ChatterBank7 mins ago
Police (Correctly) Kill Dog But P E T A Spokeswoman Needs Muzzling
77 Answers
Police did all they could in this incident and all agreed they took the correct course of action.
The PETA spokeswoman however had to give her idiotic two pennorth worth:
http://
The PETA spokeswoman however had to give her idiotic two pennorth worth:
http://
Answers
It was a loose dog on a dual carriage way that had bitten a Policeman -end of - if they had captured it and given it back to the Hunt Kennels the huntsman would have killed it anyway. It would have been kinder to shoot it but that was not possible (apparently)
20:26 Thu 25th Feb 2016
I had a wry smile at the 'owner said they were devastated' but agreed the Police had to destroy the Animal
Hunt hounds are routinely put down by the Hunt when they get too old, lame or uncontrollable. Had this hound been successfully captured and returned to the hunt kennels it would more than likely have been euthanised by the Hunt staff.
Hunt hounds are routinely put down by the Hunt when they get too old, lame or uncontrollable. Had this hound been successfully captured and returned to the hunt kennels it would more than likely have been euthanised by the Hunt staff.
Retro is quite correct - I was on the point of writing almost exactly the same.
With regard to the Police firearm unit that attended: they would have been equipped with 9mm handguns and possibly .223 carbines. Neither weapon is suitable for shooting a moving target in these circumstances due to the risk of over penetration. They would have needed to return to their base, find someone to open the armoury and issue a shotgun and ammunition and then return to the scene. Bearing in mind the time of night and the logistical problems involved I think they made the right (though regrettable) decision.
With regard to the Police firearm unit that attended: they would have been equipped with 9mm handguns and possibly .223 carbines. Neither weapon is suitable for shooting a moving target in these circumstances due to the risk of over penetration. They would have needed to return to their base, find someone to open the armoury and issue a shotgun and ammunition and then return to the scene. Bearing in mind the time of night and the logistical problems involved I think they made the right (though regrettable) decision.
From elsewhere on the BBC site:
The National Police Chiefs' Council says it doesn't offer official guidance on how to deal with dogs on roads, and that forces and officers must decide for themselves how to react.
"It's best described as a drastic action, but possibly justified," says Doug Boulton, a former traffic officer with Staffordshire Police who runs the forensic accident investigation firm D&HB Associates. "There would have been very little time to make this decision. If cars were already swerving there might have been an accident in which a person, a child maybe, was injured or killed."
The alternatives would have been to close the road and catch the dog, or close the road, and make sure the surrounding area was clear, and shoot it. "Those would be time-consuming and there might not have been enough officers on duty in the area to block off the road in a hurry," says Boulton. "The officers wouldn't have done what they did lightly and it must have been horrendous for them to run over the dog." He adds that he's never heard of police taking this action before.
North Wales Police says other methods of destroying the dog were considered but rejected because they were too dangerous to drivers
That's a fair assessment. Shooting a stray, running dog at dark o'clock would have been difficult in the extreme. These are Police Officers with limited time and resources, not DEVGRU operatives on a search and destroy mission. It had already bitten an officer and vehicles had swerved to avoid it. They were left no option IMHO.
The National Police Chiefs' Council says it doesn't offer official guidance on how to deal with dogs on roads, and that forces and officers must decide for themselves how to react.
"It's best described as a drastic action, but possibly justified," says Doug Boulton, a former traffic officer with Staffordshire Police who runs the forensic accident investigation firm D&HB Associates. "There would have been very little time to make this decision. If cars were already swerving there might have been an accident in which a person, a child maybe, was injured or killed."
The alternatives would have been to close the road and catch the dog, or close the road, and make sure the surrounding area was clear, and shoot it. "Those would be time-consuming and there might not have been enough officers on duty in the area to block off the road in a hurry," says Boulton. "The officers wouldn't have done what they did lightly and it must have been horrendous for them to run over the dog." He adds that he's never heard of police taking this action before.
North Wales Police says other methods of destroying the dog were considered but rejected because they were too dangerous to drivers
That's a fair assessment. Shooting a stray, running dog at dark o'clock would have been difficult in the extreme. These are Police Officers with limited time and resources, not DEVGRU operatives on a search and destroy mission. It had already bitten an officer and vehicles had swerved to avoid it. They were left no option IMHO.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
How it Works8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul59 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.