Don't know if you guys have heard about this one yet, so here's a link to the story if you haven't...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/08/09/fat...k.ap/index.html

Anyway, there are a few things I want to ask that relate to this story. Though I myself do not believe so, does anyone feel that the dog in question did not deserve to be shot on the spot (for whatever reason)? Or do you believe, like me, that the killing of the dog should have been done differently? Basically, how would you elaborate on animal rights in this sort of situation?

Anxious to hear your responses .

The dog most certainly had to be put down as soon as possible. Once a pitbull gets the taste of blood, it'll never be the same. The cops, however, were pretty reckless in terms of how they went about it. Firing shots through a neighborhood is inexcusable. They should have captured the dog first, then put it down.

The animal does not have rights. It should have been "put down". However, firing bullets through a residential neighborhood is never a good idea.

The article doesn't really go into details here, except the reaction of people nearby. And that guy didn't really say they were reckless, just careless. It is hard to judge from such a limited amount of info whether the officers were negligent or not.

??? I didn't reliase that dogs could distinguish between the kind of blood it eats. Talk about over dramatising!

Yeah the dog probably should have been put down more subtley but as punnishment rather than for safety. No animal is fully domesticated, at any minute the feral nature of animals could kick in and we must respect that to have a dog in our house is to allow in an animal that can kill, easily.

I just read the story. They were right to take it down quickly. I thought it was their house pet. Am aggressive could do serious damage very quickly. Shooting it was probably smart. Who gives a **** if it scared a few residents. An angry pit bull would have been worse.

This is another example of why cats are better than dogs.

I really have to disagree with your statement "but as punishment rather than for safety" the dog needed to be put down for safety reasons first and punishment second. I really am wary of dogs such as pitbulls dobermans etc. I definitely wouldn't choose to have one as a pet and certainly not if I had children. They are a liability (I realize this may not go for every single dog of those types, I am speaking generally). A dog that has violent tendencies and shows that it has not learned control (ie: it bites with the intention to hurt or kill) should not be a domesticated pet and should be put down as it is doubtful that there is a suitable place for such an animal.

*this is a bit off topic but on at the same time...
I was attacked when walking a neighbors lab by another neighbor's dog who is frequently let free to roam. This dog often attacks other dogs (most times which are leashed and on walks with their owner). I have a major problem with people who own large potentially dangerous dogs and who do not keep them under control. A dog, especially one with a history of violence, should be leashed, fenced or chained up in a yard. At minimum such a dog should have an owner present if allowed off the leash. I don't really understand why somebody would want to have such a liability as a pet.

There should be more constraints on animals that can kill a fully grown man. Even if it restricts their allowance to free roam. I used to be wary of dogs but I've learnt to fight it.

Actually, the dog needed to die, but it is not good to have bullets flying through the hood. We have a law here, if a pit bull, rottwieler and a few other named breeds are off the leash and not under controll at all times it is the death penalty with no grounds for appeal. I agree with that.

No over-dramatization here. It is an observed fact. I have friends who breed and raise pitbulls. Whenever one of them bites and gets that taste of blood, they put it down immediately. After that first bite, a pitbull will not hesitate to bite ever again thus making it an extreme danger.



Safety is the number one concern. Punishment isn't even a consideration. When a dog, especially a pitbull, bites someone it must be put down for no other reason than to protect others it may harm in the future. When a dog leaves a present on the carpet, then it can be punished. As a result, it learns not to do that. However, when it bites, there can be no rehabilitation.



Blasphemy. Cats and dogs both have their pros and cons, but one is not better than the other.

The dog should have been put down, but I think the police were a little reckless. They came close to killing a bystander.

I did read about that mauling of the 2 week old child. How sad is that?
But today in Illinois there were 2 more incidents of pitbulls attacking people. One was in Romeoville Illinois where a neighbor's kids went to see his I believe exotic lizards. They have been there before but he showed them cockroaches he feeds them. I guess a few of the kids screamed and the dog (a Pitbull) bite an 8 yr. old girl in the neck and bite off her thumb. And in Chicago a pitbull bit 2 girls one 17 and one 13. I love dogs. I have one. My concern is pitbulls. Is there a reason why these dogs are so dangerous? Is it genetic? Do you think maybe they should not be bred anymore?