03Lightningrocks wrote:I'm not believing the dog was attacking the rider. People who are defending themselves legally, don't hide from the cops.
Exactly right. If it was a good shoot by the ATV rider, then one would expect them to stay and talk to the owner, or at least call the police after they left. There's every reason to believe the dog owner.
As for not being on a leash, that doesn't wash for me. Not being on a least doesn't mean someone else gets to kill the dog. Oh yeah, why were ATV riders on property that wasn't theirs?
Chas.
This also kind of confirms the point "first to call the police is the victim".
with all the above and will add....
Two self defense shootings for me and two "first to call the cops". Innocent people don't typically feel the need to hide. I can also darn well promise if a persons dog was attacking me and I shot it right in front of them, I would not run off. I would want my side of the story told when the cops arrive. Sorry, but this thing stinks to high heaven and like Charles, if a guy on an ATV with full gear pulled up on my vicinity and produced a firearm, I would draw and open fire. My rightly justified assumption would be that I am under attack.
P.S. Based on my past experiences in these matters, I can assure you I would walk free before the end of the next day. If a person comes up on us with a weapon drawn, we are not required to wait and see if they intend to shoot us before we draw and fire. God Bless Texas! I love this State!
03Lightningrocks wrote:I'm not believing the dog was attacking the rider. People who are defending themselves legally, don't hide from the cops.
not only that but we're talking about a Labrador retriever, not a pitbull or rottweiler....have you ever seen a lab attack anything other than waterfowl?
Yes, and where do these silly ideas come from. Any dog can bite, any dog can have issues, not to mention even if purebred labs where somehow devoid of aggression how many mix breed dogs are there being called labs? Not surprising since lab breeds are basicly the most popular of any dog in the US I bet you would find that more bites come from labs than any other dogs. I know on the old CDC report from 79-98 they list labs as killing 8 people.
Yes, and where do these silly ideas come from. Any dog can bite, any dog can have issues, not to mention even if purebred labs where somehow devoid of aggression how many mix breed dogs are there being called labs? Not surprising since lab breeds are basicly the most popular of any dog in the US I bet you would find that more bites come from labs than any other dogs. I know on the old CDC report from 79-98 they list labs as killing 8 people.
I will gladly take my chances with the labs. After all labs killing eight people in nineteen years are still way behind what the humans killed in the pass nineteen years.
I am utterly amazed at the posts questioning the dog's conduct, personality, and rank speculation about what happened. The only evidence at this point is that two people on ATV's rode up to within 10 feet of a man, one pulled a gun, shot the dog, then both rode off. They didn't call the police, the dog owner did. It's been all over the news, Crime Stoppers has offered a $5,000 reward, yet the thugs still haven't called the police to tell their side of the story.
None of that is speculation; it's all supported by evidence. To those who want to discount the dog owner's statement, you are doing so without a shred of evidence.
EEllis wrote:I've got to say just because you carry a hammer it doesn't make everything a nail. There reportedly was no warning of the shooting and afterward you can't legally do anything. This at most was a misdemeanor crime so, no, shooting the ATV rider would not be ok.
As Charles stated earlier, the victim had no way of knowing if he might be next, and once a gun was drawn in his presence his life was in danger, justifying deadly force.
Last edited by rp_photo on Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"
mikeloc wrote:Yes, and where do these silly ideas come from. Any dog can bite, any dog can have issues, not to mention even if purebred labs where somehow devoid of aggression how many mix breed dogs are there being called labs? Not surprising since lab breeds are basicly the most popular of any dog in the US I bet you would find that more bites come from labs than any other dogs. I know on the old CDC report from 79-98 they list labs as killing 8 people.
I will gladly take my chances with the labs. After all labs killing eight people in nineteen years are still way behind what the humans killed in the pass nineteen years.
Mike
Great, but that isn't the point at all. The point was you can't say that there is no chance a dog could be agressive because it is a particular breed.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am utterly amazed at the posts questioning the dog's conduct, personality, and rank speculation about what happened. The only evidence at this point is that two people on ATV's rode up to within 10 feet of a man, one pulled a gun, shot the dog, then both rode off. They didn't call the police, the dog owner did. It's been all over the news, Crime Stoppers has offered a $5,000 reward, yet the thugs still haven't called the police to tell their side of the story.
None of that is speculation; it's all supported by evidence. To those who want to discount the dog owner's statement, you are doing so without a shred of evidence.
Chas.
I don't think anyone wants to discount anything. It is just without hearing the other side some of us are willing to withhold judgement. I wasn't questioning the dogs conduct, rather I was commenting on those that think that because the dog is a lab it somehow rules out any possibility of it being aggressive.
EEllis wrote:I've got to say just because you carry a hammer it doesn't make everything a nail. There reportedly was no warning of the shooting and afterward you can't legally do anything. This at most was a misdemeanor crime so, no, shooting the ATV rider would not be ok.
As Charles stated earlier, the victim had no way of knowing if he might be next, and once a gun was drawn in his presence his life was in danger, justifying deadly force.
Yes but that never seemed to be mentioned until later did it?
From a self-defense standpoint, the dog was not a factor. Had the riders shot at the ground, into the air, or just threatened to, the victim was facing a life-threatening situation and had the right to respond with deadly force. And if he did respond, suggesting that it was done in anger over the dog rather than fear for his life would be foolish.
Assuming that the victim shot the riders in response to the threat of shots fired from their weapon, how would the police determine the sequence of events as far as who drew first?
Last edited by rp_photo on Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"
rp_photo wrote:From a self-defense standpoint, the dog was not a factor. Had the riders shot at the ground, into the air, or just threatened to, the victim was facing a life-threatening situation and had the right to respond with deadly force.
Assuming that the victim shot the riders in response to the threat of shots fired from their weapon, how would the police determine the sequence of events as far as who drew first?
\What I spoke to was the legality of shooting someone for killing your dog. You can't. Now what others seem to be talking about is how to get away with it.
EEllis wrote:
What I spoke to was the legality of shooting someone for killing your dog. You can't. Now what others seem to be talking about is how to get away with it.
In this case it would have not been about the dog, but the clear and present threat to the life of the victim who facing a drawn weapon already fired twice 10 feet from him and has no idea of their further intentions.
If the victim had seen the shooting from a safe distance and shot the fleeing perps with a rifle, that would be illegal.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"
EEllis wrote:
What I spoke to was the legality of shooting someone for killing your dog. You can't. Now what others seem to be talking about is how to get away with it.
In this case it would have not been about the dog, but the clear and present threat to the life of the victim who facing a drawn weapon already fired twice 10 feet from him and has no idea of their further intentions.
If the victim had seen the shooting from a safe distance and shot the fleeing perps with a rifle, that would be illegal.
If you shoot the guy because he shot your dog it's illegal. Now what you say afterwards may get you off but that is what I think these people are saying. Not if I am in fear I will shoot but because you did something that allows me to say I'm in fear I will shoot.
mikeloc wrote:Yes, and where do these silly ideas come from. Any dog can bite, any dog can have issues, not to mention even if purebred labs where somehow devoid of aggression how many mix breed dogs are there being called labs? Not surprising since lab breeds are basicly the most popular of any dog in the US I bet you would find that more bites come from labs than any other dogs. I know on the old CDC report from 79-98 they list labs as killing 8 people.
I will gladly take my chances with the labs. After all labs killing eight people in nineteen years are still way behind what the humans killed in the pass nineteen years.
Mike
Great, but that isn't the point at all. The point was you can't say that there is no chance a dog could be agressive because it is a particular breed.
I must admit I’ve not been around the dog-fighting crowd.
My point is that for most situations I can seldom see a reason a human should resort to shooting a dog. A rapid dog, okay. I realize that not everyone is Cesar Millan, but just because someone carries a handgun does not mean that should be the first option to controlling or avoiding dogs.
Just as we should not shoot people for killing dogs the dog killers should not be killing dogs just because they’re dogs.
mikeloc wrote:
I must admit I’ve not been around the dog-fighting crowd.
My point is that for most situations I can seldom see a reason a human should resort to shooting a dog. A rapid dog, okay. I realize that not everyone is Cesar Millan, but just because someone carries a handgun does not mean that should be the first option to controlling or avoiding dogs.
Just as we should not shoot people for killing dogs the dog killers should not be killing dogs just because they’re dogs.
Don't know what the dog fighting crack is supposed to mean. Doesn't seem to have any point unless you are implying something so I assume it's just a keyboard tourettes type of thing.
Great we can all agree that you shouldn't just go around shooting dogs for fun. Not that anyone here ever even hinted at that or has shown any support for sport killing of Fido. As far as firearms not being the first option in dog control. I wouldn't expect anyone to get bit to save someone elses dog. There is no chance to get shot records, to know how dangerous an animal is, or where that dog might be going. Now this case is a whole nother story and I'm not trying to say the dog should of been shot. The idea that you have to go thru some sort of steps, checklist, or what have you before you use a gun is absurd. I would just apply my boot to just about any mutt of almost any size and feel pretty comfortable that it will back the dog off. My 70 yo father should sure as heck not have to try anything before shooting any animal that threatens him.
with all the above and will add....
Mike
