I sort of suspected that sooner, rather than later, this thread would turn into some variation of a cop-bashing theme. Well, maybe "bashing" is too strong of a word. How about "Credibility questioning?". That sounds more reasonable doesn't it? Makes it sound as though everyone's being impartial, non-prejudiced and sensible .... Yeah, right.
Except that it certainly sounds as though it's the credibility of the Ranger that's being automatically questioned, and not the dog owner ... and without anyone here actually having any first-hand, direct knowledge of what actually occurred. Or, allowing the proper authorities to complete their investigation and make a determination.
Was the dog owner permitted by local code to have her dog loose on the beach, and not leashed? Would the dog have been able to attempt to bite the Ranger if it had been leashed? (If it did, or attempted to do so.)
Let's also consider that dogs will sometimes do what dogs will sometimes do.
Was it possible that the circumstances were such that the dog may have perceived a threat to its owner? Was the beach empty and quiet enough that the dog may have considered the Ranger as a "threat" invading the territory in which its owner was located? We don't have ANY idea of how this dog was raised, or whether it had previously been protective of its owner, either by nature or by necessity. But whether or not the dog was "right" in its mind, and by its "natural inclination" think it had to "protect" its owner ... would the dog having been on a leash have perhaps given the owner the opportunity to control the "natural" tendencies of her dog, when the Ranger approached them on the quiet beach at that hour?
By the way, save the "statistics" about the likelihood of being attacked by one breed of dog over another for the folks that like to "prove" things statistically. I've had a couple of cocker spaniels really want to bite me. They were upset, aggressive ... and yes, they had teeth. At my "urging", the owner did finally restrain and control them before they could get at me.
But you know what? Do you want to know the breed of dog that's most often been involved in threatening actions against my partner and I over the last several years? Pit Bulls. Yep. And I know cops who have been involved in raising and breeding them, too, so it's not like I'm picking on some breed of dog that nobody likes, and nobody I know likes. They just happen to be involved in the majority of the situations where it turns out I'm being threatened by dogs. They also happen to be the most common breed of dog involved in the dispatched calls I've heard over the years where some loose dog is threatening people, and especially children, when they've gotten loose and are running around some neighborhood. I can't remember hearing of some cocker spaniel getting loose and being reported as chasing people and acting aggressive. Save your statistics.
Dogs can attack and attempt to bite without obvious warning. Happens all the time. While I obviously can't get into the head of a dog, maybe it might have something to do with how they perceive some threat against them, their owner, or some territorial intrusion where they consider themselves dominant.
I was at this situation one time where an unleashed female pit bull was behaving normally and non-threatening. The dog was outside the owner's residence, in the court yard of an apartment building, and there were several other people present, none of whom were acting the least bit hostile, threatening or agitated. My required presence was obviously not something the dog's owner really preferred, and she was a bit nervous and anxious, but she was being cooperative and wasn't in any immediate, potential criminal "trouble". Everybody involved in the situation was acting outwardly calm and peaceful. Polite and cooperative, at the very least.
Suddenly, while I was calmly discussing the situation at hand with all the folks involved, the dog silently lunged at me, teeth bared, leaping at me from just at the outside edge of my peripheral vision. No warning. None whatsoever. It even surprised the dog's owner, too, as it later turned out.
Anyway, the dog missed, hit the ground hard ... and apparently unexpectedly, on its part ... and tried to collect itself to get away from me. I expected it to make another attack after it quickly gathered itself together. The dog's owner finally reacted and threw herself on the dog, trying to gather it in her arms and control it, as well as to seemingly protect it from me. She was able to get control of the dog. Everyone around us appeared to be in a state of shock at the sudden and unexpected attack on me. It figures.
I wanted there to be no misunderstanding between the dog's owner and myself. I very clearly told her that if she was unable to control her dog, and the dog attempted to bite me again, I'd shoot it. She seemed to clearly understand me, and made an obvious effort to continue to exert her control over her dog. She said the dog hadn't ever acted like that before, and the other folks that lived with her agreed with her. Sometimes dogs act like dogs ... and I was a stranger ... and maybe the dog picked up on her anxiety. Who knows? Whatever the case, the dog once again settled down and didn't act as though it wanted a piece of me.
I completed our business at the scene and we left ... and I wiped the glistening dog saliva off the back of my hand when I got back to our car.
Now, L/E are supposed to be trustworthy. We take an oath. It used to be that if a cop said something in court, it was presumed to be completely and totally truthful ... which is different than factually correct, so save the hair-spiltting. Save the "mistake of fact" and "mistake of law" discussion for another thread sometime ...
I remember listening to judges tell the jury that unless some compelling evidence presented itself which showed that L/E had intentionally lied, that their testimony was to be presumed to be honest. We're supposed to be impartial reporters of facts, observations, and other person's statements, and submit physical evidence for the courts and the jury to consider. Not conjecture, guess and pass judgment. We're sworn to protect the public peace, and preserve and protect the Constitution, both state and federal, and serve the public trust.
Okay, so in recent years we've seen some instances come to light where L/E have been found to be dishonest, have apparently abused their authority and badge of office, failed to serve the public trust in the manner expected, seemingly forsaken their sworn oaths and committed criminal acts ... not the least of which has sometimes been to lie.
I don't like that any better than the public. As a matter of fact, I intensely dislike that MORE than the public, whose faith and trust has been betrayed by some "bad cops". However, just as the public wouldn't think it even remotely reasonable for cops to consider all members of the public as being the same as the small percentage of the seemingly "criminally-inclined" people which are members of the public ... is it fair to automatically think that all cops are prone to lie and misuse their powers and authority every time they're engaged in their duties?
Let's allow the system to perform its function folks. None of us are perfect, and people make mistakes ... and dogs sometimes act like dogs.
