"Armed police had to stun a dog with a Taser gun after it turned on its owner in Lancashire"

It's always a flipping staffy! :(   If it isn't a staffy and turns out to be a labradoodle I'll bet less column inches are dedicated to the altering of the story.  surely a dog handler would have been more appropriate than a taser gun- bring back the roll eyes...

Can't understand why the police didn't call a dog warden - they don't need to 'stun' a dog to catch it?? But the're isn't much glory in allowing the dog warden to get the dog - much more 'heroic' when they get to shoot something :( At least they didn't shoot the dog dead with a real gun.

Let's hope that if they do put it down they have a post mortem or that it has tests now to see if something medical is wrong with it.

Hang on a minute and read the report carefully....there was a woman with severe bite wounds bleeding and unable to receive urgent medical care, and some people are suggesting waiting for the dog warden!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am stunned. Our dog wardens only work limited hours, 8 am till 4 pm. Outside those hours they advise if there is a stray dog, you have to keep it till morning. This attack was on a sunday evening. Maybe she should have lay there bleeding till monday morning? It doesnt seem that this woman was in a fit state to wait until such time as a dog warden became available, and I think to use a stun gun was entirely appropriate, as the priority has to be the safety of the injured woman and the paramedics. I'm pretty impressed they used a stun gun. In days gone by the dog might have been shot outright. Im sorry, I am a dog lover through and through, but in that situation, if a person were at risk, then if necessary I would kill the dog myself. Its posible that a dog handler tried....it doesnt comment on that, but I am sure that that was probably the first option, as a dog handler is likely to have been more available than an armed officer.

:-)  In total agreement, I agree with the dog being stunned with a Taser, after all we do that to human's out of control with a threat of violence too.

A dog warden, RSPCA no-one will get to the scene quicker than the emergency services and they have to work with what they have, so in this case I see no problem with what they did.

However, it is a shame there is not more detail, as to why a dog out on a walk would suddenly attack it's owner like that. Therefore I'm not going to say anything about the actions of the dog as we don't know what caused it, the owner may have even abused the dog, so I will wait for the rest of the story.

Though if any dog of mine did that to me, it would be taking it's last breathe no doubt about it.

> some people are suggesting waiting for the dog warden!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, people aren't suggesting that, I said:

> Can't understand why the police didn't call a dog warden

I had missed the 'sunday evening' bit, so I didn't realise it was out of hours. NOw you pointed that out, I can understand why they didn't call the dog warden.

> there was a woman with severe bite wounds bleeding and unable to receive urgent medical care

I suggest you read the report carefullly as there was no mention of SERIOUS bite wounds, and no mention of the treatment being URGENT.

The only person injured was the woman which goes to show the dog wasn't in a blind rage attacking anybody else (the report does say the dog attacked the paramedics - but it never injured them???). Also reading between the lines - 'news' is normally sensationalized, yet there was no mention of the woman needing a single stitch, she merely had 'treatment' to bite wounds on her legs. Bite wounds can be as minor as a scratch and still bleed, if the wounds were seriouse the report would have made damn sure they included how bad they really were and added a few more stitches in for good reading.

I made a comment reagarding the 'trigger happyness' of the situation, I don't find it OTT for them to have used the stun gun, but I'm sure it wasn't used as a last resort, which is the sad part. I am sure the police could have caught the dog with the rope they used to tie it up, or the woman could have made a noose out of the dog lead & slipped it over it's head or clipped it to the dogs collar thosee thing could have been done in the time it took for the stun-gun to arrive. If any of that was far to hard they  surely they could have called somebody from the police dog-handling unit to catch the dog with a catch pole or similar (as they had time to wait for the police with the stun gun).

I never get sucked into to media hype of anysort and I am a firm believer of innocent untill proven guilty - including dogs.
In that situation I most certainly would not kill the dog.

pinklilies - You say (as a dog lover) you would kill the dog yourself if necessary - how would you do that? if you can get close enough to kill it you can get close enough to catch it, unless you would shoot it dead (if you carry a gun).

Have to agree with the action that was taken.

I can't see that any other action could have been taken by those present at the scene. The first priority for anyone attending this incident was to make sure that the injured woman received emergency treatment as soon as possible. Nobody would have known the true extent of this woman's injuries until they could get close enough to examine her and the dog was preventing them from doing so. Whether the dog had bitten the paramedics or not is irrelevant - it attacked them and thus prevented them from giving the help that the poor owner needed. With any incident requiring emergency first aid those present at the scene must evaluate it and ensure that no further harm is going to come to the rescuers in order to avoid further injuries to others at the scene.

In situations such as these the human casualty is the number one priority. If I came upon a scene such as this I would not try to approach an unknown dog who was on the offensive and had caused bite injuries to it's owner and I certainly wouldn't try and catch it with a rope if there were other alternative methods available.

1. ACTUALLY more than one person said it. Also the paramedics do not attend calls if the injuries are not potentially serious, and they could not get close enough to assess them anyway.
2. I am not interested in wasting my time describing to you how I would kill the dog...Id  do it with whatever was to hand
3. IT is NOT ok for dogs to attack paramedics as long as they are not physically hurt...why the hell should they go to work to take that kind of risk? the psychological effects of a dog attacking you can be dreadful, it could cause someone to not be able to work again...
4. Maybe one day if you need medical help you might be more respectful of humans who are there to provide it.

> 1. ACTUALLY more than one person said it

My bad, I didn't read the first post fully.

> 2. I am not interested in wasting my time describing to you how I would kill the dog

but you did

> Id do it with whatever was to hand

> 4. Maybe one day if you need medical help you might be more respectful of humans who are there to provide it.

When have I been disrespectfull of medical help????? I have NOT said it is OK for a dog to attack anybody I was implying the 'report' was written in a contradictory way - it said the paramedics were attacked, it also said they were not hurt - I do not blame them for staying out of the way. Such press is written the way it is to gain the readers & reactions it is getting here - oh poor lady, brave police, bad dog - it is not written to convey the actual events in thier entirety.

It was the 'poor lady's' responsibility to ensure her dog is always under controll, and as for the brave police - if they can't catch a staffie without calling for armed back-up, what chance does a person have of being helped if they are being attacked by a full grown man?

Stunning the dog with a tazer did nothing to prevent the paramedics being attacked - that had happened before the police arrived. The prevention of the dog attaking was the owners responsibility, she failed and the paremedics were at risk because of her failing. I have been talking about how the attack has been delt with, from what has been said in the news report there is nothing to suggest that the dog couldn't have been caught without being stunned - the situation was not so urgent that immediate action had to be taken or there would not have been time to wait for the armed unit to arrive.

Also the paramedics do not attend calls if the injuries are not potentially serious, and they could not get close enough to assess them anyway.

that's reassuring!

Totally agree with the action taken by the Police.

Don't know why everyone is getting so hot under the collar. 

Dogs have the potential to do serious injuries and even life threatening injuries to adults (yes, even the legs have major arteries) so action had to be taken without further injury to anyone (police are people too).

The dog wasn't killed, yet the police could have taken the decision to shoot it dead but didn't. 

We don't know all the details, it might not have been the owner's fault, the dog might have had some type of seizure as is known with this breed or something totally unusual might have happened to cause the dog's behaviour.

I don't blame the police for not wading in and getting bitten unnecessarily when they had a method of seizing the dog another way. Certainly it was a better alternative to shooting it dead in front of the owner who must have been distraught enough.

Also, I see no mention of any passersby finding the woman and calling the police, so I am sumizing that the owner called 999 herself.  Obviously could not control the dog to leash it, put up no fight not to have the dog taser stunned, and felt hurt enough to call the emergency services, if any of us felt the need to have to call 999 then the situation must have been pretty dire.

Why the dog acted like this hopefully we will find out, I pray it did not have a dodgy temprement as it does not appear to have been muzzled. And it is very lucky that no-one else dog or human was hurt.

Though, I may be totally wrong, but a dog biting it's owners leg like that screams to me that it was kicked, but there is no more story to read so I guess we shall have to wonder.

>>but a dog biting it's owners leg like that screams to me that it was kicked,

Good heavens, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

It was the 'poor lady's' responsibility to ensure her dog is always under controll,

Totally agree that it is the owner's responsibility to ensure a dog is under control but we all have to be aware that sometimes things happen that we have no control over. We don't know if this dog had had a seizure of some kind, had been stung by a wasp, bitten by an adder or been subjected to one of many other possibile situations that could have arisen. Even if you own the gentlest, calmest, most even tempered and highly trained dog you could not guarantee that your dog would never have an adverse or unexpected reaction to something - it is after all a dog.

I think it would be  very short sighted and misguided for an owner not to be aware that any dog has the capability to be unpredictable given the wrong set of circumstances.

Good heavens, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Ok, here's how I've got to that conclusion, which I don't think is an unreasonable conclusion at all. :-)

Why would a dog out on a walk suddenly attack it's owners leg?

Unless it has a very dodgy history sorry, but I've never heard of a dog doing that in all my years even after a sting or bite, I'm sure it would have still shown signs of pain if this were even the case, instead the dog attempted to hamper the paramedics so much so it needed to be stunned, by the actions of the dog afterwards it does not appear to be having a seizure. (Though it may well have felt like it was having one after the Taser)

There is no mention of the owner trying to seperate a dog on dog attack and being caught in the crossfire.  There is no mention of it being muzzled, so unless the owner is very irresponsible, which I know does happen, but just going on what is black and white here, it did not IMO sumize to have a dodgy temperament if un-muzzled out on a walk off lead.  So illiminating everything there are not many other reasons why a dog would attack it's owners leg.  At least I can not think of much else. Apart from it being of unsound temperament, (which may well be the case) in which case the owner is lucky no-one else was hurt. :-(

There may have been things unreported, but if a dog is kicked it may very well bite the leg that kicked it, that does make sense to me.

Perhaps the dog was a rescue and the owner did not know of it's temperament that may also be an option for it's behaviour.

Unless you know more about this story than is shown ;-) Perhaps you do? Then the dog being kicked or abused is just as much a reason for it to attack, as a bite, sting or seizure.

More details here.. The dog had been rehomed in the last few days. I think attaching any blame to the new owner is jumping to conclusions.

Now that makes sense, now we have the full story. :-)

What we musn't forget is that there are dogs that are abused by their owners and those dogs can snap one day. Dogs bite for a reason.

Glad to see in this inst this was not the case.

So the woman was trying to muzzle it at the time?
Have I read that correctly?

I don't think you will get a reply to that question as I've just read that from JG's post, so you must have read that too? :-D

I think I know what you are going to say, as I am probably thinking it too, but go ahead Tessies Tracey let's have your opinion.

Ok, with no response from TT (you must have popped out) can I put a different twist on this sad story.

I always like to understand why a dog bites, some are unsound adults due to a bad upbringing, some from bad parentage, some are beyond help, too untrustworthy and some bite for a valid and understandable reason.

I can understand why this dog bit, and I do feel sorry for it after reading JG's post.

This is obviously a rescue dog, which has recently been re-homed, as it has been re-homed I have a glimmer of hope that it was not a bad dog as it would have previously been put to sleep.

So we have new owners, new surroundings, and obviously the owner had a muzzle, why, was it dog aggressive, people aggressive, did rescue recommend it be muzzled on walks? I would sumize this to be so as they would have no need for it otherwise.

The report says..........."My girlfriend took her out and I think the dog got confused when she was trying to put a muzzle on it. It went for her legs.



I have to ask why, was a dog being muzzled during it's walk? Many dogs hate being muzzled, they struggle, they escape them, (which I thought may have been the case previously) this dog obviously did not wish to be muzzled, she should have been muzzled at home before the walk started, she obviously got distressed and struggled perhaps in a frenzy and bit the owners leg to avoid being muzzled.

Now, rightly or wrongly I can now understand why this dog did bite, and I'm sorry to upset some of you, but I do feel the owner is in part responsible for what happend in distressing this dog, I do agree that it should not have bitten no matter what the reason, (but it's history may have something to do with that or it's feeling of being forced into a muzzle) I would not tolerate a dog biting me, but I'm left feeling a little sad for this dog, whereas if it had had a different re-homing, it may never have been put in a situation like this and may never have ever bitten anyone.

ok.. :-)
Well having read that news report from JG's post, and from my experience working with rescue/rehoming,the way I have read it (and I may be wrong - this is still speculation on my part) is that the lady has tried to do something to the dog, i.e. muzzle it, that it took exception to and therefore did everything in it's power to avoid being muzzled.
Quote from the Lancashire Telegraph:
"The woman's boyfriend added: "We only got the dog a few days ago and it had been as good as gold around the house.

"My girlfriend took her out and I think the dog got confused when she was trying to put a muzzle on it. It went for her legs."

The dog sounds like an older dog, sounds as though it could have been from a rescue or rehomed with the couple. 
???

Ooooh you beat me to it!  Lol
Sorry, was actually doing some work for once!  ;-)

The more attacks that we hear of, of this kind takes us loser to the type of DDA that they endure in America. The sooner breeding is licenced and based upon health and ability of the dog rather than how much we can get for a large litter, the better.

On sunday I heard a well known sports dog breeder ask another, over coffee and a chat, if he would be happy to use his stud dog on a bitch for a friend at work, who just fancied making a bit of money out of her bitch, even though she wasn't any good and just a pet. I believe that breeding should be controled and policed and the way things are going, it won't be long.

Staffies are not tall dogs, the woman would need to bend over it or crouch down to fit a muzzle, why would it go for her legs?? I would have thought that it would have gone for her hands or face?? The woman also said she 'didn't see it coming', if the dog didn't give any signs then surly it wouldn't have been objecting to having the muzzle fitted, in which case why did she not manage to fit the muzzle? (as the boyfriend belives the attack was caused by the dog being confused when the woman tried to muzzle it).

I still don't feel sorry for the woman. They had the dog for a few days, allthough they said it was great in the house, for some reason she felt she needed to carry a muzzle with her to put on the dog, yet the dog was off lead?

This situtation could have been avoided if she simply left her dog on a lead or a long-line, untill she had chance to build a relationship with it. Letting a dog off lead, while carrying a muzzle sugests she was aware of the dogs unpredicability. So we have paramedics and police put at risk, and an attendence of police that could have been dealing with something else.

She had chance to use her mobile when the dog retreated, but there is no mention of her trying to catch it. The poor dog is now PTS because it was homed by somebody with no common sense.
This is just more ammo for the ban the breed brigade, as nothing will be mentioned about the irresponsible owner :(

> The sooner breeding is licenced and based upon health and ability of the dog rather than how much we can get for a large litter, the better.

Good point, but I think that owners are also responsible for how they train & handle thier dogs and there need to be something in place to make sure that people owning dogs need to learn a bit about thier behaviour, training etc.. before being allowed to have one. The best bred dog in the world can be turned into a savage dog by a bad owner.

>if the dog didn't give any signs then surly it wouldn't have been objecting to having the muzzle fitted, in which case why did she not manage to fit the muzzle?

Without knowing the details all we can do is speculate. "Why was she trying to put on a muzzle?" Perhaps she'd been told that the dog was fine offlead but went for other dogs when on lead - a not uncommon situation. So when she was getting near the road again she and had to put it on the lead she had to put the muzzle on as well? I don't know - but it's quite possible. "Why did it then turn on her"? Perhaps that's why it had been put up for rehoming in the first place, and the previous owners 'forgot' to mention it. Again, I don't know, but there's no doubt that many owners neglect to tell all the facts when they want to 'get rid' of a dog.

>This situtation could have been avoided if she simply left her dog on a lead or a long-line

One report says she was walking the dog through woodland. I've tried using a long lead in woodland and it's a nightmare - continually getting tangled.

>She had chance to use her mobile when the dog retreated, but there is no mention of her trying to catch it.

Nor would I if I'd just been badly bitten.

> I've tried using a long lead in woodland and it's a nightmare - continually getting tangled.
>

In all fairness, you know your dogs. I have a dog from a shelter and I would not let him off lead after a few days of having him, even on our wooland walks, it was a few months before I felt he could go off-lead (and he was always well behaved in the house).

If my dog bit me, I would rather risk getting bitten again by trying to catch it myself, I wouldn't want to put anybody else at risk from a dog I would consider to be my responsibility.

My neighbours Akita bolted last November (spooked by a firework), he was in a frantic state, weaving through traffic and then headed for the woods, he was terrified and it looked like he was injured. My husband & I ran after him in an attemp to catch him, we took a couple of dog-leads with us, looped trough thier handles so we both had a 'noose' to put on him. We also knew that if we did get him, his fearfull state could cause him to attack us (and he's much bigger than a staffie). We didn't catch him, he had circled back around & out into the road. Out of all the cars that had past, only 1 person stopped to help, they opened thier car door & the dog jumped in. Luckily the dog was fine & he never caused a car crash.
What I'm getting at is, the lack of willingnes from people to get involved with anything if there is the slightest risk to thier selfs. My husband & I had nothing to gain from catching the loose Akita, but we saw a situation that could lead to a car crash, the dog getting run over, or a child getting bitten, so we did what we could to help.
Not many people seem willing to take responsibility for anything, that woman should not have had the dog loose, it was her dog & her responsibility, she should have tried her level best to catch him, before putting others at risk.

Am  I missing something?  Where does it say the dog was off lead when it attacked? 

Perhaps she was trying to fit muzzle before she let it off lead?

Perhaps she was not in a position to retrieve the dog, personally, I wouldn't have wanted to.

On the face of it I do feel sorry for her.  She hasn't got the knowledge and/or experience to home a dog with problems or either she or the rescue centre over-estimated her abilities or under-estimated the dog's behavioural problems. 

Agree with long lines being a pain in woods, tried that one myself unsuccessfuly and for my troubles went home with a wet and poo smeared long line.

No one knows where the dog came from, a rescue or an ad in the local paper. No one knows what dog experience the woman who was bitten had. No one witnessed the attack or the events leading up to it. No one seems to know the age of the dog. All that can be said about the attack is from the woman in question, and that there was no warning, it just bit her. Was the dog nasty, had it been in a home where it had been badly mistreated, was it used for protection, had it been hit/kicked for refusing the muzzle elsewhere, so many things 'could' have happened to it. Even, maybe, the woman was a bit harsh in trying to muzzle it? or not harsh enough. (judging by the previous home standard)

Whatever, the incident happened, and the dog was a risk to those at the scene and I think it was possibly quite lucky no one (owner included) were not more seriously injured and that the correct action was taken at the time by those attending who could see what the dogs manner was at that time.

It took the ambulance staff a while to find her because she was on waste land, Quoted from the report

Perhaps she'd been told that the dog was fine offlead but went for other dogs when on lead - a not uncommon situation. So when she was getting near the road again she and had to put it on the lead she had to put the muzzle on as well? 

I thought this too JG, and it would make sense, but the above quote shows she was still out in the wilds when she decided to re-muzzle the dog?? Maybe she was chasing rabbits, and the owner wished to muzzle her, who knows??

But, you have to ask why the dog would attack her, she must have done something to really upset/frighten it, probably from not understanding the body language.

there's no doubt that many owners neglect to tell all the facts when they want to 'get rid' of a dog.


All too true, it's a shame if this were the very first time the dog had ever felt the need to bite, but I guess unless a history comes out, we shall never know. :-(

> Am  I missing something?  Where does it say the dog was off lead when it attacked? 

It doesn't say the dog was off lead, but why else would they need to taser it in order to put a rope around it's neck? if it was on lead they simply could have grabbed the lead.

It doesn't say the dog was off lead, but why else would they need to taser it in order to put a rope around it's neck? if it was on lead they simply could have grabbed the lead

It depends how long the lead was  - I personally would not want to get too close to a dog that was attacking people and most leads are not long enough to be able to keep at a safe distance from the sharp end.

Mastifflover - I too have lost a dog who has bolted when an unexpected firework went off on a summer's evening and know what a blind panic dogs can get into - our dog has an amazing temperament and had never before been frightened of fireworks. I think it is slightly different from the situation described in the articles in that you did know the dog in question and, although you could not be sure that in his fear he wouldn't react aggressively, he wasn't being aggressive when he bolted. The dog in the report was being aggressive and had bitten someone and therefore IMHO it would have been very foolhardy to risk a second person being bitten.

We all, hopefully, have some knowledge of dogs but not everybody does and I for one certainly wouldn't blame the police for taking the action they did. Some people will handle ferrets etc and will assure others that there is nothing to worry about but it is not something I would be comfortable with myself, however sincere the assurances were. Being a policeman or a paramedic does not automatically mean one is an expert on dogs and their behaviour and neither does it mean you have no fear of them either.

Not very nice to think of a dog being stunned, but at least it was only that-stunned. Some countries would shoot first then find out later that those actions may not have been needed. At least this dog gets a chance.
I dont actually see the big deal, humans are stunned aswell. Not saying its an all together thrilling experience but at least it sorted the situation and im sure the police didnt make the decision lightly.
Hope woman was Ok after the attack. Poor lady

I know this may sound a little bit stupid..BUT...

There are a lot of assumptions being flung about here. Other than the facts printed in the news stories the ONLY one who knows the whys and how comes is the woman herself.
People on here making assumptions and statements bordering on accusations is an example of what the press and public are doing and why these dogs are getting a bad name.  You folks like staffys (as do I) and are going a bit far on the other side of things and having a heated debate on how the woman MUST have been in the wrong. Just like the police and most of the general public are going to assume the DOG was fully at fault.

By reading what was actually printed the one and only conclusion anyone should come to is....it was a tragic turn of events that could happen to anyone...part dog fault...part human error. The what-ifs could go on forever.
Maybe she saw another dog..thats why she tried to muzzle it....what if the dog HAD the muzzle on and managed to get it off...WHO KNOWS..not me and probably not many if any of you.  It seems a bit pointless to argue like this on a story we know very few facts of. In an emergency some folks are very level headed and some are not. It seems with the recent and quite extended reports of dog attacks recently all the people involved would have been in a highly agitated state...they did what they (who were in the face of the situation) thought was best. 
Not one person (who is truly honest with themselves) can surely know what they would do if placed in that situation.  I have been bitten (not badly) at work. Even though it was not a very serious bite ...it STILL got my adrenalin going and it took a good while for me to settle from shock of it.
I think it would be wise for all to catch yourselves on and realize there are obviously factors unknown and to sit and guess is not helpful either to the dog or the woman....it perpetuates stereotypes on both sides...IE: staffy= bad dog....staffy bites owner: owner is a bad person who probably beat the dog or got the dog for the wrong reasons....neither may be true...like I said at the start the whole thing is likely to be a tragic chain of events triggered by GOD only knows what. Leave it at that.. 
Ta My 2p worth take it as I mean it. Give both dog and woman benefit of the doubt ...CUZ YOU AND ME DON'T and Will probably never know the rest of the story!

Cheers

yeah so very true...But
I do still  reckon that the police just couldn't wait to use/ try out their new police toys!!
Have you seen on Utube all the zapping of any loose dogs over in America !!

Not may people are able to read news articles, and simply accept the item of news as it is written and not ask any questions. The fact that so many of us have been questioning the events, just goes to prove we are wise enough allready to know that the full story is not (and will not be) known.

If, when enything bad happened, it was simply put down to a 'tragic turn of events' then nothing would ever be learnt and progression could never be made.

If more effort was put in to finding out what exactly did happen in cases like these, there is a good chance they could be prevented. The day nobody has an opinion on such an emotive topic is sad day indeed.

I do still  reckon that the police just couldn't wait to use/ try out their new police toys!!

not a very constructive comment.

Police do not carry equipment to catch dogs, either by dog-catcher or rope, not even police dog-handlers carry these as a matter of course.

Tasers are not necessarily issued to all Police officers, depending on Force guidelines, and Police that are trained in the use of tasers have to have authority to use them for any particular incident, and WILL NOT use them "willy nilly"

this is a sad turn of events for all involved, let's try not to apportion blame eh ;)

I think it was a constructive comment thank you
everyone seems to have a bad idea of certain breeds of dogs staffys/rotties because of the bad media coverage
now if it was another type of dog a collie for instance would the policeman of zapped that one ... I think not

you do not know what the police officer may or may not have done because you were not there!

I know of incidents with other dogs, where it has taken 6 police officers to try and restrain one dog (not any of the breeds you mention) using shields, before they were issued with tasers......theoretically the taser should have the same effect on any living being with a central nervous system, as that is what is disrupted. It is not common practice to use it on animals as it has not been tested, but under certain circumstances I can see it being a very useful tool.

Any dog, or other animal, that is deemed to be out of control, or presenting a risk to members of the public, be they police officers or paramedics, will be treated the same way. Do not generalise about certain breeds because of media coverage, please. It defies the point of any other forum that tries to educate people about these breeds.

I do believe that the breed of dog was the reason the taser was used.

A friend of my dad has 2 'toy' breeds (not sure what they are), 1 of them had escaped, squezed trough the fence of a primary school and was attacking the children (by 'attacking' I mean chasing, barking snapping at). The police were called by the owner (owner not allowed in through locked gates of primary school). When the police arrived they said "if you had told us what sort of dog it was, we wouldn't have came", and the owner was told to catch the dog hiself. Luckily no child was injured, but even a small dog can damage a small child :(

there are too many assumptions being made.

The only people that know the full circumstances are the woman, the attending paramedics and the attending officers. Even the media will put their own slant on, as has already been mentioned.

It is foolish to assume that officers will try and catch a dog. They won't. It is up to the owner, or dog warden. Police do not attend routine reports of loose dogs. They do not collect dogs from the streets.

Re the use of the taser - probably the best outcome for the dog. The taser disrupts the nervous sytem, the effect lasts no more than a couple of minutes, enabling the dog to be safely captured reducing any further stress on the animal from being chased about.

If you think back, before tasers were introduced, the other option was the armed response officers. I'm sure you will agree that that would be the last resort??

> It is foolish to assume that officers will try and catch a dog. They won't. It is up to the owner, or dog warden

I already asked why a dog warden wasn't called - but apparently they don't work 'out of hours'. I have allready said the owner should have caught her dog, but others seem to belive that if you get bitten by your own dog it is fair for the responsibility to catch it to fall to somebody else.

However, in the case of a 'dangerous' dog, the police are meant to deal with it. How hard would it be for the police attending such calls to carry a catch pole with them??? It would save the need to call out a seperate unit of armed response officers who would be better used elsewhere.

The follow-up report included this - "There were lots of police in riot gear and flashing lights", is that really the only way to catch a dog? There are many other crimes that these officers could have been dealing with.
That isn't being presumptous, it's being concerned as to how the tax us tax-payers pay, is being spent. Tasers cost £350 each and can only be used by a trained fire-arm officer. A catch pole is much cheaper, can be used by any officer and could be readily available from the boot of a car.
We are supposedly the most intelligent species on earth yet it takes police in riot gear, an armed response unit, and a taser, all to catch 1 small dog. I wonder how much it actually cost to do this, and I wonder how much cheaper & quicker it would have been if the first officer had a catch pole?

I don't really want to get into specifics about what the police should or should not be doing, but I feel I need to at least try and respond to the points you have raised.

Re catch-poles. They are not and will never be standard issue. Police do not catch dogs. If a dog is dangerous, the worst thing they can do is use a catch-pole, because even if a dog is caught, what then? The dog will struggle as it has a loop around its neck, such an animal will not be placed in the back of a GP car. The dog handlers do not usually have spare cages in their vehicles. And it is not sensible to leave an officer with a dog so restrained awaiting RSPCA or dog warden to come and collect animal. Think about it. Catch poles are usually used by "trained" persons such as dog wardens, I know of no police officers that have been trained to handle animals using catch-poles. Dog handlers are not trained (it has been asked before ;) ) Yes police should respond to reports of a dangerous dog. Usually such reports come in when there has  been an attack, it is not a preventative call, and in most cases the dog is already confined to a general area, or its location is known if it has an owner and it is a retrospective report. Like I said, the last case I knew of a dog being captured by police took 6 officers in a van using shields, that particular dog was physically restrained and the dog-shields normally used had little impact. Because of cases like this, any call for an officer to attend a report of a "dangerous dog" under similar circs as per original post, you would have to expect an overt response. The officers themselves probably did not know what to do, they are human too, and a lot of them will probably be scared of dogs! I'm not saying the response you describe is correct, to me it appears to be rather "overkill" but without knowing particular force policy I can't really explain it.

There is a lot of disparity around the country re working relations between police/dog wardens/RSPCA....a lot of officers don't like to get "hands on" with strange dogs, and will request other agency support. I have used my own van to go and collect a dog from a house where someone had died, because it was a crime scene...I didn't take a catch-pole, I just found an old lead and used that, and physically lifted the dog, which was a bull cross. I wasn't scared of it, but looking back maybe it wasn't the most sensible thing to do. But each officer has to be able to justify their actions.

I believe in this case, as it is the first reported instance of a taser being used on an animal, and the animal in question happened to be of a breed highlighted in the press, this has received much more publicity than it deserves.     

Tasers will ultimately be standard issue to ALL officers in ALL forces, scary though that thought is. They are classed as one level above CS Spray, and one level below batons (for general officers - I'm not talking firearms-trained officers)

There is a lot "wrong" with how the media deal with dog bite incidents, there is a lot wrong with DDA, and there is a lot wrong with public perceptions of police, through govt legislation and changes that I won't go into...

as I said earlier, this is a sad case, and I doubt that any of these discussions will change personal opinion.  

I do still  reckon that the police just couldn't wait to use/ try out their new police toys!!
I agree, hardly constructive and a sad case of the times we live in that this type of equipment (hardly toys nor considered as such) need to issued and used.

I don't believe the type of dog had any bearing on the used of a tazer, simply the circumstances that were presented at the time, what appeared to be an out of control and dangerous dog.

In the line of 'what ifs'....this area is used by many people walking dogs, what if other people and their dogs had come on the scene and this dog had decided to go for them (walkers or dogs) whilst the police were attempting to 'catch' the dog, either by pole or not. A dog which for whatever reasons is in a vicious frame of mind could quite easily turn on whatever is near. This could have happened anyway, simply by waiting to see if the dog would eventually calm down.

Had an officer been bitten, he would have needed the assistance of the NHS (hospital) and possibly needed time off for the wounds to heal. This puts some cost to the NHS and the loss of an officer for a few days, plus his sickpay. Another would have to cover, possibly on overtime. This all costs the taxpayer. Never mind the emotional stress of actually being attacked.

The only people who could evaluate the scene at the time are those that were there. If their decision to tazer the dog at the scene was to stop anyone else, including themselves, being injured then so be it. They also needed to have the safety of the owner to consider, until the paramedics could get to her, her injuries were not known.

> Re catch-poles. They are not and will never be standard issue. Police do not catch dogs.

> The officers themselves probably did not know what to do, they are human too, and a lot of them will probably be scared of dogs!

And this is the problem. In the case of a dangerous dog, it falls to the police to deal with it, so why leave a job to the police that they have no training for & are not equiped for?

Other countries have animal catchers that will catch eg.alligators (without the need of a taser), these people manage to catch the dangerous animal because they know what they are doing, leaving the police to do the job they have been trained for.

Surely 2 officers per county could respond to dangerous dog call-outs, fuly equiped, trained and ready to deal efficiently with the incident. Lancashire police have 4 wildlife officers to protect the wildlife & thier habitat, but have no officers trained for dealing with dangerous dogs (allthough they have to deal with dangerous dogs, dogs involved in RTA's and dogs worrying livestock).
They do have a 'globaly renound' dog training school, which consists of (amongt other officers) '16 operational handlers', couldn't these deal with dangerous dog call-outs? (and recieve further training to do so if needed). Thus leaving the armed respone units to deal with other matters??

source : http://www.lancashire.police.uk/index.php?id=621

Surely 2 officers per county could respond to dangerous dog call-outs, fuly equiped, trained and ready to deal efficiently with the incident. Lancashire police have 4 wildlife officers to protect the wildlife & thier habitat, but have no officers trained for dealing with dangerous dogs (allthough they have to deal with dangerous dogs, dogs involved in RTA's and dogs worrying livestock).
They do have a 'globaly renound' dog training school, which consists of (amongt other officers) '16 operational handlers', couldn't these deal with dangerous dog call-outs? (and recieve further training to do so if needed). Thus leaving the armed respone units to deal with other matters??

How about contacting every Chief Constable in the country and suggesting this? it would require more than 2 dedicated officers, due to days off, AL, sickness etc, and also to cater for the huge areas some constabularies cover. But, if every dog handler was so trained, there should be someone on duty at a given time. Might not change the outcome though, if one so trained decided that a tazer was necessary. Maybe also contact the RSPCA, see if they could have inspectors trained to deal with this, they can take the dog away and evaluate it.

I actually believe that it was better to stun the dog than to shoot it dead. I always remember years ago, a Rottweiler had gotten free from its garden in our Village. Unfortunately it had wandered into the school playing field of one of the primary schools. It wasn't showing any agression (from what I read) and was in fact only mooching around. It was shot dead by police officers. The owners were distraught. That poor dog did nothing wrong. Now I am sure that the owners would have been far happier if the dog had just been stunned and then returned to them. I know I would have.

Give both dog and woman benefit of the doubt ...CUZ YOU AND ME DON'T and Will probably never know the rest of the story!


With respect, why do you think that stories like this are posted on CD in the first place?

To get a varation of everyones opinions and thoughts on it, we all know that we weren't there, it has been a very pleasant post on different opinions of what may or may not have happened, your opinion is that you don't have one, but don't think anyone else should either? We would never write anything on any post in that case. :-(

No-one is right or wrong on this post, it is each of our own thoughts on the subject.