Dogs are property and human life is greater then property.
Really? OK, try and harm my property and I will harm you. Badly.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dogs are property and human life is greater then property.
I strongly disagree with you. My dog is part of my family. I would defend her just like I would defend my wife or the rest of my family. Animals are living beings too, most humans are just too ignorant to respect that.
My dogs are part of my family also. They are living beings that I love deeply.
But they are not human beings, they are dogs. If you wish to place them on an equal footing with humans, then are you willing to extend that belief to cattle, or deer, or any other animals?
Really? OK, try and harm my property and I will harm you. Badly.
He was on the property of a private property owner that had the legal right to reside there in its full intentions. No less than any person that ever stepped foot upon that property. A property owner reserves the right to retain the resources of which they have on their property. Which in this case he chose to have dogs that provided him with happiness & companionship. The officer wouldn't back down & the dogs were just doing their job to the home owner. To say that the officer was doing the job of the home owner is bull. He didn't want him there. Therefore you choose socialism (society) & communism (community) over individual liberty, private industry & private property. Remember those two words society & community (socialism & communism under disguise) because they are both embedded into your thinking of being somehow right even though they are in fact what we liberate our enemies & closest friends from.
OK, I read and re-read the original article. It says:
OK, so the officer "had pointed a stun gun" "BEFORE" being shot. (I suppose it could have been well before...)
OK, so the shooter is claiming that the officer had a gun in his face, and pointed at the dog. Did the shooter mistake a stun gun for a real gun? Or did the officer point a gun at the shooter?
OK so the shooter had already requested the officer to leave his private property.
So the police chief said "shoot the dogs" -- not "zap the dogs" or "tase the dogs" -- perhaps giving more evidence that the officer had a real gun and not a taser???
So IF this is true (officer asked to leave, officer points gun at homeowner and dog, police chief says "shoot the dog") -- then MAYBE it was justified for the homeowner to shoot the officer? The main reason would be: Homeowner feared for his own life because officer did not leave when asked and pointed a gun at the homeowner. NOT because the dog was threatened.
If you are even remotely serious in asking if the homeowner was justified in shooting the police officer,you are truly bubblegumed up in the head.I hope you keep yourself sane,cause I don't see good things in your future if the cops have to respond to your address.