How to lose your guns

[growalot]

Actually the owner thought due to Vets comments and the dogs was off it's run nothing could be done...but the fact he called(records prove) a few times and told different stories each time..then when owner obviously saw the dog was shot, not ran over and exclaimed such...shooter said yes I shot him...when they screamed why would you shot my dog ...guy said it was crapping in my yard...It wasn't until after things calmed down getting back from vets they were told to call the police...for what if he had done this while the grand kids where there and playing with the dog...It was the cops after hearing what took place and investigating ..speaking to vets on what was said by owner in the stress of the moment ...they went to arrest the guy. BTW the dog had transfusions and many procedures...they had to call to recover vet costs not to be vengeful..

No not my opinion (shoot to scare) it was a possible scenario theory. I gave my opinion on this...poor judgment by both parties that the dog ended up paying for....... BTW cops don't go arrest ppl with out getting at least some corroboration....Yes more to story and NOW courts will decide...in the mean time...his guns are gone... 

[jjb4900]

could be that an order of protection was issued against the guy on behalf of the family whose dog was shot...that would answer why ALL his guns were taken....also, if you look at the animal cruelty laws, one is a misdemeanor and one is a felony, nothing to take lightly.

http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/ai/AILaws/Article_26_Circ_916_Cruelty_to_Animals.pdf

[growalot]

No order of protection...they just found out early this morning charges were being made and they were going to his home...they'd been up most of the night...I got the call at 6:30 am

[jjb4900]

"unjustifiably" seems to be the key word in regards to what happened.........

[scolopaxmatt]

I wonder if the man intentionally ran the dog over with his car and killed it, would he lose his driving privileges for life?

If not, this is an example of tyranny against gun ownership.

 

Priceless.  You crack me up man.

[Merlot]

Sorry to hear about the dog. Was the area fenced in or not where the dog lived?  Could some sort of leash/run line have been strung for the dog, keeping it in the owners yard if no fence? Seems to me like this situation could have been avoided if the dog was secured in some way. Just my opinion.

[growalot]

Actually back country road with 3 homes kinda close...for a country road...I've been to the home and the dog had a line and doghouse when I was there..several dogs run loose in the area. It's a problem out this way,as I've mentioned in the past...

[Nomad]

If your gun is loose, try tightening the screws .....

Sorry could not resist .

[Doc]

Look, there is no excusing what the shooter did. That was a ridiculous and inexcusable over-reaction to the situation. But let's not be so quick to let the dog-owner off the hook. In my mind, it is the pet owner's responsibility to be in complete control of their pets at all times. If you can do that then you shouldn't have pets/animals.

[phade]

Actually the owner thought due to Vets comments and the dogs was off it's run nothing could be done...but the fact he called(records prove) a few times and told different stories each time..then when owner obviously saw the dog was shot, not ran over and exclaimed such...shooter said yes I shot him...when they screamed why would you shot my dog ...guy said it was crapping in my yard...It wasn't until after things calmed down getting back from vets they were told to call the police...for what if he had done this while the grand kids where there and playing with the dog...It was the cops after hearing what took place and investigating ..speaking to vets on what was said by owner in the stress of the moment ...they went to arrest the guy. BTW the dog had transfusions and many procedures...they had to call to recover vet costs not to be vengeful..

No not my opinion (shoot to scare) it was a possible scenario theory. I gave my opinion on this...poor judgment by both parties that the dog ended up paying for....... BTW cops don't go arrest ppl with out getting at least some corroboration....Yes more to story and NOW courts will decide...in the mean time...his guns are gone... 

 

He said she said. I see nothing other than the owner saying this without more details. I am sure there is more to the story than he said she said for the cops to arrest him, etc.

[phade]

Look, there is no excusing what the shooter did. That was a ridiculous and inexcusable over-reaction to the situation. But let's not be so quick to let the dog-owner off the hook. In my mind, it is the pet owner's responsibility to be in complete control of their pets at all times. If you can do that then you shouldn't have pets/animals.

 

We're not hearing the shooter's side. Obviously if the cops are arresting him, there's more than just smoke. 

 

But, it'd be interesting to see if there's a defense to this. What happens if the shooter says - the dog came into my yard aggressively to me and my animals, backed me up, I attempted to shoo him off and away but to no avail, and I had no recourse and had to shoot to protect myself. I called the owner and told him of the situation and that he needs to get down here fast so we can help the dog. I couldn't attend to it because it had been aggressive to me and I didn't want to further worsen the situation. The owner responded and when he arrived, he got irate at me after realizing this was more serious than he appeared to take it on the phone. Now he's saying things to get back at me. And as an owner, he has routinely not provided the level of responsibility a dog owner should have, as evidence by a neighbor (Grow) admitting that the owner could take better care of the dog, and by not allowing it to free roam as it has been on the loose times before.

 

All the vet heard was second hand info from the owner, the owner is the only one who said it was because of the crapping on the lawn, etc. Everyone here is taking for truth that the dog was shot for crapping on a lawn - and we don't know that other than what the owner has said and told to the vet, etc. If the shooter admitted it to the police, then obviously that is different. It's not a stretch in my mind for someone to make such a claim falsely to get back at someone for shooting their dog - the emotional attachment is strong and even people who "would never do such a thing and make up a story" have and will on much less impactful things, let alone a pet getting a lead injection.

 

I am sure there is more to the story, but it just seems hard to me to convict or even press charges unless the shooter admitted to police or third-party directly, or some other evidence is there. All I have read is hearsay from the owner's side. It'll play out.

Edited April 29, 2015 by phade

[growalot]

He'd have a difficult time with that defense..remember I mentioned the VET said even if the dog had lived...the massive amount of buck shot in it's hips and legs would have left it crippled. now what does that statement reveal..

 

1.) shot going away from the guy

2.) close range to have"massive" amounts of shot embedded in the body

 

Remember sheriffs ordered an autopsy...I do not believe that the authorities would have ordered and autopsy if what they heard from the professionals involved and I'll just assume here.... they observed the body them selves didn't allow them to line up facts to "hear say."

Edited April 29, 2015 by growalot

[phade]

He'd have a difficult time with that defense..remember I mentioned the VET said even if the dog had lived...the massive amount of buck shot in it's hips and legs would have left it crippled. now what does that statement reveal..

 

1.) shot going away from the guy

2.) close range to have"massive" amounts of shot embedded in the body

 

Remember sheriffs ordered an autopsy...I do not believe that the authorities would have ordered and autopsy if what they heard from the professionals involved and I'll just assume here.... they observed the body them selves didn't allow them to line up facts to "hear say."

 

Grow, I am not arguing with you specifically, but just hear me out. I don't see this as so clear-cut. The vet's observations do not prove anything, and arguably help the shooter.

 

1. If shot from behind, at close range, that makes sense as a possibility because we all know when dogs lunge their rear-ends can twist if they leave the ground or are rolling around. My dog does it all the time when I hold a ball up high where he can't reach it...he lunges, his rear end twists, and he ends up perpendicular to me, slightly facing away, etc. This isn't a human being shot in the back that is more of a telltale sign. Fast forward to the 2 minute mark to see this in action:

 

 

 

2. Close range just further supports the defense that the dog was presenting a danger. If it were not close range, that would instead support the story of it crapping on the lawn. Close-range = evidence of a potential danger/attack.

 

Autopsy being ordered just means its being researched, it doesn't mean guilt, etc. unless the results indicate facts proving otherwise.

 

Again, all we are hearing is one side of the story, from an observer with a slanted viewpoint (not you, but the source of info to you). Let's not rush to judgement until due process plays out.

Edited April 29, 2015 by phade

[growalot]

To which I said...

 

.Yes more to story and NOW courts will decide...in the mean time...his guns are gone...

OMG phade...lol really hahaha...Yep it could be possible, I suppose that the guy was ...I don't know holding a pot roast or a large stick for the dog to jump and twist in the air to get... while at the same time shouldering his shot gun...OR he could very well have been been a dog mind reader.... and knew ahead of time he was to be "attacked " by the dog . Having the gun at the ready when he stepped out the door...Mind you the off spring of this dog are 8yrs old so unlike that 8-12 month old in the video...thinking he wasn't doing a whole lot of jumping and twisting at 9+ yrs old...but who knows....

 

OR after 9+ years of the dog ..possibly... crapping in his yard...he lost his nut and shot it...Still again....ppl wrong on both sides and the dog payed the price

Edited April 29, 2015 by growalot

[Five Seasons]

I'm not sure what's so complicated here. Yes we might not have all the facts, but it appears the guy lost his cool after a dog shit in his yard. These things happen. Some people are just wrong and there's no more discussion needed. Like I said earlier, the owner clearly could have prevented this. I doubt it was the first time the dog got loose.

[wildcat junkie]

I don't think any one is defending the shooter. The Safe Act has many more avenues than the previous laws to take his firearms. Prior, I think it took a felony conviction to remove the long guns. (not sure about non felony domestic threat) now, if he holds a pistol permit it not only goes but all other guns as well and that doesn't take a conviction.

Nope, no felony needed. Two of my former co-workers that were neighbors got into a pi$$ing match way back during the "W" circus & a local magistrate had all of the guns confiscated from both of them.

In retrospect, they were both a few cards shy of a full deck, but I was still amazed that a local magustrate had the power to do that.

Edited April 29, 2015 by wildcat junkie

[growalot]

Well we got back to the real point of this whole situation...it's not the good ole days and some need to rethink the days of SSS and from what I gather the whole "livestock"..the cops aren't letting the...... they bought a few chickens and now have "livestock". It is being defined as working farms not "gentleman" farms...Even if I had the goats today and was selling the kids at auction  as I did ...it would be considered pets/property not "livestock" and it makes a difference apparently the cop was a bit peeved when discussing this.

Even raising your voice to another person can these days be considered assault...I know for a fact that if parents get into an argument at home...and little Johny says something about it in earshot of a teacher Well folks that is legally considered child abuse...if said teacher happens to know you own guns and are anti they could more than likely turn it in. BTW guns gone. Now I say this knowing there are teachers here. So their input is welcome...but remember the whole parents fighting...been there and sat in a principals office being told we needed to explain or they'd call the authorities that they did us a curtsy not calling first because MIL taught at the school  ....Well one 3 grade daughter that had a test she hadn't studied for starts to cry not wanting to take the test....the night before Mr B and I were discussing, I believe one of my jobs. Our daughter was eavesdropping suppose to be in bed...I got up from my chair and quipped...." Ya... well if you don't like it divorce me"...that 2min. discussion turned in to Mom and Dad had a BIG fight last night and are divorcing...Well she got out of the test and Mr. B lost half a days pay and I ripped the principle a brand new exit hole. We left the office after I offered to call authorities to discuss this "child  abuse"  them saying no not necessary and apologizing. Yes my kids and their wonderful ingenuity kept my hair grey and me always on my toes....  That was years ago...today we'd have summons, court dates, and sheriffs coming to get the guns...Changing times 

Edited April 29, 2015 by growalot

[phade]

I'm not sure what's so complicated here. Yes we might not have all the facts, but it appears the guy lost his cool after a dog shit in his yard. These things happen. Some people are just wrong and there's no more discussion needed. Like I said earlier, the owner clearly could have prevented this. I doubt it was the first time the dog got loose.

 

It's not complicated - we need to let it all play out. I'm not assuming or thinking anything "appeared" to have happened until the autopsy is done, the charges are brought and a decision is rendered. Pretty simple.

 

I have had a fair amount of visibility to vet practices and the stories that come through are just as likely to be hogwash as they are truth. Things people do to pets sometimes are unreal, but at the same time, stories made up from emotional owners are just as frequent. It's a good reminder for me to just say, let it play out then complain/pass judgement at the owner, the shooter, or both.

[jjb4900]

autopsy???? I bet lead poisoning was the cause of death.

[Doc]

I suspect there is a lot more to this story than a dog crapping in a yard.

 

I don't know if this was the actual case or not, but I have had a rather large dog displaying aggressive behavior in my own yard, and I will say that had I been holding a gun at the time that dog would never have threatened anyone ever again. And that would be true whether he was still coming at me or had turned around to leave. I will not be threatened on my own property.

 

Frankly, I am getting a bit peeved at the increasing attitudes that animals have more rights than people. I am seeing this all the time now as people get these pets only to turn them loose and let them have free reign over anyplace they feel like wandering. I would truly like to see a statewide leash law that had some real teeth in it.

[Five Seasons]

Nobody is defending bad and irresponsible pet ownership Doc. I don't think anyone is saying dogs have more rights than humans either. But if the dog wasn't threatening anyone then he shouldn't have been shot. Yes there's probably history, but nowhere in the stories from grow did it appear he was attacking anyone or anything.

[Doc]

Nobody is defending bad and irresponsible pet ownership Doc. I don't think anyone is saying dogs have more rights than humans either. But if the dog wasn't threatening anyone then he shouldn't have been shot. Yes there's probably history, but nowhere in the stories from grow did it appear he was attacking anyone or anything.

As I said, there likely is a lot more to the story than what we have heard.

 

I am just saying that there are a lot of people who think it is perfectly ok to let their dogs (and cats) run loose. Every year I see plenty of evidence of that. So there definitely are people who defend "bad and irresponsible pet ownership" and see the rural areas as places where Fido can run free and be happy. And it appears that no matter what the actions of these free-range pets, a homeowner is legally powerless to seek remedies. So yes, it would appear that "dogs have more rights than humans", whether anyone other than myself is saying it or not.

[thphm]

As I said, there likely is a lot more to the story than what we have heard.

 

 people who defend "bad and irresponsible pet ownership" and see the rural areas as places where Fido can run free and be happy.

 

 

As a person that lives nearby that takes  his dogs down the road for a walk and stands there and watches them as they chase an animal threw a field or the woods.And ( not on his property )

[Five Seasons]

As I said, there likely is a lot more to the story than what we have heard.

 

I am just saying that there are a lot of people who think it is perfectly ok to let their dogs (and cats) run loose. Every year I see plenty of evidence of that. So there definitely are people who defend "bad and irresponsible pet ownership" and see the rural areas as places where Fido can run free and be happy. And it appears that no matter what the actions of these free-range pets, a homeowner is legally powerless to seek remedies. So yes, it would appear that "dogs have more rights than humans", whether anyone other than myself is saying it or not.

 

where did you get the information that I'm legally powerless as a homeowner to stop your dog from running around my property?

[Huntscreek]

The Alarming thing is its to easy to take a right away and hard to take privileges. Now I think this story is missing a lot of back ground on the people involved for 1 and it was just plain stupid and lacked common sense. Its deeper than the dog. As I read story after story of gun owners having guns removed for some non violent use of them is disturbing. If a person is mentally ill and owns guns lets give them the legal due process in court to disarming them not just attack there right's to bare arms. What about there License to drive revoked it, and being able to drive or hunt. Until we address the real problem this will still go on. Look at the pilot he killed 150 people his weapon a plane into a mountain, they say mental illness not planes. Now if he would of shot everyone with gun it would be Gun Control lobbyist and groups yelling take the guns. Address the real problem not what is used to do the killing 150 plus by nut with plane 21 killed in Newtown by a Gun.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Huntscreek