Just got some mail from the court.
The judge says: "The Court finds comparative fault. Although Mr. Zoomie has self defense rights, he chose (after retreating to safety and 'cuz he's a dumb Jarhead), to expose himself to danger and not call law enforcement until after shooting. The Court finds Mr. Zoomie 50% fault."
I have to pay 50% of the vet bill and court costs.
Here's the kicker...something I didn't know until just now...my neighbor, who was watching the dogs, was found to be 50% at fault and has to pay the other half of the vet bill..to the dogs' owners...their own son and daughter-in law.
I'm just guessing, but I imagine my half will be the only half the dog owner receives.
Maybe the judge isn't such a dick after all. I'm glad I didn't send him the nasty letter I typed up yesterday!
Curious...
After you retreated inside your home, what made you come back out to deal with the dogs? Perhaps I missed that part?
Well...while I was back inside, I looked out several windows and didn't see the dogs anywhere.
Then, I figured I had better go outdoors to see if I could lay eyes on them one more time to see if the coast was clear to do the yard work I had planned. I didn't want to do this defenseless, as the dogs had already shown to me that they were aggressive and not responsive to commands of, "Go away, Cujo!"
When I reached my front yard, there they were, and they wanted a chunk of my ass...and I mean right now!
At that point, time and options had run out.
The rest is history.
I'm wondering if you would have been handed the 50% liability tag if you would have tweaked your wording a bit to say "I checked through the windows to see if they were still there, if I needed to call animal control. Not seeing them, I went back outside to continue my day's planned activities. Well, apparently, they came back or had been hidden from view, because they were back and I didn't have time to run back inside."
Not that *I* find any problem with the way you handled it. Just curious that even though the ultimate outcome didn't change, and your refusing to remain a prisoner in your own home didn't change, would the verdict have changed had you put a different emphasis on your reason for going back outside.
I've never been insulted so politely! I'm impressed.
IC 35-41-3-2 needs to have a vicious animal section!
No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.