Actually Pre employment pysch exams our required by Oklahoma Law

The situation with the police dog shooting is really clear cut. The man managed to get out of his car to go into the house to retrieve a weapon to kill the dog. His son was not in any immediate danger. He was safely inside of the car. Let’s say for argument sake that the dog was “Cujo”; was the car not able to start? Could the man have not driven away from the home? Let’s say that the man just was an imbecile; did he not know how to use a telephone? Could he not have dialed 911 and called for police assistance? There are lots of documented cases of where a child as young as four years old dialling 911 when their parent or guardian was in need of medical assistance. The man was charged because he deserves to be charged. Before all of you start moaning and groaning, the police officer should be reprimanded for allowing his police dog to escape his supervision. There, now everything in the world is right.

Jim, I admire the work you do at THR and BBV, but is there a point to the link you provided?

The Flipside of Puppycide
Wednesday, December 27th, 2006

In Findlay, Ohio, a police officer allowed an official police dog to escape his property. The dog wandered a quarter mile to the home of a neighbor, where, according to the man how charged, it temporarily kept him and his young son trapped in their own car, on their own property. After managing to get out of the car and into the house, the man came back out with a gun to get his son out of the car. He says he felt threatened by the dog, and shot it once in the chest.

The local police department is now charging the man with felony assault, punishable by 5 years in prison. They’re also demanding the man pay $11,000 for the dog.

Pretty aggravating when you consider the callousness with which police sometimes treat others’ family pets.

Lloyd, I respect your opinion for cruelty. As far as your opinion about my lack of sympathy for the dog owner, then I don’t really put much stock into it. You can see the law in your way and I can see the law in mine. One thing is for certain, the law is the law and if you don’t want to follow it, either change it or abandon the area where it can’t be enforced upon you. If you choose to be defiant, then don’t come crying foul when you are called on it.

I simply loathe cruelty. Evil done in the name of and through the law is still evil. Your reaction to an act of cruelty by someone who claimed the authority of the law as a justification was to excuse the cruelty. I found your judgmentalism and supressing of empathy for the victim to be reprehensible. I saw your words as those of someone with an excessive defference to authority out of an excessive expectation of security.

There is a prima facie obligation to obey the law but this is not absolute. If a law is outright evil, at least in the way that it is applied then you do not have moral right to enforce it. For the sake of clarity I will give an extreme examle. Slavery was enforced by the law but was evil. No one had a right to enforce the laws sanctioning slavery. Naturally few cases will be this clear but the principle stands.

“That is the same applicable law to the situation. It is unlawful to have an “animal at large”. I used the terminology of leash because that is what most people relate to, but the point is that if the dog bites someone in the driveway, the dog is still at large and the owner has then disobeyed the law. ”

That is actually not true. My dogs have the right to be on my property whether they are on a leash or not. If they bite you (and you did nothing to provoke them) I am still responsible, but I didn’t break the “leash law”.

John Adams: “Facts are stubborn things”. And the fact is, my dogs do NOT have to be on a leash on my property. Just because you want it another way doesn’t make it true.

Hey Lloyd, you can call me names all you want. That just gives me the knowledge that you are the type of person who only want to have the laws that you agree with to be enforced. You are the person that says that as long as no one is being harmed, then why obey the law. The law has been put in place because at least one person has been affected because of the lack of that law. Just because you disagree with it does not negate the legality of it. If you don’t like it and don’t want it enforced against you, then pick a better country.

I couldn’t find a “leash law” for the are in question. I could find my state’s “leash law.” Here is what it says:

“According to Title 7, section. 3911 it is “unlawful for any dog… to be at large, except when used for hunting.” “At large” is defined at Title 7, section 3907, sub-section 6. It does not specify that a dog has to be on a leash. Municipalities can enact local ordinances requiring dogs to be on leashes.”

Too often, people assume that these laws requires the dog to actually be on a leash. Absolutely not true. Most use terminology such as “at large” or “restrained”. This can be restrained by a fence, invisible fence, verbal commands/training, etc. This means that since my dogs are tagged and on my property, they have more rights than you, or anyone else, to be there. Don’t assume that because I am not holding a leash that they are scofflaws.

So, if you have a gun, its OK to use it? These guys are supposed to be better trained than that. Yes, we are Monday morning quarterbacking because that is what a responsible citizenry does. We hold our public officials accountable.

Besides, the dog was on her property, therefore the leash law doesn’t apply. I have had dogs all my life, and I understand my rights and responsibilities.

The dog was on the owner’s property not on public land. I don’t think leashing dogs on private property is necessary or practical.

There was no evidence of any threat to the police officer. Even if there was he could have fled and had an obligation to do so rather than use lethal force as the first resort. He was after all on private property on non essential business. If you enter private propert uninvated and a dog behaves aggressively towards you then that should surely be taken as if it were a demand from the owner that you leave. But as I said there is no evidence of any threat.

You seem to be looking for excuses for the inexcusable. You want thuggish police because they make you feel safe and do not believe that their thuggery could ever be directed against you. If they harm innocent victims then you look for ways to blame their victims. You assume authority is the same as righteousness because you cannot bear the thought that authority could be in the wrong. You indulge in willful blindness where wrongdoing under colour if law is concerned. In short you are a moral coward.