 |
| Drawing by E. E. Piphanies |
Here are the details from the Candlelight Vigil for Parrot Facebook group:
Time and date: Sept. 16, 8pm - 8:30pm
Location: 2311 18th Street, NW
This will take place outside. This is not a Lucky Dog sponsored event. This is a vigil for those who were touched by Parrot in life and in death to mourn his loss.
We very much want this to be a time to focus on all the positive and happy moments of Parrot's life. We are asking people not to bring signs with any political messages. People are welcome to bring flowers, etc. to place at the site.
Please do not bring dogs to this event.If you take a photograph at tonight's vigil that you want to share, please email that photo to us at photoin@mailcan.com and we may post it on All Life Is Local.
Thanks to Prince of Petworth for spotting this.
Learn to spend your time better. The country needs to focus on bigger issues. This is petty.
ReplyDeleteWho cares about this, seriously? We're not in Singapore or Norway here, people! There are some many more pressing and serious problems in DC. Yes, people, DC is not only the red line up from Dupont to FH!
ReplyDeleteHow about having a vigil for the young student killed in Adams Morgan by the drunk driver last week instead?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Woman-Struck-in-Adams-Morgan-Accident-Dies-102903729.html
Seems like this is going to turn into a bash the police rally and I want nothing to do with it.
I don't understand the hostility toward people who cared about this dog. It's not an "either/or" proposition. You can care about a dog -- and not just the dog, by the way; you can also care about what this shooting says about the shoot-to-kill mentality of the police as shown by the recorded facts of this case according to eyewitnesses -- and at the same time care about other pressing and serious problems in our community and elsewhere. I would bet that the people who turned up for this vigil are people who've turned up for human victims as well. I wonder, though, about the level of compassionate activism of the 2 posters above, who seem to want to do nothing but scoff at others.
ReplyDeleteLaura, I care about the cop who did we he needed to do to protect human life. He was a K9 cop, and probably a bigger dog lover than you or anyone else on this board. He did it protect people from a charging pitbull that already attacked another animal in a crowd. The owner did not have control of the animal and should never have brought into a festival.
ReplyDeleteYour comment about shoot to kill mentality is idiotic. You think they should have fired a warning shot against the pitbull? maybe try to wing it as it is charging?
The problem in the community is irresponsible pet owners. Pitbulls should be banned from cities as they have been shown over and over again to attack unprovoked. The owner should never have brought it out, and that dog should never have been in a crowded urban environment. One of the eyewitnesses claims it charged right at him and the office saved him from being bitten.
It is shame, but the officer was not in the wrong.
To anonymous 2:12 above: Please review the facts of this case that are not in dispute. There was NO pit bull. The dog was a shar-pei from a rescue shelter. It had no history of biting. It did NOT charge the officer at any time. The shar-pei was first bitten by the poodle that started the dog fight. The cop intervened and completely subdued the dog. Have you seen the photo that showed the cop holding down the dog with his full weight on the dog's back? The owner/foster handler was on hand to take control of the dog at the time but the cop "knocked [him] aside" and in a 1 to 3 second sequence of events (see the LuckyDogAnimalRescue.org for the eyewitness accounts), he threw the dog down a stairwell of a nearby business and then as soon as the dog stood up (facing AWAY from the cop, not charging), the cop shot the dog. The business owner of the property was one of the shocked witnesses. So was the dog handler, and at least one other witness, who gave a similar account. Do you think all 3 are lying about what happened? And do you think cops never make mistakes?
ReplyDeleteThe dog was part pitbull, there is no way looking at it anyone can say differently. There was no history in the ONE MONTH the owner had him of biting. There is no history beyond that and who knows what he did before he was rescued.
ReplyDeleteThe dog Parrot attacked had gashes and broken ribs from where he was bitten. Parrot's owner/handler was also bitten and was bleeding on the hand as the dog continued to snap(so much for him being in "control" as you put it). The owner of the attacked dog defended the police and described the other dog as completely uncontrollable snapping as children were nearby. Another witness said the charged at him and "if the officer hadn't shot the dog, the dog would have got one of us, either me or the officer."
You have one person bleeding, another person's pet severely injured and a dog that is not under control in a crowd of people. Maybe the owner could have eventually gotten control of the dog, but he was not in control then, and there were too many people at risk for the officer not to step in.
The dog had an unknown temper and unknown pedigree and should never have been out in a crowd. The owner/handler was irresponsible and should not have had him there.
Really, saying the dog is part Shar Pei does not help exonerate him in any way. Shar Peis historically were bred and used for the exact same traits to do the exact same thing (boar hunting and dog fighting) that Pit Bulls are used for. In that light, they're the same dog, in different skin. So the pit bull/shar pei debate is really a moot point. Both are supposed to be tenacious, scrappy, and dog aggressive. The only reason people are insisting he's a Shar Pei is because most people aren't familiar with them and they don't have as bad a rep yet. But to dog people, it's probably worse. Out of 15+ years dog experience, I've never so much as been growled at by a pit bull. Can't say the same for Shar Peis.
ReplyDeleteI still think the cop was out of control..Threw the owner away from his dog?? Isn't that brutal..Did the owner ask for assistance? When a cop brutalizes man or beast, they are never at fault...
ReplyDelete