Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by 23refugee
Gunderson likes to misinterpret and churn these threads.
That must be why I brought up chasing deer, loose running dogs, and Appalachia then huh? Oh wait. That is right. I have actually stuck the the VIDEO
IN THE OP. Nice try though. I guess there is a reason you have to say stuff like that to others instead of challenging me with it.
I was explaining that when a previous poster said he shot loose dogs, that it was not uncommon.
I explained that neither is rape.
Let me show you what he actually said ONE MORE TIME
"I have shot lots of things when I was a young boy, when am I going to turn into a serial killer? "
It does not say "loose dogs" and it does say "lots of things" Who is misconstruing and twisting things? If he was out shooting loose dogs, I would
expect he would say loose dogs. He said - lost of THINGS. He also said "lots" so even if it was loose dogs. How many loosed dogs do you reckon the
average boy has opportunity to shoot before the number seems a little suspicious? I vote for "lots."
Please stop trying to accuse me of twisting things when you cannot even get a quote correct enough to defend it properly.
What you missed is what was missing from that claim. Are they loose dogs running around town? Causing damage? chasing anyone? or just sitting a foot
over the property line? Dogs run free in my neighborhood all the time. That is how we are here. Your little buddy, who I believe is also you - clearly
stated that the dogs in my neighborhood are fair game to him. Sorry but that is just not right and if you come here and shoot my dog because YOU THINK
he is running loose, then you will have problems. Maybe specificity is a quality that eludes you but it is kind of important to me.
Then I explained about dogs running deer and chasing livestock.
For no good reason. Must have been to "misinterpret and churn" the thread? I see no deer in that video and your little buddy did not mention deer.
You found a way to get more off topic though didn't you.
Pay attention. In neither the video, nor the example cited were any deer being chased or any livestock being menaced in any way. What the hell does it
have to do with anything I said?
I didn't suggest that going on another man's property and shooting his dog was a common practice. In fact it is a good way become the shootee
rather than the shooter.
At least you can make some sense now and again.
The police were following instructions when they shot the dog.
The only thing more annoying than Nazi references is an argument that desperately cries out for one.
No one knows the details, but many are quick to condemn the police.
No one knows the details, but you are quick to condemn the dog.
If I am wrong, the dog is still dead and nothing happens to the cop.
If I am right, the dog is still dead and what happens to the cop aside from people complaining to a temp 911 operator about him? I think I feel
qualified to make a preliminary assumption based on the respective consequences. Can you say that?
Maybe the dog needed to be killed and this was a quick and expedient way to do it.
Lot's of people sitting on death row. If your argument is the expedience of justice, I think we have whole new thread.
Can you tell me who was in position to determine if said dog NEEDED to be killed?
If the dog was just another dog, why would the police show up, anyway?
Lot's and lot's and lot's of reasons.
Let me tell you a little story about why sometimes you need arbitration on some level.
It is late at night and dog is out in field terrorizing your livestock. You find dead chickens in the morning. After some time it happens again and
again so you start getting ready. You lie in wait. You catch the dog off-guard and get a really good look at it. You unload but miss. The next day you
call the cops and tell them you know which dog is doing this because you have identified it. They go to the owners home and decide to shoot it on the
lawn. That night, you lose more chickens. See why I would like to know a little more reason a cop would have for shooting a docile domestic pet on the
spot like that? Who proved that dog did anything and who looked at the proof and decided an OWNER (You know, a person with rights - remember those?)
needed to lose his dog as soon as it was spotted. I guess maybe in all the eagerness to switch screen names and try and say I was derailing the thread
by not taking your Appalachian bait kept you too busy to remember that this dog was owned by a person who is not one dog less. I feel that someone
should be able to explain exactly why they deserved to have their property permanently confiscated with now legal recourse whatsoever.
Would love to hear all about the different ways you agree cops should be allowed to doll out justice and punish people permanently just because they
decided to. Have a list?
It is apparent that the dog must have been a problem but many posters want to use this as an example of the police being out of
It helps to pay attention. There are plenty of us admitting that it is more than likely BOTH. That gives you nothing to argue with or twist though,
A few have even stated that now the shooter will likely become a serial killer, so you can see how some like to rile themselves up.
Some even brought up livestock and Appalachian road rules to justify things. Silly, I know.
p.s. Pteridine, you did not address one single point I have made about the video or the OP. I honestly would have enjoyed hearing a well thought out
opposing view but at this point, all I see is you defending someone because you misunderstood what they said, giving yourself up as a double poster,
saying things about me, and trying to tell me that loose dogs chasing deer in the hills get shot.
Anything on topic at all? Anything to respond to my points about this topic?
[edit on 21-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]