Police Chief Explains Why He Shot Dog

It seems to me that that the Eminence Police Department seems to be making up rules as they go .Check the ordinance in regards to animal control in the city . It doesn't say anything about shooting animals to control them ,and the department should have investigated first,before they took it upon them-selves to discharge a firearm in the city limits. The chief pulled up, shot ,and then asked questions. What if he would have shot the wrong dog ? Jeez

Then too bad, but I for one would have wanted the dog shot if I'd been on the recieving end of it's possible attack. If a person is going to have a dog then he/she needs to keep it in the house, fenced in their yard, or learn to control it.

notveryladylike wrote:

Then too bad, but I for one would have wanted the dog shot if I'd been on the recieving end of it's possible attack. If a person is going to have a dog then he/she needs to keep it in the house, fenced in their yard, or learn to control it.

Well ,your name speaks for itself: But what if your dog gets out by accident ? Plus, we have policies to abide by here in Eminence. That dog wasn't attacking any-one. By the way .Oh yea ,recieving is spelled ,R-E-C-E-I-V-I-N-G.

Well sue me for typing too fast. Laws or not I feel the situation was handled properly. But let me ask you this: What makes everyone assume that the dog really didn't try to bite/attack the gentleman in the story? Suddenly the whole thing has been about the innocent dog! I've been bitten by an 'innocent' dog and belive me, if I had a gun or someone w/ a gun around at the time I would have said to shoot the thing. What if it had been a child rather than the gentleman w/ no possible way to escape? Would you then blame the police for not responding to the call properly? Bottom line:It's done and over, find yourself a new soapbox.