hypothetical situation

As a roofer who's hit the ground and broken bones from 5' to 16', I wouldn't have gone in. It was 14' drop and doing it safely would have probably gotten me killed by the dogs.
I'm sure I would have fired shots and worried about consequences later, but who can say? Hindsight and second guessing the actions of others is just speculation.
Who knows? I might have simply frozen too, but I doubt it. You have 'to be there' to know what you'll do is all I can say.
 
further details

It is now reported that the dogs were attacking the child in a matter of seconds, and when the staff got there it was determained that the child was already deceased, so deadly force was not used on the animals. The speculation here is that anyone that would have jumped in would have been malued and killed by the dogs. My original thought on this matter was if I were there and I did discharge my weapon how would the law and the general public react to my desicion? I think I would have shot to scare the dogs off the child initally, if that didn't work aim at the dogs and not endanger the child.....I know this much, if it were my child I would want every by standers with a gun to draw and shoot.
 
I don't know that anybody would have necessarily been charged and killed. I am not so sure that wild dogs in a zoo enclosure behave all that differently from packs of roaming dogs, wild or domestic but loose, that one encounters in the countryside.

Dog packs are known to go after people, but they normally go after children or the elderly. Healthy adult humans can often scatter them, at least for long enough to get to a house or a vehicle.

As far as the wall, accounts vary. Some say 14'; I read 11' in the newspaper, plus a safety net on the way down.

All I know is that I'd like to think most of us would at least try to do something, in such a situation.
 
I would've drawn and shot immediately. they were on him immediately i am sure(probably reacted while he was still bouncing off net). i really hope food isn't thrown to those dogs from that same area....
 
There is no good answer for this one. I've seen baloney posturing on other sites. Let's try to avoid that as for rational discussion.

1. Take a shot / hit the kid
2. Jump in (if you could get in vs. the barrier), break a leg
3. Can't live with yourself - a. get therapy or b. can your family get along without you?
4. Go H2H with a wild dog pack because you can do XYZ becauses dogs are ABC - or they eat you also.
5. The mother was stupid - not relevant to us.

I think this was just very quick horror and speculation about what one would do is hard to verify. Maybe it makes us feel good to think we could stop the horror. We don't want to admit to being helpless. We just don't know if any action would have worked and thus be worth the risk to you. Easy to say you don't care about that on the forum.
 
Glenn, the "barrier" was a fence low enough that a mother could set a child upon it to give him a better view, and a safety net that did not actually catch the toddler.

Any healthy adult should be physically able to get over that barrier. Psychologically, maybe not, but physically, it would be a lot easier than the 8' wall we had to clear by jumping up, or the 12' wall with rope we had to climb and jump down from, in the O course (obstacles) at AOCS.

FWIW, I've gone into a burning house to get people out (though, granted, it was only starting to burn, at least apparently - turned out the attic was engulfed), and pulled a dog away from another burning house. Broken up quite a few dog fights. Assisted a swimmer in distress. That kind of thing.

IE, I wasn't "posturing." I can't say for sure that I'd jump into the enclosure first, vs shooting to scatter the dogs first; but I can say for sure that I would try to do something. This is not guaranteeing I'd win, it's just saying I'd try, because I could not just stand there and do nothing.

It's what my mother would have done, in her younger days. It's how I was raised to respond. It's how a couple decades of military service conditioned me to think.

Sorry if you think that's ridiculous posturing.
 
Glenn, I really agree w/your post and it makes total sense.

I think that is one of the points that have been made andor discussed in various CCW threads though(example - some saying you have to have guts to shoot or be ready to use deadly force...some being more triggerhappy, etc, etc, etc):

I think only a fraction of people in general whether CCWers, TFLers, women/men, and so-on have that 'gene' so-to-speak where they can act under pressure immediately & instinctively. Some people train and are ready to go, but they freeze during an emergency(police can attest to this but I am not a cop). I'm sure you have dealt with this in your profession/studies as well. Nobody did anything(it is possibly nobody in this situation could do anything). I am sure some have excuses or explanations after-the-fact why they couldn't...and you know, they were probably valid. It doesn't change the fact that only certain people have the 'gene'. It can show up for different reasons...woman protecting her children...someone getting that adrenaline strength to save a loved one under a crushing/heavy car fallen off 'jack', etc. This is a tragedy this had to happen.
 
well legally the situation falls under "lethal force to prevent injury death to bystanders". so legally nothing could be done to you. and yes the zoo could sue you for "property damage" but only an activist judge would have convicted you of it, seriously no judge that wants re election is going to punish the person who shot some zoo animal to save a little kid.



the whole source of the tragedy doe not lay with the zoo.

the employees didnt want to go running in, saying they thought the child was already dead is useless, its a human, they have to assume the person is alive. people who get hit by semis are still considered to be alive until the ambulance gets there to make that determination.

but ultimately it comes to the mother who obviously did not read the safety warning signs on the fences.
 
Some would jump in some would not. When I was like 5 we were in Colo, at a resort type place on a river so Dad could fish. My brother was crossing a walk bridge on the outside and fell in. That water was fast moving, I told Dad there he goes as he swept past us. Dad ran as fast as he could but couldnt catch up to him. 300 yards or so was a waterfall woulda killed him. A group of young men held wrists together and went in after him, they got him out safely. I for one will never forget that, I for one would not hesitate to attepmt the impossible cause it can happen. Wont know until you act and find out.

News said the gal put the kid up there so the kid could get a better view.

Died of blood loss, I feel for the family, to lose a child...well thats real bad.

There is a hero in all of us, just needs to come out at the right time.
 
John 13:15 states:"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."

I always sorta fancied the nobility of self sacrifice growing up and feel that it would be far better to de trying than to have never tried at all.

I have a nice purple ribbon near the top of my ribbon bar that attests to more than chest bumping.
 
Mleake - wasn't talking about you. I was just trying to point out that we sometimes get empty bravado. I read on another forum that someone was going to run into the pack and pick up a dog by its hind legs and thus the rest will flee.I doubt that's guaranteed.

Or someone who is sure they could make the shots surrounded by a dog pack. Not everyone can make the jump either or get in there in real time.

I also feel the statement that one can't live with oneself, is a throw-away - putting on my psychologist hat. Folks make horribly tough life and death decisions or screw up a situation. You can live with yourself. So that's not a real reason and I regard that as posturing.

Methodologies exist that are efficacious in treating psychological consequences so I don't buy into that.
 
Glenn, the fact that methodologies have had to be developed to treat the psychological issues created by such scenarios actually supports the argument that living with one's inaction takes a heavy psychological toll.
 
Yes, but my point was that we can deal with the heavy toll. Thus, saying you would take an action that might be very risky as you couldn't live with yourself isn't sensible.

For extreme example, would you prefer to be eaten alive rather than going through some cognitively behavioral therapy?

Taking the action to save the child and be willing to risk your life to save the child is a viable decision route. Saying you didn't act as it was already too late makes sense also. Not acting because you fear for you own life and/or you didn't want to impact your family (thus valuing the child -who may be too late to save) is a viable decision path.

Saying you will take on high risk because you will get a stress disorder, doesn't work for me. Thinking about it, it might be that one feels that others will think ill of you for not acting and that's the subtext of that kind of statement.

I have a nice presentation on altruism in bystander interventions that I can give. :D
 
Glenn, I really agree w/your post and it makes total sense.

I think that is one of the points that have been made andor discussed in various CCW threads though(example - some saying you have to have guts to shoot or be ready to use deadly force...some being more triggerhappy, etc, etc, etc):

I think only a fraction of people in general whether CCWers, TFLers, women/men, and so-on have that 'gene' so-to-speak where they can act under pressure immediately & instinctively. Some people train and are ready to go, but they freeze during an emergency(police can attest to this but I am not a cop). I'm sure you have dealt with this in your profession/studies as well. Nobody did anything(it is possibly nobody in this situation could do anything). I am sure some have excuses or explanations after-the-fact why they couldn't...and you know, they were probably valid. It doesn't change the fact that only certain people have the 'gene'. It can show up for different reasons...woman protecting her children...someone getting that adrenaline strength to save a loved one under a crushing/heavy car fallen off 'jack', etc. This is a tragedy this had to happen.
Click to expand...

How could someone have done something, other than call for help?
Nets may bounce a baby but sounds like it would be an effective barrier for an adult. I have no pic or reference so don't know.

Wild dogs in a pack can eat you too...
 
The OP asks,
[w]ould the law have permitted me to use the weapon to either scare off or shoot the dogs . . .
Click to expand...

I know more about Texas law than any other state, so I'll use that as an example.

Texas, like most jurisdictions, has a statute that justifies the use of deadly force to protect another person against a threat by a PERSON.

So in Texas, you'd have to go back to one of the more general statutes in the chapter on Justification. In this case:

Texas Penal Code. Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.
Click to expand...

I think a jury would agree that trading a wild dog for a child is just fine.

As far as a civil suit by the zoo goes, I can't believe they'd have the nerve to file one.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
I think this was just very quick horror and speculation about what one would do is hard to verify. Maybe it makes us feel good to think we could stop the horror. We don't want to admit to being helpless. We just don't know if any action would have worked and thus be worth the risk to you. Easy to say you don't care about that on the forum.
Click to expand...

I have no problem saying so. There is no way I would shoot the dogs. There is no way I would jump into the enclosure trying to save a 2-year-old who might have already been dead from the approx 10' fall from the netting.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/04/zoo-animals-kill-small-child/
There's a good picture of the barrier/railing and netting underneath it, at +29 seconds into the video.

There were 11 dogs. I want to know who among those who say they'd try to jump in or shoot the dogs thinks they can either
a) fend off attacks from 11 dogs while carrying a possibly fatally wounded 2-year-old to safety, or
b) shoot 11 dogs attacking a 2-year-old, without hitting the 2-year-old.

If they're trying to tear at the child, they're going to be moving around a lot. Furthermore, shooting at dogs under ideal conditions is less than guaranteed to stop them.

My estimation at a likely outcome to intervention by a "hero" ccwer, who tries to shoot the dogs, is either round(s) hitting the child, or running out of ammo before all the dogs are subdued.

I think the only hope would be that firing a warning shot or two away from the child would scare off the dogs. Maybe. That's a strategy I could support.
 
How could someone have done something, other than call for help?
Nets may bounce a baby but sounds like it would be an effective barrier for an adult. I have no pic or reference so don't know.

Wild dogs in a pack can eat you too...
Click to expand...

If you read my other post(s) I am against someone just jumping in & even stated this would cause whomever did so to become deceased rapidly like the child.

I would've drawn my handgun without a second thought and shot one of the dogs. The shot would not have been one that would have put the child in danger(in my opinion). It would've missed(and served as a warning shot) or it would've hit one of the dogs. I can't say what would've happened from that point, but something would have and trust me a dog's ears will hear a 357(remember, they'd be in 'the zone').

My point is there are only a select few that can handle pressure situations(not speaking of this one and not speaking of me). Many trained individuals freeze up when an emergency occurs.

Calling for help sometimes unfortunately doesn't do anything. Sometimes you, yourself must act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top