dog attack...justified shooting?

[JetGirl]

if someone felt their life was actually threatened and had no other means to defend then by all means.

That's what it's all about.

Personally, I don't see their behavior as violent, just defensive. They didn't lunge for her, grab her ankles and try to pull her down, etc.

If the reporter is not a pet owner, she may have no idea what's "violent" vs "playful"... and honestly, I don't care what any other dog owner says about their pets - If it has teeth, it BITES. It's an unpredictable animal. Period.

They were simply trying to scare as ordered.

I don't think they (dogs) differentiated "scare" from anything else.
Owner sent. They went.
If the reporter freaked out and caused them to flippin go nutso and bite bite bite... still not the reporter's fault. Still the owner's.

 

[CathyInBlue]

If you feel your life is in danger, you are absolutely authorized to shoot. Two pits being sicced on me is absolutely a threat to my life. Ergo, I would feel no compunction against drawing and putting two center of mass on each dog. They had already run straight at and circled around the reporter and cameraman at whom they had been directed by their "master". Had I not opened fire, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that they would not have lunged for my throat in the seconds after I had opened fire. Right or wrong, pits have a reputation for viciousness and bite strength. No reason whatsoever to test either of them in the face of a yelled order for them to attack me.

And no, warning shots are not good tactical practice, except in BS Hollywood productions.

And as BBI said, ricocheted fragments just don't happen, but if one did and travelled down range and over-penetrated a row of "twelve little girls all in a line", that would not be on me, the shooter. It would be on the baseball bat wielding lunatic who made it necessary for me to defend my life with my firearm.

Which, BTW, if the dogs are a weapon that warrant going to guns, the baseball bat surely does as well. Not saying that the reporter's ability (or inability) to run faster than this lunatic attacking them wouldn't have been taken into consideration in idiotic questions like, "Why did you shoot her when you could have just outrun her?", but as was mentioned multiple times, the news crew were on a public sidewalk. They should have had the protections of the jurisdiction's stand-your-ground-laws on that issue.

 

[whoismunky]

First things first, I was cracking up at the way that reporter was running. Absolutely hilarious and I can't stand when people don't wear real shoes, lol.
Honestly the shooting would have been justified, but I wouldn't have shot them just yet. You can call me an internet commando but I've faced down some bigger dogs than that, usually they're 'all bark and no bite,' lol. Sure you could call it a 'dog attack,' but it certainly wasn't vicious.
Although in all fairness, I'm a pretty sturdy male and not a female reporter in heels.

 

[the1kidd03]

That's what it's all about.

Indeed. I've been there before, been around dogs all my life, trained them, etc. I wouldn't have shot, but that's just me.

If the reporter is not a pet owner, she may have no idea what's "violent" vs "playful"... and honestly, I don't care what any other dog owner says about their pets - If it has teeth, it BITES. It's an unpredictable animal. Period.

I will however respectfully agree to disagree with the idea that a dog is unpredictable. An animal may be considered unpredictable if a person is unfamiliar with dogs behavior in general, but otherwise a dog's behavior is pretty discernible. I have a hard time believing anyone who's been around dogs would feel that that was an actual attack.

I don't think they (dogs) differentiated "scare" from anything else.
Owner sent. They went.
If the reporter freaked out and caused them to flippin go nutso and bite bite bite... still not the reporter's fault. Still the owner's.

I disagree in the context that dogs do differentiate. They do also follow commands however to the extent they've been trained to do so. Considering that I highly doubt that those individuals have trained or even know how to train a dog to actually attack and therefore, I personally wouldn't have shot.

Animals know fear just as people. Their bravery feeds on the fear of the other (victim) however. The fact that she was fearful and calmly walked away and reacted the way she did was only antagonizing to them. So they persisted. Had I been there I wouldn't have shot, but I would have stepped in and kicked the out of them to 1: teach them a lesson (that their owner's an idiot) and 2: to show the reporter that she reacted inappropriately so that maybe next time she won't have to.

Which brings me to my next thought: What the hell kind of guy is behind the camera? The lady was obviously fearful and he just stood there and did nothing....

 

[CathyInBlue]

I have a hard time believing anyone who's been around dogs would feel that that was an actual attack.

I perceived them as being "rambunctiously" playful, but they did draw blood, and for someone not intimately familiar with those particular dogs, I would not have been able to discern blood drawing rambunctiousness from a prelude to something more vicious.

What the hell kind of guy is behind the camera? The lady was obviously fearful and he just stood there and did nothing....

Simple. He's a guy behind a camera. The cardinal rule of videographers, mentioned earlier in this thread, is, "Never stop filming."

 

[the1kidd03]

If you feel your life is in danger, you are absolutely authorized to shoot. Two pits being sicced on me is absolutely a threat to my life. Ergo, I would feel no compunction against drawing and putting two center of mass on each dog. They had already run straight at and circled around the reporter and cameraman at whom they had been directed by their "master". Had I not opened fire, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that they would not have lunged for my throat in the seconds after I had opened fire. Right or wrong, pits have a reputation for viciousness and bite strength. No reason whatsoever to test either of them in the face of a yelled order for them to attack me.

And no, warning shots are not good tactical practice, except in BS Hollywood productions.

And as BBI said, ricocheted fragments just don't happen, but if one did and travelled down range and over-penetrated a row of "twelve little girls all in a line", that would not be on me, the shooter. It would be on the baseball bat wielding lunatic who made it necessary for me to defend my life with my firearm.

Which, BTW, if the dogs are a weapon that warrant going to guns, the baseball bat surely does as well. Not saying that the reporter's ability (or inability) to run faster than this lunatic attacking them wouldn't have been taken into consideration in idiotic questions like, "Why did you shoot her when you could have just outrun her?", but as was mentioned multiple times, the news crew were on a public sidewalk. They should have had the protections of the jurisdiction's stand-your-ground-laws on that issue.

I'll have to agree to disagree again. A dog isn't a weapon if they aren't BEING a weapon. If your definition of an attack is simply barking at you, then you would have to shoot nearly every Pomeranian and "ankle biter" you come across.

These dogs didn't lunge, bite, etc. regardless of what their owner commanded. They followed and barked. The extent of which they have been taught to do.

As far as who will take responsibility for the "twelve little girls" in a court room, I think that'll be tough. Certainly not one that I would want to be a case law on because I was being barked at.

Pits have a reputation because of idiotic owners like this.

 

[the1kidd03]

I perceived them as being "rambunctiously" playful, but they did draw blood, and for someone not intimately familiar with those particular dogs, I would not have been able to discern blood drawing rambunctiousness from a prelude to something more vicious.

Simple. He's a guy behind a camera. The cardinal rule of videographers, mentioned earlier in this thread, is, "Never stop filming."

They drew blood? Did I miss a point in the film?

Keep in mind I can't view with sound at the moment so I couldn't hear commentary.

 

[Que]

Que? I don't get where you're going with this. Can you expand on that?

Well, some are saying they would shoot the dog. I'm simply asking if it is more prudent to shoot the dog with the possibility of missing or climbing a fence, like the two seen in the video? I do realize it's dangerous to run from a dog, but considering what COULD happen if a bullet hits a bystander, I'm just exploring other options.

 

[the1kidd03]

Well, some are saying they would shoot the dog. I'm simply asking if it is more prudent to shoot the dog with the possibility of missing or climbing a fence, like the two seen in the video? I do realize it's dangerous to run from a dog, but considering what COULD happen if a bullet hits a bystander, I'm just exploring other options.

My option in this instance would have been my steel toe to a couple of snouts.

The gun probably would have been warranted after that to deal with a dumb lady with a bat.

Also, I'm not really considering this from an "emotional" standpoint because I simply don't feel that way. So, I'm not here saying "oh no do anything but shoot the dog."

I'm simply saying that I saw nothing that indicated to me their intent was to actually harm me and therefore didn't warrant using deadly force. In the city things are a bit different than out in the sticks where you can get rid of a trespassing pooch and throw him out back in the pond without repercussions.

 

[CathyInBlue]

They drew blood? Did I miss a point in the film?

Keep in mind I can't view with sound at the moment so I couldn't hear commentary.

The first thing the dogs did to the newslady was to bite her on the arm. The reports of this incident indicate that she was treated for the bite at a local hospital and released. It's not stated explicitly, but I'm sure in the moment, the dogs drew blood. If not in that first instant, then while they continued biting and scratching at her.

 

[JetGirl]

I wouldn't have shot, but that's just me.

I didn't say I would have. I'm saying the reporter would have been justified if she had.

I will however respectfully agree to disagree with the idea that a dog is unpredictable.

We'll have to agree to disagree there.
Animals are animals. Even the most obedient well trained among them is still an unpredictable animal.

I disagree in the context that dogs do differentiate. They do also follow commands however to the extent they've been trained to do so.

If that were so, they could reason and distinguish bad order from good ones. They don't. A command is a command is a command.
In this case "SheWhoMustBeObeyed" said "Go" so they went.
Did they distinguish "chase" from "bite" from "just make noise and scare the running lady"? No. They were sent and they went. Period.
What happened after that was pretty much up to flailing squealie lady.
However ignorant she was in stopping things from progressing, she still was not at fault and that's the bottom line.

Well, some are saying they would shoot the dog. I'm simply asking if it is more prudent to shoot the dog with the possibility of missing or climbing a fence, like the two seen in the video? I do realize it's dangerous to run from a dog, but considering what COULD happen if a bullet hits a bystander, I'm just exploring other options.

Point being... anyone in the street being chased/attacked/whatevered by a dog that was sent specifically after them....doesn't have to.
I got the impression you were alluding to the reporter illegally trespassing and deserving the dogs being sent on her. If I misinterpreted, my bad.

 

[Hornett]

Dog owner = Still in the wrong.

Oh, I agree.
The owner needs to have the book thrown at her.
She was a grieving mother looking to lash out an ANYBODY.
And she went way, way too far.
I didn't see that reporter do anything illegal, just annoying.

I'm just saying, if I had been the reporter or someone that knows anything about dogs, they would not have been bitten.
The best thing to yell BTW IMHO is 'NO!'.
I think all dogs realize what that means very early on.

I also don't agree with the people on here that think those doge were 'just playing'.
That's a bad idea that will leave you in the emergency room getting stitches.

 

[the1kidd03]

I didn't say I would have. I'm saying the reporter would have been justified if she had.


We'll have to agree to disagree there.
Animals are animals. Even the most obedient well trained among them is still an unpredictable animal.


If that were so, they could reason and distinguish bad order from good ones. They don't. A command is a command is a command.
In this case "SheWhoMustBeObeyed" said "Go" so they went.
Did they distinguish "chase" from "bite" from "just make noise and scare the running lady"? No. They were sent and they went. Period.
What happened after that was pretty much up to flailing squealie lady.
However ignorant she was in stopping things from progressing, she still was not at fault and that's the bottom line.


Point being... anyone in the street being chased/attacked/whatevered by a dog that was sent specifically after them....doesn't have to.
I got the impression you were alluding to the reporter illegally trespassing and deserving the dogs being sent on her. If I misinterpreted, my bad.

Animals are unpredictable in the sense that they do have a mind of their own, however with appropriate training their actions are largely predictable. If they are owned by a person then it is unlikely that they will act aggressively unprovoked. If it is a stray which you don't know what their background is, then I would say a little more precaution would be warranted.

The point about their "attack" is that they obeyed a command of "go." Unless they have been trained that "go" means "to bite, kill, etc." then they will not do that. It isn't a house dogs instinct to kill, especially a human or larger animal. Wolf, yes. House dog, no. The extent of their training has probably been a noise in the dark and their barking was promoted by the owner using the command word. Hence, when she says it, they do it. Had they been trained otherwise, they wouldn't have simply circled and barked. I can assure you of that.

My last Rottie could attack. I trained him as such. However, he would ONLY do it on MY command and a specific hand gesture and only for ME. He was around little kids, other dogs, and family members. Biggest lovable baby you've ever seen. Until I gave that command. That command did not consist of barking. He was also smart enough to be protective of his home in my absence as most such large dogs are.

Barking is to scare. Biting is to harm. It's that simple. A dog who attacks unprovoked does not warn with a bark. Never seen it or heard about it from a reliable source, and yes I have been attacked by them and still feel this way.

I'm no dog expert, but I certainly didn't see anything that indicated to me a warranted use of deadly force. Of course, unless the idiot owner kept walking forward with that bat that is.

 

[JetGirl]

Animals are unpredictable in the sense that they do have a mind of their own, however with appropriate training their actions are largely predictable. If they are owned by a person then it is unlikely that they will act aggressively unprovoked. If it is a stray which you don't know what their background is, then I would say a little more precaution would be warranted.

The point about their "attack" is that they obeyed a command of "go." Unless they have been trained that "go" means "to bite, kill, etc." then they will not do that. It isn't a house dogs instinct to kill, especially a human or larger animal. Wolf, yes. House dog, no. The extent of their training has probably been a noise in the dark and their barking was promoted by the owner using the command word. Hence, when she says it, they do it. Had they been trained otherwise, they wouldn't have simply circled and barked. I can assure you of that.

My last Rottie could attack. I trained him as such. However, he would ONLY do it on MY command and a specific hand gesture and only for ME. He was around little kids, other dogs, and family members. Biggest lovable baby you've ever seen. Until I gave that command. That command did not consist of barking. He was also smart enough to be protective of his home in my absence as most such large dogs are.

Barking is to scare. Biting is to harm. It's that simple. A dog who attacks unprovoked does not warn with a bark. Never seen it or heard about it from a reliable source, and yes I have been attacked by them and still feel this way.

I'm no dog expert, but I certainly didn't see anything that indicated to me a warranted use of deadly force. Of course, unless the idiot owner kept walking forward with that bat that is.

I largely agree with your position...
Except to say that what I am talking about does not pertain to predictability in your home with your dogs at your command in your environment.

Stranger + alert + ramped up owner + sent out at a run = unpredictability.

 

[Que]

I got the impression you were alluding to the reporter illegally trespassing and deserving the dogs being sent on her. If I misinterpreted, my bad.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but yeah, you misinterpreted. The reporter never set foot inside of the fence, so there was no trespassing.

 

[JetGirl]

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but yeah, you misinterpreted. The reporter never set foot inside of the fence, so there was no trespassing.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[the1kidd03]

I largely agree with your position...
Except to say that what I am talking about does not pertain to predictability in your home with your dogs at your command in your environment.

Stranger + alert + ramped up owner + sent out at a run = unpredictability.

The bark is the indicator. It throws out the "stranger" and "sent out" factor. Starting off barking indicates the predictable behavior. They will not bark, then instantly change attitude and bite (attack) unless they have been trained to do both and were given the two commands.

If you were to assume that they had been trained for both and that lady was strategic enough to give one command to get closer then give another one, then I would say you are giving far too much credit to the lady's intelligence considering how she was acting.

 

[JetGirl]

The bark is the indicator. It throws out the "stranger" and "sent out" factor. Starting off barking indicates the predictable behavior. They will not bark, then instantly change attitude and bite (attack) unless they have been trained to do both and were given the two commands.

If you were to assume that they had been trained for both and that lady was strategic enough to give one command to get closer then give another one, then I would say you are giving far too much credit to the lady's intelligence considering how she was acting.

You're way overreaching anything I'm trying to convey... I think my words are coming out in Swahili on that end.
Bottom line: Reporter had no way of knowing WHAT those dogs were going to do, and any defensive action she took would have been justified.

 

[223 Gunner]

I think the only reason the owner tried to call them off, is she probably had an "ah-ha" momement and started to realize that she may just get in trouble for doing what she did.
As far as the camera guy goes, by him continuing to film, they now have all the evidence they need for court.

 

[Rhoadmar]

You're way overreaching anything I'm trying to convey... I think my words are coming out in Swahili on that end.
Bottom line: Reporter had no way of knowing WHAT those dogs were going to do, and any defensive action she took would have been justified.

Face it, the monkey is right.