Two dogs shot in London by police

[flowagurl]

I’m usually very empathetic and recently even posted on an animal testing post but I just can’t find any compassion in my heart for out of control and dangerous animals at the moment, it’s just getting ridiculous. I obviously feel for the owner who I hope gets some kind of mental support/ counselling.

It’s so confusing as I’m usually so compassionate, I guess having a small child and the number of dog attacks does something to your brain? I hate walking past Bullies with my baby in the pram. Even normal dogs I’m starting to get very hesitant about. For context I usually cry if I step on a silver worm in the bathroom so this is a very strange reaction for me.

Interested to hear what other dog owning/ non dog owning people think. Also the government are going to have to step in at some point right?

https://metro.co.uk/2022/07/17/mum-of-two-43-killed-by-xl-bully-that-suddenly-snapped-is-pictured-17016052/

"Ms Robinson said: ‘They were good dogs, they are not a banned breed and were not dangerous. They were not related but they got on well together. I don’t know why they suddenly snapped.’"

Au contraire. They were dangerous. You just didn't realise they were dangerous - which pretty much sums up the problem with bull breeds.

I just don't see how anyone can look at the picture above with the ball and not think fuck me that's a dangerous beast! They are so ugly and aggressive looking, they look evil even when people say they are happy.
Maybe I can understand almost a labrador or cockerpoo but they still are irredemibly ugly to me, not in the league of that black beast above though.

And I very much doubt they were a nice family with 2 of those and they put a gold chain round the neck! Not sure what look that projects, violent thug keep away maybe?

Because they don’t. Human life trumps dog life legally and morally. Putting a dog down humanly and quietly because it is a significant risk to human being is not a war crime or as stated above genocide, dogs don’t anticipate. It’s actually the kindest outcome for a dog a million times better than being kennelled up alone with severe restrictions on its ability to exercise socialise for the rest of its life with people who are sacred of or looking after it.

Seized dogs are:

Dogs accused of an offence
Dogs suspected of being an illegal breed

Unless you want to totally re-write how our justice system works, you can't euthanise, ie destroy peoples property, without finding out if the accusations are in fact true - to do so would be to find humans guilty without a court case, effectively.

So dogs are held, at the tax payers cost, for months, almost a year in many cases.

They don't actually have to be, in cases where theres low risk of someone moving the dog on/absconding with the dog, there really is no need but the standard procedure is to seize and then hold the dog until the court case.

Many many dogs go through this and are not an illegal breed, have not behaved dangerously, so it is not as simple as 'all seized dogs are definitely guilty/owners are definitely guilty'. Nor that they're all dangerous - I have worked with many section 1 seized dogs, most are genuinely lovely dogs put into shitty situations by shitty owners and shitty breeders. (Whether there are homes for these dogs is another matter of course!)

With respect - a dogs personality is not 'set' by spending time with a bad owner necessarily. Some are beyond help, and breed is not a factor there tbh, I have had to make the decision to euth some very attractive, adorable looking dogs, spaniel crosses, golden retriever crosses, collie crosses, JRT types... because they were beyond fucked by humans and absolutely dangerous.

But thats not universal, as really solid example, almost ALL the ex-fighting dogs rescued from american dog fighter Michael Vick, who suffered some of the most extreme abuse imaginable, became happy, easily managed and well trained family pets. Whilst understandably some were not great with other dogs, as responsibly owned pets they were fine and lived out their lives for the most part, well into old age. Out of 49, 47 were successfully rehabbed.

Clear case of an owner with zero clue about dog behaviour.

In other reports the picture becomes much clearer, the two dogs hated one another and were repeatedly fighting and subsequent to Joannes death, kept separated.

Add in a heatwave and perhaps a couple of other factors (usual stuff, owners arguing, drunken stupidity, change in routine, a few stressful incidences out on walks etc) and the dogs get to one another by accident, humans step in to separate... an absolute recipe for disaster!

I have lost track of the number of times I have explained to clients or prospective clients that keeping two dogs in the same home, who MUST be kept completely separate, is nigh on impossible, incredibly stressful for dogs and humans, liable to mean dogs are frustrated and their needs will not be appropriately met, and the situation is likely to go wrong... and therefore they should rehome one...

And they don't want to, they think they can manage and they put their desire to keep both dogs (or to avoid making a difficult decision), ahead of the dogs welfare. It's difficult when it's two small breeds but when it's two massive dogs.

This is why I despair when people bang on about how awful it is to rehome dogs, shaming people for 'giving up on' their dogs, telling awful stories about how much the dog will suffer.

Responsible owners will rehome a dog to somewhere else if they cannot meet their dogs needs! Maybe if Joanne had understood that, and understood a bit more about dog behaviour, she'd be alive.

Any breed of dog with a proven history of KILLING people (not just biting them) or mauling them so badly that their injuries are life changing, should be absolutely banned. Why even take a slight risk? You can take all the precautions you like, read all the books and do all the training, but even then WHY take the risk? There are hundreds of breeds of dogs out there, whose chances of mauling or killing you are statistically irrelevant.

The type of person who wants to own one of these monster dogs is the the very last person who should be allowed to own one.

They were dangerous. You just didn't realise they were dangerous - which pretty much sums up the problem with bull breeds.

I disagree. There is no "problem" with any breed of any dog. The only problems are the thick, idiotic, stupid idiots who continue to prattle about how their dogs aren't. If you could somehow get rid of these people, there would be no problem with dogs.

Ok so the owner had zero clue about dogs I’m not denying this but 2 squabbling toy poodle for example are not going to inflict the same level of lethal damage that a 45kg block of solid muscle is. I used to own a miniature poodle he struggled to bite through dried biscuits he just didnt have the strength in his jaws to crunch them up. These xtra large American bullys and other similar breeds have massive jaw muscles clearly seen by the shape of the faces and corresponding powerful and lethal bite.
Anyway these two dogs may have hated each and that might have the root cause for them turning on and killing their owner but that doesn’t apply in all the other cases.

I agree, to me the dog looks very intimidating, I would keep well away from it.
However, I frequently see dogs of various sizes which I find very unappealing looks wise but the owner clearly doesnt, love is blind & without reason when it comes to dogs it seems

A dog doesn't have to bite to do damage - or to terrify.

Those are heavy dogs. When they run into you it's like being hit by a truck - they are solid muscle and bone. The woman may not have been bitten but she could have fallen and cracked her skull, been pushed into the road into traffic etc. And a strange dog can be very intimidating. They should have been leashed.

Thank you for that account.

As you rightly say, it's hard to tell whether the black dogs would have attacked the other or not. The dogs' tails wagging can be friendliness - it can also be in anticipation of a "ripping-to-bits" session (Though to be fair, it doesn't seem like this was their motivation.) However even a play session can turn very serious if one dog gets hurt - and if one yelps it can stimulate really nasty responses in others if they have a high prey drive - and once dogs of this type start attacking others it is very hard to stop them. They get a massive adrenaline rush from it. It is also progressive. The first "attack" (inverted commas, because the first time is likely to be accidental)my just be a nip. The next will have more opurpose, and every subsequent attack will become more serious and the dogs will start actively look of victims.

Had I been the woman in this situation I would have been terrified, with for myself and my dog. It was dreadful that the dogs were shot, but it was the fault of the owner, not of the police or the complainant. The police did the right thing, sadly. This man would not have controlled his dogs - ever - and sooner or later someone or some animal would have ended up being badly mauled by them, or even killed. Owner's fault. No-one else's.

Police would not prosecute owners as dog had been destroyed and they had been seen to be responsible in the end, having chosen not to have the dog patched up.

Cheaper to destroy it than to patch it up, more like - not to mention the fine they would have incurred.

I'm so sorry about your little dog - that must have been horrible for you - and I hope your husband recovered and wasn't too badly bitten.

If a dog like that attacked you, you better believe you would need a hospital
thank you @CrazyLadie for making the case for why 'dogs like that' should NOT be domestic pets

I totally agree, sad story all in all. The owner is the only one to blame.
That woman came forward and said that the black dogs bit her dog in the head and the belly and that he was being treated.

and once dogs of this type start attacking others it is very hard to stop them. They get a massive adrenaline rush from it. It is also progressive. The first "attack" (inverted commas, because the first time is likely to be accidental)my just be a nip. The next will have more purpose, and every subsequent attack will become more serious and the dogs will start actively look of victims
these dogs are not suited to being pets, we should not have to live with the threat of dog attacks

My (sort of, lives with my parents and brother after I moved out) Dobermann got attacked by my Cane Corso and sadly passed away. Two adults tried separating them to no avail.

If you saw my cane corso you'd probably describe him as a giant teddy bear, appears very kind, very gentle and docile.

I love my dogs but there's no way on earth I would ever let my toddler near them. Let alone unaccompanied. Never.

They're animals at the end of the end and they can be very unpredictable.

Have you kept the Cane Corso after it killed another dog? Aren't you worried about your toddler?

If you saw my cane corso you'd probably describe him as a giant teddy bear
no that's what you see, I'd see a dangerous predator

Why didn't you get it euthanised after the attack?

Sorry for the confusion, he was euthanised.

Even before the incident, the dogs would be in their separate garden area whenever kids or guests were around.

They would be let out in the rest of the farm the rest of the time.

That's fair enough.

What I meant is that animals lovers would describe him as a big cuddly creature that would do no harm to anyone when it is often a very naive conclusion to draw.

My cousin once tried to get an aggressive guard dog to come and sit on his lap, and when instructed by the OWNERS not to, he told them it was fine and that it was harmless and cute.

some animal lovers*

That's fair enough
thank you🙏@wewillalwayshaveparis

That's a relief - like others I read your post as meaning that you still had the dog.