S&T side of "Mom Shoots Dog"

[Mags]

In a thread here a story came along about a mom shooting a vicious dog. Here is my take on it flame me if you must I know I am going to catch flak for this, but I don't think it was a good shoot.

1. Everyone was safe inside the house
2. She went for the gun after everyone was out of harm's way
3. She went outside of the house where she was safe to shoot the dog.

If it was a human she would have been charged, obviously dogs are alot lower in the pecking order and this dog definetly needed to be put down, but she should have called 911.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Stories of shooting dogs never work out well here.


Ever.


The discussions conjure up too many personal feelings about dogs, both excessive fear and personal attachments.

 

[Mags]

Well, if we replace "dog" with "attacker" it would still be a bad shoot, that is my point.

 

[rDigital]

I understand what you are saying, but under the law a dog is considered to be "property". There's a big difference between shooting a human being and shooting an animal, at least under the law there is.

If a dog or any other animal attacked me or my kids, it's days are over. This is coming from a Cat/Dog loving person.

What if she had let the dog go and it went down the street and tore the throat out of some other toddler?

 

[Gryffydd]

My first thought: if you have time to retrieve a weapon, make it a long arm.

She went for the gun after everyone was out of harm's way

Everyone? Like, everyone in the neighborhood? It's impossible to say what that dog might have gone on to do next.

She went outside of the house where she was safe to shoot the dog.

It doesn't say she went outside, only that she opened the door. She looked first and saw that the dog was 20 feet away. She probably cracked it just enough to make the shot, and could have shut the door in plenty of time.

 

[Stirling XD]

OK I'll play.

While I consider my dog a memeber of the family, I don't view shooting a dog the same the same as shooting a human attacker. So I also think that judging her actions as though the four-legged attacker were a human being is not reasonable.

 

[TEXMEX]

I'm a dog-lover! Have owned and raised them all my life, including Dobermans, Rots, Akitas, etc..

HOWEVER........I've been semi-incapacitated now for 2 1/2 years due to a vicious dog attack.

It turned out the owner knew the dog had attacked other people before me, and didn't do anything about it and even let him run loose.

I've spent approximately $50k in medical bills so far and still only have partial use of my right arm. It looks like another operation is needed = another $30-$50k and at least another 6-12 months rehabilitation.

The next vicious dog that comes after me is going to get shot.

 

[pacerdude]

From what I gathered from my reading of the article, the attack happened in a neighborhood. So even though her family was safe inside their home, a dog that attacked a child is still outside freely roaming the neighborhood.

FWIW, If the neighbors that went to help the little girl, did not go into the house as well, then they would have still been vulnerable to another attack by the dog. And if there were still people outside near the dog, then the mother could be seen as defending her neighbors from a clearly violent dog.

 

[Tim Burke]

If one thought the dog was rabid, and wanted the brain for testing, then shooting it could certainly be justified.
If one thought the dog was a danger to the community, then shooting it could be justified, too. Whether or not it is a good idea is a more complicated discussion.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I hope this isn't a thread hijack, but read this sickening man-shoots-dog story: http://www.adn.com/2010/05/21/1288936/child-killed-after-wandering-into.html?pageNum=6&&&&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container

The reader comments are... bizarre...

 

[JoeSlomo]

A valid argument could be made either way imo.

While she may have opted to pursue another course of action once she had all of her family inside, I can't condemn her decision to put down the dog, and would have done the same if it was my child that had been attacked.

 

[Mags]

Let's replace the word "dog" in every instance of the story and replace it with "attacker". Now would it be a good shoot?

 

[tkopp]

What it would boil down to in legal terms (as far as I know, not a lawyer) is if she believed the dog represented a clear and present danger to others nearby. IE; if she knew kids were playing down the street, or other targets of opportunity available after she ceased to distract the dog. In many states you are legally able to intervene with deadly force when you believe there is a clear and present danger to others. Plus, I'd argue, a moral obligation as well.

 

[zxcvbob]

Let's replace the word "dog" in every instance of the story and replace it with "attacker".

How about replace it with "puppy"?

 

[Mags]

How about replace it with "puppy"?

Is that supposed to add something? I don't get it.

 

[zxcvbob]

Mostly it was just being snarky. Changing the word changes the whole meaning. I started to say "kitten" or "bunny" but that wouldn't have made sense.

IMHO, if a dog bites a child, it (the dog) needs to be put down unless it has a damn good excuse. (being a puppy is a pretty good excuse but could go either way.) Without even reading the linked article, I say "way to go Mom."

 

[BullfrogKen]

And it's gone on long enough.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Just when the debate was getting [strike]snarky[/strike] passionate, too...

lpl