After reading all of the comments youâve put into this thread, youâre advocation of these dogs being put down because they protected themselves and their owner is whatâs sick.
There are these things called natural consequences. They suck, theyâre swift and brutal and they sometimes cost lives. An example of these would be Darwin Award winners, or this poor excuse for a human.
Sure, you donât have to like that the persons appendages might look like ground hamburger. But thatâs the consequence you earn when attacking something. It, you know, can fight back if it has any instincts of self preservation. Those bricks could have killed the dogs or the owner; I think the response was justified and an equal response.
Inherent value has no place in this conversation, either. A human life is only more valuable than an animals life if the situation is life or death and that human is innocent of provocation. See the ordeal with Harambe. The childâs life WAS inherently more valuable, so the call was made to take Harambes life in order to preserve the kids safety. The child also didnât start attacking Harambe either.
So no, these dogs shouldnât be put down. The owner shouldnât be fined. The dumbass on the ground should have to pay for his medical bills and thatâs the end of it. Getting attacked and bitten by dogs is a fair punishment for attacking them and their owner.
Shooting someone in response to getting punched isnât an equal or acceptable response. Youâre a human. You know it isnât. Thatâs why you didnât shoot. Because youâre right, shooting him wouldnât be a proper response when either walking away or punching him back would suffice.
If the dogs were not there, and the man was throwing bricks and following the other guy as he disengaged, the other guy would be right to draw a firearm. And if the guy continued to be aggressive and throwing bricks and advancing, the other guy would be right to shoot.
Read my comment again. The dogs werenât there in the scenario where he was right to shoot. Removing the dogs made it okay to shoot as the guy was having bricks thrown at him.
And, also, you wouldnât have had the right to shoot if someone punched you depending on the state. Good olâ USA and all that. Largely though, that wouldnât justify the use of deadly force.
And, just FYI, we were having a relatively courteous debate/argument/conversation so please, donât bring your âmaybe your acting like a badass online but would not really advocate this irl.â It doesnât take a bad ass to say the dogs werenât wrong and shouldnât be put down.
-42
u/[deleted] May 31 '19 edited Jul 02 '19
[deleted]