Man Shoots Dog, Gets 11 Years in Prison

[Raptor]

However, I have to say that if I lived in your area, and my dog escaped his yard, and got shot whilst running down the road, I would sue the pants off the person that shot him. Call animal control and have him put in the shelter. But unless my dog is killing something of yours...you have no right to kill my dog. Period. I would be willing to bet that unless my dog was physically on your property causing damage...I would win.

Animal control won't pick up this far out. I'm out of city limits. If they would, I'd be calling them on the neighbors who constantly let their mange infected dogs run around. You'd also have a hard time finding the person who shot it.

Good! About time that people start getting serious time for this. Also, how are you (Raptor) so sure of what cruel is? I've never been dealt an instant and fatal gun shot wound, as I'm sure you haven't as well, so there could have been tremendous suffering in whatever time it took for the dog to effectively die.

As for the circumstance... well, maybe your neighborhood is different than mine, but anyone shooting a dog for running loose (which happens accidentally all of the time) should also be dealt a serious sentence. My neighbors would be hard pressed to get away with killing my dog, who's like my child, in the event that she decided to break off of a leash and enter their property.

Also, the comparison to feeding snakes mice and this just ridiculous. I can't stand empty rhetoric, when people know darn well the intentions behind feeding a snake a mouse (which it has adapted to eating far before human domestication) and killing a dog. Dogs should be treated with a lot more respect and compassion in our society. Anyone who has ever built a bond with a dog would know how strong it is, and to betray that bond, especially with something as severe as murder, it should be held against the perpetrator in the harshest way.

A gunshot to the back of the head is instant since it destroys both the brain stem and brain itself. That's as instant as you can get. The entire definition is no time between the cause and effect.

Again, when I was speaking about mice, I was referring to the methods of pre-killing. I'm fairly sure that improperly killing a mouse so that it's quite alive but injured could be considered cruel. That's what I'm talking about with the mice.

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

Our neighbor on the adjacent side of our house once FOUND OUT my mother and father's names and left a letter on our door threatening to call the cops on us if we didn't teach our dogs "to be left in solitude" and end their "incessant barking at all hours of the night"... this was when we'd just gotten a new puppy who got lonely and barked when she played with our older dog... but my mom, being unemployed, is always home with her and she's in bed by 7:30 usually, so I don't know what this lady's talking about, but I'm constantly afraid that one day she'll throw poisoned meat over the wall, and how would I even prove that she'd done it, if she killed our two RESCUE DOGS from very terrible homes over them barking at each other while playing during the day?

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

The thing is..Killing an animal with a gun isn't cruelty. Cruelty implies suffering or abuse.

Maybe shooting your own farm animal with a gun to put it out of it's misery when it's old, or hurt, or sick isn't cruel, but shooting another person's pet for barking is pretty cold-blooded.

 

[Michael823]

Maybe shooting your own farm animal with a gun to put it out of it's misery when it's old, or hurt, or sick isn't cruel, but shooting another person's pet for barking is pretty cold-blooded.

Cold-blooded? :shrugs:. I'm ashamed... using the cold-blooded stereotype out there on a snake forum, lol.

But yeah, I agree. It seems really archaic to deal with a barking dog this way. I can relate to liking my peace and quiet, but there's a million other ways to go about it, and none of those include dealing with the dog itself.

 

[Kels88]

1. If you choose to own a dog and are bothered by its barking, too bad. If you did not choose to own a dog and you are kept up at night by someone else's, that's unfair and, in the least, uncourteous of the neighbor.
Not that that in any way justifies shooting a dog, but ideally the neighbor should have talked to the owner and the owner should have solved the problem. Crating the dog at night, a bark collar, or obedience training may have helped.
It is a responsibility of owning a pet that you keep it from making others miserable (example: scoop the poop in public parks)

2. I don't see what it accomplishes to throw the guy in jail for so long. It's a complete waste. Make him do something constructive with his time.
And over-punishing him in hopes of deterring crime in other people seems logical, but in all the studies I've seen, the "punishment as deterrent" thing is completely ineffective.

 

[oneirogenesis]

It is inexcusable for someone to shoot a person's pet in an urban, residential area over nothing more than barking. I'm not going to comment on the sentence, or whether his actions constitute animal cruelty, but there is absolutely no justification for this man's crime and he deserves to pay for it in some way. The dog was not threatening a person or another animal, nor was it diseased as far as I can gather.

 

[tyflier]

Animal control won't pick up this far out. I'm out of city limits. If they would, I'd be calling them on the neighbors who constantly let their mange infected dogs run around. You'd also have a hard time finding the person who shot it.

But...I thought that the people around you would shoot a dog if it was running loose? Isn't that what you said?

And...finding the killer is really quite easy, once you find the dead dog and locate the bullet that killed it. It's call "forensic science" and they use various ballistic identifiers to prove which gun the bullet came from. Regardless of whom your neighbors might be, they would be subject to a criminal investigation...

A gunshot to the back of the head is instant since it destroys both the brain stem and brain itself. That's as instant as you can get. The entire definition is no time between the cause and effect.

OK. And this makes it OK to shoot another person's animal dead how?

Oh right. It doesn't. It doesn't even remotely justify the needless slaying of a beloved pet. Not even a little bit.

Again, when I was speaking about mice, I was referring to the methods of pre-killing. I'm fairly sure that improperly killing a mouse so that it's quite alive but injured could be considered cruel. That's what I'm talking about with the mice.

You're talking about a straw man. Dispatching of rodents as food, or vermin as a nuisance in no way correlates to shooting a dog for barking.

Yes, pet owners have a responsibility to control their animals. No, there is no justification for shooting a dog because it annoyed you. A pet owner can be fined for having a nuisance animal. A pet owner can be forced to comply with safety and noise control regulations. A pet owner can be forced to give the animal away.

A person cannot shoot and kill a neighbor's pet for barking. It just isn't justifiable. All of your circular logic and straw man arguments don't stand up to the fact that it is ILLEGAL to SHOOT a PET. It is a punishable offense.

Really the only argument to be made is regarding the length of sentencing. The legality of the action is farily cut and dry...it's illegal. There are no 2 ways around that. You may disagree with the length of the sentence, but that really is neither here nor there. Your argument is that where you live, it would be acceptable. I call BS. Where you live it's illegal, too.

The man is being punished for at least 3 criminal offenses:

1-Discharging of a firearm in a residential neighborhood

2-slaughtering the neighbor's dog

3-evading arrest and sentencing

If you ask me, 5 years behind bars is a minimal sentence for an individual that is obviously at least minorly sociopathic, and careless towards other human beings.

 

[mike17l]

The article makes no mention of the circumstances surrounding the shooting. The article is giving a very brief glimpse at what may have happened. The man may have shot the dog for barking one night. He may have also shot the dog for barking for the last 3 months, despite the fact that he had talked to the neighbor 5 times already, and to top it off the dog may or may not have been on his property. Really, we have no idea why he shot the dog, we only have one sentence that references a reason, but gives no facts. Heck, we don't even know if this was in a "neighborhood" or township.

So, should he have gotten 11 years total for "animal cruelty"? NO. Should he have gotten that for skipping out on court for 7 years? Maybe.

Personally, if a neighbors dog was incessantly barking and I had talked to the neighbor a few times about it, and I happened to find it on my property, I would use the SSS method.

 

[Raptor]

But...I thought that the people around you would shoot a dog if it was running loose? Isn't that what you said?

If it didn't cost us anything, some of us would. A lot of us are animal lovers.

And...finding the killer is really quite easy, once you find the dead dog and locate the bullet that killed it. It's call "forensic science" and they use various ballistic identifiers to prove which gun the bullet came from. Regardless of whom your neighbors might be, they would be subject to a criminal investigation...

When was the last time you heard of the police doing a forensic investigation over who shot a dog? On top of this, you'll be hard pressed to find the gun that shot the bullet if it's nothing but a squished piece of metal, or if it went straight through the animal. Unlike what CSI/NCSI/Bones/etc show, the bullet isn't always going to be in perfect shape.

Yes, pet owners have a responsibility to control their animals. No, there is no justification for shooting a dog because it annoyed you. A pet owner can be fined for having a nuisance animal. A pet owner can be forced to comply with safety and noise control regulations. A pet owner can be forced to give the animal away.

Not all areas have these laws.

All of your circular logic and straw man arguments don't stand up to the fact that it is ILLEGAL to SHOOT a PET...Your argument is that where you live, it would be acceptable. I call BS. Where you live it's illegal, too.

It shall be lawful for a person to kill any animal of the family canidae or the family felidae found chasing livestock off the premises of the owner of such animal if the person is the owner or occupant of the property on which the animal is chasing the livestock or if the person is authorized to kill such an animal by the owner or occupant of such property.

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusokst_t4_42_1.htm Pretty much everyone has livestock around here, and chasing livestock is the main reason for dogs being shot.

 

[Michael823]

If you ask me, 5 years behind bars is a minimal sentence for an individual that is obviously at least minorly sociopathic, and careless towards other human beings.

I agree 100%!

 

[tyflier]

If it didn't cost us anything, some of us would. A lot of us are animal lovers.

For barking or just running loose? And you call yourself animal lovers? How's that work? :shrugs:

When was the last time you heard of the police doing a forensic investigation over who shot a dog? On top of this, you'll be hard pressed to find the gun that shot the bullet if it's nothing but a squished piece of metal, or if it went straight through the animal. Unlike what CSI/NCSI/Bones/etc show, the bullet isn't always going to be in perfect shape.

I just read about it in an article yesterday. First page of this topic.

If you shoot an expensive dog, and charges are filed, there will be an investigation. If it is not clear who shot the animal and a bullet is recovered, an investigation will ensue. And contrary to what those shows would have you believe, bullet fragments are usually useful in these instances.

Not all areas have these laws.

All residential neighborhoods that I know of have noise ordinances for dogs...

And this did occur in a residential area, according to the charges filed...Discharging a firearm in a residential neighborhood pretty much sums that up...

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusokst_t4_42_1.htm Pretty much everyone has livestock around here, and chasing livestock is the main reason for dogs being shot.

Chasing and killing livestock is a FAR cry from barking. And I don't care how incessantly the dog barks, it is not justifiable to shoot it. Just as it is not justifiable to punch someone in the mouth for being obnoxious, no matter how obnoxious they are, it is still unjustifiable...and illegal...

 

[Lennycorn]

Its nice to see someone receiving maximum penalty for cruelty to animals for once... So many get off way too easily... Its about time we start standing up and giving justice to the ones who dont have a voice.. NICE!!

I agree 100%.

This will make people stop and think next time and defending the clown is a joke!!!

 

[Raptor]

For barking or just running loose? And you call yourself animal lovers? How's that work? :shrugs:

Running loose and attacking livestock/being aggressive towards people..My neighbor has grandchildren. The neighbor across the street had a dog that they let run loose. Her grandchildren were in her yard and the dog came into her yard, growling at the children. She told the neighbor to do something about the dog. Not sure what happened after wards. Knowing the dog owners, they probably didn't do anything. They tend to get their dogs from the wal-mart parking lot special. To be honest, if the people cared about their animals/didn't want them shot, they'd invest in a fence or at least tie the dog up.

Had one lady let her dogs loose for the neighbors to get rid of because she was too lazy to get them euthanized herself. She openly admitted this to people as well.

I just read about it in an article yesterday. First page of this topic.

If you shoot an expensive dog, and charges are filed, there will be an investigation. If it is not clear who shot the animal and a bullet is recovered, an investigation will ensue. And contrary to what those shows would have you believe, bullet fragments are usually useful in these instances.

I doubt that people will let an expensive dog run loose without a collar. Either way, I'd like to see a link to this article.

 

[tyflier]

Running loose and attacking livestock/being aggressive towards people..My neighbor has grandchildren. The neighbor across the street had a dog that they let run loose. Her grandchildren were in her yard and the dog came into her yard, growling at the children. She told the neighbor to do something about the dog. Not sure what happened after wards. Knowing the dog owners, they probably didn't do anything. They tend to get their dogs from the wal-mart parking lot special. To be honest, if the people cared about their animals/didn't want them shot, they'd invest in a fence or at least tie the dog up.

Dude...the topic is about a man shooting a dog for barking. Not a dog attacking his children or livestock. Not a dog running loose around town, growling at neighborhood children, or being purposefully turned loose to either turn feral and live or die(or be shot by a neighbor). Not ANY of the things you are using as justifications.

You have gotten so caught up in justifying someone shooting a dog that you have completely lost sight of what it is, exactly, that you are justifying. We are not talking about a viscious dog running loose, threatening people and children, and chasing and killing livestock. We are talking about a man pleading guilty to shooting a dog because it was barking too much.

A man. Killed a dog. BECAUSE IT WAS BARKING TOO MUCH. Plain and simple, there is no justification for that.

Had one lady let her dogs loose for the neighbors to get rid of because she was too lazy to get them euthanized herself. She openly admitted this to people as well.

Yea...and a lot of you are animal lovers, right? Isn't that what you said?

I doubt that people will let an expensive dog run loose without a collar. Either way, I'd like to see a link to this article.

Yea, and I suppose dogs never break leashes or collars, never dig under or jump over fences, and never manage to escape. By "expensive dog", I am referring to fairly well any AKC registered purebreed.

And the article is the original article referenced. Obviously, since the man was arrested, charged, tried, and convicted, there was an investigation. Enough evidence was procured to prove his guilt. That evidence was gathered through an investigation.

Ballistic evidence not withstanding, a criminal investigation requires police officers to use whatever investigative techniques are available to them in order to solve the crime. If this means using ballistics for a dog, then so be it. Criminal charges are criminal charges, and an investigation is an investigation.

Law Enforcement Agencies are there for the sole purpose of investigating crimes and apprehending criminals. Whether it is petite larceny, animal cruelty or pre-meditated murder, they are obligated to use all investigative means necessary to solve every crime.

But I acknowledge that this may not be how it is done where you live...:shrugs:

 

[Tracee]

I'm with tyflier on this. Inexcusable, whichever way you look at it.

When I was very young we had horrendous neighbours who attempted to do physical harm to my mum's dogs (and other pets) for years. We lived in fear of them being hurt. These people did turn their aggression onto people eventually.

If causing the death of a healthy animal as an act of rage is not cruel, I don't know what it is. The owner/s must have been absolutely beside themselves.

The only thing in my opinion that is 'wrong' with the sentence is that more lenient sentences are all too often handed out for the murder of a human being.

 

[tsst]

I am on board with his actions being inexcusable. Where I tend to get lost is the punishment. A self proclaimed animal lover is the judge. Do we really think the max sentence was an impartial decision?

About a year ago a football player got drunk chose to drive. He run over a pedestrian and killed them. The football player got 21 days in jail.

Kill a dog get 7 years, run down and kill a human being and get 21 days. Do we think the judges in both these cases were a little biased? One judge was an animal lover and one was a football fan, neither should have judged their particular case IMHO. For me 'a conflict of interest' is a major no-no for a judge. :shrugs:

 

[tyflier]

I am on board with his actions being inexcusable. Where I tend to get lost is the punishment. A self proclaimed animal lover is the judge. Do we really think the max sentence was an impartial decision?

About a year ago a football player got drunk chose to drive. He run over a pedestrian and killed them. The football player got 21 days in jail.

Kill a dog get 7 years, run down and kill a human being and get 21 days. Do we think the judges in both these cases were a little biased? One judge was an animal lover and one was a football fan, neither should have judged their particular case IMHO. For me 'a conflict of interest' is a major no-no for a judge. :shrugs:

He was sentenced for more than simply animal cruelty charges. However, I do agree that it is likely the judge was not impartial. For once, an animal killer got a just punishment. I still don't find 5 years behind bars and 6 years suspended to probation a horrible sentence for actions like this. YMMV

Now...the other judge you mention...that judge's bias should earn HIM some sort of punishment, in my opinion. That sort of "sentencing" makes me sick to my stomache...

 

[Michael823]

I am on board with his actions being inexcusable. Where I tend to get lost is the punishment. A self proclaimed animal lover is the judge. Do we really think the max sentence was an impartial decision?

About a year ago a football player got drunk chose to drive. He run over a pedestrian and killed them. The football player got 21 days in jail.

Kill a dog get 7 years, run down and kill a human being and get 21 days. Do we think the judges in both these cases were a little biased? One judge was an animal lover and one was a football fan, neither should have judged their particular case IMHO. For me 'a conflict of interest' is a major no-no for a judge. :shrugs:

To be fair, and I say this with all respect and remorse to anyone who has lost someone due to drunk driving, because it is a horrific and selfish deed... but as far as being a threat to society, and the mind behind the actions, I would say that the man who shot the dog deserves a harsher sentence, in the sense that this was a purposeful action. The 21 day sentence for the NFL player (Stallworth) was so filthy and disgusting to me that I am in NO way trying to say that it was a proper sentence, but by all other accounts, this really was just a tragic mistake. I'm as firmly against drinking and driving as it gets, but I also understand that it's quite common, and it was equal ill fate that caused Donte Stallworth's actions to take a life. Plenty of other people are guilty of committing the same crime everyday, but without chance and opportunity, they most likely won't end up like Donte Stallworth and face a homicide charge. I feel that an 11yr sentence to Stallworth would have been out of place. Not that 11yrs for taking someone's entire life is unreasonable, but I don't see that it necessarily would have fit the circumstances involving the crime, helped to rehabilitate Stallworth, or done anything to deter future drunk driving crimes. I do however feel that an 11yr sentence for a man willing to just up and shoot a barking dog is justified, as guns should be used only to hunt and for protection, and when someone is willing to just shoot a creature, especially a dog, out of irritation, who knows what else they're capable of doing. And I do feel like an 11yr sentence for him will do justice.

 

[tsst]

Maybe this is a better example. Micheal Vick got 23 months! :shrugs:

 

[RavenSpirit360]

Dude...the topic is about a man shooting a dog for barking. Not a dog attacking his children or livestock. Not a dog running loose around town, growling at neighborhood children, or being purposefully turned loose to either turn feral and live or die(or be shot by a neighbor). Not ANY of the things you are using as justifications.

You have gotten so caught up in justifying someone shooting a dog that you have completely lost sight of what it is, exactly, that you are justifying. We are not talking about a viscious dog running loose, threatening people and children, and chasing and killing livestock. We are talking about a man pleading guilty to shooting a dog because it was barking too much.

A man. Killed a dog. BECAUSE IT WAS BARKING TOO MUCH. Plain and simple, there is no justification for that.

Exactly....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not to mention evading the law for years afterwards..

I used to get calls from one of my neighbors on occasion because my other neighbors who where good friends of mine, where at work and their dogs would be outside barking.. They would call and I would go put the digs inside.. These where nights when they would get home later than usual from work, etc... See there was a little system, and understanding between neighbors needs going on... They did not go and shoot the dogs for barking, they found another way around it.. Why??? Because they have respect for each other and are animal lovers. You do not kill someones pet because it annoys you, you find another way to fix it.. If the neighbor will not help control their dogs barking, then you call animal control, etc and complain.. They WILL come out and talk to the neighbor.. If your neighbors tree was blocking your view, does that give you a right to go chop it down? He commited a crime.. Plain and simple.. Regardless of the circumstances..!!