Could be, or like Daniel also said, it might have been a rock. A kick or gun butt suggests to me that the dogs were close to the shooter, indicating they might have been attacking. A rock might indicate there was more than one person present. Why throw rocks when you have a gun? Indeed, why butt stroke a dog, when you can, and will, shoot it? Maybe because you are worried about hitting someone/thing else like your own dog or friend? Hmmmmm…
Actually, I believe you are wrong about this. As long as your assumption of the threat is reasonable, you are well within your rights to shoot it.
However, I will defer to our esteemed legal scholars on this issue.
Also, the OP does not identify the breeds of the dogs involved. Some dogs are more agressive, and stronger, than others. That could be a factor in whether or not someone’s sense of threat could be considered reasonable.
As an impartial observer, I’d have to side with Fin_man on this case. You used the story about throwing the book into the yard, then when he called you on it you started letting emotion carry the argument. Further, your childish wordsmithing doesn’t fly here. I know the definition of “stray” dog. That being said when I hear someone say the word “stray” in the context of an animal, I immediately think of a dangerous animal; possibly wild, possibly diseased, the point being I don’t immediately think the animal is safe.
I think you need to take a deep breath and calm down before antagonizing people.
Spooje is 100% correct in this.
As a side note, I think if I saw a large dog, doberman or whatever running loose in my direction I’d be afraid. But if it were a poodle charging at me I’d find it more curious than alarming. So yes, breed does matter.
Side wherever you want. That doesn’t change two facts:
- I clearly restricted my book-in-the-yard analogy in the very post in which it appeared. The point of the post was that a dog has at least as much protection as a book when it comes to private property rights, and that the mere presence of your private property in someone’s yard doesn’t give them the right to destroy it. That’s the way in which a dog is like a book. As I said, the fact that a dog may be dangerous is a way in which a dog is not like a book. I am amazed that people are still having trouble seeing this distinction.
- I’m not engaging in childish wordsmithing, as you’ll see if you read my original post. The sentence that led to fin_man’s hissy fit was, and I quote, “if you know that there are dangerous stray animals, talking to the appropriate authorities should be your first resort.” According to the dictionary, animal control parlance, context, and common sense, I’m talking here about both owned and unowned dangerous animals. Were I only talking about unowned animals, this sentence would be meaningless in a conversation about someone’s pets. Fin_man decided to score a cheap point by misinterpreting this to be talking about only unowned animals, and then further misinterpreted me (how, I don’t know) to be saying that owned animals never attack people.
Of course, maybe he wasn’t deciding to score a cheap point. Maybe he’s just stupid.
Yeah, I’m pissed off. Shooting animals tends to get me pissed off, and people adopting a macho, cavalier attitude about shooting animals pisses me off more.
Daniel
Note that I use words carefully, and what you say here in no way contradicts the part of my post you quoted.
If your assumption of threat is reasonable, then yes, you’ve got a right to use proportionate force to defend yourself.
But guess who gets to define a “reasonable” assumption of threat? T’ain’t you: it’s the courts.
Although I don’t have case law to point at, I suspect that many courts would not consider it reasonable to assume a threat from a big dog that comes racing through the woods wagging its tail and behaving in a friendly fashion.
This is why I keep harping on a specific point: call animal control. An animal has been shot here; it’s entirely appropriate to contact the authorities to determine what exactly happened.
If the dog bounded up and knocked down the shooter’s kid and was growling, then sure – you’ve got a reasonable assumption of threat.
But if the dog ran by chasing a squirrel, then no reasonable assumption of threat.
Investigate.
Daniel
Early Out, you got me. That dog wasn’t dragging his doghouse behind him, so its Threatening Manner.
As for people who feel I advocate letting the dog whimper & bleed to death: you’re wrong. A second mercy shot is required (assuming the other two predators have moved off).
To others, the scenario I spoke of was 3 dogs, attacking in a ‘pack’, on my property. While I’m a strong supporter of Animal Control, I don’t think I could have dialled their number fast enough (maybe you have a better call plan…or a cell-phone with a built in Taser).
Perhaps I’m a little close to situations like this: A family that is friends with mine was out in their backyard, raking leaves with their toddler and their dog (a tiny thing). Three Rottweilers (I really don’t care if I misspell those dogs names; they were scumbags) Came on to the property in a pack and attacked the family. The mother picked up the toddler and ran for the house; she & the toddler only got bitten twice each. The father tried to get his dog back to the house; he was bitten 5-6 times before he let go his dogs collar. His dog was brave and tried to hold off the Rott-shits. Unfortunately, they literally tore her to pieces (one leg was completely severed).
Yes, I Know what 3 dogs in a Pack can do. And that’s why I don’t Play when it comes to strange dogs. One dog off a leash isn’t as bad…but there’s something about when groups of dogs run together that makes them go Mental.
Now, I can’t say this is what happened in the original scenario. If it was some punk-ass ‘banger’ who shot your dog to show off and then ran his cowardly ass out of there, by all means bounce his ass into a cell. Hard.
But if you couldn’t find him because he was in his house calling 911 about a pack of vicious dogs that just attacked him…well then maybe you ought to listen to his side of it.
Yes, according to the dictionary, stray means “having strayed or escaped from a proper or intended place”. I will take your word for the animal control parlance. However, there is no context in which to define “stray”. You said “While there are some circumstances under which these options would be legal, if you know that there are dangerous stray animals, talking to the appropriate authorities should be your first resort.” What is the context, animal control parlance or common sense? It seems, from SwimmingwithChickens’s common sense, stray (in the context of dogs) does not mean escaped from a proper place.
From this definition - “I immediately think of a dangerous animal; possibly wild, possibly diseased, the point being I don’t immediately think the animal is safe” - I felt you were excluding pets. Obviously, your definition of stray dog differs from mine (and SwimmingwithChicken’s, and I’m sure others). And that is why I felt you were exluding pets from animals that attack.
I agree that shooting/injuring/hurting animals is wrong and it also angers me. What pisses me off even more is when somebody without knowing the facts says that “there’s a good chance that someone out there was practicing felony-level animal cruelty.”
Just want to point out that I agree with this entirely. The authorities should be contacted, and they should investigate. And if they find out that the three dogs attacked – hell, if the shooter is even smart enough to concoct a good lie about being attacked – then they should drop the case (possibly after citing the dog owners for letting their animals off-leash, if that’s illegal in this jurisdiction). But like you said, if this is some show-off who’s too stupid or honest to make up a story about being attacked (that matches the veterinarian’s evidence), then yeah, charges are in order.
Daniel
Absolutely.
When you make a dramatic assumption like that (as in there’s a good chance that someone…etc…) you are assuming that by default people are inherently malicious. Your gut reaction wasn’t that the animal was rabid or dangerous, but that most likely a person was abusing the animals- NOT A FAIR ASSUMPTION. Give people some credit before you blindly make such high horsed accusations.
As a disclaimer, I do know there is animal abuse out there in this world, that said I still give people the benefit of the doubt. Unless you witnessed some teenagers toying with the animals, I don’t think it’s fair to assume there was animal cruelty invovled.
I have never owned a dog nor have I spent much time with dogs. A big dog racing through the woods towards me is threat - PERIOD. A dog’s body language is a language I don’t know nor do I care to learn. As far as I’m concerned I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 since I misread the dog’s body language.
As I see it, there are two options for our society:
- Require everybody to learn doggie body language so they can differentiate between a friendly dog and an attacking dog or
- Require dog owners to keep their dogs on a leash when not fenced/controlled on their own property (yard/car/etc). That way, no dog will be able to come racing through the woods towards somebody else.
Hmmmm…which should we require???
By the way, the second half of my post (after “Absolutely”) was meant for DanielWithrow, sorry for the confusion.
Y’all ain’t speaking the same language I’m speaking. Is that it?
“A good chance” does not mean “probably.” Some examples:
There’s a good chance that Fin_Man is a belligerent twelve-year-old. There’s also a good chance that he’s an adult who’s just drunk too much tequila. There’s also a good chance that he is a sober adult who doesn’t speak English natively and is too arrogant to admit when he misinterprets someone’s words.
None of these sentences contradict one another. You guys are nitpicking on tiny, out-of-context phrases in my posts, deliberately misinterpreting them in the least-reasonable fashion, and then attacking those straw man arguments rather than engaging with what I’m actually saying.
There’s a good chance that felony level animal abuse happened here. There’s a good chance that felony level animal abuse did not happen here. That’s why it should be fucking investigated.
Daniel
I guess we are not speaking the same language since you are not speaking English. Do you even know what “good chance” means? You CANNOT say that there is a good chance A occurred AND there is a good chance A did not occur. It is an either-or.
Can you learn from the context of these articles?
Angola’s refugees stand good chance to return
Farm women stand a good chance of getting cancer
Australians have good chance at Hazeltine
There is a CHANCE or POSSIBILITY that abuse occurred and there is a CHANCE or POSSIBILITY that abuse did not occur.
And as for your weak, simplistic attempt to insult me, they are not contradictory since they are not opposites.
What would be contradictory would be to say there is a good chance that DanielWithrow is a vegetarian but there is also a good chance that DanielWithrow eats meat. That would be wrong (at least in English). Do you see the difference?
SwimmingwithChickens, you must not know poodles very well.
They can be very nasty.
Methinks Danielwithrow needs to attend either a probability class or an english class…perhaps some anger management classes are in order as well…
I see you don’t fucking know what you’re talking about. To use one of your examples, saying tha farm women stand a good chance at getting cancer doesn’t place that chance at greater than 50%; it is equally valid to say that they stand a good chance at not getting cancer.
I also see that, rather than address my points, you continue to harp on your misunderstanding of the English language. Is that because you substantively agree with what I’m saying, but are too hardheaded to admit it?
Daniel
True enough. Usually such a matter is left to a jury.
OK, darnitt, when the heck is Bricker or minty green gonna get here??
Okay, you cretins. If it’s that important to you that “a good chance”= >50% probability, then I’ll fucking concede that point for this thread, and revise my previous statement to “there’s a significant chance that felony-level animal abuse occurred here.” Happy now? Can you quit your fucking hairsplitting and deal with the actual point?
spooje, I agree that it’d be interesting to see what an attorney had to say about such a case.
Daniel
You know, perhaps I did use a bad example there…
One of my neighbors in New Jersey used to have a poodle, and yes, I was indeed scared to death of it. It would yap at me nonstop 24-7.
Perhaps Poodles are Legion in earthly form…