WOW, idiot shot a dog in a neighborhood.

[mtgasten]

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.

The same thing could be said for you as well.

 

[Darral27]

"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."

Sounds like you were not actually involved in the situation either. Just after the fact. Also not sure what the point "understood and identified by everyone on here is" I have seen more than a few posts disagreeing with what you believe the outcome should be. I am guessing nobody else feels up to arguing the valid counter points because it is obviously a lost cause. I am now joining those ranks.

Guess lesson taken away here is we should all realize differing points of view of a situation should no longer be tolerated. OP is always right because they said so.

 

[Darral27]

The same thing could be said for you as well.

Could be I guess. The only difference is my position is we should wait to pass judgement until the guy has at least been charged with a crime. Seems to me that it makes sense. I have been wrong before though.

 

[the1kidd03]

The same thing could be said for you as well.

Agreed.

And my position is not to say that this man IS guilty. It is merely pointing out all the facts and that they clearly are not in support of his claims. For that reasons there should be legal action taken and a fair trial should follow.

 

[mrfusion70]

I think some people are so against a dog breed that they will do anything to get rid of them, shame because it sounds like this dog was no threat!

 

[NathanJefferson]

I know how to solve it, we don't need gun control, we need dog control! You are only allowed to have dogs like mine!

Although she is vicious and will bite your ankles off...

 

[the1kidd03]

"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."

Sounds like you were not actually involved in the situation either. Just after the fact. Also not sure what the point "understood and identified by everyone on here is" I have seen more than a few posts disagreeing with what you believe the outcome should be. I am guessing nobody else feels up to arguing the valid counter points because it is obviously a lost cause. I am now joining those ranks.

Guess lesson taken away here is we should all realize differing points of view of a situation should no longer be tolerated. OP is always right because they said so.

Everyone here agreed earlier that the man deserves a fair trial, but he certainly conducted himself in a "questionable" manner. I presented all the facts that I could and based off those he should be at least charged, but what heppens from there is up to a jury and the rest of the facts which I have presented and those which I do not have. You're simply assuming that I'm condemning this man for his actions and have already "convicted" him, which I have not. I saw nothing which would support him in his claims, but it's not for me to judge his guilt. You believing that I have already condemned this man is merely up to your misinterpretation of my text and not indicative of my true feelings on the matter.

Are his actions questionable? YES
Are they illegal? YES, if he cannot JUSTIFY use of deadly force
Did he adequtely provide that justification to the officers? I don't know, he was kept separate from the rest of our depositions, but based on the rest of witnesses depositions, NO he was not justified
Does he deserve to have a fair trial? everyone does
My merely laying out the facts, and those facts reflecting the guilt of the man's wrongful actions are not "my fault." That's what happened, and how it happened. I've not said that he IS guilty, but merely that based of what evidence I witnessed he should be charged. The verdict is for a jury to decide from ALL of the information, not me.

 

[the1kidd03]

I know how to solve it, we don't need gun control, we need dog control! You are only allowed to have dogs like mine!

Although she is vicious and will bite your ankles off...

Man, what a killer!

 

[Hayseed_40]

I know how to solve it, we don't need gun control, we need dog control! You are only allowed to have dogs like mine!

Although she is vicious and will bite your ankles off...

Where's the dog in the picture?

 

[Ted]

I know how to solve it, we don't need gun control, we need dog control! You are only allowed to have dogs like mine!

Although she is vicious and will bite your ankles off...

A Bijon Frise?

 

[ddavidson]

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.

I don't have an opinion on this as I'd like to hear the rest of the story. However, when the OP talks about "parallel", I think he's really just meaning a much "flatter" trajectory. If the guy were to shoot the dog at a life threatening distance of inside several feet, the trajectory would take the round into the groun. From a non-life threatening position of 25 yards, a round would be traveling "flatter" which is the way it would reach the garage door. Of course, this doesn't consider any ricochets which is another reason the rest of the story is required.

 

[moosebag]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I know how to solve it, we don't need gun control, we need dog control! You are only allowed to have dogs like mine!

Although she is vicious and will bite your ankles off...

Either that's new carpet or that dog is well trained--it sure is white

um....the carpet is white, that is..er...as well as the dog.

 

[blamecharles]

OP it does sound like an interesting day. I just got a puppy and would be pissed if someone shot it.

Brought some purple to the thread it seems we may have ran out on some posts.

 

[the1kidd03]

I don't have an opinion on this as I'd like to hear the rest of the story. However, when the OP talks about "parallel", I think he's really just meaning a much "flatter" trajectory. If the guy were to shoot the dog at a life threatening distance of inside several feet, the trajectory would take the round into the groun. From a non-life threatening position of 25 yards, a round would be traveling "flatter" which is the way it would reach the garage door. Of course, this doesn't consider any ricochets which is another reason the rest of the story is required.

Neither the officers or myself could identify an area on the driveway that the round could have ricochet'd. Other than that, you're exactly right in the facts that others seem to be misinterpreting.

 

[jeremy]

Regardless of species, if you shoot in defense isn't it only "the right thing to do" to render aid afterwards until further help arrives. Yet, they did absolutely nothing other than make the previously mentioned statement.

That is cause you now think like a Combat Veteran, and not a Civilian...

Shoot...
Assess the Persons in the Area...
Secure the Area...
Call for Medics...
Begin the Triage, render First Aid from the most seriously injured that may survive to the least serious...

Does that sum up what you were thinking...

 

[the1kidd03]

OP it does sound like an interesting day. I just got a puppy and would be pissed if someone shot it.

Brought some purple to the thread it seems we may have ran out on some posts.

Indeed

 

[infiremedic07]

That is cause you now think like a Combat Veteran, and not a Civilian...

Shoot...
Assess the Persons in the Area...
Secure the Area...
Call for Medics...
Begin the Triage, render First Aid from the most seriously injured that may survive to the least serious...

Does that sum up what you were thinking...

Does anyone else remember the video of the soldier/medic that got sniped a couple years back. Even after he had been shot and nearly killed. he hunted down the shooters, shot them, and then actually saved the life of the guy that shot him by rendering medical aid. just saying
Thread hijack over.


This sounds like a job for a jury to decide guilt!

 

[wtfd661]

I do not condemn a man for protecting family and I completely feel that everyone deserves a fair trial as our Constitution has laid out. BUT, there is NOT one speck of evidence to support any of this man's claims. None, of the dozen or so "witnesses" saw a second dog. All of which came from various directions to which there was no possible route to take that someone wouldn't have seen another dog. There wasn't anything to suggest ANY immediate danger to the couple. If anything, the evidence only suggests that HAD the dog presented any aggression they had plenty of distance to have gotten in their front door from the assumed position the round was fired from. Indeed, I feel this man needs to be charged and I will be calling the officer who responded.

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.

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

So the dog is approximately 75' away. Say the average dog can run around 20 mph that gives you what, about 3.5 seconds to stop the threat if the dog is charging you.

Like Scutter has said I think I will wait to make judgment until all the facts are in.

 

[MikeDVB]

I know how to solve it, we don't need gun control, we need dog control! You are only allowed to have dogs like mine!

Although she is vicious and will bite your ankles off...

I thought this was supposed to be a picture of a *DOG*?