My dog was on a leash and someone kicked him.

Would anyone care to dispute the claim that, "dogs are annoying". Sure some people are...but dogs more so.

Watch this and you'll see these problems can be solved.

Flagpole wrote:

4) Dogs are living things, but they are still things. They are not people. They are not money. In the list of people, money, or things, they are things. People OWN dogs. People own THINGS. I have a dog. She is great. I love dogs. I have a heart, but dogs have their place, and it is BEHIND law-abiding people.

You are equating a dog with, say, a book. Dogs are animals, not things. You can't get arrested for "book cruelty," but you can get get arrested for animal cruelty. An animal has inherent rights, and a book does not.

We agree that dogs are not people, but surely we can also agree that dogs are not simply things.

I also get that people connect with their dogs on different levels. One of my friends is like you. She has a dog, likes her all right, but still sees her a "just a dog." My dog is absolutely a member of my family. Sure, if I were forced to choose between her and a human member of my family I would choose the human, but asked to choose between her, and, say, a billion dollars, I'd choose my dog in a heartbeat. And before you accuse me of being one, I am not a sappy dog owner who thinks her dog is God's gift to the universe. I'm extremely strict with my dog, but she is definitely part of my family.

Also, how can a dog be on a leash but not properly restrained, as long as the leash isn't one of those flexi-leashes? The dog would be, at worst, 6 feet from the owner. So the Grandpa here, starting from > 6 feet from the owner, would have had to APPROACH the dog to kick it.

And sorry, but it's not against the law for a dog to jump repeatedly and bark on a leash. If you can't take dogs jumping and yapping leashes, please don't ever visit my city (a large city in the U.S.).

another average american wrote:

how can a dog be on a leash but not properly restrained, as long as the leash isn't one of those flexi-leashes? The dog would be, at worst, 6 feet from the owner. So the Grandpa here, starting from > 6 feet from the owner, would have had to APPROACH the dog to kick it.

So the guy's right in front of grandpa arguing with him, and the dog is 6 feet away???? How do you figure that, Einstein? No, the dog is jumping all over the guy and that's why it got kicked.

By the way, how is grandpa going to chase down a dog to kick it. Obviously, that did not happen.

some people are so stupid wrote:

So the guy's right in front of grandpa arguing with him, and the dog is 6 feet away???? How do you figure that, Einstein? No, the dog is jumping all over the guy and that's why it got kicked.

By the way, how is grandpa going to chase down a dog to kick it. Obviously, that did not happen.

Here is the quote from the OP:

OP:

Meanwhile I'm still walking away past the boy and their house. They hear my dogs barking and the grandfather comes out to tell me to train my dogs. ... He then KICKS my dog square in the face because my dog kept jumping at him, when he got closer and I had my dog on a shorter and shorter leash.

So, Einstein, the grandfather APPROACHES the dogs. Why does the guy have to be right in front of the grandpa arguing with him?

The way I imagined the situation, the guy is walking by the house. Grandpa comes out and starts yelling at him about his dogs. Guy doesn't want a confrontation and continues to pull his misbehaving dogs down the sidewalk. The grandfather approaches. The only way the dog had access to the grandfather is if the grandfather walked towards the OP so far that he was within several feet from him.

If Grandpa hadn't walked so close, the dog never would have been able to jump on him.

I read this as Grandpa, many feet away, gets mad and approaches the OP to kick the dog.

In other words Grandpa was getting closer as OP is getting farther away. How much more of a clear cut case of retreating vs. pursuing does it need to be??

another average american wrote:

In other words Grandpa was getting closer as OP is getting farther away. How much more of a clear cut case of retreating vs. pursuing does it need to be??

don't be so retarded wrote:In other words Grandpa was getting closer as OP is getting farther away.

Simple, Grandpa was faster than the OP.

Do you have kids or grand kids? I don't think so, hommie don't play that. If a dog is aggressive towards my 2yr old it would not be pretty. People like you are why I carry a police baton when I go for a walk or run with my son. I'm not violent against animals, but when it comes to my boy, son > any animal.

Yes, the child is the key issue. It baffles me that anyone could defend this dog walker in his actions of walking his aggressive, barking, lunging dogs towards, and into close proximity of, and past a young child playing in front of his own home. Take the child out of the picture and the confrontation does not happen (if it does, the Grandpa is a serious problem).It is also bazaar that some defenders of the OP claim reading comprehension is the problem with this summary and that the OP never stated he walked his dogs towards the child, but rather "past" the child. As someone else wrote, it is not possible to "walk past" a child sitting in front of his home without having approached him or walked towards him. In this context the words "toward" and "approach" are not limited to meaning walked "directly at," as these reading comprehension experts seem to imply. The OP approached on the walkway at a slight angle to the child. That seems very clear and it is not physical possible for him to otherwise have walked past the child.Moreover, the dog was said to weigh 20 pounds, a weight that includes many aggressive and dangerous breeds that could maim or even kill a young child. This is not a toy dog, but a real and present danger.To focus on the grandfather's reaction is to miss the point. The OP created a crises by putting the young child at risk and all of OP subsequent posts suggest the same thing: He could care less. I suspect that most every parent of young children would concerned about the OP's conduct and attitude, which is a menace to their child. As a parent of a toddler, I feel lucky to have never encounter the likes of the OP, but I am sure this conduct would alarm me and I would be compelled to address the risk. Lastly, it seems likely that the OP is the posting under multiple pseudonyms.

1SICKLEX wrote:

Do you have kids or grand kids? I don't think so, hommie don't play that. If a dog is aggressive towards my 2yr old it would not be pretty. People like you are why I carry a police baton when I go for a walk or run with my son. I'm not violent against animals, but when it comes to my boy, son > any animal.

Child was never said to be "on the sidewalk." Maybe start over with the facts.

Mr. Rogers wrote:

It is also bazaar that some defenders of the OP claim reading comprehension is the problem with this summary and that the OP never stated he walked his dogs towards the child, but rather "past" the child. As someone else wrote, it is not possible to "walk past" a child sitting in front of his home without having approached him or walked towards him. In this context the words "toward" and "approach" are not limited to meaning walked "directly at," as these reading comprehension experts seem to imply. The OP approached on the walkway at a slight angle to the child. That seems very clear and it is not physical possible for him to otherwise have walked past the child.

Actually, that's what "toward" and "approach" usually mean. If I drive from New York to Montreal, I'm not "approaching" Boston. But even if we take your extremely broad reading of "toward" and "approach," the words would then cease to imply any threat. It's simply not threatening to walk perpendicular to someone in such a manner that for a period of time, one gets closer, when it's clear that at one's present course, there is a limit to how close one will get.

Of course it's entirely possible that what actually happened is that the OP endangered a child. I wasn't there. But on his telling, that didn't happen. The people who are criticizing the OP are only able to do so by adding their own facts to his story.

Incidentally, "bazaar" is where you buy Persian carpets.

Lets see...OP walks dogs near a child....dog barks at child's...grandfather feels child is threatened, yells at OP and kicks dog.

What's the problem here?

another average american wrote:

Dogs are animals, not things.

A dog is someTHING. A dog is part of everyTHING.

Mr. Rogers wrote:

Child was never said to be "on the sidewalk." Maybe start over with the facts.

Runner/Dog owner wrote:

Their young boy(about 5 years old) is playing outside on the ground side walk.

Runner/Dog owner wrote:

Their young boy(about 5 years old) is playing outside on the ground [by the] side walk.

Excellent post; I would just add there are 4.5 MILLION dog bites a year in the United States. Yes, you are allowed to have a dog but you have responsibilities like Making it impossible for it to bite anyone. Reality check: don't let your dog get anywhere near a kid. If your dog barks and scares a kid, you are already in the wrong. Like was pointed out, you should have kept going. Of course he is going to kick it when it jumps at him.

Dogs hurt more children every year than child molesters and guns combined. They just have much better PR.

And a retractable leash is not really a leash, as much as you would like to think it is.

1SICKLEX wrote:

Do you have kids or grand kids? I don't think so, hommie don't play that. If a dog is aggressive towards my 2yr old it would not be pretty. People like you are why I carry a police baton when I go for a walk or run with my son. I'm not violent against animals, but when it comes to my boy, son > any animal.

Agreed, people without kids do not get this.

If I see dogs offleash when my kids aren't around, I tell them to put it on a leash to train the dumb owners for when my kids are around.

I quizzed a woman in a running group once and she admitted she would save her dog before a baby in a carriage if a car was approaching out of control. I took this opportunity to point out that dog is served as a meal in some north American restaurants and hundreds of dogs are put down for experiments every day.

I bet that family doesn't have to worry about you and your dogs walking anywhere near their place anymore. Sounds like they won.

Any man who kicks a dog that is reasonably under control is not a real man and not a person I would trust or have anywhere in my life. From the description it sounds like the dog was not doing anything that was threatening and that the owner was in the process of controlling the situation. It wasn't like the dog was off leash and running full tilt at a small child. Plus the dogs are less than 20 pounds. It's like a cop who disarmed the suspect and then his partner shoots the suspect anyway. Any of you who are defending the grandfather are ridiculous and are less than a man. I would have been hard pressed not to knock that guy the blank out.