law should give "the BATF a record of every firearm sale." He also stated that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret "watch lists" compiled by various government entities. (In an Issue Paper on the watch list proposal, I quote a FBI spokesman stating that there is no cause to deny gun ownership to someone simply because she is on the FBI list.)

After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the D.C. handgun ban and self-defense ban were unconstitutional in 2007, Holder complained that the decision "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."

Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old's home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that Gonzalez "was not taken at the point of a gun" and that the federal agents whom Holder had

I see signs that gun owners are organizing again in response to the coming political threat, Ugly. The good guys more or less won Heller anyway. 

The owner of the dog in the original post should sue. Losing money is all politicians and appointed police chiefs understand.

I am not getting into a major discussion on this. It has been beaten to death on this board. But maybe shed some light on why the dog wasn't "finished off".

My department has a general order preventingus from putting down a dog or a cat, even when they are obviously suffering or the owner requests it.

I can tell you most of the time, when I go to a house looking for someone, some family member is saying, "He's not here" or "he doesn't live here" when they are hiding in a closet or trying to run out the back door.

Two Moons,

I agree with you, the owner knew his dog would bite, and he had the responsibility to prevent this. The argument " it could have been kids", just dont sit with me. It was grown up Police Officers entering the place ! In my opinion, they were very capalpel of reading & understanding the signs ! But yes, this gate should have been locked ...... what would still not have prevented what was coming, useally Police does not stop because of a locked gate. The dog did what it was supposed to do, it tried to stop an illigal entering. The dog does not know the law, the Officers did, or should have.

The argument, that the owner was aware of the danger coming from the dog, excuse me, suc*s. What is the owner of a protective dog supposed to do then ? Build a 2 meter high fence around his property, would that have stopped Police ? I know my dogs are generally friendly, but if you do enter their space, they can be very protective, and thats the way I like them.

Regards Ulli