Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Cincinnati Dog Incident


Mr. Marx was sitting on a bench with his wife and friends watching his dogs play. Homer, the small Shih tzu started to scream and cry. An 18 year old woman's pit bull attached itself to little Homer's neck, pinned him to the ground,and shook him violently.
He shot the dog straight in the back with the bullet going into the dirt. He is an experienced gun owner and he took precautions to make sure the bullet could not possibly hit anything but the pit bull.
Marx is a licensed concealed-carry permit holder, police said. But Cincinnati police Sgt. Jim Perkins said that, under Ohio law, a dog is considered "property," and a person cannot legally use a firearm to protect property in Ohio.
There are a couple things about this that are worth mulling over.

The Brits were kind enough to post a picture of the pit bull owner and the other party, Mr. Marx, is a 74 year old man who has more fake parts than real. With that in mind, I must point out to the uninformed how incredibly strong pit bulls are.  I hit the gym a bunch and consider myself decently strong, but a friendly encounter with a cousin of the pit bull, the bull dog, left me wondering if there was any strength that could be obtained (naturally) by a human that would allow them to physically control such an animal.  The only thing I can equate it to is imagining the leanest, strongest muscle on your body, and then taking that and making a whole animal out of it, then putting a set of lethal teeth on one end, and then giving it a tendency to drift into violent moods.  There's a reason that they sell collars like this; a 74 year old man and an 18 year old girl (who doesn't weight much more than the dog) were never going to be able to convince that pit bull to do anything once it set it's mind to it.

Another issue is the whole 'property' thing.  No, I don't mean that dogs should be considered something other than property, but that someone (in Ohio) should be allowed to defend their property with a firearm.  I've written elsewhere (too lazy to find) that someone can ruin your life just as readily by doing harm to your property as they can to your person.  Just as a brief example, if someone is stealing a car that I use for my livelihood, why should I not be able to at least threaten the thief's livelihood in order to save mine?  Specifically to this case, besides a firearm (depending), I'm unable to think of a weapon more dangerous than an ill bred, uncontrollable pit bull.

In regards to this whole issue, I expected better from Cincinnati law enforcement.  I expect that kind of lunacy up here, but stuff like that should never even be brought before a grand jury.  How exactly do they expect that they're going to 'win' this for harassing a 74 year old man who was protecting cute pooches?

Lastly: dog parks are bad news.  They're like kindergartens where all the kids (who haven't been potty trained) have sharpened knives taped into their hands.

No comments: