WOW, idiot shot a dog in a neighborhood.

[bullfrog4ever]

I do not wish try the neighbor in the court of public opinion, so therefore I will not comment on the neighbors actions.

However, I will say, that one breed of animal that is completely misunderstood, and irrationally hated is the pit bull. I too, once feared pit bulls, until I got to know some that now think of me as family. Now, I love them to death, they are just oversized puppies and their mentality is very similar to a labradore. All they want is love and someone to play with. They are friendly, loving, loyal and extremely smart, but they will defend their family at all costs when threatened. Its a shame such a great breed of animal has been tainted in many peoples eyes. Just my thoughts, take them as you will...

 

[Mr. Habib]

I hope that the shooter's trial is as fair as the dog's was.

 

[Darral27]

Wow. I would think being here on INGO people would want all the facts and not just jump to conclusions. The OP said the dog owner's child opened the door and the dog darted out. The OP also says that he was not in view of the area at that time so all he knows is what he has heard from a bunch of "frantic" people. Also a statement I have seen more than once is that everybody says the dog was friendly. That means nothing. Every time you hear of a dog attacking a child the owners always say the dog was always friendly. The only facts we have read here is where the dog was laying and where the accused shooters were standing at the time the OP came into view of the scene. A lot can change in "no more than 1 minute". Why don't we try to not pass judgement until we know the facts. All of us being shooters and believing in self defense I would think that would be the appropriate thing to do.

 

[the1kidd03]

Wow, so from what I am reading the OP did not see what happened, did not talk to the suspected "shooter" or his wife, does not know about what if any history with that dog and the couple or neighborhood, does not know what happened afterword, and does not know the true facts of the case, but wants the shooter arrested and tried.

I hope that I never have to come to your neighborhood. I mean seriously, what if the people had been walking on the dog's side of the street on the sidewalk and were attacked by the dog forcing them to defend themselves and then afterwards they retreated to their home to keep the owner away from them? What if the people were on their side of the street all along, and the dog came over there after them forcing them to defend themselves after which the dog crossed back over towards it's home? You were not there, but you can tell us they shot from the other side of the street just by your quick observation as you came in range?'

Several of the DOZEN other "witnesses" would have been able to see the family walking on the other side of the street from their locations, distance, direct line of sight, etc. Also, if they had been that close the angle of the impacted round would have been in a downward trajectory, which it was not. It was nearly parallel with the ground, as was the bullet wound on the dog's neck. The owner was not near the dog before I got there. He had gotten there a few seconds after I did. My information was not presented as a "quick observation as I came in range." I stayed on the scene, assisted the officers with locating the blood spatter, round impacts, telling them what we had "witnessed," etc. If you cannot tell where a round's trajectory comes from by two clearly identifiable points of impact on non-deflecting, relatively soft material then you have not shot very much.

He shot into a neighbor's home, across the street, within city limits (all are illegal), and with no clear threat feasible at a distance of over 75+ feet away when he was standing only 6 feet away from his front door and was clearly NOT "distraught," or out of breath in any way to indicate any form of violent confrontation. So on what ground in your "right" mind do you think he should NOT be charged?

Feel free to ask questions all you wish, because I will answer them 100% truthfully as best that they can be answered but respect works both ways.

 

[the1kidd03]

Wow. I would think being here on INGO people would want all the facts and not just jump to conclusions. The OP said the dog owner's child opened the door and the dog darted out. The OP also says that he was not in view of the area at that time so all he knows is what he has heard from a bunch of "frantic" people. Also a statement I have seen more than once is that everybody says the dog was friendly. That means nothing. Every time you hear of a dog attacking a child the owners always say the dog was always friendly. The only facts we have read here is where the dog was laying and where the accused shooters were standing at the time the OP came into view of the scene. A lot can change in "no more than 1 minute". Why don't we try to not pass judgement until we know the facts. All of us being shooters and believing in self defense I would think that would be the appropriate thing to do.

Nobody was really "frantic." The girls were crying over the circumstances but even they were able to conversate rationally, give the officers their depositions of the account, etc. I stayed and talked to everyone on the scene, helped the investigating officers up until they needed to take pictures and asked everyone to leave, at which point all of us "witnesses" simply walked about a 150 feet away and discussed further what happened for about another 45 minutes. Of course some of the "witnesses" were filled with the typical "anti-gun" myths and BS and I quickly corrected them in a respectful manner. They were quick to jump on the "lynch mob" bandwagon as well and I pointed out that we don't know ALL the circumstances, only what we each saw/heard. None of which supports any of the shooter's "defense claims."

 

[canav844]

Wait a minute I just read about this earlier today...https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._had_to_shoot_my_neighbors_dog_yesterday.html
Nope that was a great Dane, not a pitbull. But even just a quick search for "dog" on INGO and you'll see that (perhaps because of all the warm weather and more people being outdoors for longer) that the dog thing in one way or another seems to be a real issue lately.

But this story also drives home a very valid point about carrying every time you step out of your house, you don't know who you're going to encounter or what actions they may take, even possibly unprovoked ones. Also you don't know if you may end up encountering an aggressive dog while you're out. Regardless of what actually happened, the premise of what happened can drive home that even in our "comfort zone" we need to be vigilant about protecting ourselves and loved ones.

 

[the1kidd03]

The man broke at LEAST 3 laws that I can think of, all else aside. I'm glad the officers took his sidearm away and he certainly should be charged. I presented all of the evidence that I could collect in the time I was involved here in this thread, and doubt that any jury would find him innocent when presented with these same facts. BUT, I'm not on that jury.

 

[the1kidd03]

Wait a minute I just read about this earlier today...https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._had_to_shoot_my_neighbors_dog_yesterday.html
Nope that was a great Dane, not a pitbull. But even just a quick search for "dog" on INGO and you'll see that (perhaps because of all the warm weather and more people being outdoors for longer) that the dog thing in one way or another seems to be a real issue lately.

But this story also drives home a very valid point about carrying every time you step out of your house, you don't know who you're going to encounter or what actions they may take, even possibly unprovoked ones. Also you don't know if you may end up encountering an aggressive dog while you're out. Regardless of what actually happened, the premise of what happened can drive home that even in our "comfort zone" we need to be vigilant about protecting ourselves and loved ones.

Agreed. Also, don't leave without your cell phone. I was helpless in that regard this evening. I'm glad it wasn't a MORE serious situation to where I needed to make a call.

 

[Darral27]

Clearly parallel with the ground? I am assuming the man who shot the dog is taller than the dog. He would have had to be very close for the bullet to travel parallel to the ground.
Also with the blood spatter, you said one bullet was lodged in the dog. If the bullet did not exit then there would not necessarily be blood spatter. I can understand why a situation like this could get somebody "amped" up. However it is very clear that the entire situation is not known. I would hate to jump on a bandwagon and judge somebody the way you are to later be proven to be wrong.
You very well could be right. The guy may have just shot the dog from across the street with a child standing nearby just because he don't like dogs. He may have put the second round in while laughing, chugging his beer, and playing with himself. Or he could have been defending himself and his wife from a dog attack. I think the only fact here is the facts are not known. Not trying to be a a**, just saying.

 

[jdwhitak]

Regardless of whether or not the dog was a threat that guy should not have shot at it. One of the rules of gun safety is to be aware of your target and what lays beyond it. What was beyond this guy's target? Someone's house! If the distances given by the OP are correct then this was a lucky shot. Any other time it would have been a miss and then you would have bullets going into a house. Very poor judgement!

 

[Darral27]

The man broke at LEAST 3 laws that I can think of, all else aside. I'm glad the officers took his sidearm away and he certainly should be charged. I presented all of the evidence that I could collect in the time I was involved here in this thread, and doubt that any jury would find him innocent when presented with these same facts. BUT, I'm not on that jury.

You keep saying that he broke at least 3 laws. Let the police and prosecutor decide that. Why don't you put yourself in the shooters position. He is most likely a responsible gun owner. Most likely a decent man. You said yourself you did not talk to him. I don't know the guy. I do know that things are not always as they may seem. For you to say the guy broke the law and should already be convicted seems like a huge mistake. That should never be the side responsible gun owners take. If the guy broke the law he deserves to be punished. If the guy was defending himself he deserves and may need support from other responsible gun owners.

 

[the1kidd03]

Clearly parallel with the ground? I am assuming the man who shot the dog is taller than the dog. He would have had to be very close for the bullet to travel parallel to the ground.
Also with the blood spatter, you said one bullet was lodged in the dog. If the bullet did not exit then there would not necessarily be blood spatter. I can understand why a situation like this could get somebody "amped" up. However it is very clear that the entire situation is not known. I would hate to jump on a bandwagon and judge somebody the way you are to later be proven to be wrong.

How would the bullet travel parallel to the ground if the shooter was close and aiming downward at a dog? That makes no sense. I too do not subscribe to any "lynch mob" bandwagons, but I posted this here because it was a relatively clear cut case if illegal and very likely unjustified use of a firearm. There was NO evidence to suggest the contrary, other than whatever the shooter wished to claim.

You very well could be right. The guy may have just shot the dog from across the street with a child standing nearby just because he don't like dogs. He may have put the second round in while laughing, chugging his beer, and playing with himself. Or he could have been defending himself and his wife from a dog attack. I think the only fact here is the facts are not known. Not trying to be a a**, just saying.

Whether my opinions of his reasons are right or wrong make no difference. He committed 3 crimes during this shooting and could not validate his reasons for doing so with evidence. Hence, he should be charged. How anybody can argue that I fail to understand. Nobody on the scene saw the man in reasonable distance enough to justify using deadly force. He was not out of his yard and the dog was not out of the yard across the street. The other people could clearly see that, but obviously their attention was not directed to the scene until after the first shot broke.

 

[the1kidd03]

You keep saying that he broke at least 3 laws. Let the police and prosecutor decide that. Why don't you put yourself in the shooters position. He is most likely a responsible gun owner. Most likely a decent man. You said yourself you did not talk to him. I don't know the guy. I do know that things are not always as they may seem. For you to say the guy broke the law and should already be convicted seems like a huge mistake. That should never be the side responsible gun owners take. If the guy broke the law he deserves to be punished. If the guy was defending himself he deserves and may need support from other responsible gun owners.

I didn't say he should be convicted. I said there was no evidence to support reasons NOT to convict him. I said that he SHOULD be charged in light of the fact that none of the evidence supports his claims and thus meaning he committed criminalistic use of his firearm.

 

[the1kidd03]

Guys position in his yard from the sidewalk = 50ft,
sidewalk width=4ft,
grassy edge=4ft,
concrete curb=1ft
street=16ft
opposing concret curb=1ft
opposing grassy edge=4ft
opposing sidewalk=4ft
edge of sidewalk to the downed dog=5ft

total of 74 feet distance, modestly estimating.......where the witnesses were on the other side of the street they could have clearly seen the man if he was anywhere in his yard OTHER than where I saw him when I turned the corner, and the dog as well....so their positions did not change from shooting, to arrival

 

[Darral27]

How would the bullet travel parallel to the ground if the shooter was close and aiming downward at a dog? That makes no sense. I too do not subscribe to any "lynch mob" bandwagons, but I posted this here because it was a relatively clear cut case if illegal and very likely unjustified use of a firearm. There was NO evidence to suggest the contrary, other than whatever the shooter wished to claim.

If the dog is close to him and jumps at him or knocks him over and he fires is the only way the bullet traveling parallel would make sense. You are obviously stuck on your position no matter what anybody else says so why this was posted in the first place I have no clue. You say he broke 3 laws which would have to do with discharging a firearm and shooting the animal. Yet if it is self defense he broke no laws. You say none of the evidence supports his claim yet you also say you did not speak with him. I am not sure but have seen nothing about you being a police officer or a lawyer. Just another jump to conclusions because this lady I never met before told me so person. If that is your position that is fine. Just thinking people post on INGO to get opinions from other people and not just the ones that agree with you.

From what I have seen you have said nothing factual to base your judgement on what so ever. Just "gossip" from around the block has convicted this man in your mind.

 

[the1kidd03]

Again, having been put in the position to use firearms for defensive purposes myself several times in my life I am always biased to "side" with instances of self defense with a firearm. BUT, nothing about this situation indicates a justified case by any means and that is why I chose to share it here.

 

[Darral27]

Guys position in his yard from the sidewalk = 50ft,
sidewalk width=4ft,
grassy edge=4ft,
concrete curb=1ft
street=16ft
opposing concret curb=1ft
opposing grassy edge=4ft
opposing sidewalk=4ft
edge of sidewalk to the downed dog=5ft

total of 74 feet distance, modestly estimating.......where the witnesses were on the other side of the street they could have clearly seen the man if he was anywhere in his yard OTHER than where I saw him when I turned the corner, and the dog as well....so their positions did not change from shooting, to arrival

Did these witnesses happen to be the dog owners? Maybe friends of the dog owners? They would have no reason to lie

I was hoping scutter would jump back in as voice of reason to have my back. Where are you when needed.

 

[the1kidd03]

If the dog is close to him and jumps at him or knocks him over and he fires is the only way the bullet traveling parallel would make sense. You are obviously stuck on your position no matter what anybody else says so why this was posted in the first place I have no clue. You say he broke 3 laws which would have to do with discharging a firearm and shooting the animal. Yet if it is self defense he broke no laws. You say none of the evidence supports his claim yet you also say you did not speak with him. I am not sure but have seen nothing about you being a police officer or a lawyer. Just another jump to conclusions because this lady I never met before told me so person. If that is your position that is fine. Just thinking people post on INGO to get opinions from other people and not just the ones that agree with you.

From what I have seen you have said nothing factual to base your judgement on what so ever. Just "gossip" from around the block has convicted this man in your mind.

Half a dozen witnesses were in a position to see the shooter had he been anywhere but where he was standing when I first saw them. Same for the dog. Yet not ONE of them saw him when the shot broke, but saw the dog fall across the street. How is that "gossip?" Even so, that "gossip" is eye witness accounts which are the basis of evidence used in court trials so how is that less reputable because you're reading it here, rather than listening to it be recited to the responding officer? Since, he was not witnessed in the yard to indicate a closer distance to the "attacking" dog the ONLY way the round could have impacted with that trajectory is from a greater distance, commensurate with that of his location when I first saw him. I understand you wish to give the guy the benefit of a doubt and nobody should be convicted without a fair trial, and I agree. But you're simply choosing to argue semantics and what if's about a situation you were not involved in to prove a point which is already understood and identified by everyone here.

 

[the1kidd03]

Did these witnesses happen to be the dog owners? Maybe friends of the dog owners? They would have no reason to lie

I was hoping scutter would jump back in as voice of reason to have my back. Where are you when needed.

None of these witnesses knew each other previously. Just all in adjoining neighborhoods. Only one or two of them had claimed to have met the dog before and that he was friendly. After backing off to allow the officers to take their pics and continue their investigation, we all introduced each other and continued to discuss what we each saw.

Oh, and the dog owners left with the dog headed for the vet as soon as the officer got their contact information down. He didn't get much of a deposition from them other than them clarifying what the dog was doing "out on his own," which is when I learned how he got out of the residence.

 

[mtgasten]

Wow, so from what I am reading the OP did not see what happened, did not talk to the suspected "shooter" or his wife, does not know about what if any history with that dog and the couple or neighborhood, does not know what happened afterword, and does not know the true facts of the case, but wants the shooter arrested and tried.

I hope that I never have to come to your neighborhood. I mean seriously, what if the people had been walking on the dog's side of the street on the sidewalk and were attacked by the dog forcing them to defend themselves and then afterwards they retreated to their home to keep the owner away from them? What if the people were on their side of the street all along, and the dog came over there after them forcing them to defend themselves after which the dog crossed back over towards it's home? You were not there, but you can tell us they shot from the other side of the street just by your quick observation as you came in range?'