To think police shouldn't sound apologetic for destroying dangerous dogs?

[malificent7]

A man was killed by his own x bully and aparently " the police had no alternative but to destroy said dog....well no shit. Sounds apologetic and it shouldn't.
I love animals but humand come 1st in cases like this.
The man should not have owned one...it might make other people think twice.

They don't want dickheads rioting.

The police can't risk sounding gleeful or trigger happy, but I agree with you.

I have a gun licence but I don't envy the firearms officer who has to get close to 120lb of aggressive and probably territorial dog, and then destroy the animal.

Regardless of how dangerous and out of control it is, it is still a living, feeling creature, and that isn't a nice thing to do.

These dogs and their stupid owners are dangerous.

but it s not the dog's fault.
I do feel sorry for the animal.

He didn't own the dog. Know the facts before proffering an opinion.
And it's rarely the police tone that is apologetic, it's the snowflakes delivering the news who don't want to upset dog lovers, or who think there's no bad dog, only bad owners.
Funnily enough few people apply the last sentiment to their children

You have to dig deep to find he was looking after someone else's dog in his own home - both BBC and Sky news report it as his dog. I prefer 'the animal was destroyed at the scene' type of reporting with no emotions involved. A terrible way for the man to have died and an awful job for the officer involved as taking any life, however necessary, must stay with them.

What do you want them to say instead? "The police had no alternative but to destroy the dog" sounds factual to me. There was no alternative - it is what it is.

The police are supposed to use the minimum amount of force necessary to make a situation safe. Therefore, there has to be a justification for using lethal force, i.e. there was no alternative that could have secured the scene and neutralised any threat to the police/bystanders.

Also, we may not like dangerous dogs running around the place, but the dog also belonged to someone. Perhaps it doesn't look great for the police to seem in any way gleeful about having killed what might be someone's beloved pet and that would not help people trust them to deal with a situation in an appropriate and proportionate way in other contexts?

Can’t you recognise that it’s horrendous we are a in situation where idiots have led the police to have a need to destroy these dogs???

You can recognise how sad it is but still
believe they shouldn’t be owned or even exist.

I love animals and I think it’s tragic and feel sad when I hear one has been killed but that’s because I recognise it’s humans that created the monster they become and it’s a needless loss of life. I still believe they do need to be killed in these situations however. Some of these poor dogs are not properly cared for or know a great life before it ends. It’s tragic all round.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrlkn8m35no

It isn't unreasonable to expect our national broadcaster to have the facts.

Dreadful reporting if what you say is true .

What do you want them to say instead? "The police had no alternative but to destroy the dog" sounds factual to me. There was no alternative - it is what it is.

The animal was destroyed at the scene.

A police marksman shot the animal at the scene.

The "alternative" thing is the problem, of course they had to shoot the thing. Saying "alternative" infers debate, hand-wringing, a lot of boo-hoo isn't it so sad that we have to shoot this thing - no. It needed to be shot because it was a dangerous animal which had mauled a human to death.

What is wrong about being saddened by the necessity of shooting the dog? It's not the fault of the poor beast that it was brought into a world for which it was massively unsuited. It is capable of suffering, just like any other animal, and it is natural to regret the necessity of causing its pain and death.

On the other had, the suffering it would have undergone if it had lived would also have been horrible - shut into some kennels while whatever processes and forms were dealt with in order to put it to sleep.

The idiots who breed and buy these dogs have caused a significant animal welfare problem, as well as putting humans at risk. It is ok to care about that, It doesn't diminish the horror felt at the human deaths and injuries.

I think the issue is that if they can safely capture the dog, they must. If they can capture then police can only destroy for reasons of being dangerous (as opposed to medical reasons under vet instruction) with a court order. So my saying they had no alternative but to destroy it means they could not safely capture it.

Of all the things the police get wrong, this statement doesn't even register with me. Its factual. Maybe it should have added in that the owner will be dealt with accordance to the law,if indeed it was someone else's dog.

He was stupid to take the dog into his home, as stupid as anyone who owns one. I am relieved it was someone who made that choice rather than an innocent person on the street.
It would have been an absolutely horrific way to die. I hope the owner is jailed.

I agree with what you say, OP, but with the ridiculous response to the shootings of marshall and millions (vigils and facebook groups), I can see why they frame it such.

I don't see why we feel sorry for police shooting aggressive dogs but nothing is ever said about abattoir workers slaughtering non-aggressive farmed animals on a daily basis. We have a serious lack of joined-up thinking in this country regards animals.

I think we round all the bully-breeds up and feed them to our zoo carnivores, and give the cows a day off.

What a waste of money capturing these creatures would be. I am happy with just shooting them on sight, and not risking anyone else getting mauled to death.

Humans are coming first, because they are killing the dog.

However, it's not a nice thing to have to do and there is no reason to not feel sad for having to do it, nor expressing it as "unfortunate". For the poor man/woman having to actually put the dog down, it is an unfortunate thing to have to do.

If you were being attacked by a wild bear, then it would be unfortunate to have to kill it in order to save a persons life too. It's always unfortunate to have to kill an animal that's otherwise fit and healthy.

On another note, I do wonder how many of these "my dog never showed a hint of aggression" owners are actually correct. I don't think many dog owners can actually read dog body language and don't notice things like whale eye, yawning and panting as being cues that a dog is communicating that it's not happy.

It is sad though. The dog should never have been bred and owned. And now it's dead because it behaved how it was bred to behave. It's not like dogs make considered choices in life.

I don't think it was apologetic, but prefer 'the dog was destroyed' as a simple message.

I have sympathy for the police and other emergency services for having to deal with this, and the sooner such dogs are gone from our society the better.

I agree but to me, it isn't about humans coming first but about whatever/whomever poses a threat to the other. A dog poses an immediate threat to humans, the threat needs to be taken seriously. A human poses an immediate threat to a dog, the threat needs to be taken seriously.

The reality is that if state agencies don’t apologise for doing sad and difficult things then a significant portion of the public will describe that as heartless and make the job of these agencies harder. An apology should not be thought of as being synonymous with an admission that they did something wrong and accepting liability. Even on here.

Yabu. Using their guns is always the last resort for police. They should only use their gun when there is danger to human life and there’s no alternative. That’s a good thing. We don’t want police using their guns unless there no alternative.

They aren’t apologising. They are expressing that they abided by their own policies. They are saying they didn’t just turn up and shoot the dog as the first option.

I think it's bizarre to want police, or anyone for that matter, to communicate about anything in a LESS empathetic and thoughtful manner.

I'm not sure what you would get out of them sounding less compassionate.

There's always a danger to human life with XL Bullies around though. Especially one who has just ripped a man to pieces. I don't think police and vets should risk their own lives merely to prolong that of a dog's, when that dog will only be deemed by a judge to need a shot of euthanasia juice to do the deed in due course. May as well just shoot them on sight.

Agreed completely

I used to be absolutely the ' not the dog but the owner ' person . Until I met one .

I've had a big powerful breed all my adult life but these XL's are another level . You'd have to be an absolute dingbat or just totally unaware of the damage they can cause to get anywhere near one never mind look after one that isn't your own .

This is yet another tragic tale of essentially a kind man helping someone out with a devil dog resulting in his death .

As for the police of course their safety comes first , this dog has killed , what's the point of taking it alive , it could never be rehomed after any legal proceedings.

TBH we should all just be glad it’s the owner that died and not some poor innocent bystander!

They shouldn’t have been banned tbh. As a breed they should have been PTS. Every single one.

Amazing though how the police can sound apologetic for destroying a dangerous dog but not for terrifying a child with ASD/ADHD and dragging her out her house in handcuffs…