Federal Agent kills dog in dog park

[Brian]

...

[gendao]

And then there's those chronic miles long discussions of "living in the present" on "spiritual" forums. Well... the dog under scrutiny is in the present, in this-here thread, right now; millions of other dogs are not. Pay attention?..

Well, some choose to allow the media to prioritize issues for them with their selective coverage and slant.

 

Others may choose to independently prioritize issues based upon statistical importance.

 

For example, I can just as easily post another article like this:

Two-week-old baby Kate Morey died in Princess Margaret Hospital from head injuries sustained when she was attacked in her cot by the family's Siberian husky on Monday night in their Willetton home.

 

"The husky had lived for approximately seven years with all members of the family at various times,'' Mr Coffey said.

 

The dog has always been a loving family pet.

 

"Our daughter Tanya and her partner Michael are deeply traumatised and are unable to explain why it happened or how they will be able to cope with the future.

 

"They are unable to return to the home because the memories are too devastating.

 

"No matter how well you think you know your pet, you can never predict how they will react in different situations . . .,'' Ms Ellis said.

Are we supposed to crusade against Huskies as baby-killers, now? Do babies trump dogs in public sympathy because they're cuter? Should we start a "Justice for Kate" Facebook page - even though these scenarios are also uncommon?

 

I just don't think it's fair to overspeculate and judge this case until more of the facts are known. Otherwise, you just become a Pavlovian puppet of trials-by-media who can get played like a stringed instrument.

 

Allowing the media to act as a court of law can be very harmful, btw. Countless innocent reputations have been ruined this way very unfairly. While other guilty parties have been wrongly acquitted. sO, I refuse to be manipulated like this!

 

Fact is, the truth could be somewhere in the middle. Maybe Bear-Bear was "playing." But playing over-aggressively and biting.. Maybe the Fed did powertrip & overreact. (That's why I am anti-Socialist & want to restrain centralized authority - to prevent such a police state against the people.) Maybe it's some or none of the above?

 

But if we rush to judgment in this case, should we also eliminate due process in all other cases as well? Or only in cases involving cute, fluffy animals vs big, bad cops?

 

And should we keep ignoring the millions of other pets killed yearly by animal shelters simply because the media does not report each death? The mere act of which magnifies its importance over millions of other deeaths... If an animal dies and nobody writes an article about it, did it still die? If we focused on careless pet owners instead of cops - wouldn't we save a million more pet lives a year?

Edited August 6, 2010 by vortex

[Owledge]

(That's why I am anti-Socialist & want to restrain centralized authority - to prevent such a police state against the people.)

Socialism doesn't necessarily have to mean big centralized power. The original meaning is a governmental characteristic of putting the well-being of people along the lines of social principles at the top.

Typical 'western' countries quite clearly put the economy at the top. They may try to convince you that a healthy economy leads to a healthy society, but this is just a trick, because if socialism were dominant, they would rather say that a healthy society leads to a healthy economy. More likely the term "healthy economy" would lose its meaning, because when the society is healthy, you don't care to even ponder on whether the economy can be healthy/unhealthy or what that means in the first place. If you are concerned about the health of economy, then people have to serve it to make sure that it is healthy. The master-slave-relationship in this order leads to tyranny. Economy is only a function, a relatively abstract thing.

 

It is ironic: You say you are against Socialism because you fear a police state. Now two things are obvious:

1) The USA are far from being socialist.

2) The USA are in the process of becoming a police state.

 

I often notice how deeply ingrained the communist-threat-trauma still is in the USA. It has created many misconceptions.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Hardyg

[Seth Ananda]

I sometimes stay with friends way out bush in a tiny little town called Gafney's Creek. It's a (or used to be) mining town with only 8 permanent residence. Some how or other there are packs of wild dogs roaming the area, I guess people just dumped pets they didnt want and now years later they are a gang of Terror. When we go out we carry a rifle, and if we see bear bear coming at us, well...

 

I went walking with my Maori house mate years ago and he got attacked by a pit bull. He had to kill it with his bare hands to get it off his leg... gruesome!

 

I guess this partially explains how i Feel about dogs. I enjoy them on a case by case situation. But as for how I would do things differently?

well if I was the cop and he is telling the truth, i would have done exactly what he did.

Why risk leaving an dangerous animal alive. Sure the owner might hate me after but if we are engaging in hypothetical's, I would assume that i am potentially saving the life of a child he has or may one day have.

 

If it was both our dog's fault, and mine would not listen to me, well i cant decide between shooting both Bear bear and Fido - or just going home.

[Owledge]

I guess this partially explains how i Feel about dogs. I enjoy them on a case by case situation. But as for how I would do things differently?

well if I was the cop and he is telling the truth, i would have done exactly what he did.

The wildcats in the tiger monastery are probably safer to deal with.

You knew that? There's a monastery where young and wounded tigers are brought to, so they grow up in a monastery among buddhist monks and adopt their relaxed attitude. Tourist visit regularly and are allowed to pet them.

[Guest sykkelpump]

No need to shoot a dog because of a little dogfight.dogs can fight for long time without doing deadly damage on each other.especially if they are equal size.and first of all he should try to separate them before shooting the dog.I have had three amstaffs and now I have an american bulldog,i have separated some accident fights and it usually is not a problem.Especially not if the other dogs owner is there to help

[gendao]

Socialism doesn't necessarily have to mean big centralized power. The original meaning is a governmental characteristic of putting the well-being of people along the lines of social principles at the top.

Typical 'western' countries quite clearly put the economy at the top. They may try to convince you that a healthy economy leads to a healthy society, but this is just a trick, because if socialism were dominant, they would rather say that a healthy society leads to a healthy economy. More likely the term "healthy economy" would lose its meaning, because when the society is healthy, you don't care to even ponder on whether the economy can be healthy/unhealthy or what that means in the first place. If you are concerned about the health of economy, then people have to serve it to make sure that it is healthy. The master-slave-relationship in this order leads to tyranny. Economy is only a function, a relatively abstract thing.

 

It is ironic: You say you are against Socialism because you fear a police state. Now two things are obvious:

1) The USA are far from being socialist.

2) The USA are in the process of becoming a police state.

 

I often notice how deeply ingrained the communist-threat-trauma still is in the USA. It has created many misconceptions.

Of course, I disagree. Collectivism is a slippery slope towards Communism/fascism/despotism due to the centralization of money & political power. This is why most such totalitarian regimes all started out as some sort of leftist utopian Trojan Horse - like the "National Socialist German Workers' Party"...

 

Anyhow, feel free to revive the Communism thread if you really want to..

[Mal]

but my intention for this post was to solicit feedback on how others would have responded if they were in the off-duty officer's situation.

 

I was most curious about how people, ostensibly modern warriors with some semblance of martial training, internal energy, and a well-developed reverence for life and non-violence could imagine alternative scenarios,

 

While I can imagine alternatives solutions If I had thought this

 

Aggressive dog attacking your pet + his wife was in harms way

 

and had access to gun. I would have shot it too.

[Encephalon]

Of course, I disagree. Collectivism is a slippery slope towards Communism/fascism/despotism due to the centralization of money & political power. This is why most such totalitarian regimes all started out as some sort of leftist utopian Trojan Horse - like the ...

 

Anyhow, feel free to revive the Communism thread if you really want to..

 

Sorry, but you've been out to lunch with your political ideas for quite a while now. Assigning the same definition to communism, socialism and fascism fails to acknowldege the simplest conclusions we can all draw about the contemporary political spectrum and how and where theories are plotted. And I've heard and seen the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" reference dragged out by more right-wing wingnuts that I could shake a stick at. The Nazis structured their title as a shrewd but ultimately transparent attempt to patronize and deflect criticism from the left-leaning German working class. Hitler killed all of the socialists and communists very early in his campaign and followed through with every anti-labor crusade the corporate class asked for.

 

It's astonishing how simple historical facts can escape seemingly intelligent people living in a relatively open information universe. But I think more specifically, it is a testament of the Right's ability to cast all "isms" of political thought (except capitalism, of course) in a perjorative light and cause these essential truths to disappear from the public conscience in a single generation.

[Guest sykkelpump]

While I can imagine alternatives solutions If I had thought this

 

 

 

and had access to gun. I would have shoot it too.

 

why would you shoot it?

Would you shoot your dog if he started the fight?

it is very normal that two males get into a fight,nothing special.It doesnt tell anything about if the dog is good or bad

Stupid people with no knowledge about dogs,I hope you have neither a gun or a

dog.

By the way this lust for kill doesent match well with your tao image

Edited August 6, 2010 by sykkelpump

[C T]

Good thing dogs don't carry guns...

[Guest sykkelpump]

Good thing dogs don't carry guns...

[Owledge]

By the way this lust for kill doesent match well with your tao image

Taoist don't have to be pacifists.

Furthermore, the way Mal put it (perceiving a violent threat by a being you can't talk out of it that well), it appears not unreasonable to me.

By the way, aren't the dogs you own bred for fight? Must be a challenge, making them overcome their roots of aggression. As fas as I understand, you let them walk off-leash. Big responsibility. It's only a bold assumption, but could it be that because you are indeed aware of this, but don't want to work on the 'problem' from your own side, you condemn other people being threatened by a dog and killing it?

I just say it because a somewhat similar behavior came to my mind: smokers who smoke near non-smokers and demand that they don't make a scene and be over-sensitive, and should regard the freedoms of the smoker. Here, they don't want to deal with the reality of their nicotine-addiction, thus they condemn others who suffer under their habit.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Hardyg

[gendao]

Sorry, but you've been out to lunch with your political ideas for quite a while now. Assigning the same definition to communism, socialism and fascism fails to acknowldege the simplest conclusions we can all draw about the contemporary political spectrum and how and where theories are plotted. And I've heard and seen the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" reference dragged out by more right-wing wingnuts that I could shake a stick at. The Nazis structured their title as a shrewd but ultimately transparent attempt to patronize and deflect criticism from the left-leaning German working class. Hitler killed all of the socialists and communists very early in his campaign and followed through with every anti-labor crusade the corporate class asked for.

There are obviously some relations between those ideologies. Communism is a more extreme form of Socialism...and both fertilize the ground for fascism.

 

And yes, that's why I called Socialism a Trojan Horse in those cases.

 

Bait & switch is always a textbook realpolitik tactic. Obviously, no tyrant is going to achieve the public support he needs to come to power by honestly promising the people iron-fisted despotism, lmao! That's not going to go over too well.. No, he must lie & seduce them like a woman...

 

Communism was the same crap. Promising the poor they'd all get liberated and yadda, yadda... End result is that ~120 million were killed worldwide - both proletariats and bourgeois alike. Because that wasn't the real dichotomy to begin with. That's real history for you. Which we are doomed to repeat if we still fail to learn from it!

Edited August 7, 2010 by vortex

[Owledge]

Vortex, I think you make the 'mistake' of filling the words socialism and communism with historical events under the name of these, and thus it is easy to, for example, say "Communism has failed" or "The Soviet Union showed that Communism can't work". These isms don't have that much to do with the ensuing problems. This can be seen by examining many historical cases and finding that there are cased that disprove one side and prove the other, so to speak.

You have countless capitalistic countries turning tyrannic, and you have Venezuela for example, being socialistic and really helping the people. And why does it work? Doesn't have to do with isms, but with Chavez not being a power-hungry sociopath.

 

Look at the root, guys. It's people! People create societies, systems, concepts ... everything politic is a man-made creation. A man of Chavez's character as the US president could help making things develop quite nicely, without abandoning the so-called American values ... the good ones, that is. A country holding values that are not serving the people of course won't make life easy for the common people. And that is what I tried to convey: Advocats of so-called capitalism (maybe more accurately monetarism) and generally many others openly admit that in such a system you can't expect it to serve the people, that the highest aim of businesses is to make profit, not serve a social purpose. You see, there's the inherent truth: In socialism (I mean the true concept, not necessarily what happens in its name in the world) a business doesn't have to maximize profit. It has a duty to fulfill, to provide as much service/products as are required.

This of course can be corrupted, but then it's faulty socialism, while in capitalism, corruption is an inherent, in parts even accepted, principle.

 

(irony on) You know... probably only communists would see the Iraq war as being illegal. See it as an opportunity! Well, they say it turned out to be a disaster, but you can't just count the dead, you know. Think of the profits that Halliburton made! (irony off)

 

Oh, and I might have mentioned it somewhere already, but it is good for dissolving misconceptions:

The Venezuelan government is very liberal. US americans could become jealous of how nicely they honor the true meaning of liberalism - by printing articles of the constitution on food packagings, so that every Venezuelan knows their rights and can participate in defending them ... what they did.

It almost sounds like a fairytale or something and it being true is quite inspiring: Chavez was rescued by the people. When he was kidnapped by western commercial interests, the people took to the streets, which led to a turning of the tides again, overthrowing the illegal covernment and they had to let Chavez free.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Hardyg

[Encephalon]

There are obviously some relations between those ideologies. Communism is a more extreme form of Socialism...and both fertilize the ground for fascism.

 

And yes, that's why I called Socialism a Trojan Horse in those cases.

 

Bait & switch is always a textbook realpolitik tactic. Obviously, no tyrant is going to achieve the public support he needs to come to power by honestly promising the people iron-fisted despotism, lmao! That's not going to go over too well.. No, he must lie & seduce them like a woman...

 

Communism was the same crap. Promising the poor they'd all get liberated and yadda, yadda... End result is that ~120 million were killed worldwide - both proletariats and bourgeois alike. Because that wasn't the real dichotomy to begin with. That's real history for you. Which we are doomed to repeat if we still fail to learn from it!

 

You won't get any argument from me on the devastation of authoritarian regimes masquerading as champions of the proletariat. I'm not sure by what margin global capitalism exceeds the moral leverage of collectivist experiments, but I do know that the 3.0+ billion who subsist on no more than $2/day do not support the triumphalism of laissez-faire. 85% of the people in S. America would've considered Eastern Bloc collectivism a significant increase over cardboard houses and meals culled from urban refuse piles.

[Guest sykkelpump]

Taoist don't have to be pacifists.

Furthermore, the way Mal put it (perceiving a violent threat by a being you can't talk out of it that well), it appears not unreasonable to me.

By the way, aren't the dogs you own bred for fight? Must be a challenge, making them overcome their roots of aggression. As fas as I understand, you let them walk off-leash. Big responsibility. It's only a bold assumption, but could it be that because you are indeed aware of this, but don't want to work on the 'problem' from your own side, you condemn other people being threatened by a dog and killing it?

I just say it because a somewhat similar behavior came to my mind: smokers who smoke near non-smokers and demand that they don't make a scene and be over-sensitive, and should regard the freedoms of the smoker. Here, they don't want to deal with the reality of their nicotine-addiction, thus they condemn others who suffer under their habit.

you assume a lot.I don walk my dogs without a leash,but I sometimes meet others who do.and no,they arent breed to fight.they are just pets

[Mal]

Stupid people with no knowledge about dogs,I hope you have neither a gun or a

dog.

 

I've had dogs and love them, I love living things even going out of my way to move insects rather than squashing them.

 

Alternatively I've had handguns too, they are dirty hateful things. Seriously pick one up, feels nothing like a skeet shooting shotgun for example. It's like you can feel the intent for which they were made (killing people) Rifles feel a bit the same, as do live swords, a tool for killing.

 

By the way this lust for kill doesent match well with your tao image

 

that's a leap. As I said "while I can imagine alternatives solutions" I'm not going to propose any from the comfort of my armchair having had 2 days to think about this thread. That can't be compared to thought process in the field in a pressure situation.

[DanC]

This cop is a disgrace, typical crook with a badge..