Kennewick man kills neighbor's 2 pit bulls

imported post

joshmmm wrote:

ilbob wrote:

why is it that owners of vicious dogs think there is nothing wrong with their dogs leaving their property and attacking someone?

pit bulls can never be trusted unless they are under close supervision. on their own they tend to revert to their genetic disposition. under close owner supervision they can be very docile and quite friendly. they also tend to be unfriendly to other animals even if they are not vicious to people.

like all other dogs, it is the owner's fault if something bad happens to a dog who is not under control.

Click to expand...

This is completely false. It is wrong, demeaning and racist. Would you say the same things about black people?

Click to expand...

This is a thread about dogs and especially pit bulls that attacked a man's chickens and then one of them came for him. ibob has his opinions about this breed of dog and he expressed them. He has that right.

You interject race and equate dogs with black people, and then you call him racist?

Please stay on topic.

imported post

Sa45auto wrote:

joshmmm wrote:

ilbob wrote:

why is it that owners of vicious dogs think there is nothing wrong with their dogs leaving their property and attacking someone?

pit bulls can never be trusted unless they are under close supervision. on their own they tend to revert to their genetic disposition. under close owner supervision they can be very docile and quite friendly. they also tend to be unfriendly to other animals even if they are not vicious to people.

like all other dogs, it is the owner's fault if something bad happens to a dog who is not under control.

Click to expand...

This is completely false. It is wrong, demeaning and racist. Would you say the same things about black people?

Click to expand...

This is a thread about dogs and especially pit bulls that attacked a man's chickens and then one of them came for him. ibob has his opinions about this breed of dog and he expressed them. He has that right.

You interject race and equate dogs with black people, and then you call him racist?

Please stay on topic.

Click to expand...

This is 100% on topic. Calling a pit bull vicious and prone to attack is no different than saying the same thing about black people. It is moronic and wrong. 100% analogous... we just don't have civil rights for dogs, but someone needs to stand up for them.


If you can't see the analogy, and if you thought my comments were racist, you obviously can't understand basic logic or rational thoughts and comparisons.

imported post

joshmmm wrote:

...we just don't have civil rights for dogs, but someone needs to stand up for them.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Call me a speciest, but not a racist. We don't have civil rights for animals because they are really nothing more than just meat. If someone didn't think they were cute and cuddly, or someone didn't like the fact they can be protective, then they would be a part of our daily diet.

MMM....Kagogi and kimchi

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

joshmmm wrote:

...we just don't have civil rights for dogs, but someone needs to stand up for them.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Call me a speciest, but not a racist. We don't have civil rights for animals because they are really nothing more than just meat. If someone didn't think they were cute and cuddly, or someone didn't like the fact they can be protective, then they would be a part of our daily diet.

MMM....Kagogi and kimchi

Click to expand...

I agree dogs < humans. But dog A = dog B, just as human A = human B.


Unfortunately, the law does not believe that my dog > criminal/attacking human; although I do!

Fortunately though, the law does recognize the my dog > attacking dog/animal.

imported post

Dogs don't have rights........humans do.........simple as that.........

If I want to call a dog a stupid poodle, that's not really racism. Find a better angle to get worked up about. An animal is an animal. When they can talk and start showing signs of sentience, then maybe I'll get all teary eyed when one dies or people treat one breed "unfairly".

Are all pitbulls "bad dogs"? No. Are pitbulls normally bred to be fighting or guard dogs, hence the aggressive tendencies built into the breed by years of selective breeding to MAKE them that way? I'd have to say yes.

Now, with a LOT of TLC and proper discipline, a pitbull can be just as friendly as any other breed. But you are always trying to overcome animal instinct with training, which requires intelligence. A human learns well, an animal, not so much......I know I don't trust any animal I come across......period.

imported post

joshmmm wrote:

This is 100% on topic......... we just don't have civil rights for dogs, but someone needs to stand up for them.


If you can't see the analogy,.....you obviously can't understand basic logic or rational thoughts and comparisons.

Click to expand...

That is the funniest thing I have heard all day. :lol:

And i'm the one with a problem understanding basic logic or rational thoughts. :lol:

imported post

"This is completely false. It is wrong, demeaning and racist. Would you say the same things about black people?"

This is completely stupid. And demeaning to black people.

Dogs are not people. they do not have the ability to rise above their nature, nor to rise above their nurture through introspection and will.

Dog breeds have characteristics. Humans do have characterisitcs associated with genetics as well. Far more complex interactions between genetics and culture than animals do, but strongly correlated within families. Mental instability can run in families and schizophrenia and bipolar disease are strongly genetically linked.

But dogs are far less complex. Breeds have general characteristics which are borne out by observation. They are specifically bred for these characteristics, and their much shorter breeding cycle and the lack of moral implications in deliberately breeding animals means that this can be effective. It would be silly (as well as obviously contradicting centuries of observation and results) to think that all differences in dogs is purely visible in their physical characteristics. A labrador is not a greyhound, for example. They have entirely different dispositions by nature. You cannot treat them quite the same. There are entire books written on how to train specific breeds.

The most likely dog to be involved in an attack on a human being is not a pit bull terrier, but rather a German Shepherd. This has to do with territoriality and protective behaviours, and is well borne-out by actuarial tables that insurance companies keep. Yet this doesn't address who and why these dogs attack.

German Shepherds largely attack strangers impinging upon territory they clearly define, like someone walking into your yard. Especially if it is a family dog, and especially if there are children in the yard. Pit bulls are well-known to attack even family members when their aggressive instincts are triggered.

It may not be 100% accurate, but my personal sterotype of pit bull owners is low class. When I see someone with a pit bull, my stereotype is almost always confirmed. Mexicans with pit bulls are typically not legal, church-going, middle class people with regular jobs. Whites with pit bulls typically don't have well-maintained yards or speak with anything approaching an educated manner. Blacks with pit bulls usually celebrate 'thug culture'.

Again- 100%? No. but good enough for my personal rule of thumb. They also seem less inclined to either keep their animals under control or take responsibility for the damage and nuisance they cause. Tell me the last time someone walking their pit bull actually removed their dog's shit from your yard or the sidewalk.

Anyway, the least important point in the story by the OP was the breed of dog. If an animal acts aggressively towards you on your own property, or in public, you have the right to defend yourself and your property. I merely felt compelled to respond tothe asinine comparison.

imported post

joshmmm wrote:

I agree dogs < humans. But dog A = dog B, just as human A = human B.

Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding. How many hundreds (thousands?) of years have dogs been domesticated and specifically bred for different jobs and different temperaments? You can't seriously believe that the average behavior and temperament of a Bichon Frise is no different from the average behavior and temperament of a Rottweiler or the average behavior and temperament of an Australian Shepherd? Do you disagree that hundreds of years of directed breeding can lead to one breed having a greater degree of innate aggressiveness than another?

Dogs don't have races. Dogs have breeds. To see a discussion about the tendencies of a given breed of dog, however inaccurate or unjustified, and equate it to racism to the degree you have, indicates you have the problem.

imported post

It is sad the dogs were shot. I posted earlier and said, don't shoot the dog unless you have to. If we get past the dogs we get to the real issue. If the shooter felt for his life - large aggressive dog advancing on him- why would the police report be reviewed by the district attorney. Discharge of firearms inside city limits??? Absurd. I don't think you could get away with that in Kalifornia.

imported post

Regardless of anything else he had the authority to do it by RCW.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=16.08.020

imported post

Thundar wrote:

It is sad the dogs were shot. I posted earlier and said, don't shoot the dog unless you have to. If we get past the dogs we get to the real issue. If the shooter felt for his life - large aggressive dog advancing on him- why would the police report be reviewed by the district attorney. Discharge of firearms inside city limits??? Absurd. I don't think you could get away with that in Kalifornia.

Click to expand...

We don't even need to shoot them, here we can legally put out poisoned meatto kill livestock killing dogs (as these dogs were).

CA PENAL CODE 596 - Every person who, without the consent of the owner, wilfully
administers poison to any animal, the property of another, or exposes any poisonous substance, with the intent that the same shall be taken or swallowed by any such animal, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
However, the provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of a person who exposes poisonous substances upon premises or property owned or controlled by him for the purpose of controlling or destroying predatory animals or livestock-killing dogs...

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

Thundar wrote:

It is sad the dogs were shot. I posted earlier and said, don't shoot the dog unless you have to. If we get past the dogs we get to the real issue. If the shooter felt for his life - large aggressive dog advancing on him- why would the police report be reviewed by the district attorney. Discharge of firearms inside city limits??? Absurd. I don't think you could get away with that in Kalifornia.

Click to expand...

We don't even need to shoot them, here we can legally put out poisoned meatto kill livestock killing dogs (as these dogs were).

CA PENAL CODE 596 - Every person who, without the consent of the owner, wilfully
administers poison to any animal, the property of another, or exposes any poisonous substance, with the intent that the same shall be taken or swallowed by any such animal, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
However, the provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of a person who exposes poisonous substances upon premises or property owned or controlled by him for the purpose of controlling or destroying predatory animals or livestock-killing dogs...

Click to expand...

When did Kennewick move to the Peoples Republic or their laws start applying two states north?

imported post

This whole thread is, "Much ado do about nothing."



Two dogs got our again and went to the neighbors yard again and attacked his chickens, and then one made moves toward the guy with a gun and he shot them....both

Ended as it should have.

Control your animals, or pay the consequences.....End of Story

imported post

Sa45auto wrote:

This whole thread is, "Much to do about nothing."

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it bugs the hell out of me when people say stuff like that...

It's "Much ado about nothing"... as in the play written by William Shakespeare.

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

Sa45auto wrote:

This whole thread is, "Much to do about nothing."

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it bugs the hell out of me when people say stuff like that...

It's "Much ado about nothing"... as in the play written by William Shakespeare.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I guess it'skind of a MUTE point...:lol::lol:

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

Sa45auto wrote:

This whole thread is, "Much to do about nothing."

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it bugs the hell out of me when people say stuff like that...

It's "Much ado about nothing"... as in the play written by William Shakespeare.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I guess it'skind of a MUTE point...:lol::lol:

Click to expand...

ARRRGGGHHHH!!!

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

Sa45auto wrote:

This whole thread is, "Much to do about nothing."

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it bugs the hell out of me when people say stuff like that...

It's "Much ado about nothing"... as in the play written by William Shakespeare.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I guess it'skind of a MUTE point...:lol::lol:

Click to expand...

*chuckle* ... and yet, I love it as a joke.

I'm the self-appointed "King of Pun"... Displacing Sting as the "King of Pain".

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

Sa45auto wrote:

This whole thread is, "Much to do about nothing."

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it bugs the hell out of me when people say stuff like that...

It's "Much ado about nothing"... as in the play written by William Shakespeare.

Click to expand...

You are right.......BUT you have to remember that after 50 your memory is the second thing to go.......and I forgot what that first thing was......along with the actual title of Shakespeare's play. :what:

imported post

Sa45auto wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

Sa45auto wrote:

This whole thread is, "Much to do about nothing."

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it bugs the hell out of me when people say stuff like that...

It's "Much ado about nothing"... as in the play written by William Shakespeare.

Click to expand...

You are right.......BUT you have to remember that after 50 your memory is the second thing to go.......and I forgot what that first thing was......along with the actual title of Shakespeare's play. :what:

Click to expand...

No worries, I'm only 26 and I... wait, what was I saying?....

imported post

I am 68, and learned that there are 3 things you never do at my age.

1. NEVER walk past a rest room without stopping....

2. NEVER trust a fart............

3. Never waste a har.................