3 ms·

It's not so fucking difficult to ensure that your car windows are not open enough to let the dog out. Don't get me wrong, I am not approving of the the way tha

by D9u 13y ago

It's not so fucking difficult to ensure that your car windows are not open enough to let the dog out. Don't get me wrong, I am not approving of the the way that this situation was handled by the police, but the fault lies with the dog owner. It is 100% the dog owner's fault for failing to ensure that his dog remained in the vehicle. I said as much to myself as I watched the man close the door of the car yet failed to roll up the windows to sufficiently prohibit the dog from escaping the vehicle. I have been raising bull-breed dogs since I was a child, and when you are a responsible owner of a dog that is capable of doing grave injury a large part of that responsibility relates to properly controlling your dogs. Let's see what "you" would do when confronted with such as situation, and it's "you" who is on the other side of that firearm.

burntsushi 13y ago
> It's not so fucking difficult to ensure that your car windows are not open enough to let the dog out. What do you think would have happened if he got into the front seat of his car, put in the keys and turned it on in order to roll the windows up? I have visions of cops running with guns drawn.
- D9u 13y ago
  What would have happened if that dog owner had rolled up the windows enough to allow air flow and still kept the dog confined within the car, and then exited the car to speak with the police? You don't have to fully engage the ignition in order to roll up the windows to the point where a large dog cannot exit through said windows. I have visions of the dog not being shot by police. Don't act like an ass. The police were far enough away that the dog owner could have exited his vehicle without triggering the response which you infer.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    > You don't have to fully engage the ignition I know. That's why I didn't say that. But after being signaled by the police, getting into the driver's seat and putting the keys into the ignition more than reasonably qualifies as a furtive gesture. It could easily be misconstrued as an attempt to flee, and once cops think you're fleeing, all bets are off. Now it isn't just about your dog that might get shot, but your own well-being is at stake. I did not intend to be an ass. It's perfectly plausible that if he did that, the cops would be at him before he could secure the car, and they'd have shot the dog anyway as it tried to escape from the driver's door or perhaps the windows if they weren't rolled up quickly enough. And you'd be on here saying that he should have just held onto the dog and carefully transferred it to an officer so that they could secure it. None of this changes the fact that you're engaging in a classic blame-the-victim argument. The onus is not on the victim to "be smart" and get out of the aggressor's way. The onus is on the aggressor to, you know, not aggress. If you want to thumb your nose at the stupidity of the victim in this case, then fine. But don't pretend that he was in any way responsible for another human being using lethal force on a clear power trip by the authorities. When you are given special privileges and powers by society, you ought to be held culpable for anything that happens when you unnecessarily escalate the situation.
    - D9u 13y ago
      *"... If you want to thumb your nose at the stupidity of the victim in this case, then fine. But don't pretend that he was in any way responsible for another human being using lethal force..." Apparently you have never been responsible for an animal which is capable of killing a man. If you were familiar with the variables related to the ownership of lethal attack dogs you would understand what I am referring to. The bottom line is that the dog owner failed to properly control his dog. The evidence is there for all to see.
      - burntsushi 13y ago
        The central point of your comment here is to show my argument is bad by discrediting me. Which is an ad hominem. So I guess we're done here. G'day. (And your accusation is false, FWIW.)

by D9u 13y ago

burntsushi 13y ago

> It's not so fucking difficult to ensure that your car windows are not open enough to let the dog out. What do you think would have happened if he got into the front seat of his car, put in the keys and turned it on in order to roll the windows up? I have visions of cops running with guns drawn.

D9u 13y ago
What would have happened if that dog owner had rolled up the windows enough to allow air flow and still kept the dog confined within the car, and then exited the car to speak with the police? You don't have to fully engage the ignition in order to roll up the windows to the point where a large dog cannot exit through said windows. I have visions of the dog not being shot by police. Don't act like an ass. The police were far enough away that the dog owner could have exited his vehicle without triggering the response which you infer.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  > You don't have to fully engage the ignition I know. That's why I didn't say that. But after being signaled by the police, getting into the driver's seat and putting the keys into the ignition more than reasonably qualifies as a furtive gesture. It could easily be misconstrued as an attempt to flee, and once cops think you're fleeing, all bets are off. Now it isn't just about your dog that might get shot, but your own well-being is at stake. I did not intend to be an ass. It's perfectly plausible that if he did that, the cops would be at him before he could secure the car, and they'd have shot the dog anyway as it tried to escape from the driver's door or perhaps the windows if they weren't rolled up quickly enough. And you'd be on here saying that he should have just held onto the dog and carefully transferred it to an officer so that they could secure it. None of this changes the fact that you're engaging in a classic blame-the-victim argument. The onus is not on the victim to "be smart" and get out of the aggressor's way. The onus is on the aggressor to, you know, not aggress. If you want to thumb your nose at the stupidity of the victim in this case, then fine. But don't pretend that he was in any way responsible for another human being using lethal force on a clear power trip by the authorities. When you are given special privileges and powers by society, you ought to be held culpable for anything that happens when you unnecessarily escalate the situation.
  - D9u 13y ago
    *"... If you want to thumb your nose at the stupidity of the victim in this case, then fine. But don't pretend that he was in any way responsible for another human being using lethal force..." Apparently you have never been responsible for an animal which is capable of killing a man. If you were familiar with the variables related to the ownership of lethal attack dogs you would understand what I am referring to. The bottom line is that the dog owner failed to properly control his dog. The evidence is there for all to see.
    - burntsushi 13y ago
      The central point of your comment here is to show my argument is bad by discrediting me. Which is an ad hominem. So I guess we're done here. G'day. (And your accusation is false, FWIW.)