Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately, the law in Maryland (and many other states) states that animals that "attack" without provocation may be killed. So, rather than getting angry at a person who takes advantage of the law (I in no way condone his behavior, which was excessive and irresponsible), I think that we need to work on changing the laws so that people such as this man do not feel (or actually have) the right to behave in this manner. As it stands, the law is much too general and needs to be ammended, which is why I am so happy that there has been such a public outcry re: this incident. Legislators are listening, especially wrt pet protection and especially when there is a huge public outcry about a particular issue.
For what it's worth, I will reiterate that what this man did was completely uncalled-for and illustrates that just b/c you can do something doesn't mean you should. I am all for gun ownership and even concealed weaponry but there should be a law in which a dog owner (if possible) is given fair warning that someone feels threatened by a dog and that he/she is going to discharge his/her firearm at the animal. Gun ownership is great, but gun owners need to be responsible and accountable with the use of their firearms. This man could have warned the owner, and I am sure that, if he had, things would have turned out differently. Moreover, the argument that it was self-defense is untenable b/c the dog was not "attacking" the man. He might, however, be able to argue self-defense of his property but it doesn't sound as if the other witnesses at the dog park are going to back up his story that the husky was "attacking" or behaving viciously.
And, of course, ideally, killing a "vicious" dog shouldn't even be permissable, at least not without a trial for the animal, same as for a human.
I will also add that it would behoove all gun owners not to condone this man's behavior, which makes all gun owners look bad.
Last edited by StarlaJane; 08-06-2010 at 01:33 PM..
I go to a local dog park alot and everytime a dog arrives, the rest of the dogs go to greet the newcomer. This is normal behavior. This rent-a-cop should not only lose his job but should lose his permit to carry a gun after this. If I was the owner of that dog, he would also be facing a lawsuit.
The problem with a lot of people who carry weapons is that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I wonder what other avenues he would have explored to resolve the situation if he hadn't been carrying his gun.
Unfortunately, the law in Maryland (and many other states) states that animals that "attack" without provocation may be killed. So, rather than getting angry at a person who takes advantage of the law (I in no way condone his behavior, which was excessive and irresponsible), I think that we need to work on changing the laws so that people such as this man do not feel (or actually have) the right to behave in this manner. As it stands, the law is much too general and needs to be ammended, which is why I am so happy that there has been such a public outcry re: this incident. Legislators are listening, especially wrt pet protection and especially when there is a huge public outcry about a particular issue.
For what it's worth, I will reiterate that what this man did was completely uncalled-for and illustrates that just b/c you can do something doesn't mean you should. I am all for gun ownership and even concealed weaponry but there should be a law in which a dog owner (if possible) is given fair warning that someone feels threatened by a dog and that he/she is going to discharge his/her firearm at the animal. Gun ownership is great, but gun owners need to be responsible and accountable with the use of their firearms. This man could have warned the owner, and I am sure that, if he had, things would have turned out differently. Moreover, the argument that it was self-defense is untenable b/c the dog was not "attacking" the man. He might, however, be able to argue self-defense of his property but it doesn't sound as if the other witnesses at the dog park are going to back up his story that the husky was "attacking" or behaving viciously.
And, of course, ideally, killing a "vicious" dog shouldn't even be permissable, at least not without a trial for the animal, same as for a human.
I will also add that it would behoove all gun owners not to condone this man's behavior, which makes all gun owners look bad.
I'm quite certain no one in this thread has condoned the off-duty officer's actions. However, the truth is that one newspaper article does not give us all the facts. The all the facts may or may not be known by the general public following the completion of the investigation. So really everything else is just supposition.
In most states a person is allowed to defend themselves when they are in fear for their lives and being faced with what they perceive as an immediate lethal threat. According to the newspaper article linked by the OP, this appears to be consistent with the statement of the off-duty officer.
Firearms owners are by responsible for the use/misuse of their firearms.
Take advantage of the law? Do you think this man, with his wife and dog, actually decided to go to the dog park for the purpose of shooting someone else's dog? Do you think he considered, when aftraid for his safety "Hey, I think I'll take advantage of the law". Or would it be more reasonable to believe, however misguided his interpretation of the advancing dog's behavior, that he believed he was defending himself, his wife, and their dog?
What's unclear is your assumption that I was talking about you. This is what I said: "As I read LTTP's post her proposal was precisely correct: A gun should be the last resort. The absolute last resort..." This means that that was her point, not cranking off some round at the sky. I was talking about LTTPs post. Not yours.
Nope! But that further substantiates LTTPs broad-strokes argument that you're complaining about.
The officer may not've had a malicious intent, and acted out of fear, but what difference does that make? He made all the wrong moves and since he was carrying his weapon, he has a much greater responsibility to be able to control his emotions.
None of us know if shooting his gun was his first or only response to the other dog approaching.
Ideally, yes. But do dogs always and every single time obey without hesitation?
Dog parks are disasters in the making. In my experience going to dog parks, very few people train their dogs well enough to respond immediately.
It's not an equal playing field - gun vs. aggressive/playful dog. And the gun-carrier has a far greater responsibility if that's their only choice of protection. This does not absolve the other dog's owner of responsibility at all.
And you're right, dogs can be lethal weapons. On most of this we agree; I just believe the officer had a greater responsibility to have chosen or have available another method of defense. I'm quite sure he is absolutely horrified at what happened.
I'm quite certain no one in this thread has condoned the off-duty officer's actions. However, the truth is that one newspaper article does not give us all the facts. The all the facts may or may not be known by the general public following the completion of the investigation. So really everything else is just supposition.
In most states a person is allowed to defend themselves when they are in fear for their lives and being faced with what they perceive as an immediate lethal threat. According to the newspaper article linked by the OP, this appears to be consistent with the statement of the off-duty officer.
Firearms owners are by responsible for the use/misuse of their firearms.
Take advantage of the law? Do you think this man, with his wife and dog, actually decided to go to the dog park for the purpose of shooting someone else's dog? Do you think he considered, when aftraid for his safety "Hey, I think I'll take advantage of the law". Or would it be more reasonable to believe, however misguided his interpretation of the advancing dog's behavior, that he believed he was defending himself, his wife, and their dog?
You seem to have a lot in common with this man: you both like to fly off the handle at misinterpreted threats Of course I don't think that he left the house with the intent to murder a dog. However, I do think that he was very conscious that the law would be on his side in this situation. His response was calculated (but not premeditated) and completely unneccessary. Moreover, he was never in fear of his life or afraid for his safety; how could he be?--the husky never came near him. Several articles as well as many eye-witnesses state that the dogs were playing roughly; the dog did not approach the man or his wife. Are you honestly saying that all of these people are lying?! IDTS.
I also think that it's strange that you don't think that you are condoning his actions; you have been defending this man in nearly every single post, apparently based on his one statement to the police versus the statements of many witnesses. And defending his actions is the same as condoning what he did. Moreover, many people could make an argument that they "thought" they might be attacked. But that never excuses killing someone or something. A reasonable person would have called the cops to handle the situation, not gunned the perceived threat down in cold blood. But I get the feeling that this man knew that the law would be on his side, so he took full advantage to kill an animal that didn't need to be killed.
You seem to have a lot in common with this man: you both like to fly off the handle at misinterpreted threats Of course I don't think that he left the house with the intent to murder a dog. However, I do think that he was very conscious that the law would be on his side in this situation. His response was calculated (but not premeditated) and completely unneccessary. Moreover, he was never in fear of his life or afraid for his safety; how could he be?--the husky never came near him. Several articles as well as many eye-witnesses state that the dogs were playing roughly; the dog did not approach the man or his wife. Are you honestly saying that all of these people are lying?! IDTS.
I also think that it's strange that you don't think that you are condoning his actions; you have been defending this man in nearly every single post, apparently based on his one statement to the police versus the statements of many witnesses. And defending his actions is the same as condoning what he did. Moreover, many people could make an argument that they "thought" they might be attacked. But that never excuses killing someone or something. A reasonable person would have called the cops to handle the situation, not gunned the perceived threat down in cold blood. But I get the feeling that this man knew that the law would be on his side, so he took full advantage to kill an animal that didn't need to be killed.
I hate to contribute to the further derailment of this thread but I've seen no instances of lifelongMOgal defending the actions of this person. Defending responsible concealed carry shouldn't be confused with in any way condoning the irresponsible actions of the shooter in this incident.
The overwhelming majority of concealed carry permit holders act responsibly. They realize the firearm the carry is a tool of last resort rather than an answer to anything that may irritate or upset them.
As I said in an earlier post it's questionable whether this individual was even legally armed. Whether he was or not his actions are inexcusable.
You seem to have a lot in common with this man: you both like to fly off the handle at misinterpreted threats Of course I don't think that he left the house with the intent to murder a dog. However, I do think that he was very conscious that the law would be on his side in this situation. His response was calculated (but not premeditated) and completely unneccessary. Moreover, he was never in fear of his life or afraid for his safety; how could he be?--the husky never came near him. Several articles as well as many eye-witnesses state that the dogs were playing roughly; the dog did not approach the man or his wife. Are you honestly saying that all of these people are lying?! IDTS.
I also think that it's strange that you don't think that you are condoning his actions; you have been defending this man in nearly every single post, apparently based on his one statement to the police versus the statements of many witnesses. And defending his actions is the same as condoning what he did. Moreover, many people could make an argument that they "thought" they might be attacked. But that never excuses killing someone or something. A reasonable person would have called the cops to handle the situation, not gunned the perceived threat down in cold blood. But I get the feeling that this man knew that the law would be on his side, so he took full advantage to kill an animal that didn't need to be killed.
It is apparent that my posts are being taken completely out of context. Try to re-read them without emotional bias but from a postition of rational logic. I am quite certain that at no time did I lower myself to personal attacks and the same respect is expected in return. Thank you.
I'm quite certain no one in this thread has condoned the off-duty officer's actions. However, the truth is that one newspaper article does not give us all the facts. The all the facts may or may not be known by the general public following the completion of the investigation. So really everything else is just supposition.
In most states a person is allowed to defend themselves when they are in fear for their lives and being faced with what they perceive as an immediate lethal threat. According to the newspaper article linked by the OP, this appears to be consistent with the statement of the off-duty officer.
Firearms owners are by responsible for the use/misuse of their firearms.
Take advantage of the law? Do you think this man, with his wife and dog, actually decided to go to the dog park for the purpose of shooting someone else's dog? Do you think he considered, when aftraid for his safety "Hey, I think I'll take advantage of the law". Or would it be more reasonable to believe, however misguided his interpretation of the advancing dog's behavior, that he believed he was defending himself, his wife, and their dog?
In my opinion this cop sounds like a big wussy. Now if a bear or a moutain lion was coming after my family I would pull out my gun. But come on it's a husky. If this guy is this scared of such a weak dog then how scared is he in an actual dangerous situation. If I'm his boss I fire him on the premise of being such a little girl!!! He's lucky he didn't kill my dog. I don't know what I would of done to him but he might of not made it too!!!!!!
The most appalling aspect of this, and there are all kinds of appalling aspects, is the report that says that the brother was not allowed near the dog after it was shot for almost thirty minutes. Not only was he not allowed near him, but, he was threatened with tasering if he tried to comfort the animal. So, essentially, this dog was left to bleed out in the dog park while his loved one watched.
Grrrrrrrrr
"During the initial investigation, it appeared the off-duty federal officer was legally authorized to carry a firearm, but during the follow-up investigation that became questionable."
Last edited by TigerLily24; 08-08-2010 at 10:16 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or would it be more reasonable to believe, however misguided his interpretation of the advancing dog's behavior, that he believed he was defending himself, his wife, and their dog?
But that further substantiates LTTPs broad-strokes argument that you're complaining about. 
