Discussion
bennno said:
Heathwood said:
It’s not as if the owners don’t know what these dogs are like and what they’re capable of. Wake the f
k up!
I guess it’s better it’s the owners of these ‘fur babies’ are being killed by them, as opposed to the general public.k up!Seems to be more young female owners than you’d expect, really strange choice of dog imho.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ced3wjvzx2lo
Time to start rounding em up? How much longer do we leave it
Time to start rounding em up? How much longer do we leave it
Viper201 said:
The witness is not very happy about ricocheting bullets or cars being damaged by them. Also claims there was no dog warden to try and catch it.
Seems a bloody stupid thing to do firing a gun in a street with little regard to the consequences. Still, its G.M.P. so to be expected.
Yes, just let the fSeems a bloody stupid thing to do firing a gun in a street with little regard to the consequences. Still, its G.M.P. so to be expected.
king dog savage a few people with little regard to consequences, after all the dog fanciers don't care about a few deaths, so to be expected.eldar said:
Yes, just let the fking dog savage a few people with little regard to consequences, after all the dog fanciers don't care about a few deaths, so to be expected.
There is no evidence this dog was attacking anyone. Read the story.king dog savage a few people with little regard to consequences, after all the dog fanciers don't care about a few deaths, so to be expected.This extract is from the Met Police's info on firearms officers:
"They are accountable for any ballistic rounds that they may discharge in order to minimise any risk to the public."
You wouldn't be so dramatic if it was your car that got hit or a round ricocheted into your front room while watching the fun outside.
I'm all for XLs being muzzled etc etc, I don't trust them at all, but a so called firearms officer letting rip in a street? As no one was being attacked at the time this was a trigger happy officer putting lives at risk contrary to his own rules. Just like the Essex 'ram the cow' incident last week, totally unnecessary.
Viper201 said:
eldar said:
Yes, just let the fking dog savage a few people with little regard to consequences, after all the dog fanciers don't care about a few deaths, so to be expected.
There is no evidence this dog was attacking anyone. Read the story.king dog savage a few people with little regard to consequences, after all the dog fanciers don't care about a few deaths, so to be expected.This extract is from the Met Police's info on firearms officers:
"They are accountable for any ballistic rounds that they may discharge in order to minimise any risk to the public."
You wouldn't be so dramatic if it was your car that got hit or a round ricocheted into your front room while watching the fun outside.
I'm all for XLs being muzzled etc etc, I don't trust them at all, but a so called firearms officer letting rip in a street? As no one was being attacked at the time this was a trigger happy officer putting lives at risk contrary to his own rules. Just like the Essex 'ram the cow' incident last week, totally unnecessary.
A woman has been injured in an attack by an XL bully, police have said.
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said they received "several reports" that a dog was "dangerously out of control" and attacking people on Gladstone Road, Eccles, at about 21:00 BST on Friday.
rossub said:
No such thing as excessive force when one of these is muzzle free attacking people.
Doesn’t seem to be anyone else in the street apart from the guy who is presumably the owner, wandering around…. ‘don’t shoot my poor dog’
Shooting a dog like this when it's on the loose isn't excessive in my book. Discharging a firearm whilst running down a street at a small, moving target is irresponsible and downright dangerous. Road surfaces aren't decent backstops and likely to cause ricochets. These rounds could (and will) go anywhere as you can see with photos of the car.Doesn’t seem to be anyone else in the street apart from the guy who is presumably the owner, wandering around…. ‘don’t shoot my poor dog’
Right decision, wrongly and very poorly executed in my book.
Viper201 said:
eldar said:
Yes, just let the fking dog savage a few people with little regard to consequences, after all the dog fanciers don't care about a few deaths, so to be expected.
There is no evidence this dog was attacking anyone. Read the story.king dog savage a few people with little regard to consequences, after all the dog fanciers don't care about a few deaths, so to be expected.This extract is from the Met Police's info on firearms officers:
"They are accountable for any ballistic rounds that they may discharge in order to minimise any risk to the public."
You wouldn't be so dramatic if it was your car that got hit or a round ricocheted into your front room while watching the fun outside.
I'm all for XLs being muzzled etc etc, I don't trust them at all, but a so called firearms officer letting rip in a street? As no one was being attacked at the time this was a trigger happy officer putting lives at risk contrary to his own rules. Just like the Essex 'ram the cow' incident last week, totally unnecessary.
If the police had not taken action and it had bitten someone, they would have been pilloried for inaction. Lose, lose.
Bottom line, an unmuzzled, out of control and dangerous dog was on the loose. I have no problem shooting the animal in those circumstances. The accuracy and safety of that shooting is a separate question.
I understood once the pearl clutching over the rammed cow had died down, the consensus was it was a valid option.
JonnyWhitters said:
Shooting a dog like this when it's on the loose isn't excessive in my book. Discharging a firearm whilst running down a street at a small, moving target is irresponsible and downright dangerous. Road surfaces aren't decent backstops and likely to cause ricochets. These rounds could (and will) go anywhere as you can see with photos of the car.
Right decision, wrongly and very poorly executed in my book.
If the Public don’t take cover while there’s a mad dog on the loose and a presumably loud firearm is being discharged, then there’s some serious Darwinism going on.Right decision, wrongly and very poorly executed in my book.
If they hadn’t taken it down, it might have escaped to a more crowded area. As said above, lose lose.
rossub said:
If the Public don’t take cover while there’s a mad dog on the loose and a presumably loud firearm is being discharged, then there’s some serious Darwinism going on.
If they hadn’t taken it down, it might have escaped to a more crowded area. As said above, lose lose.
You can taking cover in a car, behind a door or gawping from your living room window, filming it for your Tik Tok crew and you can easily be clipped by a stray bullet. You don't need to be outside. If they hadn’t taken it down, it might have escaped to a more crowded area. As said above, lose lose.
Just think there was an element of lack of control in a very urban and populated environment for this one
JonnyWhitters said:
You can taking cover in a car, behind a door or gawping from your living room window, filming it for your Tik Tok crew and you can easily be clipped by a stray bullet. You don't need to be outside.
Just think there was an element of lack of control in a very urban and populated environment for this one
Yeh, but how do you get the out of control dog to control itself?Just think there was an element of lack of control in a very urban and populated environment for this one
eldar said:
The dog was dangerously out of control. You genuinely believe that is not a matter of concern?
If the police had not taken action and it had bitten someone, they would have been pilloried for inaction. Lose, lose.
Bottom line, an unmuzzled, out of control and dangerous dog was on the loose. I have no problem shooting the animal in those circumstances. The accuracy and safety of that shooting is a separate question.
I understood once the pearl clutching over the rammed cow had died down, the consensus was it was a valid option.
1. I do believe it is a matter of concern as I said I agree with the muzzling etc.If the police had not taken action and it had bitten someone, they would have been pilloried for inaction. Lose, lose.
Bottom line, an unmuzzled, out of control and dangerous dog was on the loose. I have no problem shooting the animal in those circumstances. The accuracy and safety of that shooting is a separate question.
I understood once the pearl clutching over the rammed cow had died down, the consensus was it was a valid option.
2. If they had not taken any action then yes, there would have been the usual hysterics and the police would have been blamed. However, they took the wrong action which is my point of view. At the time the police were there, the dog was not mauling anyone, although it had bitten a lady beforehand, so perhaps containment until a dog warden arrived or the owner could be found.
3. Yes the dog was loose, I agree. I too have no problem with shooting the dog where there is no other option. But, as said above, firing a number of rounds that clearly missed the target, is the issue I do not agree with especially in a suburban street.
4. I completely disagree with your last sentence. This is what you might expect to see in a youtube video from America. These two incidents may precipitate more inappropriate responses in the future because as sure as night follows day, there will be a lot more of these attacks.
Viper201 said:
eldar said:
The dog was dangerously out of control. You genuinely believe that is not a matter of concern?
If the police had not taken action and it had bitten someone, they would have been pilloried for inaction. Lose, lose.
Bottom line, an unmuzzled, out of control and dangerous dog was on the loose. I have no problem shooting the animal in those circumstances. The accuracy and safety of that shooting is a separate question.
I understood once the pearl clutching over the rammed cow had died down, the consensus was it was a valid option.
1. I do believe it is a matter of concern as I said I agree with the muzzling etc.If the police had not taken action and it had bitten someone, they would have been pilloried for inaction. Lose, lose.
Bottom line, an unmuzzled, out of control and dangerous dog was on the loose. I have no problem shooting the animal in those circumstances. The accuracy and safety of that shooting is a separate question.
I understood once the pearl clutching over the rammed cow had died down, the consensus was it was a valid option.
2. If they had not taken any action then yes, there would have been the usual hysterics and the police would have been blamed. However, they took the wrong action which is my point of view. At the time the police were there, the dog was not mauling anyone, although it had bitten a lady beforehand, so perhaps containment until a dog warden arrived or the owner could be found.
3. Yes the dog was loose, I agree. I too have no problem with shooting the dog where there is no other option. But, as said above, firing a number of rounds that clearly missed the target, is the issue I do not agree with especially in a suburban street.
4. I completely disagree with your last sentence. This is what you might expect to see in a youtube video from America. These two incidents may precipitate more inappropriate responses in the future because as sure as night follows day, there will be a lot more of these attacks.
In an ideal world, an organisation like the RSPCA would have the skills and resources, but they don't either.
In the end, judgement calls by ill qualified people will always be easy to criticise.
I don't believe there is anything approaching an operable solution.
bennno said:
The dog had to be shot four times? They must now be either bullet proof or whoever shot it needs to be taken off the job. alabbasi said:
bennno said:
The dog had to be shot four times? They must now be either bullet proof or whoever shot it needs to be taken off the job. Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff