My dog was on a leash and someone kicked him.

Several of these posts are similarly irrational and mistaken with respect to what was written in the original post... I bet there's at least one troll replying under several names.

zzzz wrote:

No it doesn't. You would be getting nearer to them until your trajectory comes closest to them, and then you get farther away. You only walk toward someone if you are headed right at them. Otherwise, the phrase is meaningless - Did I I just walked toward you, because you are somewhere on earth, and any direction I go will have a trajectory that gets closer to you? Of course not.

Read the OP's post. He walked past their door and the child was on the sidewalk. That means he had to have walked toward that child.

Mr. Rogers wrote:

You still fail to understand that no should feel threatened by your dogs, much less young kids, even if you consider your dogs to be harmless. So many times have I heard dog owners describe their pet that way when in fact the animal was capable of harming people.

Look, I agree that there are a lot of stupid dog owners who, because they love their dogs, don't believe that they'd ever harm anyone, but the notion that nobody should feel threatened by your dogs is utterly ridiculous if you think about it. Feeling threatened is a subjective experience. Dog owners should not allow their dogs to behave in a manner that makes people REASONABLY feel threatened. There's no way anyone reasonably felt threatened in this situation.

1) The dogs are freaking tiny.

2) According to the OP, they started off just barking. Not exactly super-threatening behavior. Little dogs bark all the time. It's annoying, but it doesn't mean that everyone nearby is suddenly in danger.

3) The dogs were NEVER in proximity to come in contact with someone besides the owner until Gramps specifically entered that sphere in order to attack the dog. The OP, while he could have trained his dogs better, DID have control over them. The dogs were unable to approach anyone. And while he should certainly train his dogs better, that's a long term proposition. Certainly he's allowed to take the dogs outside in spite of the fact that he hasn't yet perfectly trained them.

4) The only time we hear about the dogs pulling or jumping is after Gramps came out. This is pretty unsurprising, because Gramps was obviously angry and aggressive. At this point, the dogs probably perceived a threat to their owner. The owner acted appropriately by keeping them under control with the leash, but it's nearly impossible to train a dog that has any kind of spirit to be calm in a situation like that.

Of course, I'm taking the OP's word for it. Maybe Gramps would have a different story, and maybe I'd find it more credible and I'd end up siding with him. But taking the story as given, the OP is at zero fault.

While there are lots of irresponsible dog people out there (people who have no control over their animals, don't realize that animals are dangerous, and blame everyone else for every bad encounter), there are also many irrational dog haters. I've lived with a 60-lbs dog for 9 years in various major cities, and it's literally impossible to take her running or walking without letting her get close enough to touch people. I'd never be able to cross at a crowded crosswalk in particular if I had to keep her away from everyone. In 9 years, she's never pulled towards anyone or even paid much attention to anyone but me. Yet people have physically attacked her on three occasions, claiming that she was acting aggressively. I've also been yelled at for--honestly I'm not sure what--on more occasions than I can count. And literally all she does is run at my side and wag her tail.

¿Que? wrote:

Read the OP's post. He walked past their door and the child was on the sidewalk. That means he had to have walked toward that child.

No it doesn't. He was walking in the apparent common area of a condo/apartment complex. There are more likely than not multiple walkways in going in different directions, such as a main arterial walkway plus side walkways going to individual apartments, as well as non-walkway common areas, lawns, etc. With all those possibilities in a typical complex, it definitely does not "mean he had to have walked toward that child". If he said he was walking by instead of toward, it is reasonable to take him at his word.

800 dude wrote:

There's no way anyone reasonably felt threatened in this situation.

We're talking about a 5 year old child coming face to face with two barking dogs and a strange adult. How do you think that child felt?

OP,

Your dogs should be put down, you be charged for endangering and threatening a 5 year old child, and after your jail time you should be banned from owning pets for the rest of your life.

zzzz wrote:

No it doesn't. He was walking in the apparent common area of a condo/apartment complex. There are more likely than not multiple walkways in going in different directions, such as a main arterial walkway plus side walkways going to individual apartments, as well as non-walkway common areas, lawns, etc. With all those possibilities in a typical complex, it definitely does not "mean he had to have walked toward that child". If he said he was walking by instead of toward, it is reasonable to take him at his word.

"Apparent"..."likely"..."possibilities"..."typical"..."If"

Could you be any more vague? Look, the OP admits to, 1) walking by their door, and 2) the child being out on the sidewalk. Any rational person knows he was walking those mutts toward that child.

r u retarded? wrote:

Could you be any more vague? Look, the OP admits to, 1) walking by their door, and 2) the child being out on the sidewalk. Any rational person knows he was walking those mutts toward that child.

There ARE vagarities, unless you want the OP to post a site plan of the condo/apartment complex and the locations of all the different parties. You are making vague into a false definite to fit your views, and that makes you the irrational one, retarded one.

r u retarded? wrote:

"Apparent"..."likely"..."possibilities"..."typical"..."If"

Could you be any more vague? Look, the OP admits to, 1) walking by their door, and 2) the child being out on the sidewalk. Any rational person knows he was walking those mutts toward that child.

I dont know if he was or wasnt, be even if he was, no rational person kicks a dog that is on a leash and cant reach them just because it is lunging towards them. The dog's behavior doesnt change the fact that they were on the leash, and the man was in zero danger of being bit, except for when he swung his foot at the dog.

The OP should be careful with his untrained dogs around other people, but punting a dog on a leash because you dont like the way they are behaving is sociopathic behavior.

zzzz wrote:

There ARE vagarities, unless you want the OP to post a site plan of the condo/apartment complex and the locations of all the different parties. You are making vague into a false definite to fit your views, and that makes you the irrational one, retarded one.

So it's okay for you to define "toward" to fit your agenda, but it's not okay for others to offer their interpretations of what has been written? That makes you a hypocrite, my friend. And the fact that you've resorted to name calling just further depletes your credibility.

OP:

So, what are you going to do about it (other than complain on a running board)?

r u retarded? wrote:

So it's okay for you to define "toward" to fit your agenda, but it's not okay for others to offer their interpretations of what has been written? That makes you a hypocrite, my friend. And the fact that you've resorted to name calling just further depletes your credibility.

So, r u retarded? (AKA klndkdlkmsdl;km, ¿Que?, and probably some others), You are not name calling first?

I did not redefine "toward". Multiple dictionaries define "toward" as "in the direction of". Going by is not toward.

zzzz wrote:

So, r u retarded? (AKA klndkdlkmsdl;km, ¿Que?, and probably some others), You are not name calling first?

I did not redefine "toward". Multiple dictionaries define "toward" as "in the direction of". Going by is not toward.

Oh, I see...there's really only one person who here who disagrees with you. NOT! You are delusional, my friend...there's more than me replying to you, I did not call you a name, and the definition of "toward" fits the bill here. Good bye.

if someone kicked my dog in the face I would beat the shit out of them.

Come on dude! your user name is obviously an insult to whomever you reply to.

To anyone reasonable, describing an action as going toward vs. going by are very different. Imaging using the words in any other scenario. Plus, the OP did not said toward, you did.

r u retarded? wrote:

800 dude wrote:

There's no way anyone reasonably felt threatened in this situation.

We're talking about a 5 year old child coming face to face with two barking dogs and a strange adult. How do you think that child felt?

- Well, "face to face" is your own gloss, and isn't supported by the story as told. Maybe that happened, and maybe it didn't.

- "Strange adult" has nothing to do with it. The kid is playing in an apartment complex. There are probably strange adults walking by all the time. If he's scared of them, he should play inside.

- There's zero indication in the story that the kid was frightened at all.

- But more generally, the fact that a kid might have been scared isn't relevant. Many kids are just scared of dogs. They run away and hide behind their parents even when the dogs aren't doing anything. It's not the dog owner's job to make sure that a kid is never scared of his dog. It's the dog owner's job to make sure that his dog poses no threat, and to make it clear to reasonable people that the dog poses no threat. It would be utterly ridiculous to let the fears of children dictate standards of adult conduct.

Still sounds like the guy wasn't doing all he could do to control the dog. If the dog is jumping at the guy repeatedly (which is what it sounds like), then it's the dog owner's responsibility to get that dog away from the other person...hold the dog on the other side of you, whatever.

People first, then money, then things (dogs are things).

I just quoted Suze Orman. Crazy.

get a lion. anybody can get by a dog but nobody f***s with a lion bro.

I HATE yappy little dogs with Napoleon complexes. It sounds like this was yappy little dog with a Napoleon complex. For the record.

That said, it is ABSURD to suggest that a yappy little dog with a Napoleon complex THAT IS BEING RESTRAINED ON A LEASH deserves to be approached kicked for any reason. Have you guys never seen those rats jumping and going crazy at the end of a leash? Even if the dog's sole purpose in life was to kill me, if it is on a leash and cannot physically reach me, he is not a threat to me.

To the person who said the dog jumping and lunging wasn't controlled, did you miss the part where OP said the dog was on a leash? There is behavioral control and there is physical control. The dog was certainly out of behavioral control, but OP had physical control of the dog. The dog was definitely under physical control.

OP, I 100% agree with you, on both facts that a) your dog needs to be trained and b) Grandpa was incredibly out of line.

(And whoever said "dogs are things" has either never had a dog or never had a heart.)