Monday, August 19, 2013

Comment of the Week: Putting Things In Context

Just had to share this comment here in case you didn't see it. First, here's the comment it's in response to:

Anon - The police had every right to shoot the dog. The dog was going to ATTACK an officer. The police had to do what they needed to do to protect themselves. They are entitled to defend themselves from harm. you say it's animal cruelty but they are just doing their jobs. You clearly don't know the definition of animal cruelty if instantly killing an animal is so "cruel." Have you seen how lions hunt their prey? They eat them alive. And you guys talk about animal cruelty as if you know what it is.

And the comment of the week:

Anon 2 - Except for one thing. The Police Officer was the aggressor (assuming that this is a simple case of the police arresting somebody for filming them), filming the Police is not a crime.

The kidnapper had every right to shoot the dog. The dog was going to ATTACK an kidnapper. The kidnapper had to do what they needed to do to protect themselves. They are entitled to defend themselves from harm.

See how ridiculous that sounds. It sounds because a kidnapper is almost by definition the aggressor. It is the job of the police to stop these aggressors, but in this case the police officer himself was the aggressor. The dog neither knew nor cared if the guy taking his human had a badge, all the dog cared about was protecting his human from a kidnapper. Weather you where a badge or not, don't be an aggressor. That way you're much less likely to be attacked by a dog, or for that matter by a human.

Exactly. Police aren't some different species that get to operate by a different set of rules. Why does Anon 1 think the police officer has a right to defend himself, but not the dog and his caretaker?