I believe the shoot to stop A.K.A
kill came more recently from the threat of potential suicide bombers. The idea that an ordinary person who has been shot somewhere in the upper chest/shoulder area, or possible in the upper leg, is going to be pissed with you is only partly true. They of course will be rather unhappy bunnies, but in not much state to attack you. They also should know that if they don't get medical attention, they will drop dead in a few hours. But at least they won't be shot dead to start with. A police officer is only ever supposed to use enough force to neutralise the immediate threat, not some future threat from a vengeful ex con stalking them in 20 years time.
Based on the main 2 videos, how would UK police like it, if we citizens decide when we are going about our lawful business, their police doggies are threatening our life? Nowhere do I recall signing up for a police state where wearing that uniform gives you greater rights than the ordinary person. It's supposed to be policing by consent, I feel many police quickly forget that after getting their badge.
If you all would like to follow up on this particular story, it's interesting to note how much variation in story, multiple witnesses give. Also there are multiple different videos taken of that shooting I've found. Some say the dogs didn't even bite the woman, some do. Some say the dogs attacked someone else, others don't. Some give details opposite to others. There was zero consensus. Even the various reporters around the world, where this story spread, gave different slants, some going to great lengths to report the shooting with details from other incidents where dogs have attacked humans - hardly impartial reporting even if in the name of background. Bit like mentioning how many black men have shot people, when reporting how Zimmerman killed a 17 year old in the belief they were some criminal. That sort of reporting adds bias to what should be factual stating of erm facts.
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, XX (XX.XX.XX) of no fixed address was charged on Tuesday, 9 May with:
- Being the person/owner of a dog that was dangerously out of control (with injury);
- Being in possession/custody of a dog whilst disqualified from owning or keeping a dog.
does that sound right? Not to me, That sounds like the usual cover our own backs. There is no way what happened can be called "dog that was dangerously out of control" Of course he may well have been banned, but that isn't excuse to shoot the dogs dead.
And it makes an absolutely mockery of how high the bar is for dangerous driving compared to careless driving, as we all know as cyclists. If everyone was charged with dangerously out of control dogs, there wouldn't be many dog owners left, as it's inevitable that many at least once will have a bark and warning lunge at a clear threat. Dogs are naturally defensive of "their pack"
To my mind this is the usual story of some homeless guy or someone just different, being castigated, and people's assessment being based solely on their readership of the daily flail, not actual facts. For all we know the guy had been minding his own business, and somebody tried sending him on his way, and then exaggerates what happened. Two eye witnesses claim the dogs never bit the woman but the woman tripped over the leads, a quite credible possibility. Without seeing video of that encounter I'm not prepared to condemn anyone at all. For someone on this forum however to decide that was enough evidence to call for the dogs execution lacks thought.
We all could be innocent people falsely accused, anyone of us.
someone just minding his own business...