Dog vs. cat vs. cops

[Bird]

OP here, the writer who reported the story has been one of the longest-serving staff of the local news that ran the story, I know him personally and he did not report this cat-dog story in the newspaper in general, but in his own human-interest column that runs daily. In all the time I have been reading his reporting he has never tried to let his own opinion influence the facts, IMO he is one of the fairest, most honest people in the newspaper business.

I can certainly believe that. I've personally known some of the other kind of reporters, but as with other professions, I think they are in the minority. It's not that reporters deliberately get their facts wrong (although some have at times), it's just that they have deadlines to meet, limited time to investigate, limited space in the print media, or limited time in the broadcast media, and that means they very, very rarely have all the facts, or give us all the facts, in their stories.

 

[JDgreen227]

I can certainly believe that. I've personally known some of the other kind of reporters, but as with other professions, I think they are in the minority. It's not that reporters deliberately get their facts wrong (although some have at times), it's just that they have deadlines to meet, limited time to investigate, limited space in the print media, or limited time in the broadcast media, and that means they very, very rarely have all the facts, or give us all the facts, in their stories.

Well stated...for what it is worth, the farm I live on before I purchased it was rented by the assistant editor of the local newspaper and I met him back in '88. We were talking one time before I moved here, and he told me quote: "Newspapers don't always print the facts, they print what they think people will want to read, because THAT (emphasis added) usually sells more papers than the facts will." Unquote.

 

[Combustix]

Okay a cat today. What if had been a toddler, hypothetical yes but now the dog has a history of attacking another creature. An animal that will attack and kill a cat may just as easily turn on a child. IMO the dog is now a loaded weapon and will repeat a learned behavior. The woman with the cat just reschooled the dog and schooled the owner. Irresponsible pet ownership created a situation that should never have happened in the first place.

 

[LD1]

Okay a cat today. What if had been a toddler, hypothetical yes but now the dog has a history of attacking another creature. An animal that will attack and kill a cat may just as easily turn on a child. IMO the dog is now a loaded weapon and will repeat a learned behavior. The woman with the cat just reschooled the dog and schooled the owner. Irresponsible pet ownership created a situation that should never have happened in the first place.

excellent point:thumbsup:

 

[grnspot110]

I think if it had been me, my life would have been in danger! No use for dogs or dog owners who can't behave themselves!!!!

Don't care much for "wandering" cats either ( I do like animals BTW, better than most people)! ~~ grnspot

 

[2manyrocks]

In OP story, the dog owner apparently claimed the collar or leash broke. The story doesn't say if the dog broke it to get after the cat or if there was a defect in the collar or leash.

Some dogs get along fine with most everybody and then some dogs really seem to hate cats.

Like Bird said, we don't know all the facts--just what was reported.

Anyway you look at it, this is not a good situation.

 

[dave1949]

Okay a cat today. What if had been a toddler, hypothetical yes but now the dog has a history of attacking another creature. An animal that will attack and kill a cat may just as easily turn on a child. IMO the dog is now a loaded weapon and will repeat a learned behavior. The woman with the cat just reschooled the dog and schooled the owner. Irresponsible pet ownership created a situation that should never have happened in the first place.

I agree, a dog in that situation needs to be evaluated and possibly euthanized. At a minimum, it should be removed from its owner.

When the police arrived, they confisticated the pistol, handcuffed the cat owner, and told her she was charged with "discharging a weapon in a public place, or in a manner that endangers life or property"....

The dead dog isn't what the police objected to. They charged the cat owner for unsafe use of a weapon. She was not alone in a rural setting, the dog's owner was presumably very near by, it sounds like a suburban or city-type neighborhood. Her personal safety was not threatened.

The police and the laws regarding the use of a firearm are concerned with the safety of everyone involved and nearby, not the cat. In other words, they are questioning the cat owner's judgment about the use of her gun for the situation she was in. That's my only point on that part of the story. Set aside the emotion of the dead cat and feelings about the dog and what do you have? To play Devil's advocate, would it be okay to sit on your porch in a city/suburb and shoot any animal that enters your yard? No.

Bottom line, she could have achieved the desired result, with less risk to everyone's safety, without using a gun. Using a firearm in a populated area comes with inherent risks which is why towns have firearm use laws.

Gun rights proponents always fall back on the idea that legal gun owners should not be blamed for the actions of criminals. But when the police charged a gun owner with illegal or criminal use in this case, then automatically, the police are wrong and it becomes an 'assault on gun rights'.

Okay, I have my Pyrex hat on and my Nomex suit zipped up, flame away.

Dave.

 

[Pete Judd]

I had a run in with a Pit Bull a wile ago, people from a couple of roads away were knocking in my door trying to find the owner, and it had at least 7 death threats out for it. Mauling and killing pets and small livestock. And it was expanding it's range. It attacked my son's dog while it was visiting, and I broke up the fight by hitting it in the head with a shovel. It then jumped up and came at me. I hit him again, and he got up and wobbled away. I then put a rifle in the shop, loaded, and a week later, took him down, as he was attacking my old lab, that is the most peaceful dog you have ever seen. I just grabbed the body, drug it into the woods, and let the turkey buzzards have a meal. Several of us called the sheriff, but no animal control out here so nothing could be done. A few days later the owner, started putting lost dog flyer's in mail boxes. Oh, and no leash law as well. All my dogs run free, but have never had a problem with them, out side of sleeping on the road (dead end).

 

[JDgreen227]

I agree, a dog in that situation needs to be evaluated and possibly euthanized. At a minimum, it should be removed from its owner.

When the police arrived, they confisticated the pistol, handcuffed the cat owner, and told her she was charged with "discharging a weapon in a public place, or in a manner that endangers life or property"....

The dead dog isn't what the police objected to. They charged the cat owner for unsafe use of a weapon. She was not alone in a rural setting, the dog's owner was presumably very near by, it sounds like a suburban or city-type neighborhood. Her personal safety was not threatened.

The police and the laws regarding the use of a firearm are concerned with the safety of everyone involved and nearby, not the cat. In other words, they are questioning the cat owner's judgment about the use of her gun for the situation she was in. That's my only point on that part of the story. Set aside the emotion of the dead cat and feelings about the dog and what do you have? To play Devil's advocate, would it be okay to sit on your porch in a city/suburb and shoot any animal that enters your yard? No.

Bottom line, she could have achieved the desired result, with less risk to everyone's safety, without using a gun. Using a firearm in a populated area comes with inherent risks which is why towns have firearm use laws.

Gun rights proponents always fall back on the idea that legal gun owners should not be blamed for the actions of criminals. But when the police charged a gun owner with illegal or criminal use in this case, then automatically, the police are wrong and it becomes an 'assault on gun rights'.

Okay, I have my Pyrex hat on and my Nomex suit zipped up, flame away.

Dave.

Excellent post, I should have clarified the incident happened in a city where I know homes are very close together. HOWEVER...had I been the cat owner who fired the gun, I would have been very worried about MY personal safety, for all I knew after the dog attacked the cat, I MIGHT BE THE NEXT ATTACKEE. Are you saying you would not have that concern if you had been in her place?

 

[dave1949]

Excellent post, I should have clarified the incident happened in a city where I know homes are very close together. HOWEVER...had I been the cat owner who fired the gun, I would have been very worried about MY personal safety, for all I knew after the dog attacked the cat, I MIGHT BE THE NEXT ATTACKEE. Are you saying you would not have that concern if you had been in her place?

I'm danged sure I would have had lots of concerns :laughing:

However, that doesn't mean I couldn't have defended myself with pepper spray, or something besides a gun. I realize I am being a bit picky here, but I thought the case raises interesting points about our attitudes towards firearms; whether you agree or disagree with my comments. I don't think there is a 'right' answer by the way.

Consider what would happen in a country where gun ownership is strictly limited. Will an attacking dog be stopped? Sure it will. There have been no reports of entire villages killed off by attacking dogs.
Dave.