>> ^ponceleon:

You know, I remembered seeing these a while back, but I think the big difference this time is the addition of the growl. I wonder exactly what it is, just a recording, or the guy inside making the noise? Sounds too good to be the guy.


I want to see how inside work.

You know, I remembered seeing these a while back, but I think the big difference this time is the addition of the growl. I wonder exactly what it is, just a recording, or the guy inside making the noise? Sounds too good to be the guy.

This game was a disaster. What a waste of $60. Stupid story, no genuine terror aside from jump scares, sluggish controls, poor collision detection, terrible facial animation, linear, lacking in variety, lacking in bosses... The formula of the game is 1) enter a room 2) fight off 3-5 waves of enemies 3) wait 10 seconds for the door to the next room to open 4) yawn 5) repeat.

Unlike Yahtzee, I really dug DS1. It was scary because you were alone and underpowered. In this game, you are Rambo and there are NPC's everywhere. In the first game, the sound design gave you subtle distant growls to let you know monsters may strike at any moment. In this game, a bombastic soundtrack beats you over the head any time a monster is about to strike. I actually played a good portion of the game without sound, listening to my ipod. In the first game, you are this Gordon Freeman style silent, solitary figure who only reveals his face at the end. In this one, your annoying character talks and shows his poorly animated face constantly.

The multiplayer is also a mess. It's a hackneyed, poorly thought out rip off of Left 4 Dead. (Valve really should make a Left 4 Dead in space game) Not only is the multiplayer horrible, but you need an EA license to play it, which means that whoever buys my used copy is going to have to pony up even more money to EA. Fuckers.

I hate a kitten when I was little that would play tug with a rope. When you let go, he'd march across the room with it in his mouth, ears back and growling like a lion.

I didn't have enough information when I initially commented on this video (because the video didn't provide it), and I jumped to conclusions - my bad!! In any event, it would definitely have been helpful if the video had indicated if the otter was a sea otter, river otter, or ...

Here's some fun and interesting information about otters from the World Famous San Diego Zoo web site:
Class: Mammalia (Mammals)
Order: Carnivora
Family: Mustelidae
Genera: 6
Species: 13
Length: largest—giant otter Pteronura brasiliensis, up to 7.8 feet (2.4 meters); smallest—Asian small-clawed otter Amblonyx cinereus, up to 3 feet (0.9 meters)
Weight: largest—sea otter Enhydra lutris, males up to 95 pounds (43 kilograms); smallest—Asian small-clawed otter, up to 11 pounds (5 kilograms)
Life span: 15 to 20 years
Gestation: from 2 months for smaller species to 5 months for sea otters
Number of young at birth: 1 to 5, usually 2
Size at birth: 4.5 ounces (128 grams) for smaller species to 5 pounds (2.3 kilograms) for sea otters
Age of maturity: 2 to 5 years
Conservation status: four species, including the sea otter, are endangered; three otter species are vulnerable.
Fun facts
• You can tell otter species apart by the shape and amount of fur on their noses.
• Unlike other marine mammals, sea otters do not have a layer of blubber to keep them warm; they rely on warm air trapped in their fur. Sea otters have the densest fur of any mammal, with about 100,000 hairs in a space about the size of a postage stamp!
• Most otter species capture prey with their mouths, but Asian small-clawed otters and sea otters have flexible fingers and grab with their hands.
• North American and European river otters have been known to share dens with beavers—but the beavers do all the building!

Mammals: Otter
Range: Africa, Asia, and parts of North America, Central America, and South America
Habitat: sea otters are found in the Pacific Ocean and along the coastline, but most otter species live in rivers, lakes, and marshes

Champion swimmers
Otters are the only serious swimmers in the weasel family. They spend most of their lives in the water, and they are made for it! Their sleek, streamlined bodies are perfect for diving and swimming. Otters also have long, slightly flattened tails that move sideways to propel them through the water while their back feet act like rudders to steer.

Almost all otters have webbed feet, some more webbed than others, and they can close off their ears and noses as they swim underwater. They can stay submerged for about five minutes, because their heart rate slows and they use less oxygen. They’re also good at floating on the water’s surface, because air trapped in their fur makes them more buoyant. Have you ever noticed that when an otter comes out of the water, its outer fur sticks together in wet spikes, while the underneath still seems dry? That’s because they have two layers of fur: a dense undercoat that traps air; and a topcoat of long, waterproof guard hairs. Keeping their fur in good condition is important, so otters spend a lot of time grooming. In fact, if their fur becomes matted with something like oil, it can damage their ability to hunt for food and stay warm.

Party animals
Otters are very energetic and playful. You might say they love to party! They are intelligent and curious, and they are usually busy hunting, investigating, or playing with something. They like to throw and bounce things, wrestle, twirl, and chase their tails. They also play games of "tag" and chase each other, both in the water and on the ground. River otters seem to like sliding down mud banks or in the snow—they’ll do it over and over again! Otters also make lots of different sounds, from whistles, growls, and screams to barks, chirps, and coos. All this activity is part of the otters’ courtship, social bonding, and communication, and since otter pups need practice, they tend to be even more playful than the adults.

Life as a pup
Most otters are born in a den, helpless and with their eyes closed. The mother takes care of them, often chasing the father away after their birth, although in some species the dad may come back after a couple of weeks to help raise them. The babies, called pups, open their eyes and start exploring the den at about one month, start swimming at two months, and stay with their mother and siblings until they are about one year old, when they head off on their own.

For sea otters in their ocean habitat it’s a little different—the pups are born with their eyes open, and they have a special coat of hair so they can float, even though they can’t swim yet. They are carried on their mother’s stomach until they are about two months old, when they start swimming and diving on their own.

For most otters, social groups are made up of a mother, her older offspring, and her newest pups; the males spend most of their time alone or with a few other males. During breeding time or where there’s lots of food, though, larger groups of otters may gather, especially among sea otters in kelp beds.

The seafood diet
Otter food may not all come from the ocean, but it is definitely fishy! River otters eat mostly fish, frogs, crayfish, crabs, and mollusks, with an occasional small mammal or bird. Sea otters eat many of the same things, but mostly sea urchins, abalone, crabs, mussels, and clams, which they crack open against rocks they hold on their stomachs. Otters have long, sensitive whiskers that help them find prey, even in murky water. Some species, like the Asian small-clawed otter Amblonyx cinereus, also use their hands to probe into mud or under rocks to find a tasty meal that might be hiding there. River otters use lots of energy and digest their food very fast, so they eat several times a day. Sea otters need to eat 20 to 25 percent of their body weight each day. That’s a lot of abalone!
The otters at the San Diego Zoo are fed carnivore diet, carrots, and either squid or trout. They also get small amounts of "treats" for enrichment, like crayfish, worms, potatoes, or yams.

>> ^Shepppard:
We went in not knowing anything about the game.

This is the key to making a game scary, IMO. It's also why I haven't truly been scared by a game since the 1990s. By the time you get your hands on a game nowadays, you already know everything about it.

The original Doom is still the scariest game I've ever played and it was mostly because I had no idea what to expect. I didn't know the monsters; I didn't know the weapons; I didn't know what the engine itself was capable of. My first encounter with a pinky was quite memorable. I had heard it growling in the distance for several minutes. The sound was a new one; I had only seen zombies and imps up to that point; so I was cautiously creeping around trying to pin it down. I finally came face to face with it as I came around a corner in a very tight hallway; the ideal location to fight 500lbs of teeth and muscle.

XCom 2 is my other noteworthy game for being scary, though it was more of a nervous tension than outright fear.

Since then, games have startled me with "boo!" tactics, but none of them have really been scary.

The dogs my parents have bark and growl at people all the time when they pass by on the street. Sometimes they'll even bark at me when I pull up into the driveway until they hear my voice or I get close enough for them to recognize me. That's a big reason why a lot of people have dogs, to let them know when strangers are around whether it be by barking, growling, or running around all excited. Which by this article, two of those are acts of aggression (there's a difference between growling/barking as a warning or alert and growling/barking as imminent attack on every dog I've ever seen) and running around excited is often construed as aggressive as well...especially if your dog is fairly big. Most small dogs bark/growl and run around, and I haven't seen too videos of them being shot... Which is draws some parallels when it comes to people. Big, scary looking guys are assumed to be aggressive while small men and women are not seen in the same light when it comes to first impressions, even had lawyers address it to my brother when he was younger. He said being a big guy brought up on any kind of violence/aggressive charge means you're more likely to be punished whether you were the aggressor or not.

Unless this dog physically harmed or attempted to physically harm a person or a pet....that dog did not deserve to be shot as it was under control. Barking and growling is just a warning that your ass needs to stay off that dogs property...and most dogs have a pretty good sense of where their territory ends when it comes to households.

>> ^alizarin:

The dog broke free of the chain off camera and was charging the officer so they decided to put it down.
The only reason I can think of why this would be necessary after on the catch poll is if they don't have an animal control dept.
Judging by Wikipedia and satellite view of the town and a search of the city website.... they might be too small to have an animal control department.


From the article, "Howell testified that the dog growled as he tried to load it into a truck, that it later broke free from a chain tied to the vehicle and eventually charged as he tried to capture it with a six-foot catchpole."

Except, watching the video is proof of some exaggeration in his statements. At time 4:39 the dog moves off camera, and Howell follows it with the catchpole. Less than ten seconds later Howell manages to slip the catchpole over the dog's head and secure it. The dog immediately flips out, coming back onto camera with the chain still attached (until it visibly flies off at the end of his tether). The dog continuously tries to escape, alternating between blindly running, and turning to bite at the thing around its neck. There's about thirty seconds of this before the dog seems to give up, and stands still. And then, it gets shot.

So, the dog broke off the chain only as a direct result of having been noosed by the officers. She never charged directly at the officers, and she was shot only when she was visibly no longer resisting. This is quite a different picture from the impression the article gives, that the dog slipped the chain and was charging the officers when it was shot. If it had happened as they said, I'd have felt that it was unfortunate, but justifiable. But this? There had to be options left to them before shooting someone's dog to death.

The story behind this incident is pretty damned confusing. Apparently, a woman walking her daughter to the bus stop felt threatened when the dog began growling at her and her daughter. The man was fined for having his dog unleashed and unmuzzled, so the woman chained the dog up while waiting for the cops to arrive? She says she did this because she "wanted to be safe", but how does that connect with her approaching a vicious animal in order to chain it up? And the dog seems to have allowed it, which doesn't exactly paint a picture of a dog foaming at the mouth and hungering for blood...

In fact, the dog seemed pretty mild-mannered in the video, trying to run away from the strange man with a stick, and only resorting to biting at the thing around its neck. The fact that it ever came to killing seems pretty ignorant on part of everyone involved (owner included, as the dog should never have been left unleashed and to its own devices). It doesn't matter how distraught the officers may have looked at killing the dog, as it was ultimately done out of convenience. And over it all, some self-righteous mother is probably quite happy with herself for removing another menace from her block.

It doesn't come off as nitpickish and I thank you for your rational response. But if you click on the video and go to the first youtube video part 1 of 2, I don't see how the dog was being life threatening, which would be the requirement to use lethal force I imagine, and I didn't read in my above link how the dog was a threat other than growling at passerby's.

With my limited knowledge of policing and law I come to the conclusion that animal control should be called if there was a an uncontrollable animal/threatening to the community and I don't see any justification under any circumstances this video or any previous event would show that this animal needed to be shot while being restrained on a pole and while it was posing no immediate threat.

I had a different title when I first posted this video and it seemed to me more biased so i changed it, but if you conclude that that is still the case feel free to tell me to change it. I actually ended up just copy/pasting the title from reddit as mine seemed too emotional at first so I ended up changing it.


>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

>> ^ToKeyMonsTeR:
I say a lot of bad things about police. I am a police hater even when many people say the opposite, but this... I don't know how this can be justified in anyone's eyes.

You're not thinking hard enough then. Going straight into knee-jerk reactionary mode, especially without having any modicum of background information on this incident makes this post seem like a rather opaque, overeager attempt to demonize the police based on some preexisting desire to support a conclusion you've already arrived at (in this case); your history on this matter doesn't help though either.
Trust me, I'm no fan of crooked cops (or anyone who abuses power or oppresses the powerless). What they did could be actually wrong, but you've provided no support for it. The video description is factual at best and disingenuous at worst. The rational, responsible thing to do would be to not make any judgment calls at all in situations where it's not particularly evident until more information surfaces. At least that's how I go about these things.
I hope this doesn't come off as overly nitpickish.

>> ^Mcboinkens:
I mean, it's amusing...but I don't really see how it is beatboxing, even for a dog. This guy is basically harrassing his dog. Oh well, seems like all it takes is a dog or cat to get some votes.


If the dog REALLY disliked it, it would move away. It's probably growling at the camera.

However, I do agree the dog is not beatboxing. The owner is using an "analog sound board".

>> ^westy:

Regardless of u stance on animal crulty its ironic that the people r trying to get the dogs to fight and the dogs just want to sniff eachothers bums and hump.
if annything it gose in the face of dog fighting.
allso this video in no way indorses dog fighting.

It's not ironic that the dogs have to be taught to fight each other, that's just the way it works. These animals would not otherwise attack each other so viciously, as the likelihood of getting themselves injured or killed is too high. That's why animals develop various non-violent methods of resolving disputes (baring teeth, growling, raising hackles, etc.).

The main reason that this video is not amusing in the least is that the flip side of this coin is gruesome, inhumane and abhorrent. If these animals cannot be taught to fight viciously until one of them is dead or they are physically separated by their handlers, they will be killed. A fighting dog that doesn't fight isn't worth shit to a person who fights dogs. So while someone felt it would be fun to put clever musical touches on this particular video, I would challenge them to do the same to the video of these dogs being drowned, electrocuted, strangled, shot, hacked with a machete or all of the above.

This video absolutely endorses dog fighting, as it tries frame this phase of a fighting dog's life as amusing or cute, when in fact it is anything but. If these dogs do not "overcome" their natural urges to inspect each other and integrate in a peaceful social hierarchy, they will be killed by their handlers in cold blood.

The humor that is being attempted by the video's creator is not lost on me, but I cannot ignore the greater context of dog fighting simply because of some silly music.

I am a regular lurker here on VideoSift, and this is the first time I cursed the fact that I am not a bronze star user, as this is the first video I felt like down-voting.

upvote for shep smith's face/growl after the "BEAR ALERT!"

wtf? whats a bear alert? i demand more context.

I bet if you approached the dog he'd start growling, thinking you were going to steal it's fish.

> Let's hear it for parents who ruin their kid's hearing! Fucking douchebag.

the original for this is just his Dad and him exchanging growls