Another dog attack

[OutInTheShed]

carinatauk said:

The use of firearms in close proximity to the public and without adequate backdrop is poor judgement.

I was always brought up to consider the risk associated with a backdrop that does not absorb the energy of the bullet, ricochets in this case were near guaranteed. Added to that, a moving and agile object [in this case the dog] would mean missed shots. The bullet into the car door was an example of a poor shot. Also running around with a rifle at close range is almost certainly going to exacerbate the issue.

I realise that some of the public would approve such an action, but just bear in mind that these shots can travel several miles and so the risk of injury can be high and widespread.

Did thay need to deal with the situation, probably, but perhaps animal handling experts may have been a better choice [in this case and the cow one].

Edited by carinatauk on Sunday 30th June 09:22

We don't have rapid response standby force of animal handling experts.

Maybe we just need to get rid of these dogs pre-emptively?
Bring back dog licensing in a meaningful way?
Referring to the other incident, we already have a fairly complex system of 'cow licensing'.

It did not look like a slick operation which went to plan, but nobody died and no further people got bitten.

[swisstoni]

Police are rarely served up textbook scenarios to deal with in the real world.

[Earthdweller]

carinatauk said:

The use of firearms in close proximity to the public and without adequate backdrop is poor judgement.

I was always brought up to consider the risk associated with a backdrop that does not absorb the energy of the bullet, ricochets in this case were near guaranteed. Added to that, a moving and agile object [in this case the dog] would mean missed shots. The bullet into the car door was an example of a poor shot. Also running around with a rifle at close range is almost certainly going to exacerbate the issue.

I realise that some of the public would approve such an action, but just bear in mind that these shots can travel several miles and so the risk of injury can be high and widespread.

Did thay need to deal with the situation, probably, but perhaps animal handling experts may have been a better choice [in this case and the cow one].

Edited by carinatauk on Sunday 30th June 09:22

[Greendubber]

Viper201 said:

Taken from the Met Police's own authorised firearms description:

"They are accountable for any ballistic rounds that they may discharge in order to minimise any risk to the public."

Clearly failed on this occasion. The witness says the dog was not a threat to life. Either way its just like the police deliberately running down the young cow in Essex last week - over reacting.

Edited by Viper201 on Saturday 29th June 23:01

What point are you attempting to make, have they said they aren't accountable for the damage?

[The Hypno-Toad]

What a fantastic sum up of this country in 2024.

Police armed with assault weapons running down a suburban street in daylight, firing rounds at a dog deliberately bred in order to intimidate and attack people.

Oh! To be in England in the summertime...

[Viper201]

Greendubber said:

What point are you attempting to make, have they said they aren't accountable for the damage?

Is this really a serious question? Or just another excuse for you to defend the police no matter what?

Rounds flying indiscriminately in a suburban street caused the damage to all the cars. Any one of which could so very easily have ricocheted into a window.

Maybe the (not so very) sharpshooter has been watching too many youtube videos from America?

[Greendubber]

Viper201 said:

Greendubber said:

What point are you attempting to make, have they said they aren't accountable for the damage?

Is this really a serious question? Or just another excuse for you to defend the police no matter what?

Rounds flying indiscriminately in a suburban street caused the damage to all the cars. Any one of which could so very easily have ricocheted into a window.

Maybe the (not so very) sharpshooter has been watching too many youtube videos from America?

Serious question, being as you said....

Viper201 said:

Taken from the Met Police's own authorised firearms description:

"They are accountable for any ballistic rounds that they may discharge in order to minimise any risk to the public."

Clearly failed on this occasion. The witness says the dog was not a threat to life. Either way its just like the police deliberately running down the young cow in Essex last week - over reacting.

Edited by Viper201 on Saturday 29th June 23:01

How have they failed, are they not taking accountability because if that's the case, I've not read that anywhere. A car has been damaged, it will be repaired. Don't make out that they were just popping rounds off for fun and people were diving for cover.

Minimising risk the the public is at the forefront of what they do, however things like that will happen in situations like these. I'll await a 'but what if' post in reply.

On another note, I see the witness decided not to take hold of the 'not a risk' dog which is a shame because if they had, a lady may not have ended up in hospital and the police wouldn't have even needed to do anything.

[Gareth79]

If you want a realistic "what if" risk: what if a parent had opened their front door to see what the noise was, the dog running past saw their toddler standing behind them, the dog bolted through the door and went for the child's face.

[Greendubber]

Gareth79 said:

If you want a realistic "what if" risk: what if a parent had opened their front door to see what the noise was, the dog running past saw their toddler standing behind them, the dog bolted through the door and went for the child's face.

Maybe, but it didn't.

It's easy to spin it anyway you wish. What if a parent was walking down the road with a toddler and the dog mauled it because the police didn't bother taking the dog out? Maybe they were too worried about what people on the internet would want them to do so didn't act quickly enough?

[Gone fishing]

Greendubber said:

Gareth79 said:

If you want a realistic "what if" risk: what if a parent had opened their front door to see what the noise was, the dog running past saw their toddler standing behind them, the dog bolted through the door and went for the child's face.

Maybe, but it didn't.

It's easy to spin it anyway you wish. What if a parent was walking down the road with a toddler and the dog mauled it because the police didn't bother taking the dog out? Maybe they were too worried about what people on the internet would want them to do so didn't act quickly enough?

You’re arguing the same point

I’m all for decisive action, and I’d be quite happily for the police to have powers to arrest drone fliers wearing balaclavas in summer standing outside buildings (and the like, no doubt you’ve seen a video or 3). Yes there has to be some accountability with their responsibility but allowing the police to police rather than dance around armchair lawyers and people looking for a reaction might actually improve things

[Red9zero]

Our pyscho neighbour has a young cockerpoo that her boyfriend insists on walking off the lead, presumably to show his alpha status. It is always racing round the car park at the rear of our houses, in front of cars, chasing other dogs and generally being a pita. Yesterday it decided to chase a cat into another neighbours garden where there was a young child playing. Luckily the cat got away, but the child was rather distressed, as was his mother. When she told neighbours b/f that his dog should be on a lead, he said that she was the one that should be on a lead, grabbed his dog and walked off. Ten minutes later our pyscho neighbour is in floods of tears banging on other neighbours door, screaming about her saying her dog was out of control (it was / is, but she didn't actually say that). This has been reported to 101 and the local dog warden, as this is getting to be a regular occurrence now, and it is only a matter of time before the dog, or someone else gets hurt. I suspect nothing will happen, until it actually does though.

[Unreal]

Gone fishing said:

Greendubber said:

Gareth79 said:

If you want a realistic "what if" risk: what if a parent had opened their front door to see what the noise was, the dog running past saw their toddler standing behind them, the dog bolted through the door and went for the child's face.

Maybe, but it didn't.

It's easy to spin it anyway you wish. What if a parent was walking down the road with a toddler and the dog mauled it because the police didn't bother taking the dog out? Maybe they were too worried about what people on the internet would want them to do so didn't act quickly enough?

You’re arguing the same point

I’m all for decisive action, and I’d be quite happily for the police to have powers to arrest drone fliers wearing balaclavas in summer standing outside buildings (and the like, no doubt you’ve seen a video or 3). Yes there has to be some accountability with their responsibility but allowing the police to police rather than dance around armchair lawyers and people looking for a reaction might actually improve things

I too would like the Police to stop poncing around. How about dealing with a community of Romanians who live illegally in woods and outbuildings, hunt deer with crossbows and allow their dogs to roam and kill local livestock, fish on private lands and threaten anyone who challenges them, all facilitated by an individual from a well known mobile community? Plant is regularly stolen. This is all taking place in a highly affluent part of the SE. Police aren't interested but you can get crime numbers for anything nicked.

So yes, let them stop poncing about but let's deal with violent scum before we worry too much about drone nerds in balaclavas.

Back on topic - stop and check suspected XL bully owners not complying with muzzle laws, etc on sight. There doesn't seem to be any lack of sightings so perhaps the Police are preoccupied with people in balaclavas.

[Greendubber]

Unreal said:

Gone fishing said:

Greendubber said:

Gareth79 said:

If you want a realistic "what if" risk: what if a parent had opened their front door to see what the noise was, the dog running past saw their toddler standing behind them, the dog bolted through the door and went for the child's face.

Maybe, but it didn't.

It's easy to spin it anyway you wish. What if a parent was walking down the road with a toddler and the dog mauled it because the police didn't bother taking the dog out? Maybe they were too worried about what people on the internet would want them to do so didn't act quickly enough?

You’re arguing the same point

I’m all for decisive action, and I’d be quite happily for the police to have powers to arrest drone fliers wearing balaclavas in summer standing outside buildings (and the like, no doubt you’ve seen a video or 3). Yes there has to be some accountability with their responsibility but allowing the police to police rather than dance around armchair lawyers and people looking for a reaction might actually improve things

I too would like the Police to stop poncing around. How about dealing with a community of Romanians who live illegally in woods and outbuildings, hunt deer with crossbows and allow their dogs to roam and kill local livestock, fish on private lands and threaten anyone who challenges them, all facilitated by an individual from a well known mobile community? Plant is regularly stolen. This is all taking place in a highly affluent part of the SE. Police aren't interested but you can get crime numbers for anything nicked.

So yes, let them stop poncing about but let's deal with violent scum before we worry too much about drone nerds in balaclavas.

Back on topic - stop and check suspected XL bully owners not complying with muzzle laws, etc on sight. There doesn't seem to be any lack of sightings so perhaps the Police are preoccupied with people in balaclavas.

Back on topic:

There isn't enough kennel space for all the XLs that are being seized by police. We ended up taking 5 off someone the other day that weren't registered but they have to be stored securely so they can be assessed (at cost to us) Then the owners have the opportunity to go to court to appeal it if they wish, they won't though, they'll just sign the dogs ober and they'll be put down, all at a cost to us.

We've had to employ another secure kennel business as every inch of existing space my force has for storing dogs was full. It's costing an absolute fortune. Our dog handlers don't even get to work their own dogs on some shifts as they're out collecting XLs all shift. Want a police dog to catch a burglar? Sorry, all the handlers are picking up dogs all day.

So no men in balaclavas, just way too many dogs, irresponsible owners and a lack of foresight when the legislation was pushed through. There will be thousands of dogs all in secure kennels at the moment being paid for by all of us at great expense.

[irc]

There is a video showing shots being fired at the XL Bully in Manchester. Some of which were fired while both the dog and the cop were moving pretty quickly. Not surprising there were misses.

While it is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback as out American friend say I feel this was unwise in an urban area where ricochets could be dangerous. If the dog was running awayit wasn't attacking. Could they have waited for a better chance when both the dog and the cop were still?

Apologies for the Daily Mail link which needs an advert viewed before the video loads but I haven't seen it anywhere elswhere.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13583413/...

[swisstoni]

irc said:

There is a video showing shots being fired at the XL Bully in Manchester. Some of which were fired while both the dog and the cop were moving pretty quickly. Not surprising there were misses.

While it is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback as out American friend say I feel this was unwise in an urban area where ricochets could be dangerous. If the dog was running awayit wasn't attacking. Could they have waited for a better chance when both the dog and the cop were still?

Apologies for the Daily Mail link which needs an advert viewed before the video loads but I haven't seen it anywhere elswhere.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13583413/...

If you read the article, they had already tried to catch the thing using safer means.

[Unreal]

Greendubber said:

Back on topic:

There isn't enough kennel space for all the XLs that are being seized by police. We ended up taking 5 off someone the other day that weren't registered but they have to be stored securely so they can be assessed (at cost to us) Then the owners have the opportunity to go to court to appeal it if they wish, they won't though, they'll just sign the dogs ober and they'll be put down, all at a cost to us.

We've had to employ another secure kennel business as every inch of existing space my force has for storing dogs was full. It's costing an absolute fortune. Our dog handlers don't even get to work their own dogs on some shifts as they're out collecting XLs all shift. Want a police dog to catch a burglar? Sorry, all the handlers are picking up dogs all day.

So no men in balaclavas, just way too many dogs, irresponsible owners and a lack of foresight when the legislation was pushed through. There will be thousands of dogs all in secure kennels at the moment being paid for by all of us at great expense.

Fortunately it would appear it's just a matter of time. If your experience continues most of these dogs will be dead before long unless there is an inexhaustible supply chain. It sounds like good use of Police time to me.

[irc]

swisstoni said:

irc said:

There is a video showing shots being fired at the XL Bully in Manchester. Some of which were fired while both the dog and the cop were moving pretty quickly. Not surprising there were misses.

While it is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback as out American friend say I feel this was unwise in an urban area where ricochets could be dangerous. If the dog was running awayit wasn't attacking. Could they have waited for a better chance when both the dog and the cop were still?

Apologies for the Daily Mail link which needs an advert viewed before the video loads but I haven't seen it anywhere elswhere.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13583413/...

If you read the article, they had already tried to catch the thing using safer means.

I agree it needed shot. Just questioning whether shooting at a moving target while jogging was better than following the dog until it stopped. Static targets being easier to hit than moving targets. Accuracy while shooting easier while standing still than when jogging.

[Greendubber]

Unreal said:

Greendubber said:

Back on topic:

There isn't enough kennel space for all the XLs that are being seized by police. We ended up taking 5 off someone the other day that weren't registered but they have to be stored securely so they can be assessed (at cost to us) Then the owners have the opportunity to go to court to appeal it if they wish, they won't though, they'll just sign the dogs ober and they'll be put down, all at a cost to us.

We've had to employ another secure kennel business as every inch of existing space my force has for storing dogs was full. It's costing an absolute fortune. Our dog handlers don't even get to work their own dogs on some shifts as they're out collecting XLs all shift. Want a police dog to catch a burglar? Sorry, all the handlers are picking up dogs all day.

So no men in balaclavas, just way too many dogs, irresponsible owners and a lack of foresight when the legislation was pushed through. There will be thousands of dogs all in secure kennels at the moment being paid for by all of us at great expense.

Fortunately it would appear it's just a matter of time. If your experience continues most of these dogs will be dead before long unless there is an inexhaustible supply chain. It sounds like good use of Police time to me.

They won't be, people will still continue to breed them and ignore the rules. Sadly some people just see them as disposable items, sign it over and let the tax payer pick up the transport, storage and destruction fees.

I'd rather our dog handlers were doing proactive police work rather than being used as chauffeurs for scumbags dogs.

[irc]

Greendubber said:

They won't be, people will still continue to breed them and ignore the rules. Sadly some people just see them as disposable items, sign it over and let the tax payer pick up the transport, storage and destruction fees.

I'd rather our dog handlers were doing proactive police work rather than being used as chauffeurs for scumbags dogs.

Is getting dogs that kill people off the street not police work then?

[Greendubber]

irc said:

Greendubber said:

They won't be, people will still continue to breed them and ignore the rules. Sadly some people just see them as disposable items, sign it over and let the tax payer pick up the transport, storage and destruction fees.

I'd rather our dog handlers were doing proactive police work rather than being used as chauffeurs for scumbags dogs.

Is getting dogs that kill people off the street not police work then?

That's an interesting take on my post.

Drugs and firearms also kill far more people than XL bullies but those specialist dogs and handlers who would ordinarily be tackling those things are being used to collect dogs.

What do you think about that?