Olorin Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 7:16:17 PM Royster wrote: without chewing the same meal again, your other posts sure have a flavor of pro pit. Grasp that. Who are you to question my integrity? This yet another thread in reference to pits attacking someone completly unjustified! I rest my case in regards to "living vicariously" thru thier puters, as I would welcome you to make the same assumtion in person. But then again the net has a way making even the most cowardly brave. As far as your "officer friendly" remarks, completely uncalled for. You live in a sheltered little world protected from real life by guys like me. The first folks to cry fowl, the man is keeping us down, not my lttle fluffy ect but the first ones to cry out for help or justice. I too agree that we agree to disagree. As far a seperate directions, I see you over looked the part about starting a thread where support of the pit is the topic. Might want to try that. ---------------- I said "intellectual consistency and integrity." Perhaps I should have clarified that by saying "intellectual integrity." Your arguments are unsound and inconsistent. I would not think of questioning your personal integrity. I apologize for the confusion. I would, however, say just to your face what I am saying here. If you would feel the need to handle that physically, as is implied by your "cowardly" comment, that really says more about you than it says about anyone else. Actually, Roy, you are the first to cry foul. "Tree hugger" and "sheltered, closed-minded" were called for? That's what I mean by intellectual integrity. You cry foul when you get the same mud on you that you are slinging. I also never talked about the man keeping me down. Another inconsistent argument, Roy. This one's called a "straw man." You build something up so you can knock it down, thinking you've made a point. Since I never said any such thing, you're really just arguing with yourself in public. I see that you overlooked that I said I never agued in favor of pitbulls, I argued against the idea of blanket bans. Might want to try reading and comprehending an entire post before you launch off another insult. See you around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 "What are you calling a 50 cal magnum, cause I thought my 50 cal Desert Eagle was awesome." Awesome, indeed! I use the same piece for hunting and have never missed a target. Back to subject...the bottom line is if I ever see a pit bull walking the street I will shoot first and ask question later. I don't take chances! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 "I was in fear of my life" END of story! That is the only statement one would need to make. ---------------- The quote of a law enforcement officer whowould rather lie then respond in a lawful and responsible manner! You sound like the wackos who justify the shoot first mentality and (erroneously) claim that all you have to do is to drag their shooting victim into your house to 'get off'! Yeah, so let's all get our fraudulent story straight! Do the words "commensurate force" mean anything to you? Obviously not! The law according to Barney Fife! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 8:07:13 PM dragonfyr wrote: "I was in fear of my life" END of story! That is the only statement one would need to make. ---------------- The quote of a law enforcement officer whowould rather lie then respond in a lawful and responsible manner! You sound like the wackos who justify the shoot first mentality and (erroneously) claim that all you have to do is to drag their shooting victim into your house to 'get off'! Yeah, so let's all get our fraudulent story straight! Do the words "commensurate force" mean anything to you? Obviously not! The law according to Barney Fife! ---------------- If anyone was to break and enter into my home, "I would fear for my life". That being said, yes I would shoot first and ask questions later. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Not to mention "fear for my familys life" Nothing fraudulent about that. Or do you know more about that than anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted June 6, 2005 Author Share Posted June 6, 2005 dragonfyr, Let me know if I am getting the implications of what you're saying. Someone breaks into your house, and rather than siccing Bruno on him, you either 1) Interview said burglar to ensure that he means you no harm 2) Run like a frightened rabbit *out of your home*, leaving the wife and kids to fend for themselves (at least you're safe) Some people will do anything to impress their ACLU friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 Oh buy the way did I mention " I was in fear for my life". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 Often there is an attack on a youth. It seemed non-provoked. Further question led to talking to neighbors that saw the "victim" taunting the dog. Pit Bulls often find peole tauntin the animal. That I have seen. As for protection of property, it is unfathomable that a potential thief winds up suing after being bitten. First that's trespassing. The other point is how do we know the intent of the person breaking in. Home Invasion Robberies, Rapists, off the wall killers - how does one know? Should they ask? There are alarms. A good number of monitored alarms are out of State. This means a long distance call to the premises, then if the proper response is not given, an eleven digit number is then called to the appropiate LE Agency. If a thief cannot gain access in 3 - 4 minutes, they usually move on. But we are supposed to be able to have "peaceful" enjoyment of OUR property. We have thives that will not only rob a home or business but will vandalize in addition. If a thief is on your poperty by virtue of a break in and you are home, half the they may have some sort of weapon. It is a mockery of our judicial rights to be sued because of a dog biting - or there was a store in mini strip mall that had been robbed several times. The owner set an electric fence and some barbed wire. Another break-in only this time the thief receive a shock and cuts from the wire. He sued and was allowed $10,0o0.00 for pain and suffering. He confessed to breking in several times, yet the owner was sued, lost another $10,000.00 on top of losing merchandise from the break-ins.. There is somehing inherently wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 Win, The stories just keep getting better evry year. I wonder what law suit is next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Amy Posted June 6, 2005 Moderators Share Posted June 6, 2005 Here we go again. Sigh. Gang, it is futile to argue the need to ban this breed because it cannot be done. Dogs can be mixed, molded, trained, beaten, isolated, genetically altered however well we dern well please! And what are we going to do, ban all dogs? As soon as pit bulls are banned, someone will mix them with, say, a Doberman, so the dog doesn't look like a pit bull any more, but it's still there! But no one knows and no one can prosecute! It's still the same irresponsible owner and breeder that needs to be banned in the first place. Not the dogs! And what about Presa Canarios? Rottweillers? German Shephards? All can be trained for viciousness, all dogs are inherently capable of unprovoked violence. Some more than others, sure, but it's there. I saw a Dalmation the other day on "The Dog Whisperer" that looked like he could rip the head off a small child simply because it was dinner time. "But he's such a sweet dog the rest of the time!!" Stiffer penalties. Enforced local ordinances. Neighborhood watches. Effective police force. If your neighborhood association wants to ban large breed dogs--GO FOR IT! We can't build a pool in our backyard because of neighborhood ordinances, and if we wanted one bad enough, we'd have moved somewhere else. But a government law against these dogs would be useless. If you have a roaming dog in your area, complain, complain, complain. Call animal control, call the police, don't call the owners. Don't ever let the dogs run loose, no matter the breed. Can we be civil and talk about animal control now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 7:21:27 PM dragonfyr wrote: Property rights do not take precedence over human rights! As it should be! ---------------- I may be interpreting your statement wrong, but.... Right, wrong or indifferent, someone breaks into my house, I feel as though i have every right to pop a cap in some ***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 8:27:53 PM Parrot wrote: dragonfyr, Let me know if I am getting the implications of what you're saying. Someone breaks into your house, and rather than siccing Bruno on him, you either 1) Interview said burglar to ensure that he means you no harm 2) Run like a frightened rabbit *out of your home*, leaving the wife and kids to fend for themselves (at least you're safe) Some people will do anything to impress their ACLU friends.---------------- ACLU??? Hahahaha! I find it amazing that you haven't a clue from where I am coming politically! No, I just have reservations regarding the SS mode of dysfunctional thought that seeks to ban 'things' rather then to hold persons responsible for actions, regardless of their race, creed, brand of speaker, or type of dog owned. Even if 'they' believe things with which I might disagree! ...Sorry it's such a radical concept! No, according to the law which you hold in such low regard in your zealous ravings, you are entitled to use commensurate force in response to the threat! And lethal force is ONLY justified if there is NO other reasonable recourse! And I find it humorous how you and others, on the one hand, argue that all pit bulls (&/or other dogs capable of infliciting said damage) be banned, yet you are perfectly comfortable with using them as your alternative form of lethal force! I on the other hand, would not ban any breed of animal, race, or creed, but would instead expect and hold each individual responsible for their responsible action as defined by law. That includes people who do not responsibly train and control their wards or pets, whatever breed they may be! And that applies to their actions as well! At it also applies to those who would fraudulently attempt to justify their crime by the rote 'parroting' of a phrase! And I am sorry that the above question poses such a complex dilemma for you! But the fact that these seem to be the only options available to your way of thinking (sic) speaks volumes! The answer is that you take the least extreme action that will adequately address and diminish the threat. No more, no less. Property rights do not take precedence over human rights, and you do not devise ways to kill simply because you can memorize a phrase! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 Good Dog Good Dog Gooooood Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 8:48:22 PM m00n wrote: ---------------- On 6/6/2005 7:21:27 PM dragonfyr wrote: Property rights do not take precedence over human rights! As it should be! ---------------- I may be interpreting your statement wrong, but.... Right, wrong or indifferent, someone breaks into my house, I feel as though i have every right to pop a cap in some ***. ----------------Moon!!!! I can understand your frustration and your emotional desire for such 'revenge'! And no one is suggesting that you sit idly by and watch as you or someone is harmed! But that is not how the law works! And I don't think that is what you truly mean either! You are justified in using appropriate force to meet force. The law does not justify your killing someone because they walk onto, or into your property! The law acknowledges your right to protect yourself and others by using what is called 'commensurate force'. That simply means that you are justified in using only enough force to counter the threat. It is not OK to shoot someone because they have stepped onto your property and want to borrow a cup of water. It is not OK even if they break into your house to steal something, unless they pose a lethal threat to you or others in your charge. And then you are only justified in using commensurate force! In other words, if someone wants to fight you with his hands, generally that is not considered deadly force, but you are certainly justified in protecting yourself or others by using appropriate non-deadly force to counter them! You are justified in using deadly force ONLY if there is no other alternative - even if it is running away! You are only justified in using deadly force ONLY if there is no reasonable alternative! "At last resort'! All of this is a rather silly argument, as it has long ago ceased to be a debate. These issues are 'old news' in the civics sense! And the law defines them rather simply! And all the emotional bravado and "I'll shoot his ***" comments do not change that! And I am not aware of ANYONE justifying a dog or a person in committing irresponsible actions! despite the repeated charges by several who champion the wholesale banning of this or that category of 'things'! But I have heard some suggesting ways that laws can be circumvented or broken, and ironically they come from those who yell loudest about the law! DA's have substantial latitude in deciding what cases to prosecute, but this issue is a simple one. And all the emotional loading of the issue does not change it. The law is designed to hold for the situation whether you are emotionally involved or if you are a detached bystander. And these laws are actually pretty simple to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 By the way did I mention "I was in fear for my life" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 "You are justified in using appropriate force to meet force." dragon, would you like to *break-in* to my property? The question is: If you're dead, who's gonna prove whether you use force on me or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 8:34:11 PM dodger wrote: It is a mockery of our judicial rights to be sued because of a dog biting - or there was a store in mini strip mall that had been robbed several times. The owner set an electric fence and some barbed wire. Another break-in only this time the thief receive a shock and cuts from the wire. He sued and was allowed $10,0o0.00 for pain and suffering. He confessed to breking in several times, yet the owner was sued, lost another $10,000.00 on top of losing merchandise from the break-ins.. There is somehing inherently wrong with that.---------------- I agree. It seems to me that if a person is actively held to be in the performance of an illegal act - a crime, that they forfeit claims to civil liability such as the claims of damages from falling in holes, being cut by glass that they broke while commiting illegal entry, or any other such damages that may be incurred while in the commission of said crime. I think this is a poster child case for the need for tort reform! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 Coda- thanks for that! I appreciate the fact that personal experience can generate strong feelings. I like that there is some effort to see other perspectives as well, though. Phrases like "tree huggers" don't exactly make folks warm up to hear your side of the story, and really smacks of boot-jack pepper-spray ideology, at least in the context and perspective which I read it. I felt it was directed at me, (among others-the most relevent, in my opinion, being myself, naturally ), as I have argued against the banning of dog breeds in general here. I'll admit I've skimmed the vast majority of the rest of the thread, as I don't really care to find that another odd phrase that'll get under my skin. I don't know... we can make all the analogies we want, but we're apparently not going to change many minds here. I already know the gist of what the arguments are. It would be preferable if we could avoid the class slurs. I don't think you'd be ole Roy'd be very appreciative if we started tossing around negative terms for law enforcement folks, either. Neither would I. There are folks who I greatly respect in the profession that I know, and a good friend who is a captain here locally. He's one of the most decent guys I know. Yes, we're safe at home tucked in our beds (a skosh of sarcasm here) while you watch over us like angels. Thank you (not sarcasm, BTW), but I don't see where that gives you exclusive qualification for generating policy! I'm sure not going to kiss your *** over it. You sure wouldn't kiss mine if you walked into my place of work and I did my job. Yes, you have direct experience with the situation, and your perspective surely has great value. Just don't think that yours is the only perspective that has validity. It's called democracy. Like it or lump it, but your'e supposed to be defending a system with balanced power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 5:03:06 PM ben. wrote: I love how this subject keeps getting brought up. You guys need to take off the blinders a bit. What percentage of Pit Bulls ever display violent tendencies? Oh, you have no idea? Great argument you have there. ---------------- Get real, ben. If there was only one attack on record a year where a child is maimed or killed, that's one too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted June 6, 2005 Author Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 9:11:15 PM dragonfyr wrote: You are justified in using deadly force ONLY if there is no other alternative - even if it is running away! ---------------- Exactly as I took your meaning originally. You would run away rather than defend your home and loved ones. How would you ascertain what a burglar's intentions were? If you are not in fear of your life when a burglar enters your occupied home, you are hopelessly naive. Wait! I have an idea! You could bore the burglar to death by spouting your philosophical mumbo-jumbo rationalizations at him, and all without firing a shot or leaving a mark on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 9:43:29 PM edwinr wrote: ---------------- On 6/6/2005 5:03:06 PM ben. wrote: I love how this subject keeps getting brought up. You guys need to take off the blinders a bit. What percentage of Pit Bulls ever display violent tendencies? Oh, you have no idea? Great argument you have there. ---------------- Get real, ben. If there was only one attack on record a year where a child is maimed or killed, that's one too many. ---------------- C'mon, who couldn't agree with that? How exactly does that advance whichever side you're arguing for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts