AIBU to think that something other than killing this dog could have been done?

[NotGonnaAnswerThePhone]

This is such a terrible story and not to be read by the fainthearted.

I understand that the dog could have caused an accident even at 3am when traffic is a lot quieter but surely they could have tranquilised it? Shit, even shooting it would have been more humane than accelerating towards it at such a high speed to ensure the dog would be killed outright.

I'm assuming the 'dog unit' would have come out and done the exact same thing.

Yes, the only thing to have brought this situation round was to involve another dog

Once vehicles had started swerving on a busy road to avoid the dog the police needed to do something quickly. I doubt they had enough officers available to close the road and firearms couldn't get a safe shot. There really weren't many viable options. As for tasering the dog, the shock would have been huge and potentially fatal, a foxhound weighs about 30kg whereas a ram could easily weigh more than an adult man so the two cases aren't really comparable.

I think killing the dog the way they did was the only option albeit a very unpleasant one.

And how would closing the road guarantee that the dog wouldn't just run back onto the area that wasn't closed?

Oh of course. I hadn't even thought of that.

Maybe they should have closed ALL roads?

I don't even find the situation that upsetting. It was a reasonable outcome. The safety of people comes first.

It seems like it if had to be killed, it would have been more humane to shoot it.

genuine question on the medical side- if a dog is highly stressed /overheated/exhausted

as is likely in the situation we are talking about.

would a tranquiliser work still? or would the adrenaline body temp etc mean it could have little or no effect or dosage needed cause a massive heart attack etc.

usually darts are done almost by stealth. people who rescue animals often have to call ot off and come back later to allow time for calming down etc.

I guess what I'm asking is, would the drug end up killing the dog anyway in the situation?

steff13
Firearms officers at the scene were concerned that they couldn't get a safe shot so shooting the dog wasn't an option.

The police can't win - these officers are being vilified for killing the dog having made a judgement in very difficult circumstances.Can you imagine the headlines if someone had been killed by the dog......................

Awful situation and very easy for those not involved to criticise after the event.

When I saw the headline I was quite shocked, thinking this was a case of deliberate animal cruelty (I suspect that was done deliberately to draw people in).

Once I read the article I thought how awful, but I can see why it happened. What an awful decision to have to make.

Based on what I've read, I feel sorry for the officers involved because once their identities come out (which they are blound to do) they'll be a target for abuse.

I've read the thread, I disagree with what the police did. That's allowed.

They did what was right at the time. Poor sods.

Can everyone who has posted suggesting the RSPCA could have sorted this please do me a favour
Google 'the horse hoarder' and take a few minutes to watch the utter farce that was the RSPCA attempt to round up some wild horses, then tranquillise them
It should still be on the Channel 4 website

Then come back here and tell us you think that was still a viable option in this situation

Warm,
What do you think the police should have done instead? Taking into account the resources available to them and the bigger picture regarding the road, traffic, lack of light etc?

I'm concerned about how they know 55mph was sufficient to destroy and not cause suffering. I am not convinced you would get instant death at that speed.

It doesn't sit well with me, surely someone could have even shot him, but to hit with a car having no idea whether you might actually kill him or not? They couldn't have been precise unless they had weighted him down to stop him running off and only being clipped.

They deal with road casualties all the time . The accepted statistic is that if a person is hit at 40mph , then there is about an 80 percent chance of death . Therefore stairs finally speaking , hitting a smaller creature at a faster speed. , as long as it was squarely hit , should as far as is practicable , guarantee instant death .

I've read the thread, I disagree with what the police did. That's allowed.

Sure, WarmWorm. Any chance of telling us what the police should have done?

Statistically speaking even ...

I don't know what they should have done, it's not my job to solve problems like that effectively, I'm not a police officer. I am still allowed to be horrified by what they did.

I am so intrigued as to what those condemning the police suggest should have been done?

Would you be more horrified if a human had died due to the police not doing something worm?

Without going into detail, I have seen an animal get run over at roughly that speed (it wasn't me driving). They died very quickly afterwards.

Let's hope the identity of the officers remains secret got their and their families safety.

So many nutters out there.

This happened locally to me, I've been waiting to see if it popped up on here. It's so refreshing to see common sense comments as on fb the comments on local papers etc are getting increasingly hysterical. I've seen the police described as murderers amongst other things.

What those who think the police did wrong seem to be missing is the time element, for every moment they had to wait for support (be it closing the road or whatever) the risk of human fatality grew. Awful for the dog, awful for the officers and not a job I would want, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong decision at the time.