Taking a Dog to a Gunfight
Bob Giddings
Six people and a dog in a narrow hall, bullets flying:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/nyregion/09cop.html?_r=1&hp
Things sure got lively there for a second.
richard
I always get a kick out of Hollywood movie scenes like this. You have
two guys in a narrow hallway both with sawed off shotguns. They can
hit a window behind the other guy, but not the other guy?
Bob Giddings
wrote:
It is a dramatic scene, at least in the mind's eye. Lots of
significance, while the bullets were flying, but not much
meaning. Amazing that somebody didn't get killed. An example of
either remarkable fire discipline or dumb luck. Probably both.
Most dangerous encounters between animals and men take place at a
greater distance. They say the dog was killed, but don't mention
any injuries inflicted BY the dog. It may have done nothing but
growl. Bad move.
Sometimes life is just a clusterfuck.
Bob
bill horne
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:13:31 -0500, richard <mem...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:13:56 -0500, Bob Giddings
>> <bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Six people and a dog in a narrow hall, bullets flying:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/nyregion/09cop.html?_r=1&hp
>>>
>>> Things sure got lively there for a second.
>> I always get a kick out of Hollywood movie scenes like this. You have
>> two guys in a narrow hallway both with sawed off shotguns. They can
>> hit a window behind the other guy, but not the other guy?
>
> It is a dramatic scene, at least in the mind's eye. Lots of
> significance, while the bullets were flying, but not much
> meaning.
The dog was stopped. That seems to have meaning.
> Amazing that somebody didn't get killed. An example of
> either remarkable fire discipline or dumb luck. Probably both.
>
> Most dangerous encounters between animals and men take place at a
> greater distance.
The encounter is not dangerous unless the animal is close enough to be
dangerous.
> They say the dog was killed, but don't mention
> any injuries inflicted BY the dog. It may have done nothing but
> growl. Bad move.
Or it may be that the dog was shot Before he could inflict any
injuries. Good move. And it's probably reasonable to assume that a pit
bull in a housing project is not there for decoration.
The preferred goal of a self-defense action is to stop the threat
Before he/she/it inflicts injuries. The cops succeeded.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
>Bob Giddings wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:13:31 -0500, richard <mem...@newsguy.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:13:56 -0500, Bob Giddings
>>> <bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Six people and a dog in a narrow hall, bullets flying:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/nyregion/09cop.html?_r=1&hp
>>>>
>>>> Things sure got lively there for a second.
>>> I always get a kick out of Hollywood movie scenes like this. You have
>>> two guys in a narrow hallway both with sawed off shotguns. They can
>>> hit a window behind the other guy, but not the other guy?
>>
>> It is a dramatic scene, at least in the mind's eye. Lots of
>> significance, while the bullets were flying, but not much
>> meaning.
>
>The dog was stopped. That seems to have meaning.
That's significant. By "meaning" I was referring to any lesson
to be learnt. Except maybe the lesson that you never know what
you are going to run into.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that
would happen every day. Don't know how you could plan for it.
>
>> Amazing that somebody didn't get killed. An example of
>> either remarkable fire discipline or dumb luck. Probably both.
>>
>> Most dangerous encounters between animals and men take place at a
>> greater distance.
>
>The encounter is not dangerous unless the animal is close enough to be
>dangerous.
It can be pretty dangerous for the animal. :o)
>
>> They say the dog was killed, but don't mention
>> any injuries inflicted BY the dog. It may have done nothing but
>> growl. Bad move.
>
>Or it may be that the dog was shot Before he could inflict any
>injuries. Good move. And it's probably reasonable to assume that a pit
>bull in a housing project is not there for decoration.
>
>The preferred goal of a self-defense action is to stop the threat
>Before he/she/it inflicts injuries. The cops succeeded.
Sure did. And nobody got killed, though three were injured. Hard
to know if it was fire discipline or luck. My take on it was
that they were at the door, the dog was among them before they
could react, and they were shooting in the general direction of
each other while aiming at the dog.
Clusterfuck.
A good day is one where you end up still walking around. Bad day
for the dog. Damn good day for everybody else.
bill horne
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:13:41 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Giddings wrote:
>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:13:31 -0500, richard <mem...@newsguy.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:13:56 -0500, Bob Giddings
>>>> <bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Six people and a dog in a narrow hall, bullets flying:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/nyregion/09cop.html?_r=1&hp
>>>>>
>>>>> Things sure got lively there for a second.
>>>> I always get a kick out of Hollywood movie scenes like this. You have
>>>> two guys in a narrow hallway both with sawed off shotguns. They can
>>>> hit a window behind the other guy, but not the other guy?
>>> It is a dramatic scene, at least in the mind's eye. Lots of
>>> significance, while the bullets were flying, but not much
>>> meaning.
>> The dog was stopped. That seems to have meaning.
>
> That's significant. By "meaning" I was referring to any lesson
> to be learnt. Except maybe the lesson that you never know what
> you are going to run into.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that
> would happen every day. Don't know how you could plan for it.
The cops seemed to be ready for it.
>>> Amazing that somebody didn't get killed. An example of
>>> either remarkable fire discipline or dumb luck. Probably both.
>>>
>>> Most dangerous encounters between animals and men take place at a
>>> greater distance.
>> The encounter is not dangerous unless the animal is close enough to be
>> dangerous.
>
> It can be pretty dangerous for the animal. :o)
>
>>> They say the dog was killed, but don't mention
>>> any injuries inflicted BY the dog. It may have done nothing but
>>> growl. Bad move.
>> Or it may be that the dog was shot Before he could inflict any
>> injuries. Good move. And it's probably reasonable to assume that a pit
>> bull in a housing project is not there for decoration.
>>
>> The preferred goal of a self-defense action is to stop the threat
>> Before he/she/it inflicts injuries. The cops succeeded.
>
> Sure did. And nobody got killed, though three were injured.
Apparently by bullet fragments - but not bullets.
> Hard
> to know if it was fire discipline or luck. My take on it was
> that they were at the door, the dog was among them before they
> could react, and they were shooting in the general direction of
> each other while aiming at the dog.
Or, you could equally speculate that since the call included "gun",
they already had their guns out, reacted to the dog when it ran out,
and shot it. If the dog had gotten "among" them, someone would have
been bitten - unless the dog got in a few friendly wet licks before it
was shot.
> Clusterfuck.
>
> A good day is one where you end up still walking around. Bad day
> for the dog. Damn good day for everybody else.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
There was certainly nothing in the report to indicate that. You
are a romantic, bill. I never suspected.
bill horne
To indicate what? Gun? Sure did.
Do cops go to gun calls with their guns holstered and snapped? Dumb if
they do.
Did the dog charge out? Sure did.
Did any cop get bitten? Nope.
Did any cop get shot? Nope.
Did the dog get shot? Sure did.
What did I include that wasn't indicated? The friendly wet licks?
damn. You got me.
> You
> are a romantic, bill. I never suspected.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
Dam. All the questions AND all the answers. Completely
self-sufficient. Which raises the question: who exactly are you
talking to?
bill horne
You.
Dymphna
Why do you put up a middle of a conversation?
--
Dymphna
Message origin: www.TRAVEL.com
Bob Giddings
wrote:
Exactly.
>>>> You
>>>> are a romantic, bill. I never suspected.
>>
>> Dam. All the questions AND all the answers. Completely
>> self-sufficient. Which raises the question: who exactly are you
>> talking to?
>
>You.
Seems to me you are so intent on getting into an argument, you
are more than willing to take over both sides of it.
You don't need me at all.
Bob
bill horne
You didn't say what "that" was, so I took a shot at all the thats that
I could find.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
Thatathatathatathatatatatatatatat. I think you are locked on
full auto. I guess I'm lucky I wasn't there.
For what it's worth, I too think the cops did a good job. But
that doesn't stop it from being a clusterfuck as well.
I put it up just as an amazing scene. Up to six guys with guns
in a hallway, blazing away at a dog in the middle of them, close
enough that three were injured by flying shrapnel from bullets
bouncing off stuff, and nobody but the dog died.
That is just amazing. Perhaps a miracle.
Bob
Lone Haranguer
> I put it up just as an amazing scene. Up to six guys with guns
> in a hallway, blazing away at a dog in the middle of them, close
> enough that three were injured by flying shrapnel from bullets
> bouncing off stuff, and nobody but the dog died.
>
> That is just amazing. Perhaps a miracle.
>
> Bob
Don't firemen ever get spritzed on when fighting fires?
LZ