Jaspreet Uppal told the BBC: "First I heard a gunshot, there was a dog on the floor.
"A few officers carried out a child from the back area of the flats."Blimey, Kent Police must be much better shots than the ones in Bolton!
Incidentally, the number of dogs the police claim to have shot dead at that scene has now risen to three, according to this report on this more recent event. Is anyone else puzzled?
An onlooker told The Sun: "The baby’s head was being shaken in the dog’s mouth and it was covered in blood.
"It was the other children in the playground that managed to prise it from the dog.
"It was absolutely horrific and there were children covered in blood who witnessed it all."Hmmm. Such a savage attack that other children intervened and stopped the attack? Where were any adults? Why did this mysterious 'onlooker' not help?
Anyone with footage of the incident have been asked to send it to police rather than upload it to social media.Modern life, eh?
According to an eyewitness, the child was being looked after by a teenage babysitter and the parents are believed to have been at work when the attack happened.Curiouser and curiouser...
Update: As noted in the comments, some reports now say two shots, and also that the dog was secured on a lead at the time (which no doubt helps!). If so, it seems this marks a new policy by police in these cases, of immediate destruction at the scene. I guess they too got fed up of wasting taxpayer money keeping the things alive in secure kennels for months until the owner goes on trial.
5 comments:
According to the attached report in the Sun you linked to there were two shots fired by police. Other reports in local papers suggest that two shots were fired as well. I don't know what weapon was used by Kent Police and I would imagine that you don't either. The pictures I saw show that the backdrop was actually quite favourable, with what looked like a chalk cliff and a sloping grass slope so a carbine/rifle could have been used with a reduced risk of a shot going wild. I would imagine one shot would have put the beast down and the other was a coup de grace. I would have thought that by now people would have learnt that initial reports are usually not correct, not because, as you would say that the police (or other witnesses) are automatically lying but because these situations are confused but you would know all about that with your extensive real life experience of such situations wouldn't you? I have never had to shoot a dog but I have spoken to officers who have. Believe me one shot may be enough to kill a pitbull type creature but it may not stop it immediately, hence the need for rapid follow up shots to eliminate any threats.
I can foresee legislation coming in soon. I see no need whatever for someone to own one of these type of dogs. We used to refer to such dogs as the 'brain on a chain' because they were usually much brighter that than their owners.
Feel free to come back with an unrelated incident from a few years ago to prove your point.
Retired
It seems the Police didn't do their job properly. They didn't shoot the dog's owners.
Penseivat
Another report on an online news site which I can't be bothered to search for at the moment states the dog was being looked after by someone who was not the owner. As police arrived it became very aggressive and slipped its collar. At that point the police told the person to stand back and the dog was dispatched. It again appears that the dog had a past history and was of concern to people on the estate, which had a lot of these dogs around in any event.
I really am not sure what can be done about these dogs. A blanket policy of seizing after any complaint? Unworkable I feel.If police or the dog warden are called to concerns about the dog and at the time of the visit the dog seems calm there isn't much that can be done. If the dog is out of control then it can either be captured or destroyed at the scene.
If the dog is seized the we (the taxpayers) end up with a huge bill for kennelling the beast and if at the end of proceedings the dog is deemed not to be dangerous then there is a huge outcry.
There will be more incidents such as this but I have no hope that any legislation introduced will be anything other than in line with current government policy on anything, muddled, incoherent and impossible to implement.
Retired
"According to the attached report in the Sun you linked to there were two shots fired by police. "
Yes, they were later updated.
"The pictures I saw show that the backdrop was actually quite favourable, with what looked like a chalk cliff and a sloping grass slope so a carbine/rifle could have been used with a reduced risk of a shot going wild."
Later reports also indicate the animal was safely secured to a fence by its lead. Even Elmer Fudd could have made that shot...
"I can foresee legislation coming in soon. I see no need whatever for someone to own one of these type of dogs. "
Excellent! We'll put you on the committee tasked with designing a standard for 'these types of dogs' that'll stand up to court challenges and not encompass harmless breeds, then, eh?
"It seems the Police didn't do their job properly. They didn't shoot the dog's owners."
No, Clarkson's Law really needs to be put on the statute books..!
"I really am not sure what can be done about these dogs."
More police response to complaints would be a start, rather than palming it off on the dog warden. Then these dogs wouldn't build up a history.
'More police response to complaints would be a start, rather than palming it off on the dog warden. Then these dogs wouldn't build up a history'.
Best you lobby your local PCC then. They set the priorities for their local forces and I wouldn't mind betting that dangerous dogs would be nowhere near the top of concerns for most local PCC's.
Retired
Post a Comment