County report clears officer who shot dog
#1 May 29, 2010
People should read "Responsible Owner" on ASPCA & PITA sites as well as most all animal owner sites before they adopt an animal. The owner has an inherent requirement to both protect the animal and to protect the public. These owners placed their animals and the public in harms way by not ensuring they were in secure containment. ASPCA, PETA and legal ordinance recommends micro-chip but are clear that a visible color and tag are on the animal. Everyone involved in attempting to peacefully contain these animals exhausted every means they had on the one dog. Since the animal was not going to be contained it could not be permitted to just roam the streets. That places the animal and public back at risk. We are animal rights activists, but place your own family in the same situation and honestly examine what you would have wanted done. This never would have reached this point if the owners had been Responsible Owners.
#2 Jun 2, 2010
Who says every means was exhausted? The neighbors weren't even allowed to assist so I hardly think every means was even put on the table.
How on earth do you know that the animal was NOT going to be contained? I am SO glad that narrow minded people with the inability to display abstract thought like the cops and obviously cabarrusdotcom don't have any influence in my ability to run my life. The kool-aid drinkers that suck on Sheriff Riley's behind have made Cabarrus county the laughing cow of the metro area.
#3 Jun 3, 2010
What a clueless butt-head! Why would the officers attempting to protect the public allow the public to put themselves at risk? Sounds like you have personal issues.
#4 Jun 9, 2010
I respond to that question of "How on earth do you know the animal was NOT going to bite someone?" I'm sure there's many other methods that may have worked and quite a few were tried and failed. Lack of abstract thought is saying that if a dog isn't aggressive when it's with the owners then it will never be aggressive to anything without the owners around. It's also assuming that since one person said they didn't see the dog being aggressive then it could have never been aggressive even when they weren't there. Even without discrediting what that witness saw, I question whether they were within sight of the dog 100% of the time from when they broke out of the fence until the shot. The answer to that is no, they weren't and would by lying if they said yes.
There's a bunch of hoopla about the "politics" of this, and honestly most people see through that as they hear the real story. I'm not saying I'm even a Riley supporter with my political affiliations and views, but when it comes down to it I don't think Graham really wants to minimize the rights of people to enjoy their own property without fear of life or limb over the rights of a trespassing dog.
#5 Nov 1, 2012
Everyone who sides with the officer are idiots. The dog was no danger to the public. The officer did not want to spend anymore time trying to catch the dog. So his answer is to shoot and kill the dog. He should be fired! The city should be sued for all they have.
Add your comments below
|Head of Cabarrus advocacy group charged with se... (Jul '12)||Sep 15||Stop Now||4|
|Cabarrus Co. continue investigation into triple... (Feb '14)||Feb '14||waka flaka||1|
|Deputies at police standoff in Harrisburg; repo... (Mar '13)||Mar '13||jeremy H||1|
|Family, friends search for clues in disappearan... (Sep '12)||Sep '12||esa chica||1|
|Funeral for slain deputy in progress (Jul '12)||Aug '12||Sal II||5|
|Harrisburg: Chick-fil-A would be welcome (Aug '12)||Aug '12||mike deason||1|
|Concord woman charged with murder (Feb '12)||Feb '12||I Hate Syracuse||1|
Find what you want!
Search Cabarrus County Forum Now