Should This Man Get In Trouble For Shooting A Dog Attacking A Neighbor?

Question

This just happened yesterday and I don't know if it will make the news or not but we'll see...

A neighbor's Rottweiler broke free from their pen and it went into a family's yard. When a woman opened her front door to go outside she was attacked by the dog. A passing by neighbor saw this and he ran inside to get his pistol. The neighbor came up from the side of the dog and kicked it to get it away from the woman. He then fired 2 shots down into the dog killing it instantly.

The woman and the neighbor say that he did what needed to be done and it wasn't a happy situation. The dog's owners are livid about this and want the man who shot the dog to face jail.

Personally, I think that since they couldn't control their dog and it could have cost a woman her life, no legal trouble should come against the shooter. Do you agree?

Answer 1

The man who killed the dog was completely justified in taking the action that he did. He will not face charges for his action to protect another person. The dog owners, on the other hand, may face prosecution on a number of counts, and will certainly face litigation over the woman's injuries.

The dog owners have no logical reason to be upset. They should be concerned that their dog attacked another person, and apologetic to the victim and their other neighbors.

Answer 2

Just one dog and the guy was such a p***y that instead of running straight to her and helping immediately he wasted precious time running to his house to get his gun ?

Lame.

--------------------------------------...

4 thumbs down ?

God we have become a nation of wimps !!

When I was 12 a German shepherd attacked me, I was knocked to the ground and had to fight laying on my back and I still won the fight.

How can any of you imagine yourselves running away from just one dog ?

Obvisiouly any person with even a shread of bravery would run as fast as they could straight toward the woman in need without hesatation.

Answer 3

The shooter was completely within his rights's, he was protecting someone else because of a dog. If it didn't happen the Police would probably of put the dog down anyways. If I was in that situation I wouldn't of hesitated to shoot the dog.

Answer 4

It really depends. I've seen a story just like that one here and the person went to jail because they fired 2 shots to intentionally kill the dog instead of one shot an *example* in it's foot or leg to just injure it. The person also didn't have the gun registered so there are a lot of underlying facts and laws depending on the state.

I don't think the dog should have been killed but then again i'm all for animal rights so it's just my thought and many people don't agree, which is fine with me.

And you said the dog broke free from the pen it was in which means that the owners were controlling their dog legally, they can't be held responsible for it breaking free from it's pen. Now if it was just running loose because they let it then it's different, it was just a horrible situation.

Answer 5

I am a huge animal lover...

But the man was well within his right to do what he did.  So far as one person said about wasting precious time getting the gun?  It's a dang Rottweiler...they can be up over a muscular 100 lbs full grown, bite strength on average of 320 lbs of pressure...without something to level the playing field, you risk further injury to the woman, and injury to yourself as well.

As to whether or not they could control the dog...not enough information.  If this was the first, or even second time the dog has gotten out, I don't know how much at fault you could put the owners...but if they had a history of being unable to contain the animal, then that is a problem.  The owners should be responsible for the lady's medical bills.

Answer 6

yeah, it seems wrong that they were allowed to keep a dangerous dog in a residential area. However i'm not sure what will happen to the guy who shot it, killing the dog was a good thing for the victim, but the dog owners may complain he had a fire arm in public. Could go either way, but the vicitm can definatley press charges to the dog owner, i would =D

Answer 7

I don't blame the man for doing what he did. However, if after he kicked the dog, it was retreating, then he should have held off on shooting it.  If it was reared back ready to attack again, then of course he did the only thing he could.  I'm a little surprised that he didn't use something closer to hand, such as a rock, a limb or branch, or anything he might've gotten his hands on to hit the dog with rather than leaving the woman alone to go get his weapon.

The man will face charges if the gun is not registered. However, I doubt seriously he'll be charged with anything else.  All of this is assuming that the dog actually attacked and mauled the woman, that it wasn't simply menacing her (growling, intimidating, but not attacking).  If the woman wasn't severely attacked, the police could possibly contend that the man could have controlled the situation without the need for a gun.  This is a stretch, but possible.

The owner of the dog should be responsible for the woman's injuries (medical bills) as well as providing proof the dog was up to date on vaccinations, and could possibly face punitive lawsuit from the woman the dog attacked due to stress, fear, etc.  You're right that since the owners did not provide adequate control over the dog that they are to blame for what happened.  Even though they had it penned, the pen wasn't adequate to keep it in.  If the dog has a history of biting or escaping his pen, that too will come into play with regard to fines, citations, or legal issues.

Answer 8

I agree with David S.  The dog owners are the ones in trouble here.