# DOG--The bounty Huuunnnterrrrr!



## tdowns (Jun 22, 2005)

Has anyone watched this show, on A and E I think, Tuesday nights. Classic! It follows Dog, a real bounty hunter, and a real Christian. He's probably not up to reformed standards theologically, and def. has an edge, but if you watch a couple of shows I believe he shows fruit of the spirit. It's a crack up and he and his family are characters. Just wondering if anyone has watched it. It is an interesting study on what being a Christian looks like, he's an ex con, and like I said Rough, but he makes the sacrifices for others, his family, even the crooks he tracks down. Very interesting from a christian view, and pretty entertaining from a general point of view.


----------



## Batman (Jun 22, 2005)

I love the guy...he throws out the f-bomb every now in then in the heat of battle, but he shows fruits of the spirit in the way he treats his wife, family, and outlaws. It's pretty cool that A and E shows them pray before they go out for a bounty. The theme song rocks...is that Ozzie who sings it? It sounds exactly like him.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jun 23, 2005)

I love the show, too. It makes for very interesting TV, and it doesn't seem like anybody's getting exploited.

Sure he may use some cuss words, etc, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't seem like a big deal. After the danger of the scene dies down, he almost immediately shows compassion for the criminal, sometimes even to his own cost. That's real Christianity. I like it!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> It follows Dog, a real bounty hunter, and a real Christian.



He is a cook! Probably goes to some Word Faith church. He better watch out. His son had better also. That woman his wife could beat them both up.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 25, 2005)

When is this on?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 25, 2005)

It is on Tuesday evenings on A&E. It is really stupid. I have waisted my time on it twice out of pure boredom.

[Edited on 6-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 25, 2005)

Fair warning taken, but I may check it out just to see....I am seldom home evenings though. Should I waste Tivo Space?


----------



## tdowns (Jun 25, 2005)

*I would.*

I would def. Tivo it. It's def. stupid. It is fun stupidity, and it's stupid funny!

I'd be interested on your take on it Adam, my guess is you will like it. Like all shows, the best ones are probably from first season, so look for the reruns, which is why Tivo is perfect, it can catch the reruns if they pop-up at some unknown time.

Whether or not he's word faith, who knows, that's never been alluded to that I've seen. But his faith has produced more than words I can tell you that, and If I was his neighbor, and needed help with something, I guarantee he'd be there with more than words to help you out.

He's probably becoming more and more a character with the shows longer run, but early shows, you could see the real him--struggles with anger, cursing etc, but you could see him repenting and moving forth in grace as well.

I personally think, if we "saw" everyones heart and attitudes with their wives and families, behind closed doors; we'd see a lot worse than Dog's in most "Christian's" lives. Words and attitudes housed with Christian fluff and facade, without heated emotion or profanity but all the more destructive in their coldness.

That's why I find it interesting, he's proclaiming Christ, but very obviously not perfect. And yes, his wife could take them all down.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 26, 2005)

I agree it is funny stupid.

Don't forget Trevor. Dog on screen is probably different than Dog offscreen.


----------



## tdowns (Jun 26, 2005)

*Good point.*



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I agree it is funny stupid.
> 
> Don't forget Trevor. Dog on screen is probably different than Dog offscreen.



Very good point.:bigsmile:


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Sep 15, 2006)

> Condoleezza Rice may decide the case of bounty hunter Duane Chapman, who is wanted in Mexico after he illegally caught a wanted rapist there three years ago.
> 
> Larry Butrick, chief of the criminal division of the U.S. attorney's office in Hawaii, told CNN while a magistrate in Hawaii will determine if Chapman can be extradited to Mexico, the final decision will be made by the U.S. secretary of state.
> 
> ...


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 16, 2006)

JUSTICE FOR THE DAWWWWWWWWWWG!!


----------



## BJClark (Sep 16, 2006)

My husband watches it occassionally, and I sit down with him and watch for a few--I have yet to see what the "entertainment" value is. 

But as He apparently enjoys it, I don't say anything.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Sep 16, 2006)

Mexico has a terribly corrupt police force in the first place. Why should we give a dern what THEY say?

To hand over Dog to them would be a HUGE perversion of justice, and the very thought of it makes me so mad I can hardly sit still!


----------



## py3ak (Sep 16, 2006)

Chris, you'll excuse me, but the point is a simple one that has nothing whatever to do with the Mexican police's honesty or lack of it.
Dog carried his bounty-hunting trade into Mexico; in Mexico, bounty-hunting is illegal. Therefore, Dog broke Mexico's law. Is there a gap in that logic?


----------



## alwaysreforming (Sep 16, 2006)

Yeah, there's a gap in the logic....
I don't like it!!!
(Hey, you can't argue with one's emotions....)


Plus, why would we hand over one of our own "law enforcement officers" to be subject to their perverted justice? We need to protect our citizens. He could be cruely treated there, and perhaps with no rights. 
Also, the guy he captured was a rapist who needed to be brought to justice. They should certainly see the case for what it is and not try to pursue it! The very fact that they're doing so is what has got my ire up. Our own justice system is very lenient with their citizens (people crossing the border), why would they not show us the same courtesy? Certainly they have more important cases to pursue than this one, you know, like one's with legitimate "victims" involved.

If they are so interested in "justice", why don't they start with cleaning up their own police force? It makes me sick when I hear stories of their police mistreating our citizens.

I know my argument doesn't logically follow, so please excuse my inconsistencies. I'm just expressing my opinion on the case (in which I'm too emotionally involved to be impartial.)


----------



## py3ak (Sep 16, 2006)

Christopher, personally I agree that Dog shouldn't be handed over; if he were he could probably get out without too much difficulty.... 
And on the whole I am glad he caught the other guy.
But turn it around. What if a Mexican bounty hunter caught a guy in the US, against their laws. Would we be a bit disturbed at that? 
It's not a matter of justice, unfortunately: it's a matter of legality, and in the US and Mexico those two only infrequently coincide.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Sep 17, 2006)

> When an international law isn´t just, we can make a decision on what should be done in the situation.



THERE is the bottom line.


----------



## BJClark (Sep 18, 2006)

Actually, the reason it appears he's being taken back to Mexico is because he jumped bail, he was arrested, charged, given a court date and didn't show up for court.

Once he's there, they MAY look at the Bounty Hunting charges determine they are a misdomeaner, and only give him a small fine. But the fact he jumped bail is the issue, especially given HE is a bounty hunter of those who jump bail.



> Charges have been pending against the three since local police in Mexico arrested them shortly after they roped in Luster. They posted bail but never returned to Puerto Villarta for their court hearing on July 15, 2003, Credic said.



[Edited on 9-18-2006 by BJClark]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Sep 18, 2006)

Bobbi

Why should the U.S.A. support this? This is what amazes me, that this is even being considered by our legal system. It's sad.


----------



## king of fools (Sep 18, 2006)

I agree. Was his target a person that needed to be brought to justice? Yes. Did Dog the bounty hunter do it in the wrong way, and in fact break laws himself? Yes. Just becuase the police force in Mexico is corupt doesn't give you the right to break their laws (necessarily). Also, just becuase something is legal somewhere, doesn't mean it's legal and ok to do everywhere (necessarily). Try opening up a casino in Salt Lake City for example.

On a side note per his Christian values: Wasn't he just living with that woman on the show? I found the follwoing on Wikipedia:

"Chapman and Smith were married on May 20, 2006 after sixteen years of living together in a common law marriage"


----------



## BJClark (Sep 18, 2006)

houseparent,

I didn't say the U.S.A. should have been involved, but they should support it because it is the law, Mexican Authorities should have paid a Bounty Hunter go get him, and NOT U.S. Marshals. However, considering Bounty Hunting is illegal in Mexico I imagine they couldn't go that route. So they have to trust on the integrity of the U.S. to send them a criminal.

but you know, when it comes to their own Criminals who come to the U.S.A. they don't worry about having them extridited, they leave them here in the US Prisions allowing tax dollars to support them. 

Maybe we should send Mexico a bill for housing their prisioners, as well as bill them for the use of U.S. Marshals time and expenses.





> Why should the U.S.A. support this? This is what amazes me, that this is even being considered by our legal system. It's sad.



[Edited on 9-18-2006 by BJClark]


----------



## py3ak (Sep 18, 2006)

Caleb, I'm sure it's Fox's insatiable desire to screw the US which has people down here thinking that his party is basically composed of American yes-men. Also, if you read what I said I distinguished between law and justice. I think most laws these days (US or Mexico) are unjust: that doesn't change the fact that they are laws, and breaking them is, by definition, illegal.
We may think it unjust that in Singapore they cane people for vandalism (although I think it's a good idea); but does that mean it was wrong for those in Singapore to cane that American kid some years ago for stealing street signs?


----------



## py3ak (Sep 18, 2006)

Caleb,

1. I'm sure most politicians act from motives of profit (personal or political). In fact, that seems to be the point of politics.
2. The fact that I think caning is a good idea doesn't mean you do. It serves to distinguish justice and legality yet again. It is perfectly legal in Singapore for them to smack delinquent teenagers. Yet some Americans were very upset about it. I suspect it had more to do with the fact that it was an American getting paddled than with their clear notions of justice or law. 
3. According to some reports the Mexican police were on the rapist's trail.
4. Was it just for Dog to break a law and skip bail in the pursuit of his job?


----------



## py3ak (Sep 19, 2006)

Caleb, you're assuming that the job of bounty hunter is just. That would be an interesting point to establish. Second, you're assuming that he can cross the border (whereas his authority technically only extends within the US) in order to carry out that work.
And I can skip bail if I shouldn't have been arrested? I'm sure my local church family that has paid about $1,400.00 in bail would be thrilled to know that.


----------



## govols (Sep 19, 2006)

Someone should lock up Dog's "wife", seriously.


----------



## BJClark (Sep 19, 2006)

caleb_woodrow,

The point being though Caleb, even though the law was unjust, he should have abided by the law, and gone back to Mexico to face the charges against him.

I find it totally ironic, His job is to track down those who have jumped bail and bring them back to face the charges against them, which is EXACTLY what the Mexican authorities were doing in His case. He jumped bail, they were bringing him back to face the charges against him.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 19, 2006)

Caleb, I am not arguing about the justice of it --though I would be interested to see if there is a way that bounty hunting can be shown to be theoretically righteous. But, in our day, laws are not about justice. Are we free to ignore unjust laws?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 19, 2006)

Not impressed.


----------



## BJClark (Sep 19, 2006)

caleb_woodrow,



> He already served time in Mexico. There is an equivocation with regard to his job. He is under entirely different circumstances in that international affairs are not at stake in his daily business.



Yes he did, but the facts remain the same, he still jumped bail before appearing in court. Which apparently is against the law in Mexico, just as it is in America.

If a person is arrested, and spends time in jail before they go in front of the judge at a bail hearing isn't the same thing as doing time for the crime. 

The bail hearing is just that, a bail hearing, which allows the judge to determine if the person should be let out of jail before they go to trial, then a trial date is set for the crime.

He jumped bail, he didn't appear in court on the agreed upon date, I say agreed upon, because HE paid the bail amount saying he would show up in court on the given date. So the judge issued a warrant for his arrest to bring him in, in order to face the charges against him.


Again, that is the same crime he himself enforces, in the United States, so why should it be any different for him to be arrested for jumping bail?


----------



## py3ak (Sep 19, 2006)

Caleb, obviously there are examples like forced abortion, where I think anybody with two inches of spine will screw law for justice. I don't know that that argument can come into play in this situation, however. 
As I understood, Mexican police got the rapist from Dog and handed him over to US authorities, correct? If that was what they did, co-operating with the US while at the same time arresting someone who had broken their law, why would the US refuse the same co-operation to them?


----------



## govols (Sep 20, 2006)

*Maybe, just maybe*

Maybe if we watch the Univision channel we will see <b>El Perro</b> track down and arrest Dog and bring him back to Mexico.??


----------



## ReformedWretch (Sep 20, 2006)

I don't know guys, but I am sort of shocked at how many of you believe Mexico is a Country we should stand with. Dog did a GOOD thing and breaking a Mexican law to do it (especially a law like that!) is not a big deal in my book.


----------



## BJClark (Sep 20, 2006)

houseparent,

I'm not saying He didn't DO a good thing.

But that he broke a law, the exact same law he went to Mexico to track this guy down for breaking. 

The orginal offender he went after had jumped bail in the U.S.A., granted yes, HE had committed a horrid crime, but that is not the point, after he was caught the Mexican Authorites worked to get him sent him back to the United States.

So even though Dog's crime is not of the same magnitude, he still committed a crime in their country, Mexico is only asking for the same consideration be taken. 

Given the fact Dog's crime was only a misdemeanor in Mexico, he may only have to pay a fine for the orginal crime, but he needs to go to court and let the judge determine that. 

I'm just as shocked that others think it's okay for someone to break a law, even if in another country and not have to suffer the consequences, just because He was 'doing a good thing' in breaking that law.

I guess if someone breaks one law, it's okay for someone else to break the same law or even another, in order to bring about justice? 

If someone broke into your home and stole your things, it would then be okay for you to go break into their home and take them back? And they should go to jail because they broke the law first, yet you shouldn't be punished in anyway, even though you broke the exact same law? I mean, after all you were doing a good thing, in getting your things back.





> I don't know guys, but I am sort of shocked at how many of you believe Mexico is a Country we should stand with. Dog did a GOOD thing and breaking a Mexican law to do it (especially a law like that!) is not a big deal in my book.



[Edited on 9-20-2006 by BJClark]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Sep 20, 2006)

To me, I just have little to no respect for Mexico and their government.


----------



## BJClark (Sep 20, 2006)

houseparent,



> To me, I just have little to no respect for Mexico and their government.



And I can certainly understand that, but just because we don't respect the people within their government, doesn't mean we shouldn't respect the laws of that government, even when we disagree.

I could certainly say there are many people who are elected within our government I have no respect for, and many laws I don't like, but I must still treat them with respect and abide by the laws, as long as they don't go against God.

Just because the law says abortion is legal, doesn't mean I have to go out and get an abortion, or even encourage someone else too.

And the same would apply even if I were a doctor, just because the law says abortions are legal, doesn't mean *I* would have to perform them, granted it could cost me my job, but that would be a risk I would have to be willing to take.

Just as with Dog, He took a risk, he knew it was illegal for him to jump bail, but he did it anyway. That was the risk he took, and now he should stand up and say yes, I did this and I was wrong to jump bail, and be willing to suffer the consequences of that choice. 

Isn't that part of what being a Christian is about? Setting an example for others? And being able to confess when we are in the wrong and at least trying to correct it whenever possible, even if we suffer?


----------



## py3ak (Sep 21, 2006)

Adam, and there is the problem. 
Are you free to disrespect Mexico and their government? Is the US? Is their sovereignty of no value because you don't respect them?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 16, 2007)

Looks like Dog is going to be extradited to Mexico.


----------



## Blue Tick (Feb 17, 2007)

Bummer for Dog. I'm sure its not going to be easy for him.


----------



## etexas (Feb 18, 2007)

Poor Dog! Mexico can hide our criminals (or send us theirs) and not much happens. But Dog grabs an AMERICAN serial rapist in Mexico and when Mexico moans we turn over one of our citizens to a backwards Nation? What is wrong here?


----------



## Ivan (Feb 18, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Adam, and there is the problem.
> Are you free to disrespect Mexico and their government? Is the US? Is their sovereignty of no value because you don't respect them?



Good questions.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Feb 18, 2007)

I have deleted my previous posts in this thread because looking back I must have not been in a very good mood. Anyways, I think the whole ordeal is more political than anything else. Did DOG break Mexican law by capturing a serial rapist who fled to Mexico? Yes.

Was the crime that he committed outrageous? I think most people would say no. He already spent time in Jail after he was arrested in Mexico. Is it really necessary to extradite him? Besides political games, I don't see why.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 18, 2007)

caleb_woodrow said:


> Besides political games, I don't see why.



The cynic raises his hoardy head and asks, "Ratings?"


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Feb 18, 2007)

No. If by that you mean ratings for DOG's show.


----------

