Garda receives 100 stitches after pitbull attack..

event

whitser wrote: »

no one saying the garda deserved that, but does the dog deserve to be put down for couragesly protecting his master and home from intruders?

if a child was visiting the house and started attacking the "master" with a toy sword, ye know playing, and the dog attacked it, would that be ok?

no doubt you'll say its not teh same, but it is.

how can a dog tell the difference between a child attacking and an adult attacking? it cant, it would respond the same way.

is that a situation that you are ok with?

whitser

Rodney Trotter wrote: »

An absolutely ridiculous post.

why? if you were sitting at home and a gang of robbers burst in your door and started shouting etc.. would you blame your dog for attcking? of course not.

whitser

event wrote: »

if a child was visiting the house and started attacking the "master" with a toy sword, ye know playing, and the dog attacked it, would that be ok?

no doubt you'll say its not teh same, but it is.

how can a dog tell the difference between a child attacking and an adult attacking? it cant, it would respond the same way.

is that a situation that you are ok with?

theres a big difference between a child visiting and someone kicking in your door and shouting and grabbing people. dogs know when theres a threat. its not the same.
if your at home and somone attacks your house would you blame your dog for attcking?

Rodney Trotter

whitser wrote: »

why? if you were sitting at home and a gang of robbers burst in your door and started shouting etc.. would you blame your dog for attcking? of course not.

Leave your fairy stories out of this and stick to the facts.

Look at what actually happened, not this "if .........." BS.

Simple facts. Garda was severely injured by a dangerous animal.

Simple solution. Exterminate the dangerous animal.

whitser

limerickros wrote: »

Any dog that attacks a human should be put down.

These dogs are not the police force.

Are you waiting for one of the incidents like what happened in the UK where kids were killed by dogs.

Maybe you would like to give them dogs medals for protecting their masters

if it had been armed robbers that attacked your home the dogs would be hailed as heros.

whitser

Rodney Trotter wrote: »

Leave your fairy stories out of this and stick to the facts.

Look at what actually happened, not this "if .........." BS.

Simple facts. Garda was severely injured by a dangerous animal.

Simple solution. Exterminate the dangerous animal.

if this dog wasnt a pitbull would your attitude be the same. not a fairy story, as the dog sees it, people where violently intruding in his home so he protected his family.

whitser

let me make it clear, i dont own a pitbull. and i cant stand drug dealing scum either,i hope they get 20 yrs. but the dog was only doing right by his master.
if a farmer down the country's house is raided by the scum that target old farmer and his dog savaged one of them,it would get a medal. and this dog did exactly that.

Rodney Trotter

whitser wrote: »

if this dog wasnt a pitbull would your attitude be the same. not a fairy story, as the dog sees it, people where violently intruding in his home so he protected his family.

Two things

1. Where have I mentioned the breed of dog?

and

2. Try answering, or posting, without using the word "if" ?

whitser

im using the word if to make the point that as far as the dog was concerned it was protecting his master, he was in his house and people violently intruted. so how can the dog be blamed. he doesnt know his master is a scum bag, that the garda were only doing their job. the dog wasnt a gang member.

event

whitser wrote: »

theres a big difference between a child visiting and someone kicking in your door and shouting and grabbing people. dogs know when theres a threat. its not the same.
if your at home and somone attacks your house would you blame your dog for attcking?

how do you know they kicked in the door, shouted or grabbed people?

also, if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle

whitser

event wrote: »

how do you know they kicked in the door, shouted or grabbed people?

also, if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle

that usually what happens when the garda do a drugs raid,its quick and they use element of surprise so that the scumbags cant flush the gear down the toilet. fact is none of us were there.

az2wp0sye65487

Rodney Trotter wrote: »

Simple facts. Garda was severely injured by a dangerous animal.

Simple solution. Exterminate the dangerous animal.

ANY dog would have done the same in that situation..... What exactly is a "dangerous animal" ?? Pets protect their owners. Forget the fact that there were criminals and Gardai involved.... From the dogs point of view there was a threat to him and his master, so he protected.

The Gardai should have known what they were getting themselves into, should have known about the dogs being kept there etc.

Now, I don't believe that the Guard deserved it... but it was definitely NOT and un-provoked attack. The guards should have brought trained animal handlers with them to deal with the dogs.

Don't think i used "if" anywhere in that argument either :cool:

r3nu4l

It's simple enough really

1) The dog was doing its duty
2) It protected its owner(s)
3) It should be killed

Sad for the dog but better for humanity.

Unfortunately pit bulls were bred for their aggressiveness, very useful in some situations but as always when scumbags own dogs they don't socialise them or discourage that aggressive behaviour. Many scumbags...including drug types, deliberately encourage aggressive behaviour and know exactly what breeds to choose to get the best reaction from them. The fact that the poor animals (pit bulls) are pure ugly and look menacing also helps :rolleyes:

It is possible to make a pit bull understand that aggressiveness is wrong and won't be tolerated but in some situations instinct takes over. This is why seemingly playful dogs and loving family pets sometimes turn on members of an owners family, including children. For that reason...instinct...I would not allow pit bulls near children. There tolerance levels can be high but when they do let loose, they go mental. Where another dog might growl and maybe snap a warning, pit bulls tend to go in full tilt!

whitser

Madilyn Tinkling Dough wrote: »

ANY dog would have done the same in that situation..... What exactly is a "dangerous animal" ?? Pets protect their owners. Forget the fact that there were criminals and Gardai involved.... From the dogs point of view there was a threat to him and his master, so he protected.

The Gardai should have known what they were getting themselves into, should have known about the dogs being kept there etc.

Now, I don't believe that the Guard deserved it... but it was definitely NOT and un-provoked attack. The guards should have brought trained animal handlers with them to deal with the dogs.

Don't think i used "if" anywhere in that argument either :cool:

you made my point much better then i did.

carwash_2006

Pit Bulls were not bred for aggressiveness. They are if anything less inclined to be aggressive than a lot of other dogs. They were bred for their ability and willingness to look after their owners and their high level of loyalty.

They have the misfortune to look quite tough and have the physical capability to inflict a lot of damage if they are provoked. This means that certain types of people are drawn to owning them for use in protection and also for fighting.

It actually takes a lot of work inciting the dogs to fight and many of them are discarded because they can't be got to fight. I cannot see any reason for any dog mistaking a child pretending to attack their owner as a real threat to the owner. Dogs are much better at understanding a real threat than that. The owners response is going to be something that the dog will look for and I would imagine drug dealers being raided by the police would find that quite a considerable threat and would react defensively.

It is not going to work to ban any breed of dog to try and stop situations like this occuring, guns are also illegal and that doesn't stop the people who use them. The only way you might possibly curtail the people who keep dogs for this kind of protection would be to ban all dogs. I personally would not want to live in any country that would take this level of action. Not only because I love dogs, but also the phrase "police state" pops into my mind at the thought.

arybvtcw0eolkf

r3nu4l wrote: »

3) It should be killed

Why?.

r3nu4l

carwash_2006 wrote: »

Pit Bulls were not bred for aggressiveness.

Really? Even pitbull owner websites agree that they were!

pitbullsontheweb.com wrote:

Much of a dog's temperament relates to it's breed history and genetic inheritance. I won't go too deep into the history of the Pit Bull as there are many good books and websites that cover the origin and history of the breed. It is common knowledge however, that the Pit Bull breed was developed for blood sports: Bull baiting, bear baiting, and later, dogfighting. What is not common knowledge is that in the days of organized dogfighting, the handlers of the combatants were habitually IN THE PIT with the dogs for the duration of the fight. They were required to pick up and separate the dogs several times while the dogs were in full fight frenzy. Before the fight, the handlers were required to wash each other's dogs, and after the fight, the badly injured dogs were often treated at ringside by strangers. Any dog that attacked or bit a handler (even if it was the other dog's handler) or anyone else at any time was culled, often on the spot, and would never have been bred.

So what this says is that they WERE bred for aggressiveness, owners were often in the pit while the dog fought another dog (and presumably neither dog attacked the human) and that any dog that did bite a human was culled. So even owners at that time recognised that as soon as a dog bites a human it's game over for the dog and rightly so.

Also see this from the same website:

THE GOLDEN RULE OF PIT BULL OWNERSHIP- NEVER TRUST YOUR PIT BULL NOT TO FIGHT!!!!! This breed is descended from pit dogs one way or another, and, given the right circumstances, most Pit Bulls will fight and against any other breed, they will win (you really don't want to see that!

This is coming from a site that encourages ownership of pit bulls but seeks to educate the twats that don't seem to understand what these dogs are capable of and the need for absolute ownership and dominance of the dog.

BTW, anyone who thinks a dog doesn't need to be dominated by a "pack leader" (owner) is barking mad (pardon the intended pun ).

peasant

r3nu4l wrote: »

BTW, anyone who thinks a dog doesn't need to be dominated by a "pack leader" (owner) is barking mad (pardon the intended pun ).

BTW ...anyone who still thinks that you have to dominate your dog in order to become an effective leader / good owner needs to do some reading and get with the times.

It is exactly those dominated dogs that go totally out of control when things get hairy.

arybvtcw0eolkf

r3nu4l Would you know a Pitbull from an English Bull Terrier or a Staffordshire Bull Terrier?.

Or even here in Ireland would you know what someone was referring to if they spoke about an 'Irish Staff'?.

Answer honestly without a google search.

Because the vast majority of non-bull breed owner's that I know couldn't tell the difference.

r3nu4l

peasant wrote: »

BTW ...anyone who still thinks that you have to dominate your dog in order to become an effective leader / good owner needs to do some reading and get with the times.

It is exactly those dominated dogs that go totally out of control when things get hairy.

Oh dear, 'domination' does not always mean beating with a stick, denying food or rubbing a dogs nose in it's own poo etc. :rolleyes: The so-called positive reinforcement training techniques thought today are only domination by a different name It still reinforces that the owner is the person in control and is the pack leader. I understand why the new term is 'positive reinforcement' but at the end of the day you are still telling the dog that you are the boss and if he does what he's told he'll get a reward/benefit...

Mairt wrote: »

r3nu4l Would you know a Pitbull from an English Bull Terrier or a Staffordshire Bull Terrier?.

Or even here in Ireland would you know what someone was referring to if they spoke about an 'Irish Staff'?.

Answer honestly without a google search.

Because the vast majority of non-bull breed owner's that I know couldn't tell the difference.

Honestly, apart from the 'Irish Staff' yes, I could. I've always wanted a dog and seriously considered (and researched) being a dog owner for the past three years...particularly 'bull' terriers. Probably because of the fact that they 'have a face that only a mother could love'

As it turns out I won't be getting any dog simply because my work/lifestyle does not allow me the time I would need to properly care for a dog, least of all the bull terriers that require lots of exercise. So, rather than being selfish and getting one anyway, I've opted out.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Grand so, and thanks for being honest.

So its fair to say you've no real experience of the bull breeds then?.

peasant

r3nu4l wrote: »

Oh dear, 'domination' does not always mean beating with a stick, denying food or rubbing a dogs nose in it's own poo etc. :rolleyes: The so-called positive reinforcement training techniques thought today are only domination by a different name It still reinforces that the owner is the person in control and is the pack leader. I understand why the new term is 'positive reinforcement' but at the end of the day you are still telling the dog that you are the boss and if he does what he's told he'll get a reward/benefit...

Oh dear to you too

As you say yourself, so called "positive re-inforcement" is just domination under a more PC heading.

You ...and most people out there ...are still confusing two things: Domination and leadership. If you dominate your dog (be it the "traditional" way by means of force or the "new" way by means of conditioning for reward), you are not leading your dog.

The dog may do what you want from it (either because of fear of repercussions or because it's hankering after a reward) but as a leader you have still failed.

Your dog does not respect you and more importantly it won't trust you either.
So, when push comes to shove and things get hairy, it will follow its own instincts and and just do what it decides is best in the situation and you will have no control over it.

In case of the "hard men" out there this is probably what they want ...but many owners of common garden variety dogs kid themselves into believing that they have their dog under control, only to be bitterly disappointed when it comes to the crunch.

carwash_2006

r3nu4l wrote: »

Really? Even pitbull owner websites agree that they were!



So what this says is that they WERE bred for aggressiveness, owners were often in the pit while the dog fought another dog (and presumably neither dog attacked the human) and that any dog that did bite a human was culled. So even owners at that time recognised that as soon as a dog bites a human it's game over for the dog and rightly so.

Also see this from the same website:

This is coming from a site that encourages ownership of pit bulls but seeks to educate the twats that don't seem to understand what these dogs are capable of and the need for absolute ownership and dominance of the dog.

BTW, anyone who thinks a dog doesn't need to be dominated by a "pack leader" (owner) is barking mad (pardon the intended pun ).

Or from another web site about pit bulls:

It is the very qualities that make the American PitBull Terrier an outstanding companion dog-intelligence,loyalty,courage, trainability - that attract the criminal element to this breed and make it the most commonly VICTIMIZED. At criminal hands , pitbulls are trained by brutal methods to fight other dogs to death, and to protect their owners during drug deals. Taunting, beating and starvation are common. People's pets(cats, dogs, rabbits) are used as baits to increase aggressive behavior. One dog had actually metal bottle caps sewn under the skin of his neck to ensure he was in constant pain resulting in vicious behavior. Complete lack of socialization (being kept in garages, backyards, abandoned buildings) further exacerbates the situation.

http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.com/

whitser

this incident will be used by some to portray the pit as a devil dog,but if anything it shows its loyalty and couragesness to its owner,imo.

SSS1111

I have 3 staffs very friendly great around the kids , but if some1 was to break down my door and run in shouting armed gardai search warrant they would be running back out that door faster than they came in , if there lucky enough to get out otherwise they wouldnt get out at all , pitbulls not much experience with them .but at the end of the day it wont matter what we say here there will be uproar over this incident and will cost alot more dogs lives.:(:(:(

r3nu4l

Mairt wrote: »

Grand so, and thanks for being honest.

So its fair to say you've no real experience of the bull breeds then?.

Other than minding two of them for two different friends over the course of a few weeks here and there? No. I've no prolonged experience but have more than most on-pitbull owners...especially the rabid anti-pitbull brigade. I deliberately put myself forward to mind those two dogs so that I could get some experience and help me come to a decision about owning one.

peasant wrote: »

In case of the "hard men" out there this is probably what they want ...but many owners of common garden variety dogs kid themselves into believing that they have their dog under control, only to be bitterly disappointed when it comes to the crunch.

carwash_2006 wrote: »

Or from another web site about pit bulls:

Which is why in this instance the dogs should be put down. By encouraging aggressiveness towards humans (which is what most drug dealers and irresponsible owners appear to do) they encourage an attack on humans.

Once this has happened once the dog has stepped over a line that makes it easier to attack a human again, especially if there is no consequence of that action or if a reward is given following that action. IMO, this means that there is no other option than to kill/pu-down/destroy/cull the unfortunate animal.

whitser

so once a dog attacks it should be put down, even its protecting his owner from attack? why bother keeping gaurd dogs then?
a dog that attacks un provoked is a danger and should be killed. but a gaurd dog that attacks to protect his owner his only doing his job.
you cant blame the breed because some a-holes abuse it.

Rodney Trotter

whitser wrote: »

so once a dog attacks it should be put down, ............

Yes.

whitser

so a burgular breaks into your house and the dog attacks him, that dog should put down? if your answer is yes i totally disagree.

az2wp0sye65487

Rodney Trotter wrote: »

Yes.

:rolleyes:

Very strong argument, I like how you use anecdotes & lots of other information to back up your points.

I'm surprised at the lack of an "end of..." or "at the end of the day.."