5 police officers injured by dog in Albert Square, East London

gurramok

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17475293

Any idea on what's behind this? An extra out of MoanEnders?

Return of one of the Mitchell's or was it Rickkyyyyyyyyyy the pitbull ?

Mr.Crinklewood

Nothing to do with Eastenders, it was Corrie's fault... It was The Rovers return...

AboutTwoFiddy

Poor dog.

Hande hoche!

Don't mess with pit-bulls.

starbelgrade

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Nothing to do with Eastenders, it was Corrie's fault... It was The Rovers return...

That joke was woof.

EGAR

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Don't mess with pit-bulls.

Nothing wrong with Pit Bulls, the problem is on the other end of the leash.

admiralofthefleet

was the dog called bianca?

MsQuinn

Was it Roly?

Super-Rush

I thought Heather was killed

meoklmrk91

Yet another round of media reporting will go around about pitbulls, staffs etc. being killers and bad to the bone. Pity they wouldn't spend a bit more time reporting on how the dogs idiot owner turned him from a sweet, adorable puppy into a crazed attacker. Its not the bully breeds that are the issue, it's the assholes who own them to look hard.

Also hope the officers are okay, sounds like the dog did some serious damage.

earpiece

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

was the dog called bianca?

No, it's name was Vic.
wasthisateightoclock?
See how i pressed the space bar there, 'cause I give a fúck!

General General

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Yet another round of media reporting will go around about pitbulls, staffs etc. being killers and bad to the bone. Pity they wouldn't spend a bit more time reporting on how the dogs idiot owner turned him from a sweet, adorable puppy into a crazed attacker. Its not the bully breeds that are the issue, it's the assholes who own them to look hard.

Also hope the officers are okay, sounds like the dog did some serious damage.

Yo. No one ever turned a King Charles Spaniel into a killing machine.

hardCopy

Stay away from that dog, he's Well'ard

castletownman

Dog 4 Police 1

MagicSean

General General wrote: »

Yo. No one ever turned a King Charles Spaniel into a killing machine.

Why would they? They aren't powerful. It doesn't change what the poster said. The breed might be powerful but it's the owner that makes it a killer.

Run_to_da_hills

What a waste of a good dog, why didn't the cops try to save it and train it to attack future rioters,

domkk

hardCopy wrote: »

Stay away from that dog, he's Well'ard

I was gonna say that ...
....that dog must be well 'ard!
said it anyway

meoklmrk91

General General wrote: »

Yo. No one ever turned a King Charles Spaniel into a killing machine.

No, because they are too small to do any real damage, that is literally the only difference, bullies were bred for strength, KCS were bred to be small cute and cuddly. As someone who grooms dogs on a weekly basis and is training to be a vet nurse, I can tell you that it is the smaller dogs who are far more likely to turn around and snap at you or bite you.

I think it's unfair to categorize a breed as dangerous, all dogs have the ability and will use it if they feel it is necessary, rightly or wrongly. Labs for instance are consistently touted as the perfect family dog, and usually they are. But the papers didn't call labs, killers or attack dogs when a woman in France had to have the worlds first face transplant after her pet lab mauled her face while she slept after taking sleeping tablets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabelle_Dinoire

Is there a reason for caution with bullies, of course they have immense power and strength that can kill. But I honestly don't believe that they deserve the rap that they get, the general public are terrified of them, my Boxer looked like a Pitbull as a pup because of his colouring, people would literally cross the road, drag their kids away from us, and tell me that he was dangerous and that I would be better off getting rid of him. It's hysteria and imho it is completely unwarranted.

Bullies will only be dangerous until the next dangerous breed comes along and takes over the headlines, GSD's, Dobermans and Rotties all got the same treatment and now for the most part you hear nothing about these breeds. It is usually the next breed that becomes popular with young lads who want to look hard. My guess for the next one will be Akitas or Presa Canarios, just give it time.

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

Why would they? They aren't powerful. It doesn't change what the poster said. The breed might be powerful but it's the owner that makes it a killer.

It's not just the physical strength/size of the dog that comes into play. Certain types of dogs have been selectively bred, for hundreds of generations, to show aggressive traits. This behaviour was useful in hunting and fighting dogs.

"Game or Gameness is a quality of fighting dogs or working terriers that are selectively bred and conditioned from a very early age to develop traits of eagerness despite the threat of substantive injury. Dogs displaying this trait can also be described as persevering, ready and willing, full of fight, spirited, or plucky."

This is why we so rarely hear of labradors, collies, english sheep dogs or any one of the other myriad breeds of dogs that are big enough to substantially injure a human in this kind of report, even though they are present in far greater numbers than the "dangerous" breeds.

People often rush to the defence of these dogs in this kind of case and blame it all on the owner, and that is correct to a certain extent.

But to deny that these breeds have a greater latent capacity for violence than others is to deny basic genetic reality.

This video of foxes bred for either timidness or agression shows just how pronounced the effects of genetics and breeding on behaviour are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcwDXhugjw

discus

Why didn't one of them run into a house and grab a knife? As a resident, I'd have grabbed the handiest knife to hand, straight out and straight into the things chest. One of those officers could have lost fingers, hand, calf, testicles or penis ffs!

guitarzero

Always wary of folks walking there pets are around, those pit bulls and the like, first thing I do is spot the nearest, climbable tree.

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not just the physical strength/size of the dog that comes into play. Certain types of dogs have been selectively bred, for hundreds of generations, to show aggressive traits. This behaviour was useful in hunting and fighting dogs.

"Game or Gameness is a quality of fighting dogs or working terriers that are selectively bred and conditioned from a very early age to develop traits of eagerness despite the threat of substantive injury. Dogs displaying this trait can also be described as persevering, ready and willing, full of fight, spirited, or plucky."

This is why we so rarely hear of labradors, collies, english sheep dogs or any one of the other myriad breeds of dogs that are big enough to substantially injure a human in this kind of report, even though they are present in far greater numbers than the "dangerous" breeds.

People often rush to the defence of these dogs in this kind of case and blame it all on the owner, and that is correct to a certain extent.

But to deny that these breeds have a greater latent capacity for violence than others is to deny basic genetic reality.

This video of foxes bred for either timidness or agression shows just how pronounced the effects of genetics and breeding on behaviour are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcwDXhugjw

And some people just assume because the Sun doesn't have a story on it that sheepdogs don't bite people.

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

And some people just assume because the Sun doesn't have a story on it that sheepdogs don't bite people.

I didn't say that other breeds never attack people. It's just that they are less likely to, and when they do, it is less likely to result in serious injury or death. It's easy to find anecdotes of various breeds attacking people. I could probably find a case of a corgi attacking someone if I looked for it. But that wouldn't prove anything, because it would be an anecdote, and anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind of evidence.

Strong evidence is that based on gathering large amounts of data from a large sample size. Here is some strong evidence, relating to fatal dog attacks in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998.

Pit bull: 118
Rottweiler: 67
Mixed breed (No dominant breed specified): 47
German shepherd: 41
Husky: 21
Chow Chow: 21
Malamute: 16
Wolf-dog hybrid:15
Doberman: 13
Great dane: 13
Saint bernard: 8
Labrador retriever: 8

Notice how under represented labradors are, considering that they are a very popular breed. Pit bulls and rotweillers make up a much smaller percentage of the canine population yet top the lethality stats by a country mile.

RichieC

They used to call pittbulls Nursery dogs because they were so good with children. They've been maligned by irresponsible owners and a hysterical media.

RichieC

Written prior to the media hate campaign against them.

“The Pit Bull is goofily friendly towards people–family, friends, and strangers alike. Known for its sound character, strong nerve, and great intelligence, the breed makes an ideal companion for households with children, while remaining strong and vigilant enough to protect its loved ones if need be. It is never necessary to embark on guard or attack training with this breed, as they are naturally attuned to their environment and intuitive about real threats. Although never aggressive towards people without real need, the Pit Bull may show dog-directed aggression, but sensitivity to other dogs will vary from dog to dog. The properly socialized and trained Pit Bull should not be an instigator, yet it is unlikely for the breed to shy away from a challenge. The breed is known for its high prey drive, and so due caution should be exercised when cats, rabbits, domestic fowl, and other such animals are present. Dog-sensitivity and high prey drive should not be viewed as a fault, although excessive, uncontrollable aggression is neither desired nor correct. Aggression towards humans should be viewed as a serious fault.”

RichieC

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say that other breeds never attack people. It's just that they are less likely to, and when they do, it is less likely to result in serious injury or death. It's easy to find anecdotes of various breeds attacking people. I could probably find a case of a corgi attacking someone if I looked for it. But that wouldn't prove anything, because it would be an anecdote, and anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind of evidence.

Strong evidence is that based on gathering large amounts of data from a large sample size. Here is some strong evidence, relating to fatal dog attacks in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998.

Pit bull: 118
Rottweiler: 67
Mixed breed (No dominant breed specified): 47
German shepherd: 41
Husky: 21
Chow Chow: 21
Malamute: 16
Wolf-dog hybrid:15
Doberman: 13
Great dane: 13
Saint bernard: 8
Labrador retriever: 8

Notice how under represented labradors are, considering that they are a very popular breed. Pit bulls and rotweillers make up a much smaller percentage of the canine population yet top the lethality stats by a country mile.

What you're not taking into account here is the type of people attracted to Pittbulls these days. Hard boys and morons. Ill treated animals become aggressive and feral. A pittbull owned by a straight up dog loving owner will not be aggressive.

RichieC

RichieC wrote: »

Written prior to the media hate campaign against them.

Funny that they've been topping the lethal attack statistics for decades before this "media hate campaign" began.

RichieC

RichieC wrote: »

What you're not taking into account here is the type of people attracted to Pittbulls these days. Hard boys and morons. Ill treated animals become aggressive and feral. A pittbull owned by a straight up dog loving owner will not be aggressive.

You're not taking into account that these dogs have been killing people in greater numbers than any other dog for decades.

With dogs, as with ourselves, some people are unaware, or unwilling to accept, how much personality and behaviour is determined by genetics.

General General

MagicSean wrote: »

Why would they? They aren't powerful. It doesn't change what the poster said. The breed might be powerful but it's the owner that makes it a killer.

Are you arguing that a person COULD make a King Charles Spaniel a killer?

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

No, because they are too small to do any real damage, that is literally the only difference, bullies were bred for strength, KCS were bred to be small cute and cuddly. As someone who grooms dogs on a weekly basis and is training to be a vet nurse, I can tell you that it is the smaller dogs who are far more likely to turn around and snap at you or bite you.

I think it's unfair to categorize a breed as dangerous, all dogs have the ability and will use it if they feel it is necessary, rightly or wrongly. Labs for instance are consistently touted as the perfect family dog, and usually they are. But the papers didn't call labs, killers or attack dogs when a woman in France had to have the worlds first face transplant after her pet lab mauled her face while she slept after taking sleeping tablets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabelle_Dinoire

Is there a reason for caution with bullies, of course they have immense power and strength that can kill. But I honestly don't believe that they deserve the rap that they get, the general public are terrified of them, my Boxer looked like a Pitbull as a pup because of his colouring, people would literally cross the road, drag their kids away from us, and tell me that he was dangerous and that I would be better off getting rid of him. It's hysteria and imho it is completely unwarranted.

Bullies will only be dangerous until the next dangerous breed comes along and takes over the headlines, GSD's, Dobermans and Rotties all got the same treatment and now for the most part you hear nothing about these breeds. It is usually the next breed that becomes popular with young lads who want to look hard. My guess for the next one will be Akitas or Presa Canarios, just give it time.

I think the ability to cause any real damage is a major part of the debate.

You can get hit by a bus or by a kid on a trike... you can even say the bus hit was an accident while the kid intended it. Which would you prefer?

No major regulation over ownership or control of a kid's trike, for this very reason.

Nice touch calling them 'bullies'. Sweet.

MagicSean

General General wrote: »

Are you arguing that a person COULD make a King Charles Spaniel a killer?

You could make them viscious

General General wrote: »

I think the ability to cause any real damage is a major part of the debate.

You can get hit by a bus or by a kid on a trike... you can even say the bus hit was an accident while the kid intended it. Which would you prefer?

No major regulation over ownership or control of a kid's trike, for this very reason.

Nice touch calling them 'bullies'. Sweet.

By your reasoning people who are naturally strong should be treated differently to the weak.

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

By your reasoning people who are naturally strong should be treated differently to the weak.

Should strong people be treated differently to weak people? No.

But what if you had a group of strong people that were selectively bred for hundreds of years to be aggressive, and who had been demonstrated by large scale statistical record keeping to kill an amount of people that was out of all proportion to their numbers?

You might treat them differently then.