Man vs. Dog

[Bunnykid68]

I recommend Halt dog spray for anyone walking around where there might be dogs on the loose, very effective and less dangerous than trying to shoot a small target such as a dog.

 

[elaw555]

He went back. He has earned his punishment. I don't even believe the story about him going back to confront the owner. If the gentleman knew how far the leash extended into the street and if we assume he parked outside of the arc he was in no immediate danger because he knew how far the dog could advance, unless the dog was off the leash, which hasn't been stated. I'm more inclined to think the guy went back to make a statement to the owner, he did, and now he is going to jail for his poor decisions.

 

[phatgemi]

I was walking my little Scottie one day and a golden retriever came bounding across the street, of course not fenced or on a leash, and nearly killed my little guy. Owner was drunk and blabbered about how his dog had never done anything like that before...

After that I carried my Glock .40 on walks. Past the offending dog's house, since my dog and I were entitled to use public sidewalks. I would have shot without any hesitation. I suppose a jury would have thought I was provoking the dog by exercising my liberty.

This still infuriates me to this day.

Not sure if you should mention "Liberty" when talking about shooting and dogs!!!!

 

[dross]

He shouldn't have shot the dog in the guy's yard.

A piece of poisoned meat would have been much safer.

 

[huntall50]

Dog was not on it on property either time it encountered the man. Dogs blood was in the street.
Why go back?
Man lived in the same neighboorhood, had 1 young kid who had roam of the nice neighbood to play with other kids, had a spouse and preschooler who often went on walks with him. Lights in the house were on, cars parked and garage door up(meaning some one was likely home). Right time to have a talk with a neighbor, if talk does not go well then could have called animal control or police.

Guys, I am giving an outline of the case, read into it what you need to. Police take statements, do investigations(6.5 ft cable as measured by the police not the shooter) and write reports(designed to bring charges), and Proscutors office decides to file charges.

 

[huntall50]

so he knew the dog was on a leash, fled, then RETURNED to the known situation, and intentionally put himself in a position where he KNEW me might get harmed, then instead of reatreating to a KNOWN safe distance, he fired.

doesnt sound like a clean cut self defense to me. probably got what he deserved.

Leash or not he was off his property and after someone in the street. Didnt flee, continued his walk home.(Do you think he could have been shaken after nearly getting bit). Can neighbors talk any more or have we been reduced to needing mediators(Police). Went back to protect others, his loved ones and even looking out for the dog owner interest. After knocking and no response... his retreat was cut off by the dog, in the street at the door of his vehicle.

 

[elaw555]

Leash or not he was off his property and after someone in the street. Didnt flee, continued his walk home.(Do you think he could have been shaken after nearly getting bit). Can neighbors talk any more or have we been reduced to needing mediators(Police). Went back to protect others, his loved ones and even looking out for the dog owner interest. After knocking and no response... his retreat was cut off by the dog, in the street at the door of his vehicle.

I can get behind going back, making sure that no one else was attacked by the dog, and calling either the police and filing a police report (after all the dog did attack him and attempt to bite him) or animal control and ensuring that the authorities are involved in the policing of the incident. Even if it was not his original intention, he went Rambo and alone, approached the home to talk to the owner himself. That is where his decision making process went "ERRR" and he ended up knowingly putting himself in a position to allow the dog access to his retreat to his car.

 

[huntall50]

Back on the original topic... the guy should have gone home, stayed there and called the cops. Tell the cops that the neighbors dog is on a leash but the leash allows it to go in the street, not allowing people to use the sidewalk. The cops can then go to the house to inform the neighbors.

I hate to see a gun owner be convicted of a shooting, but he should have never gone back. He was already home. He had already removed himself from the threat. Why go back?

Hindsight: Good response, but is this the only reasonable response? Could op also be reasonable?

 

[Hoosierdood]

Hindsight: Good response, but is this the only reasonable response? Could op also be reasonable?

I would say Yes, it is the only reasonable response given the information. When the man was walking on the sidewalk, the dog tried to bite him. It should have been clear to the man that the dog was either unfriendly, untrained, or highly territorial. I can see going up to the house if the dog was wagging its tail and the man was worried that the dog might get hit, but that is not the case. The man had already had a negative encounter with the dog and had gone home without getting hurt. He should have stayed there. Whether the incident happened in the owner's yard or in the street really doesn't matter. He willfully placed himself in the situation.

Put it into perspective:
1. He knew the dog was territorial / unfriendly.
2. He knew the dog had a leash that was too long.
3. He was placing himself in a situation that he knew could turn violent.
4. He did this all after already avoiding a situation, so this all happened willfully / intentionally.

Hypothetical:
Lets replace the dog with a human. I go for a walk and some grouchy old man comes out and starts yelling at me to get away from his yard. I go home and after some thought, I decide this guy has no right to yell at me like that. I grab my gun and head back to give him a piece of my mind. I head up to his door, on his property, and he comes out swinging a broom. I shoot him in self defense. How would a jury rule?

 

[lrahm]

He went back. He has earned his punishment. I don't even believe the story about him going back to confront the owner. If the gentleman knew how far the leash extended into the street and if we assume he parked outside of the arc he was in no immediate danger because he knew how far the dog could advance, unless the dog was off the leash, which hasn't been stated. I'm more inclined to think the guy went back to make a statement to the owner, he did, and now he is going to jail for his poor decisions.

He's right the guy didn't have to go back. He simply could have called animal control or the police.

 

[Benny]

He's right the guy didn't have to go back. He simply could have called animal control or the police.

Any logical and responsible gun owner(/carrier) would have done just that. Going out looking for a fight is dumb, going out looking for a fight while carrying is completely idiotic.

 

[Hooker]

Sounds to me like the guy was PO'd and was really kinda looking for a reason to shoot.
If I thought a dog was dangerous, I wouldn't get close enough for it to attack me.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I spoke to the man in this story some months back and as I understood it, he was armed the first time as well. Rather than involve police and generate not only reports but ill will between neighbors, this man went back to talk to the dog's owner... And just to talk, as I understood it.

There was a time when neighbors did this, rather than have some "hired gun", in this case, a LEO, go and do his talking for him. Things were amicable and people worked together to find solutions rather than judgments. It saddens me that so many are jumping on the "don't handle it like a man, have your big brother(double entendre intended) come in and force things to go your way" bandwagon.

Huntall, I've lost the # of the man in this story. It sounds like you know him... Please convey my good wishes and let him know my thoughts and prayers go with him.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[finity]

Bill,

I agree with most of your post. Under simpler circumstances I still think that the best way to handle things is face to face.

The only thing I disagree with is that the guy went back KNOWING that the dog was dangerous. It doesn't matter at all if he was carrying the first time or not. When he intentionally went onto someone else's property to a known danger then he gave up some options in response.

The dogs owner was in the wrong originally. Luckily no one got hurt then. But the gunowner was in the wrong subsequently. I think he got what he deserved in this case.

 

[Benny]

^^^Basically my thoughts (to Bill's post) word-for-word.

 

[elaw555]

Bill, the comment you have made here...

don't handle it like a man, have your big brother(double entendre intended) come in and force things to go your way

seems to imply that those who would rather not put themselves in a dangerous situation, unnecessarily, are less "manly" than the rest of you. That is a dangerous assumption, especially when it seems clear to me the the man in question likely wanted to teach his neighbor a lesson, and is paying the price for his poor decision. Possibly he will feel better though, after ruining his life, knowing that you feel his actions were manly. I imagine though, he wishes he would have thought with the head on his shoulders, instead of the head in his...well, you get it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill, the comment you have made here...

seems to imply that those who would rather not put themselves in a dangerous situation, unnecessarily, are less "manly" than the rest of you. That is a dangerous assumption, especially when it seems clear to me the the man in question likely wanted to teach his neighbor a lesson, and is paying the price for his poor decision. Possibly he will feel better though, after ruining his life, knowing that you feel his actions were manly. I imagine though, he wishes he would have thought with the head on his shoulders, instead of the head in his...well, you get it.

From having spoken with him, I believe there was no intent to "teach any lesson", just an honest, sincere desire to work things out, to ask the owner "Hey, would you mind shortening your dog's leash a little, please?"

That may not have been clear in huntall's post, but my post about handling something like a man has less to do with him being "manly" (or a better term, "macho", which I use with extreme derision) and more with being mature and self-responsible.

Consider the terms I used, specifically "big brother". I said there was a double meaning, but let's ignore that for the moment and take the term on it's face: Little children have their parents or their older brothers handle things for them because they're not strong enough to handle them themselves. They send someone else to do things they don't have the ability to do for themselves. Compare and contrast that to adults... I'm going to use the only brothers I can think of on here for the example, but it is wholly laughable that rhino would send obijohn to go handle something for him. Yet we've all been raised that if there is trouble, to let the police handle it. Why? Why are we willing to send them to do that? More to the point, what right have we to send someone else to do something we aren't willing to go and do ourselves? (obviously, I'm speaking of non-violent situations, where one expects simply to talk, reasonably and rationally, to another mature adult.)

ETA: Consider also what is often said here, that people can cause others to do things they wouldn't do on their own either by persuasion or by force. Going and talking to someone is persuasion. Going to bully someone or using government to do it for you is using force. I advocate the former, when possible, as being the more mature, the more "manly", if you will, approach. (end edit)

I have no doubt that the man to whom I spoke was not expecting trouble when he went to that house. Had he been, he probably would have asked for a cop to do it for him. For the record, I also think that knowingly and wittingly entering a dangerous situation, what some might call "looking for trouble", is usually a poor idea. I just don't see the man to whom I spoke and of whom huntall was writing as doing that. For whatever reason, the jury (and several members here) seem to have thought differently.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[elaw555]

What you say makes much sense, and you and I don't think very far apart on the main issues you mentioned. I would like to pull one item from your response and expand on it though.

You said...

More to the point, what right have we to send someone else to do something we aren't willing to go and do ourselves? (obviously, I'm speaking of non-violent situations, where one expects simply to talk, reasonably and rationally, to another mature adult.)

I agree. But I must say that at the moment the dog attacked him (and we can agree that it was an attack) this was no longer a non-violent situation. Unless the animal was positively restrained on the owners property the area in which the dog could run free was still classified as dangerous, and the man should have known that, and avoided entrance to the area. As well, I would not consider the homeowner either reasonable or rational, if he has so far failed to notice his dog is roaming in front of his house attacking people, especially if the man in the OP did not know the homeowner personally. If he knew the homeowner, he certainly should have been able to call him and make him aware of the dog attack, given him an opportunity to control the animal, and then decided based on the homeowners actions whether or not he was either reasonable or rational and what course to take after this.

As an example, a small fender bender that causes minimal damage might present two very different outcomes. The outcome that presented me last Saturday was of a woman who claimed her foot slipped off the brake at a stop light. We got out and, seeing the small amount of damage, agreed to drive to a nearby parking lot where insurance info was given and the needed information was taken down. She apologized and gave me all the necessary info I needed. Police were not called because they were not needed...no one was injured, refusing to provide info, or attempted to flee the area. However, you would certainly call the police if one of the three above unfortunate alternate outcomes occurred to, at the very least, present a police report to your insurance company.

It is only based on the situation we are presented with that we can make our choices. We hope to always be able to make choices that do not require the need of "big brother" to assist us. But we need to be prepared for a situation either to present itself to, or transform into, one where the involvement of the authorities is a necessary evil.

 

[45fan]

The only reason I do not agree will you, Bill, would be because I haven't the insight to this situation that you do. I do, however agree with your thoughts on dealing with your own situations, and not bring in the police for every little disagreement. Unfortunately, this is the way society has changed over the last few hundred years.

Sometimes I think I might have been born a century too late.

 

[Somemedic]

There simply isn't enough information about the situation to make a decision on this but I had a similar situation with my former upstairs neighbors.

For the man walking and confronting the dogs owner: kudos. The cops have real issues I personally would prefer they be attending and not a simple situation 2 grown ups should be able to handle.

The argument could be made that had he made initial contact immediately after the first incident occurred that he was "in the heat of the moment" and looking for payback. The "reasonable man" test would indicate that the gun owner returning to the home to speak to the the dog owner would take a path or go to a door that the dog could not readily approach. I don't think he would risk another attack even having a sidearm

As far as calling PD... he has to live there with that neighbor after the cops are gone. If he's on decent terms with the dog owner then there should be no reason that gun owner should not speak to the dog owner. If you've had the cops called on you by someone then you probably didn't care for that neighbor afterward. I believe the man just wanted peace between him and his neighbor but circumstances were unfortunate. Blood in the street feels like self defense to me, just not enough info tho...