Are you really that much of a fucking idiot?? Do you still think that there could be a “good chance” of both abuse occurring and abuse not occurrring? I guess you will never learn.
As for your points, what point did you try and make in the post I quoted? If your point was that abuse MAY have occurred and that abuse MAY NOT have occurred, then yes, I agree - that is true. If your point is that there is a GOOD CHANCE that abuse occurred, then no, I do not agree since you (nor anybody else other than the shooter) can determine the probability of abuse.
You don’t get it, do you? Now you use the word “significant”. Do you know what that word means??? Synonyms for significant include “big, consequential, considerable, material, meaningful, momentous, substantial, weighty”. Your emotion is getting the better of you. Abuse MAY have occurred. That is all we know.
Simplistically (so you can understand), here is the point you have made:
A dog was shot - fact
Three dogs were running loose and not within sight of their owners - fact.
A crime occurred. We must punish the shooter - your high-horsed erroneous conjecture.
Am I wrong?
If abuse did occur, the cops should find the shooter and string him up by his under-sized testicles.
If abuse did not occur, the shooter should receive an apology from the dog owners since their actions (or lack thereof) put him in a situation where he feared for his life/health.
Yes. See point #3. I’m not fucking quibbling with you over the meaning of “significant”: in addition to my work in animal control database management, I worked for several years as a writing tutor and know this language better than you do.
If you were a writing tutor, I feel immensely sorry for your students. And as for knowing this language better than I, another high-horsed bad assumption. You have no respect for
logic; I have no respect for people who have no respect for logic.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. You said “See point #3” where Fin_man challenges your knee-jerk reaction of “assume man is always evil” but then you don’t offer to contradict it. Instead you question the validity of his statement.
It is obvious that you have a bias from your work with animal control. That’s fine, you’re entitled. You have probably seen some heinous abuses and have seen the lowest scum of society. That said, it is not a fair assumption that abuse must have been present in this case. I don’t want to mence words or argue about language, but unless there is definitive proof of abuse, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest it. To assume without facts is tactless and crass.
Oh, and I’d rather not see point #3 if it was pulled out of someone’s ass.
Maybe so, but let me add that she has never attacked another human, she generally shys away from strange people. She also has only engaged in this behaviour while protecting something she felt was hers. I’ve been told these dogs are extremely protective. If these dogs are raised with a child no harm would come to that child without the dog doing everything it could to prevent it. It is their nature to be this way, why would you destroy a dog for that? We have a 6 foot privacy fenced yard for her to run and play in. She is never in the yard unsurpervised. When she is left at home alone she is in a cage, inside the house. If someone comes to the house, regardless of whether they are adults or children she is caged. She never leaves the house or backyard unless she is leashed and muzzled, and then only with me. It’s not that she is a viscious dog, just that I’ve seen what damage she can do and would never take the chance of that happening to someone or their animal.
Exactly. Just so I’m clear on this, have you also missed every single time in this thread when I’ve said that there may or may not have been abuse, where there may or may not have been a legal shooting? Please reread the thread – I don’t know how I could possibly be more explicit on this point.
As near as I can tell, the two of you are misinterpreting phrases (now down to individual words) in order to create the erroneous impression that i’m assuming there was abuse here. Please reread what I actually wrote.
Now. Scroll back up and reread my posts. I’ve made the points a good half-dozen or more times by now.
Read them.
An apology for the misinterpretation will be graciously accepted.
The issue is your use (or lack thereof) of MAY when talking about abuse or legal shooting. Most times you said there was a GOOD CHANCE or now a SIGNIFICANT CHANCE of abuse. Let’s make it simple for you. CTRL+F, type “may” and hit ENTER. See how many times the word “MAY” comes up in your posts (which aren’t quotes from others). Do the same with “GOOD CHANCE”.
MAY = POSSIBILY
GOOD CHANCE = PROBABLY
If any apology should occur, it should be you apologizing for your lack of understanding of the English language.
I’ll take that as an apology, and I hope that y’all can address the real issue rather than getting bogged down in unsubstantiated definitions of various words I’ve used.
We live on 15 acres in rural Ohio. We have two daughters, ages 3 and 5. They (obliviously) like to play outdoors. I’ve shot and killed plenty of dogs, primarily for the safety of our children. I have two criteria:
There must be two or more dogs together.
The dogs must be on our property.
I’ve also shot at (but missed) a “lone” dog I judged to be a threat.
Oops, I just remember something. Not a fun fact, so I buried it.
In may state and national parks, one duty of park rangers and other staff is to shoot stray dogs. (They have to find and pick up the bodies, though, and they have various rules about how much of an effort they must make to capture a dog with a collar.)
I doubt this is what happened here, this is just a warning to dog owners about another danger for free-roaming dogs.
If it’s two or more dogs (together) I automatically judge it to be a threat. A .308 from a scoped bolt action is a proven tool in this situation.
A lone dog is a somewhat different story. If doesn’t immediate run away I’ll usually not pursue the matter further. Otherwise I get the rifle and shovel…
It’s been my experience that two or more dogs roaming around the countryside are Bad News[sup]TM[/sup], especially when young children are in the vicinity. It would be irresponsible not to shoot them…
BTW: Because I’m not yet an “accomplished shot” I have never succeeded in shooting more than one dog in a pack; the others run off when they hear the shot. But they usually come back. It’s just a matter of picking them off one at a time whenever they show up.
There is no animal control officer in most rural areas. At least around here, the sheriff can’t do much until after a dog actually attacks you.
I’ve shot a dog that was chasing my livestock and then turned on me when I tried to chase it off. On two other occassions I was chased by dogs on my own property when I didn’t have a gun to shoot them. I barely made it to my truck on one occassion. The neighbor later insisted the Rotweiller was harmless.
While I don’t know about what happened in the original post, people in rural areas are fed up with dogs running loose. It’s almost an every day problem.
Sure – and that’s why I said that an investigation might find that the shooting was legal. If there’s no animal control, of course, there’s not likely to be an investigation.
I do wonder, however, how true it is that most rural areas don’t have even a single officer dedicated to animal control. You may be right, but our fairly rural county has got four officers just for the unincorporated areas of the county.
And while rural people are fed up with roaming dogs, there are laws that govern the shooting of dogs; I always recommend that folks know what these laws are before they get the gun out.
Our county has none, nor does any other county here that I’m familiar with, although I would not be surprised if some of the counties with bigger cities did. The problem here is that it does not violate any state criminal statute to allow a dog to run loose, even if it goes on someone else’s land. (Counties and cities can change that by resolution. Most cities have changed it, but few counties have.) That’s the reason few counties here bother to have animal control officers; they can’t prosecute and get fines.
I’ll take that as an apology, and I hope that y’all can address the real issue rather than getting bogged down in unsubstantiated definitions of various words I’ve used.