Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,778
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
In all likelihood, the owner did not train the dog to fetch humans. The dog was likely to have been trained to guard property and not to hurt humans, both jobs carefully and expertly carried out. The human was at fault for not acknowledging the dog properly. Of course the dog and owner get the blame for the employee's lack of manners and good sense. But the employee was at fault. The dog had no way to discern whether the employee was there to work or to rob. The dog did not react with violence but to restrain the errant human and to seek the authority and judgement of the proper authority: the owner. Note the employee was not injured, unless you are counting pride.Out of ignorance, many dogs owners raise dangerous dogs despite the best intentions to treat their dogs well.
And dogs don't just bite their owners; they also fuck with people who have absolutely nothing to do with the condition of the dog.
So obviously there's a lot more to it than you think.
The fucked up part about is not that the dog made a bad choice--the dog is not a moral agent--but that that it's owner has trained it to fetch humans with its teeth.And you approve of this? This little story rather reinforces my beliefs about dog owners. A man, who had every right to be on the property, underwent a frightening ordeal because the owner failed in his duty of care.
Oy vey.
Metaphor,
I am hoping that you will glean from these posts that not all dogs are as you think they are. Note the bolded bit. She did her job - GENTLY! That is a well trained dog.
Gaynor.
In my personal experience, many dog owners have a very bizarre idea of what behaviours are acceptable--or even desirable--in their pets.
It is absolutely wrong to expect dogs to exercise knowledge and training they do not possess or to punish them for human failures yet we do just that all the time.
Only an idiot would swat at a dog, especially a large guard dog.
So, it isn't victim blaming if the victim is an idiot?
What victim? The employee was not injured. Probably scared but that's not being injured.
Suppose instead of a dog, the owner had a mechanical alarm and the employee didn't know the code. A silent alarm was triggered; police or private cops were dispatched and came upon the employee who is startled at seeing himself surrounded by officers with guns drawn. Suppose they are just private cops, no uniforms that this scared idiot recognizes. He's placed in cuffs, taken to the owner who says: that's my employee, he's ok.
Would you be crying foul then? Of course not. Essentially, this is exactly what happened, only instead of armed humans, there was a dog who responded perfectly to its training, apprehended a suspect without causing any injury and brought him to the owner who could determine whether the suspect was a danger or simply daft.
I would feel quite differently if the dog had mauled the employee. Then, it would be a case of probable improper training of both dog and employee. And the boss as well. Seriously: who has dogs guarding the place and then doesn't let the employees know that it's being guarded and how to properly interact with the dogs?
But in this case, the employee was uninjured, except perhaps his dignity but really: the man needed a bit of education there. The dog is completely blameless and showed a great deal of restraint as well as excellent training.