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.

Most people aren't saddened by the "necessity" of killing x number

https://animalclock.org/uk/

of farmed animals a year (NONE of which is necessary), so why are we all doolally over dogs, especially monstrous devil ones like XLs?

No, they can’t just shoot them on sight. Whether they should or not can be debated. But the police aren’t able to do that right now. So it doesn’t matter if they should. They can’t and the police have to abide by the rules that are in place now. So the statement will reflect the rules now.

Their policy is that fire arms should be use as a last resort in all situations. Not last resort with humans only. Its a blanket rule. So there’s never any confusion. Fire arms are a last resort.

I can’t stand these dogs. they shouldn’t have been bred and are usually raised by people who shouldn’t have them and then die because of it. They should not exist in the first place.

But I am more than happy with the police having blanket rules that says fire arms use should only be a last resort.

Then let's let the powers that be see that we as a society ARE happy with a shoot aggressive dogs on sight policy. Waste of public funds keeping these dogs alive, plus what a big risk to all workers coming in to contact with them.

The police can't go around destroying people's private property without either a court order or a reasonable argument that it's necessary for the performance of their duties or to keep the public safe.

In this case the police are making it clear that they believe that their actions fell into category 2.

Dogs and old people, particularly old women, are really not Mumsnet favourites are they?

Police shouldn’t sound happy, gleeful or sad. Black and white, dog was dangerous & a danger to the public so had to be shot\put down - end of.

this includes dogs which chase & kill farm animal & wildlife. A black & white rule might make it easier for owners to grasp the consequences of their poor ownership.

reasonable argument = presence of a dog which has mauled someone to death.

There really doesn't need to be consideration of "alternatives". There is no alternative. Shoot the bloody thing and the sooner the better.

The justification is that it's necessary to destroy the property before you could get a court order. If you have a small dog that's just mauled a killed a newborn baby, or even a large dog which has calmed down by the time the police dog specialists get there then you don't need to shoot it then and there, you can wait until you get a court order.

Feel free to lobby for a change in the law, but the police are working within the current law and making it clear that that's what they're doing.

That's essentially what we have now - an animal who is behaving dangerously is shot by police marksmen.

The difference is that an animal who they think may have behaved dangerously but isn't currently, does not get shot. See the dog walker who was walking multiple dogs and who got killed by the large breed but they took all dogs into kennels including two dachshunds while the investigation was taking place. The dachshunds didn't deserve to be killed for the other dog's crime.

A man has died, I'm not that bothered by the tone the police have taken wrt the dog being killed.I agree with PP, the police are explaining why they had to kill the dog at the scene rather than removing it and having it put down. They dealt with the situation as they saw fit at the time and the dog is not longer a threat, surely that is the most important thing.

There have been innocent people shot by the police, even with the strict protocols for fire arms use, so I'd rather we didn't move to a shoot first ask questions later policy even if we are talking about a dog.

Clearly daschunds aren't killing humans. Bully breeds though, obviously are.

@FinalInstructionstotheAudience

Don't be so rude.

it has been widely said to be his dog, even though it's not. You shouldn't have a go at someone ESPECIALLY for something that isn't actually relevant to the topic of the thread.

It is sad that the police have had to shoot & kill a dog. It's not the dogs fault it was bred how it was & very very few police would not find it upsetting to kill a dog, those that don't shouldn't be serving frankly.

@ASongbirdAndAnOldHat

its actually saying in his own home. The man's own home, not the dogs

I agree but they have to make sure that they give the impression they’ve explored other opportunities and shooting is the last resort

Or you’d have some twat reckoning the dog could of been blow darted or saved with a lamb chop and a few kind words

@Misthios

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 doesn't. What a dramatic take on it 🙄. It infers no more than it want practical or safe to have handlers remove it.

I hate 'destroyed' that sounds (to me) cruel & 'messy' .

i think no alternative but to shoot the dog at the scene is fine. Factual.

i hate that humans have put dogs in this position, they are beautiful dogs, until whatever snaps in their brain. It is sad they need to be killed, but IMO better at the scene (if it can be done well) than the dog to spend time 'in the system' waiting to be Euthanised. Confined to a cage with no affection.

They can't win can they, because people will pick apart every line, every movement they make.

It's not apologetic, it's factual.

@LlynTegid

Destroyed is a horrible way to phrase it

DESTROYED end the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it.

IF the dog is dangerous & need to be killed (because of fucking humans!). It need to be done cleanly, by someone who can do it to immediately kill the dog, not hurt it first, not attack it or damage it.

I don’t think you understand. It wouldn’t just result in shooting aggressive dogs on sight.

It would give the police the powers to destroy people’s personal property. It would remove the rule that fire arms are the last resort. Do you think that won’t result in other incidents and escalations?

The blanket rule it’s there so it clear. Fire arms are always a last resort. In any situation. No one can get confused and shoot in different situation. It’s always the last resort.

and it just XL bullies that are aggressive you want shot? What if it’s an XL bully with a muzzle on that’s becoming aggressive because someone’s else’s dog is going for it? Or can they shoot the other dog? What if the officer gets it wrong and the dog they think is being aggressive isn’t? What if it’s another breed of dog (not an XL bully) that’s become aggressive because someone who doesn’t give a shit let their ‘baby’ sausage dog run up to and the sausage dog went for it so it retaliated to protect itself?

Or is it only certain breeds and certain situations you would like to implement shoot on sight? Which ones?

and what if one of these fire arms officers decide, a dog needs shooting. If It’s based only his opinion that a dog needs shooting, so he goes ahead and does it and a person gets hurt?

The rules around police discharging firearms are there for a reason.

It says

A man has been killed by his own XL bully dog at his home in Lancashire, police have said.

The BBC may be incorrect here. But it’s not wrong of people to assume it’s his dog.

If it’s his own XL Bully. Then his house is also the dogs own home.

@StanLeeCameo

i have been able to avoid reply to your very strange posts, until now.

NO we cannot have our police force permitted to go around shooting anything 'on sight'

JFC

OH and like a lot of others, I can care about dogs being killed whilst also caring about farm animals being killed, hence being vegetarian for 35 years (vegan much if it)

abbatoire workers & police are not the same job descriptions 🙄🙄

@Hectorscalling

The screenshot that was posted and I was talking about does not say that.

As I also said earlier. It has been reported widely (incorrectly) that it was his dog, when it wasn't. so it's not surprising many think it was his dog.

Obviously IF it was his dog it would be the dogs home too 🙄🙄🙄

Cutting across a conversation really doesn't help. It just creates more confusion.

It says own dog, own home.

It wasn’t a screen shot it was a link. To a story that says it was his own dog. You have commented based on the head line only.

Someone linked the story and said that why people believed it was his dog.

You then posted that it said his own home not own dog. Except the STORY linked said exactly that.

You talk about ‘cutting across converstation’? It’s a forum. Like I said, before, the story says it’s his dog. 100%. You read a headline and started corrected people based on that. Rather than the full story they linked.

The confusion is caused by you.

Hunt for two dogs suspected of killing man https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80egr50vmmo

the problem is people are now using these dogs as weapons. A clear zero tolerance message needs to sent - I hope every single one of these dogs used to attack & kill people are destroyed as a sign of zero tolerance.

A dog died at the scene