Quote:
|
An old adage I'm somewhat partial to is "A bad plan executed violently now is better than a good plan later."
|
Not such a good plan for Steve Stevenson. A bad plan executed (poor choice of words) violently certainly killed him. However, in looking at pictures of the enclosure, noting the reports that there were 11 dogs, the fear of hitting the child is quite remote if a CCW person wanted to try warning shots. Not only that, warning shots could be safely fired into the ground near the child and dogs with virtually no danger to child or dogs (though I think I would much rather shoot the dogs and let the combined yelps and gun report be more effective than the report alone). If you were that CCW person, were present or heard screams and responded, you could have been within 10 yards of the child and dogs, at the rail. Don't want to shoot too close to the child? At that range, a competent shooter should be able to shoot closely, but in the interest of safety of the child, you could start by shooting circling dogs or dogs on the periphery of the attack, thereby reducing the friendly fire threat to the child, reducing the dog threat to the child, and accomplishing the scare tactics of the report as well.
Lots of people think warning shots are a bad idea, but this is a perfect example where a warning shot could have been employed safely, the round fired into the ground (dirt) of the African Painted Dog exhibit without danger of hitting the child.
Quote:
|
John 13:15 states:"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."
|
Being a reasonable and responsible family man, the child being a stranger to me, the notion of trading my life for that of a stanger (certainly not a friend) by just stupidly jumping into a pit of attacking dogs is preposterous on several levels. Feel good Biblical passages are exactly that, even when the wrong citation is provided (see John 15:13). The context isn't even appropriate. Being dead for a stranger after been needlessly and horrifically mauled to death by dogs ain't going to take care of my family that depends on me. Part of the reason for having a GUN is that it projects force. I am not flying over the rail and performing an artistic gymnast's bounce off the safety netting to get into the death arena with the dogs.
I don't know why anyone here, being the exceptional tactical and firearms experts that are noted, would consider it reasonable to jump into a pit of dogs, after first needing to negotiate the railing, the 10 foot drop, bouncing off the safety netting, and then onto the ground with the dogs...when all they had to do was to take proper aim from the railing and shoot. You can shoot the ground. You can shoot an encircling dog. You could even shoot the tail end of a dog harming the child, being sure to pick and direction of fire that has the impact and trajectory moving away from the child.
In following up with what Woody55, there would be absolute justification (criminal law) in every state for saving the child's life from dogs. Every state permits the use of lethal force to respond to a lethal threat and every state has self defense laws that extend to protecting others.