Alphawolf55 wrote:The problem with charging is, are we going to make a difference between running and charging? For example, dogs run to something when excited, but it doesn't mean they're going to chew your face off, it's a hard line to draw for something that can't speak. Which is why video is best. But I don't think merely a cop saying it was charging should be sufficient there should need to be some proof, unless the dog clearly has a history of being violent or it's shown that they're clearly dogs meant for attacking like if there's giant signs that say BEWARE OF DOGS.
It's also a hard line to draw for the person that the dog is running at. Because let's face it the consequence for not acting when the dog is dangerous is getting bit. Not exactly a great motivator. "Ok, you can only use force AFTER the dog tries to bite you, but in the meantime watch your area for others threats such as a man with a gun, but be ready to shoot that dog that is now biting you."
Of course all that will go out the window the first time a suspect uses his dog in a coordinated method. Dog attacks, and then he attacks. Then we'll be back to square one because regardless of your own personal opinion the life of a person will always out weigh the life of an animal.
But we've seen in this thread and the previous it was based on, clear examples of dogs being shot for merely appearing to be threats, no sign that they were attacking and in some cases mentioned were made of the breed which if you know about dogs, you'd know are easy to deal with (If we're going to use the often wrong stereotype that pitbulls are dangerous as justification for increased precaution against them then the reverse is fair too). Yet it doesn't appear that any real punishment was dished out in fact the departments approved their tactics, it's not enough that homeowners are given a pay off by the city, someone needs to get fired.
Well, considering this is pretty much a carbon copy of the old thread no new information has been given. We also didn't see the dogs, so I'm not sure how you determined that they weren't a threat.
You can't exactly fire someone for using approved tactics. You need to show that those tactics are inferior or unnecessary or unreasonable. Certainly shooting a barking dog isn't the tactic being discussed or approved by these departments. They've routinely stated that the dog was aggressive.
Again I realize it's not always an easy thing to do, we're talking about trying to figure out if animals are dangerous and asking people in stressful positions to make clear decisions and possibly firing them over those decisions but the question is, would a citizen would does the same thing, goes to someone house claims a dog ran to him, and decided to shoot and kill him. Would he just be taken on his word or would he have to justify his claim? If it's the former, then I guess I can't really ask the police to have that burden of proof, but if it's the latter, I think it's reasonable to have to be held to the same standards as others.
Justify the claim? You realize his word is the only way he can justify the claim. How else would you justify it. I've asked that question before. To answer your question. Yes, that person would be taken at their word as long as they were in a place that they legally had a right to be.
