Law does not allow people to shoot dogs
Law does not allow people to shoot dogs
view story
Tags:
Wed Sep 3, 2008 22:26:08 CDT
Viewed 1273 times
0 responses 61 comments
| Reply or Comment | Send to a Friend | Report a Violation |
Fri Sep 5, 2008 17:30:28 CDT
While reading this article I came up with some questions I would like answered. Why wasn't the law called first? I ask this because if the mother went outside and found the dog acting strange. Went in and woke up her son who also went outside and found the dog acting strange. To which he "tried" to scare it off, but in failing to do so went inside to get his gun. Why in all this time frame could the law not have been called. Or the owner of the dog if they already knew who owned the dog. As in my mind it does not add up. Since with all the dogs I have known if they were showing the "aggression" they claim would have attacked when he went to "SHOO" the dog off.
I know folks like to be able to do stuff on their own property without the fear of being attacked by an animal or anything else for that matter. But why place yourself in harms way again? Was it an emergancy and they had to leave? Or could they have waited untill a deputy or animal control arrived to handle the situation? If after yelling at the dog to scare it off, and going back out after it with a gun without calling the law, placing oneself in harmsway again wouldn't that be considered looking for trouble? If it would have been a person instead of a dog wouldn't that have been considered premeditated murder? Since he left the area of the confertation and went back armed? Why didn't he go armed in the first place if the dog was "aggressive and acting strange"?
One last thing before I get off my soapbox. If the dog was coming towards him in an aggressive manner, then how far away was the dog when he shot it? As with any shotgun much less a 410 it could not have been very close. As from looking at the pictures the shot had time to spread to give the pattern on the dog. Either that or he was not a good shot. As most animals I have seen that were shot by a shotgun had a good sized hole in them and even with a 410 the dog should have died.
Fri Sep 5, 2008 09:55:35 CDT
The phrase in the statute that caught my eye was "without the effective consent of the owner". I'd like to know the legal definition or judicial opinion of "effective consent". I'm guessing that "explicit consent" would mean the owner of the dog tells you to shoot his dog. But what is the definition of "effective consent".
There are laws that state dog owners are responsible for keeping their dogs on their property and laws that state dog owners are negligible if their dog harms or threatens someone. So if a dog is on someone else's property and threating another's person or property, does that constitute "effective consent" by the dog's owner?
The statute cited in the story also seems to conflict with the intent of the "Castle Doctrine" which allows a person to use deadly force to protect his person or property.
Lord help us when the rights of animals exceed the rights of people.
Fri Sep 5, 2008 09:20:56 CDT
My neighbors had a dog that kept getting out and chasing the children down the road. One day he jumped my 9 year old daughter and bit her are so badly that she had to have 2 surgeries and is permanently scarred where everyone can see it. I wish we had shot that dog the first time he chased the kids. What happened to the dog? Nothing. He stayed chained up barking at the kids for the next 3 days, gave every child in the neighborhood nightmares and then his owner, fearing a poisoning (with good reason) took the dog to Houston. No charges, no dog pound, no nothing. I say shoot that dog and pay the fine if necessary - I wish I had.Oh, did I forget to mention the dog belonged to a Houston Police Detective?
Fri Sep 5, 2008 08:16:32 CDT
markkrueger...You suspected the judge would tell the shooter, "...rather than calling the proper authorities or taking measures that would keep the dog out of your yard, like perhaps a fence in the front of your yard." .
Calling 911 is useless. By the time a deputy shows up, the dog will have wandered off, perhaps back home. The same with animal control. Why should a homeowner be tasked with the trouble and expense of building a fence to keep out animals that should never be running free at all? It is the responsibility of the pet owner to maintain control of the animal. The neighbors shouldn't have to fence themselves in or be required to hole up in the house because irresponsible people either can't or won't control their animals. I like most dogs better than I like most people, but pit bulls are special and should NEVER be allowed to roam free. If they appear at another person's home and show any signs of being a threat, a gun is the proper answer. It may be that he is just being a dog, but that doesn't excuse his owner from the responsibility of restraining him.
Fri Sep 5, 2008 07:17:01 CDT
Who or what gets into your closet, or your pants, is none of our business, Rags.
Fri Sep 5, 2008 02:09:32 CDT
I shot a dog in my pajamas this morning. How a dog got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 21:24:32 CDT
If you want your dog safe, keep it on your property. When dogs run loose, attack cyclers, kill other pets, threaten children, they will be dealt with. I know because I did. Outside on the city limits no one will hear your screams.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 19:57:13 CDT
I'm a dog lover, but if the least bit of aggressive behavior is exhibited by one on my property there will be one less dog in the neighborhood.If the police/criminal justice system put the shooter up for public display, they deserve the same. NO WONDER our city is in the fine shape it's in!
Thu Sep 4, 2008 19:24:59 CDT
So,let me make sure I got this correct.It's ok to shoot a chupacabra but not a dog?
I guess......OK
Thu Sep 4, 2008 18:39:30 CDT
PEACE OUT FOLKS I'M JUST VENTING STEAM! THE GREAT OZ HAS SPOKEN!
Thu Sep 4, 2008 18:37:15 CDT
ASK A RANCHER IF THEY SHOOT DOGS! IVE SEEN DOGS TRY TO DRAG CALVES DOWN AND I SHOT AT THEM! DON'T LET THE LAW SEE YOU IS ALL!
Thu Sep 4, 2008 18:34:35 CDT
I HAVE ONE GOOD STORY ABOUT A PITBULL THAT WAS CHAINED TO A TREE DURING A LIGHTNING STORM IT WAS STRUCK BY LIGHTNING! i FELT SORRY FOR THE POOR ANIMAL BUT GOOD RIDDANCE!
Thu Sep 4, 2008 18:19:51 CDT
who called the law he should've shot it with a real gun! I hate pitbulls! the only good ones are dead!
Thu Sep 4, 2008 18:09:53 CDT
For starters how sorry is it for someone to let their animal out to go crap in someone elses yard much less scare them to death at their own house!! I would've shot at the dog just for crapping in my yard, I'm sick and tired of irresponsible pet owners and the law won't do a thing about it!! I don't send my dog to other people's yard to take care of business and I don't want them sending their dog to mine. Secondly I don't care how sweet the dog is, you can NEVER say your dog won't bite anyone, all dogs have it in them and sometimes for unknown reasons they do!! But to have a pit bull run up on you like that after watching all the horror stories on tv, they had every right to shoot it. What's more sad is that the guy who shot it will probably be the one punished and it won't be fair at all.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 16:59:49 CDT
Dogs should be fenced and also have proper ID. The shooter should have fired in the air. The dog does not know that he is not suppose to roam the neighborhood. Was the dog going to open the door and go in the shooters house and attack him? I say shame on the shooter and shame on the dog owner for allowing the dog to roam freely. Dog owner and shooter should both be fined. Thu Sep 4, 2008 15:54:36 CDT
markkrueger said it best-
Thu Sep 4, 2008 15:31:25 CDT
Now that would be impressive.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 14:14:19 CDT
Sounds to me like Calderone needed killing.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 12:44:52 CDT
Perfectly OK to shoot a threatening human being, but not a dog. Victoria Advocate, May 31, 2006:
Man will not face trial after shooting
Robert Bludau will not face trial in connection with the Jan. 22 shooting of Israel Calderon after a Lavaca County grand jury no-billed him last week.
The shooting occurred during a party at a home near the Hope community. Calderon died two days later.
District Attorney Vicki Pattillo said that under state law, a finding of "no bill" means the findings of the grand jury are not subject to open records requests.
She said that, in her opinion, the case was no-billed based on self-defense and defense of third-party issues.
The defense attorney agreed.
"I think all the evidence collected showed that the shooting was done in self-defense," said Houston Munson Jr., defense attorney. "The district attorney's office was aboveboard on everything involving the case and the presentation of the evidence collected by the Department of Public Safety, the DPS crime lab and the (Lavaca County) Sheriff's Office. After the results of the various investigations were presented, the grand jury decided to return a no bill."
Bludau, 44, of Hallettsville, was arrested the morning of Jan. 22 on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon at his home at 598 County Road 445, where the shooting occurred.
He was released that same morning after posting $100,000 bail.
The shooting was reported to the sheriff's office around 11:40 the night before.
Calderon, 35, was in critical condition when he was transported by emergency helicopter to Wilford Hall Hospital in San Antonio. Calderon died on Jan. 24, according to the sheriff's office report.
Calderon had a Dallas address on his driver's license but had been living in Victoria.
Texas Ranger Dewayne Goll assisted in the investigation and prepared the probable cause affidavit for the arrest warrant issued for Bludau.
The affidavit stated the incident started with a call to the sheriff's office that Saturday night with the caller saying a man at the home was creating a disturbance and refused to leave. Three minutes later, the sheriff's office received a second call from the same location reporting the shooting.
Munson said his client's explanation of what happened was similar to that of the affidavit. Munson said he was told Calderon was attending a family gathering with his girlfriend, became belligerent and was asked to leave. After eventually agreeing to leave, Munson said, Calderon returned, had a knife and was threatening Bludau when the shooting occurred. Munson said both Calderon's girlfriend and Bludau's fiancée tried to restrain Calderon from attacking Bludau, but the women were pushed away just before any shots were fired.
"I have a lot of respect for Ranger Goll and how he conducts investigations and presents evidence," Munson said. "I know the investigators looked at the time frame, what evidence was collected and sent to the DPS crime lab, like ballistics reports and blood spatter patterns, and offered it to the grand jury without bias."
Thu Sep 4, 2008 12:35:51 CDT
Pit Bulls are great dogs if raised correctly. Same as every other dog breed. Any dog can be dangerous if not properly trained and socialized.I have owned many pit bulls in my life time and none of the them "turned" on anyone and were amazing pets and a part of my family.
I have often come upon aggressive dogs in my line of work. Sure a few have been pit bulls, but not anymore than other breeds. I have never been attacked by a pit bull, however, I have been attacked by other breeds.
Pit Bulls were bred for their strength. They have extremely powerful jaws that if used, can inflict more damage than another dog of similar size. That does not make them an aggressive breed by nature, only that when they do attack, generally the injuries are worse.
I can almost guarantee that attacks by smaller dogs far outnumber attacks by pits. But since they are smaller injuries are normally not fatal.
Fact is, the owner in this case is also at fault for not keeping their pet tied up or restrained. That does not make it OKAY to kill the animal just because.
To say you were threatened by the mere presence of a "pit bull" based on it's breed is no different than someone saying I was in fear of my life because he was a large black man with a red bandana. IT'S RACISM.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 12:24:41 CDT
We too, have had problems with pit bull dogs running loose in our neighborhood. I cannot tell you how many times we have had to call the Animal Control to come out and the Police. I have had the pit run aggressively at me forcing me back into the house just taking the garbage out. The kids getting off the school bus were afraid to get off the bus because of the dog. Finally after many tickets and calls from almost every neighbor on the block to the authorities, the dog seems to be confined. The owners of the dog were upset because people were reporting them. My opinion is to be a responsible pet owner. If my dogs ran loose, I would expect to suffer the consequences. I do not agree (from what I read) that it was fair to the dog to be shot after the person called it back into the yard. Thanks
Thu Sep 4, 2008 12:17:49 CDT
For all you who say to call the sheriff and get a deputy to handle the situation. By the time a deputy gets to your home, all he or she will be able to do is take a report of what happened. When I worked for the airline here in Victoria, the promised response time to the airport was sometime within TWENTY minutes. Few emergency situations last that long. .
I am a lover of dogs. I like most dogs better than I like some people, but pits cannot be trusted -- especially with people and animals they are not familier with.
.
Kenneth, you're right about the .410 slugs. If you're going to the trouble of shooting him, there's no sense in just making him mad. If this ends up in some sort of court case, I hope I'm selected for the jury.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 12:13:09 CDT
This is a case of the owner's irresponsible actions. I know a couple of the people involved. She is not even the true owner of the dog, nor does she live at the residence there. It is her boyfriend's dog, they are not married, as she claims. Most of the "facts" in this story are lies. She has had to have several of her animals rescued by other people. I hope the sheriff's dept does a thorough investigation of all the people involved in this case.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 11:50:45 CDT
I agree with all of you who said pitbulls should be outlawed. I used to live in a townhome and the people who moved in next door to me had two pitbulls-a male and female. well, if I was outside with my son (2 years old at the time) the female would ram her head into the fence when she was let outside. She would continue to ram her head into the fence until we went back inside. The owner said that she only did that when she was in heat. I say BS because the dog would have had to have been in heat every day of the freakin year. There's no reason for a dog to act like that--in heat or not. These dogs have no common sense as to what a REAL threat is and what's not--I don't care what anyone says. My issue with my neighbor's dog proved that to me. I moved because I didn't want my 2-year old's arms getting torn off if he reached under or through the fence to pet the dogs. I finally had to tell him that he couldn't play outside anymore. These dogs always seem to change their temper at the drop of a dime. On another note, anyone who thinks that people should stay confined in their houses while dogs are running around loose in their yard is absolutely sick. Why should a loose dog have more rights than the property owner? I have had more destruction to my personal property by loose dogs and I, for one, am tired of it.It's amazing to me that someone can leave their kids in a hot car to die and nobody says anything, but if someone leaves an animal in a hot car to die, you hear an uproar about it for MONTHS. That's where some people's priorities are nowadays.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 11:43:44 CDT
The point is, that a responsible pet owner, that knowingly has a pet that could be of danger to others should keep better track of there animals. Once he gets loose okay, twice okay but fix the problem , three times they should be taken away . No one should feel threatened to go outside there home because of someone elses irresponsiblity ! I am a big pet lover and have also had pitbulls and know they can or can not turn on you but u just never know . They should ALWAYS be restained , no excuses!!!! If this owner was soo worried about her pet she should've been taken better care of it , bottom line ! It doesn't seem like it was the first time this has happend to them either, I can see why he felt he had to do what he did . How is he supposed to call for help with the dog if he is being attacked and possibly killed . I am not agains pittbulls but I am against irresponsible owners!!
Thu Sep 4, 2008 11:41:47 CDT
The only standard that needs to be learned here is that good dogs need collars from good dog owners. None of this would have happened.And yes I am a pit bull owner.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 11:38:55 CDT
For those who would like to learn about the American Pit Bull standard, this is from the official website of the United Kennel Club and is the official breed standard as of Nov. 1, 2008.AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER (REVISED NOVEMBER 1, 2008)
Terrier Group
Official U.K.C. Breed Standard
Revised November 1, 2008
Terrier Group
©Copyright 1978, United Kennel Club, Inc.
HISTORY
Sometime during the nineteenth century, dog fanciers in England, Ireland and Scotland began to experiment with crosses between Bulldogs and Terriers, looking for a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the Bulldog. The result was a dog that embodied all of the virtues attributed to great warriors: strength, indomitable courage, and gentleness with loved ones. Immigrants brought these bull and terrier crosses to the United States. The American Pit Bull Terrier’s many talents did not go unnoticed by farmers and ranchers who used their APBTs as catch dogs for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, to drive livestock, and as family companions. Today, the American Pit Bull Terrier continues to demonstrate its versatility, competing successfully in Obedience, Tracking, Agility and Weight Pulls, as well as Conformation.
The United Kennel Club was the first registry to recognize the American Pit Bull Terrier. UKC founder C. Z. Bennett assigned UKC registration number 1 to his own APBT, Bennett’s Ring, in 1898.
GENERAL APPEARANCE
The American Pit Bull Terrier is a medium-sized, solidly built, short-coated dog with smooth, well-defined musculature. This breed is both powerful and athletic. The body is just slightly longer than tall, but bitches may be somewhat longer in body than dogs. The length of the front leg (measured from point of elbow to the ground) is approximately equal to one-half of the dog’s height at the withers. The head is of medium length, with a broad, flat skull, and a wide, deep muzzle. Ears are small to medium in size, high set, and may be natural or cropped. The relatively short tail is set low, thick at the base and tapers to a point. The American Pit Bull Terrier comes in all colors and color patterns except merle. This breed combines strength and athleticism with grace and agility and should never appear bulky or muscle-bound or fine-boned and rangy. Above all else, the APBT must have the functional capability to be a catch dog that can hold, wrestle (push and pull) and breathe easily while doing its job. Balance and harmony of all parts are critical components of breed type.
Very Serious Fault: Any disproportionate overdone characteristic (such as short legs, excessive bone or massive head or body) that would interfere with working ability.
CHARACTERISTICS
The essential characteristics of the American Pit Bull Terrier are strength, confidence, and zest for life. This breed is eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children. Because most APBTs exhibit some level of dog aggression and because of its powerful physique, the APBT requires an owner who will carefully socialize and obedience train the dog. The breed’s natural agility makes it one of the most capable canine climbers so good fencing is a must for this breed. The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work.
HEAD
The APBT head is unique and a key element of breed type. It is large and broad, giving the impression of great power, but it is not disproportionate to the size of the body. Viewed from the front, the head is shaped like a broad, blunt wedge. When viewed from the side, the skull and muzzle are parallel to one another and joined by a well defined, moderately deep stop. Supraorbital arches over the eyes are well defined but not pronounced. The head is well chiseled, blending strength, elegance, and character.
Very Serious Fault: Overly large, heavy heads.
SKULL - The skull is large, flat or slightly rounded, deep, and broad between the ears. Viewed from the top, the skull tapers just slightly toward the stop. There is a deep median furrow that diminishes in depth from the stop to the occiput. Cheek muscles are prominent but free of wrinkles. When the dog is concentrating, wrinkles form on the forehead, which give the APBT his unique expression.
MUZZLE - The muzzle is broad and deep with a very slight taper from the stop to the nose, and a slight falling away under the eyes. The length of muzzle is shorter than the length of skull, with a ratio of approximately 2:3. The topline of the muzzle is straight. The lower jaw is well developed, wide and deep. Lips are clean and tight.
Faults: Snipey muzzle; flews; weak lower jaw.
Very Serious Fault: Muzzle too short, which impairs breathing capability.
TEETH - The American Pit Bull Terrier has a complete set of evenly spaced, white teeth meeting in a scissors bite.
Fault: Level bite.
Serious Faults: Undershot, or overshot bite; wry mouth; missing teeth (this does not apply to teeth that have been lost or removed by a veterinarian).
NOSE - The nose is large with wide, open nostrils. The nose may be any color.
EYES - Eyes are medium size, round and set well apart and low on the skull. All colors are equally acceptable except blue, which is a serious fault. Haw should not be visible.
Serious Faults: Bulging eyes; both eyes not matched in color; blue eyes.
EARS - Ears are high set and may be natural or cropped without preference. pr**** or flat, wide ears are not desired.
NECK
The neck is of moderate length and muscular. There is a slight arch at the crest. The neck widens gradually from where it joins the skull to where it blends into well laid-back shoulders. The skin on the neck is tight and without dewlap.
Faults: Neck too thin or weak; ewe neck; dewlap.
Very Serious Fault: A short, thick neck that would interfere with functional ability.
FOREQUARTERS
The shoulder blades are long, wide, muscular, and well laid back. The upper arm is roughly equal in length to the shoulder blade and joins it at an apparent right angle.
The forelegs are strong and muscular. The elbows are set close to the body. Viewed from the front, the forelegs are set moderately wide apart and perpendicular to the ground. The pasterns are short, powerful, straight, and flexible. When viewed in profile, the pasterns are nearly erect.
Faults: Upright or loaded shoulders; elbows turned outward or tied-in; down at the pasterns; front legs bowed; wrists knuckled over; toeing in or out.
Very Serious Fault: Legs shorter than half the total height at the withers.
BODY
The chest is deep, well filled in, and moderately wide with ample room for heart and lungs, but the chest should never be wider than it is deep. The forechest does not extend much beyond the point of shoulder. The ribs extend well back and are well sprung from the spine, then flattening to form a deep body extending to the elbows. The back is strong and firm. The topline inclines very slightly downward from the withers to a broad, muscular, level back. The loin is short, muscular and slightly arched to the top of the croup, but narrower than the rib cage and with a moderate tuck-up. The croup is slightly sloping downward.
Very Serious Fault: Overly massive body style that impedes working ability.
HINDQUARTERS
The hindquarters are strong, muscular, and moderately broad. The rump is well filled in on each side of the tail and deep from the pelvis to the crotch. The bone, angulation, and musculature of the hindquarters are in balance with the forequarters. The thighs are well developed with thick, easily discerned muscles. Viewed from the side, the hock joint is well bent and the rear pasterns are well let down and perpendicular to the ground. Viewed from the rear, the rear pasterns are straight and parallel to one another.
Faults: Narrow hindquarters; hindquarters shallow from pelvis to crotch; lack of muscle; straight or over angulated stifle joint; cow hocks; sickle hocks; bowed legs.
FEET
The feet are round, proportionate to the size of the dog, well arched, and tight. Pads are hard, tough, and well cushioned. Dewclaws may be removed.
Fault: Splayed feet.
TAIL
The tail is set on as a natural extension of the topline, and tapers to a point. When the dog is relaxed, the tail is carried low and extends approximately to the hock. When the dog is moving, the tail is carried level with the backline. When the dog is excited, the tail may be carried in a raised, upright position (challenge tail), but never curled over the back (gay tail).
Fault: Long tail (tail tip passes beyond point of hock).
Serious faults: Gay tail (not to be confused with challenge tail); kinked tail.
Disqualification: Bobbed tail.
COAT
The coat is glossy and smooth, close, and moderately stiff to the touch.
Faults: Curly, wavy, or sparse coat.
Disqualification: Long coat.
COLOR
Any color, color pattern, or combination of colors is acceptable, except for merle.
Disqualification: Merle
HEIGHT AND WEIGHT
The American Pit Bull Terrier must be both powerful and agile so actual weight and height are less important than the correct proportion of weight to height. Desirable weight for a mature male in good condition is between 35 and 60 pounds. Desirable weight for a mature female in good condition is between 30 and 50 pounds. Dogs over these weights are not to be penalized unless they are disproportionately massive or rangy.
Very Serious Fault: Excessively large or overly massive dogs.
GAIT
The American Pit Bull Terrier moves with a jaunty, confident attitude, conveying the impression that he expects any minute to see something new and exciting. When trotting, the gait is effortless, smooth, powerful, and well coordinated, showing good reach in front and drive behind. When moving, the backline remains level with only a slight flexing to indicate suppleness. Viewed from any position, legs turn neither in nor out, nor do feet cross or interfere with each other. As speed increases, feet tend to converge toward center line of balance.
Faults: Legs not moving on the same plane; legs over reaching; legs crossing over in front or rear; rear legs moving too close or touching; rolling; pacing; paddling; sidewinding; hackney action; pounding.
DISQUALIFICATIONS
Unilateral or bilateral cryptorchid. Viciousness or extreme shyness. Unilateral or bilateral deafness. Long coat. Bobbed tail. Albinism. Merle.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 11:24:05 CDT
Okay the Advocate can save us all some arguments by sending a reporter over to see who witnessed the shooter " call the dog over to him" to shoot it.Find that perso, write an article and then decide.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 11:11:15 CDT
I owned a pit years ago.....but now I'm older and wiser.(?) They are very, very unpredictable dogs. My dog was the biggest baby, so gentle. But as she got older, she would 'go after' certain people or animals. Luckily she was fenced in. But it didn't take me very to find a new home for her-with warnings for the new owner. And pits are not the only violent dogs running around out there, in fact, a poodle is top on the list of dogs most likely to bite......How do you call for help when you're down on the ground with a pit bulls jaws around your neck? Mr. Lara did the right thing by shooting it BEFORE it had a chance to attack him or anybody else.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 10:52:33 CDT
"maybe if it would be attacking him or in serious danger, I think he did it on purpose." good point! it would have been better if they had waited UNTIL the dog actually attacked and caused bodily injury ... thats what a smart person would have done.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 10:46:09 CDT
There is no good reason to outlaw pit bulls!! Many, many people own them as pets and they are wonderful dogs!! I am a respectable 60 year old woman who has owned several and NONE has ever been aggressive toward humans. That said, I must acknowlege that many pits ARE aggressive toward other dogs. Additionally, many OWNERS are irresponsible. A pit bull should NEVER be allowed to run around loose because so many owners have encouraged them to fight and kill other dogs and people fear them. An unleashed pit bull running around a neighborhood is a recipe for tragedy -- just as we have seen here. If you love your dog, keep it contained. If you do not keep your pit behind a fence or on a leash, you do not love your dog. Just be responsible owners, People; it's not rocket science!
Thu Sep 4, 2008 10:45:06 CDT
Law???? We had 2 dogs on our porch that would not even let us open the blinds to look outside. One rotwaller and some other big dog. Had our kids screaming. The cat is supposed to be on the porch at 6:30am not them. They continued to growl and bark at us even if we walked close to our windows. Our porch was totally a wreck, mud, and dog slobber all over the place. Needless to say Thank God my husband went outside with a gun and thankfully he was fast enough to be able to shoot twice because both went after him. I've lived in the country all my life and have NEVER seen dogs attack like that. As kids we used to fight over who got the new (stray)dog...NEVER have I ever seen such evilness. So what is the LAW if my husband had not been quick on the draw? Guess I would be a widow today. The owner showed up a few days later asking if we've seen her babies???? Babies, I don't think so. Also these dogs had no collars. You can't tell me that if a sheriff deputy would have come out here that he would not have done the same thing. More to this story but I'll stop with this much.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 10:38:23 CDT
I watch people displaying their pit bulls on heavy chains,walking down the street. I drive by and see them chained in people's yards. These animals have no business on the loose, any where. This breed was developed for fighting and killing anything. If a pit bull comes in my fenced-in yard, there won't be any question that this action is a perceived danger to me and my loved ones. I will not hesitate to save my family members (pets included.) Arrest me, if you must, but at least there will be one less threat to innocent lives. It is a shame that these dogs are not outlawed, since the breed has been misused by ignorant people. Yeah, yeah, I know that the "Dog Whisper" has a pit bull that is so gentle, but from what I have seen around here, these irresponsible owners don't have the qualifications to train and manage an aggressive dog such as a Pit.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 10:27:26 CDT
I'm a owner of a pit bull and some people say its how you raise your dog but I dont think that this person was not in immediate danger especially since he went at the dog do you think maybe the dog was protecting himself some one coming at him with a shot gun.I know he was in there property but not IMMEDIATE danger could of went to call someone or yelled at the neighbor.Im not just taking up because I have a pit bull but that doesnt give him a right to shoot in the face maybe if it would be attacking him or in serious danger, I think he did it on purpose.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 09:58:58 CDT
FWW, I'm with you. The Lara's need to buy some .410 slugs. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six! Every time there is another Pit Bull tragedy invaribly the owner tells the reporter, "Why, that dog never acted like that before. He/she's always been so sweet!" My good friend Brodie, a Great Dane and a loveable big lug, was attacked by two Pit Bull Terriers and not even pepper spray would break their grip on Brodie! I gave Brodies owner a .22 pistol. Now she knows what to do!On the other hand, it's been my life-long experience that it's the atmosphere in which a dog is raised that determines much, not all, but much of it's behavior. The younger a Pit Bull is the more docile it will be, most times. I dislike killing any animal. I am surrounded in my neighborhood by Pit Bulls. They are everywhere. Most confined by huge chains around their necks 24/7. Gee whiz, if I were them I think I'd be cranky too!
Thu Sep 4, 2008 09:37:07 CDT
First of all pit bulls should be outlawed. Second, anyone who ownes one needs their head examined and last but not least, let a pit bull threaten me on my property and they can shove the law.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 09:32:51 CDT
I can't believe that the mother went inside to get her son to shoot the dog. Why didn't she call the neighbor to come get her dog? Or the sheriff or animal control? She was obviously safe when she made it back into the house. So whether or not he called the dog back into the yard seems irrelevant. She was safe in the house. Period. That is not a threat.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 09:31:19 CDT
Luminary….you are too funny. An officer that shoots a cow and this idiot that shot a pitbull are the same thing? The cow was severely injured and charging anyone near it. The cow was about to run across the highway and cause another accident. The moo cow knocked an officer down separating his shoulder. The humane thing was to put the cow down. Ranchers raise cows to be killed for human consumption and they are delicious! This meathead who shot the dog was wrong. The mother says in her statement that she was in the house and heard barking. WOW she must have been scared for her life! I couldn’t imagine hearing a dog bark outside…that would send shivers down my spine! It’s a good thing they ran in and out of the house twice, retrieved a shotgun and shot the offending dog in the face. NOT..are you kidding me!
Was the home owner afraid the dog could open the door and attack? What is wrong with staying inside and calling animal control, the VCSO or even the neighbor? Shooting the dog was totally intentional, totally uncalled for and totally against the law.
Case closed….Next!
Thu Sep 4, 2008 09:27:27 CDT
This dog might be "harmless" ... but what about this guy that lives at the same residence with the woman and her small children?https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/DPS_WEB/SorNew/PublicSite/index.aspx?PageIndex=Individual&IND_IDN=5817578&SearchType=Zipcode
its a sad day when people have to be "prisoners" on their own property if threatened ....
Thu Sep 4, 2008 09:25:17 CDT
The owner states that the man who shot the dog called the dog into his yard before shooting him. How vicious can a dog be who comes when called?Of course this is a story of "he said", "she said", and who do you believe? However, from what is stated I get the feeling the gentleman who did the shooting was just looking for an opportunity to shoot this dog....and I think he should be be required to pay the vet bills.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 09:20:40 CDT
I agree strongly with The Observer. The shots could have been fired into the air rather than at the dog. If there is a neighbor/witness saying Mr. Lara called Roscoe back into his yard to shoot him.......... doesn't it seem there is a little more to this story? That makes it seem as though the dog had left the Lara property but was lured back in only to be shot. And Mr. Lara was approaching the dog before he shot at it, too...... Perhaps the dog did not seem that vicious and intimidating. I know I would not approach a growling dog. I understand Mr. Lara wanting to defend his mother. But the only reason I would shoot the dog is if it ran up to my mother and I while we were sitting on the porch. If he had already left my moms yard I would not call it back to shoot it for scaring my mother. In my opinion that is what probably occured. Roscoe scared momma so baby bear took it upon his self to shoot at the dog. : ( Not blaming Mr. Lara. I truly believe the owner should have been present when Roscoe was taking his bathroom break.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 09:17:22 CDT
Pits are know to have a bad rep for turning on people and on other animals if you are going to own one please keep it properly leashed and on your property. Good job protecting yourself and your property Mr. Lara.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 09:17:13 CDT
This whole situation is just ridiculous, and I feel bad for the Lara's for having to deal with it. Zero sympathy to Roscoe and his owners, his irresponsible owners! It does not make any sense with what Ms. Davidson is saying, which is what the supposedly witnessing neighbor saw,but was not even outside at the time of this incident to see what occurred. Davidson says "I wonder why EJ felt he had to shoot Roscoe." Well I wonder why she was not outside when she let the dog run freely to monitor it, especially since she spent so much money on the dog and loves the dog so much. She went on to say how "meaness is the only thing I could think of" in referring to what happened. Hmmmm... well there are several things I can think of as far as her and her irresponsibility with not taking proper care of her pet. Since when is it okay to let your pet run freely? And in the video where she is being interviewed it shows Roscoe with no collar. Wow! She spent $800 on her beloved dog, but couldn't spend an extra 10 bucks to get a collar for him. That alone says a lot. Bottom line, the Lara's were simply doing what they had to do to protect themselves. They were in no wrong! Signing off with 100 % support to the Lara's ....
-SHAUNIE F.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 09:09:55 CDT
That's my point exactly romonak. The guy went out there with the intention of shooting the dog. And that's just wrong.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 09:07:25 CDT
My mom's neighbor has a pit bull that is constantly getting loose. This dog is mean, always looking for a potential victim. My mom has had to run back into her house or to her car several times because of this dog and when we call the police or the dog catcher, nothing ever gets done about it. I can see why people take matters into their own hands, and I would have no problem doing the same. The problem is so bad at my mother's home, my kids are not allowed to play in the backyard anymore! I haven't seen my mom's backyard in about six months now, we just feel safer staying indoors. I guaranty if this dog ever approached one of my children or nieces, it would not live another day, I don't care what the law states!
Thu Sep 4, 2008 08:42:50 CDT
Okay this is pretty simple...the law is the law. However, you CAN shoot a dog if you feel you are in immediate danger of serious bodily injury or death.I think the problem in this case, is that the dog did not attack anyone but was just wondering the property. He states that he gets the gun and then walks out toward it. Is this any different than being scared of someone who is standing in your front yard threatening you and then you actually open your door and walk out to them.
If he was "threatened" then why did he go outside where the dog was? And on top of that, he actually walks toward the dog. Again...not scared if you're walking toward the threat when you could have easily stayed in doors and called the appropriate agency.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 08:37:20 CDT
My neighbors have a pit bull, it stays locked in a fence but it looks and acts extremely vicious. Scares everyone that walks to my front door. I have a small son and I will tell you now that if that dog ever got out and even acted like it might hurt him, I would kill it in a heartbeat. Sorry to all of the animal lovers but my sons life is far more important to me than a dog and a law. This dog is in a tiny fence and chained up all day. The owners follow proper guidelines I suppose to keep it locked up. But you just never know...
Thu Sep 4, 2008 08:25:10 CDT
"Texas State recently passed the toughest dangerous dog legislation in the county. The law, known as "Lillian's Law," holds vicious dog owners criminally liable if their dog leaves owner property and attacks a person. Essentially it is a law that penalizes owners of loose dogs. Under Lillian's law, owners of loose dogs face 10 years in jail if the attack results in serious injury to a person and 20 years if the attack ends in death." Some insurance carriers refuse insurance to owners of dangerous or vicious dogs, yet perople are not allowed to "prevent" an attack?
I guess the man should have called the police first, and he should keep calling the police and filing reports. One needs to start getting complaints filed in case there ever is a reason to sue someone. The owners of this dog clearly do not care about their neighbors. It takes a greater responsibility to own a dog on one of the "lists", and as Judge Judy says, just because they are docile at home, doesn't mean they are that way anywhere else.
Then, there is always small claims court to recoup any losses that have occured because of negligent dog owners. This is what I'm aiming at now. I've gotten pictures, a police report, neighbors statements, and if one of my cats gets killed or maimed again, they are gonna be paying out of their butts.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 08:11:47 CDT
Valentinebear, thanks for the codes, but all that pertains to IF the dog/coyote has already attacked. What can you do to PREVENT an attack?
Thu Sep 4, 2008 08:10:06 CDT
The only thing wrong with the shooting of this animal was the use of a .410 instead of something that would have put it down permanently. When I was a kid on my way to a baseball game, I was attacked by a pit bull named Jughead who belong to a neighbor. I had always had a friendly relationship with Jughead, had played with him on many occasions. This one day, though, Jughead came at me with blood in his eye. The only thing that saved me was my trusty Louisville Slugger. I hit a ground rule double upside Jughead's ear and he rolled over in the ditch. I thought I'd killed him, but he was only stunned. He never bothered me again, though. These dogs are dangerously unpredictable. They may be sweet, gentle, playful animals for years, but like a time bomb, can go off with no warning. To allow any pet to have free access to a neighbor's yard "to go to the bathroom" is the action of an irresponsible pet owner. To allow a dangerous animal like a pit bull to roam to a neighbors land is beyond irresponsible and borders on criminal. This is one of those times when the adage of better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six comes into play. To allow pit bulls to roam in a neighborhood is like dumping rattlesnakes into a school yard. Somebody is gonna get bit and, regardless of the letter of the law, someone is gonna shoot the dog. Remeber, that law was passed by a bunch of lawyers in Austin who have never perceived a threat. They sit in the capitol in their suits and tell real people in the real world that they cannot legally protect themselves.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 08:01:59 CDT
Let me see....You can shoot another person in self denfense, but you can't shoot a dog in self defense? How f****d up is that?
Thu Sep 4, 2008 07:45:59 CDT
markkrueger wrote:"If I would've been there, I'd have blown that dog to pieces, but then that would be illegal because it was attacking my baby son and not another animal"That seems to be how things go, nothing protects the people, and if it does for some reason protect someone, it's the wrong person.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 07:41:03 CDT
Who in the world is going to stop and look up penal codes and detailed law information on shooting at an animal when they are being threatened? Most people would of done the same thing as Mr. Lara did. I hope and pray they do not do anything to Mr. Lara. With the way cases have been handled (or not) here lately, it would be terrible to go after Mr Lara for protecting HUMAN life.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 06:59:02 CDT
Not all laws are found in the penal code and there are a few exceptions that allow for the killing of dogs.Texas law (Health and Safety Code) allows a person to kill a dog or coyote that attacks other animals. A copy of the specific statute follows:
§ 822.013. DOGS[0] OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS.
(a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently
attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.
(c) A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal control authority. The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all damage done by the dog or coyote.
(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority.
(e) A person is not required to acquire a hunting license under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or oyote under this section.
Source: [url]http://www.capitol.state.tx...
...also there is a law that punishes the dog owner if the dog causes injury or death..
Lillian's Law - Texas State Dangerous Dog Law
House Bill 1355 (Lillian’s Law) is a tough new dog bite law that took effect in the state of Texas in 2007. Under Lillian's Law, the owner of a dog that causes injury or death can be prosecuted if the owner is found to be "criminally negligent" in failing to prevent the dog from escaping. The third-degree felony charge can bring a sentence of 2 to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. If the victim dies, a dog owner can be charged with a second-degree felony, which could bring up to 20 years in prison.
A little research is good...
Thu Sep 4, 2008 02:41:16 CDT
I know that there are many people out there that love and defend their pit bulls as being sweet family pets that have a bad rep. Personally I believe that it is a reputation that the breed has earned. Whatever the animal though the law is the law, but for most people, especially those with children, some breeds, like pit bulls are threatening just by the attacks and deaths that gave them this rep. As a parent I would not be willing to wait to see if it was a threat or not especially when it comes to the safety of my kids. People who own dogs that can be or can be perceived as being threatening to other people should keep them fenced, leashed, or kenneled if they want to keep their pet safe. It is also extreemly costly both financially and legally to these pet owners should their pet actually attack or worse kill someone because it was running loose. Perhaps the answer to work within the law is for pet owners to be responsible for the safety of their pets and neighbors and for neighborhoods and communities to come together and pass ordinances that ensure those types of measures.
Thu Sep 4, 2008 00:52:06 CDT
There is always meatballs with a mickey finn. But don't say I told you. Whoops!
Thu Sep 4, 2008 00:16:39 CDT
Are you allowed to shoot a dog while in the process of protecting your pets? What do I do about a DA neighbor that has numerous (at one time, 8) large dogs running loose and those dogs come over to my property and kill my cats. All of my cats are fixed and they stay home. They've watched them attack my cats and do nothing more than scold the dogs. These neighbors are not home during the day and don't know what their dogs are doing, but continue to say that their dogs aren't/wouldn't doing anything to hurt anyone. I watched those dogs chase a UPS driver back to his truck one time. The poor man was running for his life.So, if we cannot shoot an animal on our property to protect our pets, what the h#ll is wrong with the law?
Wed Sep 3, 2008 23:17:50 CDT
Let's see...Texas Law says we can't shoot domestic animals yet my local police told me I could not talk to my neighbor about her dangerous roaming animals if she didn't want to talk about it but I could shoot them & in the city limits to boot! Good thing I'm smart enough to know that is not legal, as they assurred me it was perfectly legal. Can't call my neighbor a b17ch, but hey shoot the offending dog.
Wed Sep 3, 2008 22:55:26 CDT
I lived on a large ranch once. The owners would ride around in their pick-up and kill any stray dog they saw. They never bothered the coyotes, but they would kill the domestic animals, because they ran in packs and would kill calves. The coyotes only ate carrion. Never saw any chupacabras though.
Wed Sep 3, 2008 22:47:02 CDT
Kill'em dead. If you don't like it, keep them on your own property.
Wed Sep 3, 2008 22:30:08 CDT
I say throw the book at the shooter. I live on a large ranch acreage, I have been threatened by other people's dogs and as a dog lover I still have shot in the air, on the ground or towards a nearby bush or brush to scare the dogs away. When confronted by a growling dog I still shoot away.
Shooting in the face of this dog was simply personal retaliation. It's not the dog's fault. Don't shoot the dog!! Shoot away to scare it. And if the dog doesn't run away from a shotgun blast in the air then that's a first for me. I've seen it many times.
Responsible dog owner ? Probably not. But DON'T shoot the dog. I hope the investigation continues. Good job VA for keeping us up to date. Please continue.