The pitbull is protecting his properties. Instead of police/dogs, it could very well be some thief/robber. Of course the pitbull is gonna engage. Proper training for the pitbull is not the question here because how can we possibly expect the pitbull to distinguish whether it's friendly or hostile? Anyone entering the property is hostile until proven otherwise.

so if the police, entering someone else's property, without their consent or a warrant, are allowed to shoot the dog protecting said property, am i allowed to shoot the police dog entering my property without my consent?

I read the CTV article early yesterday and was raging! But in the afternoon I read the Vancouver Sun article that says the pitbull ran from a neighbouring property (no fences). It just puts a different spin on what happened. All residents should have been informed of the training exercise. If the pitbull owner knew, chances are he would have kept his dog inside when it took place. Either way it's still sad to lose a pet.

Thoughts?
http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo...031/story.html

^that completely changes things. Man, can't these news agencies get things right before publishing?

Ah now its a 180 turn, I give full responsbility to the owners if this is the case.

We all know that there is always multiple sides to a story, but when I came across the Vancouer Sun article, it was a good reminder of this.

Hard to believe what the truth really is even reading both of these articles. But if the Vancouver Sun is "more" correct, then I'm not hating the RCMP so much. I love dogs so it's just really sad that there wasn't more responsibility on both parts that could have prevented the poor pitbull's death.

The dog isn't trained to attack children. It IS however, trained to murk anything that threatens it's life.

And Oh, how the world turns. ;)

That's the article that I was reading. That article is what I was trying to get across. Stop believing the very first thing you read. The media is biased, end of story. Look at all the sources, and all the stories. Don't jump to conclusions based on ONE story. If you go off the "media reports" I bet most of you probably think that the violent crime rate is shooting up too.

the dog is secondary (sorry, dog lovers)

why the fuck did 2 cops and a fucking police dog go into some random persons lawn to do a fucking dog training exercise in the first place? and unannounced?

what if a kid had been playing in the lawn? i'm not saying the dog would've attacked the child, but what if?

they'll probably cover this up with some bullshit like "we forgot to announce it, sorry" and that'll be it

there should be some sort of governing body that prevents inaccurate news articles from being published. It would sure help prevent what happened in this thread.

Good, one less pitbull. About time someone stated eradicatiing that menace. Too bad the bullet didn't go through the dog and hit a car thief. Kill two birds with one stone!

accidents can happen though, rcmp still screwed the pooch, no pun intended, in not announcing their visit.

Considering accidents with police dogs can happen, as they are dogs.

ref: http://www.associatedcontent.com/vid...cks_child.html

have you ever owned a pitbull? or a dog in general?

Defending property is not an excuse to maul another living being whether it is human or not. Since people like to pull out wild situations that are not relevant to the case, then what if a child playing with a ball wandered onto the property. Does it give the pitbull the right to maul it and bite the child in the neck?

Heck, if a paperboy came onto my property, can I go grab a gun and shoot him? I didn't invite him to my property. The bottom line is the party that is the aggressor is at fault here regardless of whether or not they were trespassing or not. This is a civilized society, not the middle ages where you can do whatever the hell you want.

PRIVATE PROPERTY BRO.

so you're going to compare a dog's natural born instincts to a rational thinking human being grabbing a gun? yeah, that makes total sense.

what we're talking about here is when a dog is in an enclosed area such as a fenced backyard/frontyard. i'm pretty damn sure that everyone as a kid knew NOT to run into a yard where you knew there was a dog (no matter what the breed).

responsible owners keep an eye on their dog. apparently, in this case, the owners did not.

What I want to know is why the police dog is just a 'dog' and the people's pet is a 'pit bull.' This anti bully breed sentiment is absolute horseshit. If this was a case of say, a black guy attacking a policeman, and the article constantly referred to the perpetrator as a black guy, black suspect, black attacker, whatever, no one would stand for it. Pit bulls just make for easy sensationalism. You're statistically more likely to be bitten by a cocker spaniel than a pit bull, and yet if a cocker spaniel had been shot in the backyard after attacking the police dog, all we hear about is how tragic it is that the family dog was shot.

How many cocker spaniels have killed children?

I know where you're going with this, and I know the stats will show that pitbulls have caused more fatalities. What I'm getting at is that it's not the dogs fault. The problem lies with shitty owners, but the breed gets painted in a negative light. People who acquire dogs for protection or bad boy status tend to go for pitbulls. The dogs are often neglected, mistreated, and trained to be aggressive. What doesn't make it out into the spotlight is that bully breeds are intensely loyal and very intelligent dogs, and with a bit of socialization - as any dog needs - are very safe pets to have. They just get a bad rap as a result of often being owned by assholes. When some of the other powerful breeds, like akitas, dobbies and shepherds go after kids, the outcry isn't there as much. Why is that? Shepherds especially, what with them also being police dogs and all. The issue isn't that pit bulls are naturally more aggressive than most other breeds out there, it's that when the odd one does go off the deep end, the results can be serious. My goddamned long haired chihuahua has more aggression than most of th pit bulls I've met. It's annoying as fuck and has taken far more training to work out of him than any other dog I've owned. But when he loses his marbles, people just think it's cute.

I can't stress this enough. THE FAULT IS NOT WITH THE BREED, IT'S WITH THE OWNERS.

A little light reading:

http://www.pitbullproject.ca/myths.htm

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/54...7cc11c7cbd.jpg

First of all, there was no fence. Second of all, fenced or not, it does not give the dog the right to attack anyone who enters the premises. You can bitch all you want about how it's the dog's natural instinct. If that's the case then why the fuck would you raise a dog that's only sole purpose is to attack other beings that encroach on his territory. This is called being a retarded owner that wants to get sued.

If you own a pitbull, a dog known for being aggressive, then you should either keep it under surveillance at all times, or keep it inside if possible. There's been countless of incidences of pitbull maulings, yet stupid owners still don't learn that they're not the fuzzy cute pets when they face strangers.

Dog Bite-related Fatalities in the United States Year Involving pit bull-type dogs
2005 28 (total dog fatalities) 16 (57%) (caused by pitbulls)
2006 30 16 (53%)
2007 35 20 (57%)
2008 23 15 (65%)

When over 50% of dog related human fatalities are caused by pitbulls, compared to all the other breeds, then I think we can reasonably make a conclusion about the breed. I'm pretty sure there's idiot owners with other breeds as well.

I think it lays between where you and I stand on this issue. I'm biased because as a child I had a really bad encounter with a pitbull and as a result I've avoided them and have never owned one.

Would have this really happened with a lab or a border collie tho?

Dog owners and lovers are quick to jump to the unconditional defense of the animals regardless of the conduct and even after hearing that an unleashed, unfenced pitbull attacked a police dog on a separate property we have "omg fuk da police pigs 911 is a joke' sentiment from some people here.

Dogs are animals. Apologists need to realize that they don't have the same reasoning as people and need to be given a greater duty of care to protect other people from them.

Someone should write up/keep an updated blog or something with all their fuck up, would make it much easier for me to tell my friends why I have a problem with SOME police officers... Everything in one thread. Mods?

I hear what you're saying, and can appreciate your position on the matter, especially in light of your own personal experience. And versus much of the discussion in this thread so far, I appreciate you being level headed in the matter.

The ones who get me are the folks who want to outlaw specific breeds. Or twist data to the benefit of their own irrational point of view or political gain.

I look at the anti pit bull issue the same way I look at the long gun registry. Both of which punish and discourage legitimate and responsible owners, without serious consequence to the low lives who abuse either privilege. I may be biased, as a dog and gun owner though.

When looking at cases of dog attacks, the background of the case needs to be looked at. Why don't the border collies of gang bangers attack and kill more people? Because gang bangers don't buy fucking border collies. Every dog has the capacity to kill though.

When you look at the ammount of nonfatal bites by dogs requiring medical attention, many of the standard family dogs start topping the lists. Visits to the ER are caused by all breeds. Hell, I was given stitches for a bite to my torso from my Cocker Spaniel as a kid while I was sleeping on my couch.

read the post above yours.

any dog can be trained to attack. ANY DOG. obviously there are statistics to support what pitbulls have done, but do those statistics ever reveal what kind of owners were involved?

a smart and responsible does all of the things you mentioned.