Man shoots dog out of fear, gets charged.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Originally Posted by RoyJackson

I'd read about this on ydr.com, but the story has been archived or pulled (so I cannot link to it).
The dog was NOT on the shooter's property, and other then growling, made no threatening moves.
Also, the shooter did not have his firearm with him...he had to go into his house to retrieve it. He, apparently, was in no danger...neither were his children.
Well, once the "shooter" went into his home, he had many options...one of which was to call the cops or animal control...or even the dog's owner.
But, what he did has leave the security of his home and shoot the dog
This, IMHO, was a bad shoot.

Found the story (Link Shooting of dog leads to 2 arrests:
Two Manor Township neighbors were arrested Sunday after police said one of the men shot the other's dog.
After learning who shot his dog, police said, the second man came after his neighbor with a baseball bat.

The dog, a 7-year-old boxer, had to be taken to a veterinarian and put down because of the injuries he sustained, police said.Police arrested:

Brian Girouard, 41, 1741 Hemlock Road, who was charged with recklessly endangering another person and cruelty to animals for allegedly shooting his neighbor's dog.

Joshua Rice, 33, 120 Albright Ave., who was charged with terroristic threats, for allegedly threatening to hurt Girouard with a baseball bat and a dog law violation for letting his dog run loose.

The incident happened around 5:30 p.m., according to police, when they were dispatched to a reported animal attack in the 100 block of Bucknell Road.

Girouard told police the boxer had wandered near his propertyand growled at him and his two young children, according to Officer Wayne Smoker.

Girouard took his children inside the house, returned with a pistol and shot the dog, police said.

The wounded dog went home.

When Rice saw his injured dog, he went after Girouard with a baseball bat, threatening to hurt the man, police said.

Police, who said they were unaware of any prior problems between the men or with the dog, said Rice and Girouard were awaiting arraignment late Sunday night.

Both guys are idiots. Once he went in his home he was not in any danger. The owner is an idiot for letting his dog wander off leash without supervision. I know there are those who are going to say maybe he got lose, still his fault.
Secure your yard. I have a fenced in yard and a dog pen, if I'm not with my dog outside he goes in the dog pen period. Would you open your door and let a 2 or 3 year old child outside without watching him or her? Same responsibility. One of my pet peeves, no pun intended.

[ssnyder87]

That is an incredible display of miserable reporting. The dog growled near him and his children, he got a gun, he shot the dog, and the dog walked home. By the sound of the article the threat of the dog was over when he went into his house unharmed. If the boxer had come crashing through a window after that, then shoot it. It sounds like this guy is gonna go down hard. It's one thing if you're attacked and can't get away.

[GTI19403]

Originally Posted by knight0334

I just need to add - who's property or land is really irrelevant.

If I go onto my neighbors property and their dog attacks me = canine open season. Not only does a dog have to be restrained to an owner's properties/lands, but also from causing harm to other persons or animals while on the owner's land.

Untrue. If you wander into my yard and my dog attacks you then you are tresspassing. If this dog was trained with an invisible fence there is no legal need for a traditional fence. Now the only way my dogs would harm you is if you're allergic to dog drool

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by GTI19403

Untrue. If you wander into my yard and my dog attacks you then you are tresspassing. If this dog was trained with an invisible fence there is no legal need for a traditional fence. Now the only way my dogs would harm you is if you're allergic to dog drool

Incorrect..

Not all persons on your yard is trespassing. And even if you have a fence around your property, with an unlocked front gate, a sidewalk or established pathway to your front door, a door bell/knocker - implied consent can be established to present ones self at your door.

You must control your dog no matter what, and the mere presence on your lands does not justify the use of force by you or your dog. Any dog attack, anywhere, is a justification to killing that dog.

[GTI19403]

Originally Posted by knight0334

Incorrect..

Not all persons on your yard is trespassing. And even if you have a fence around your property, with an unlocked front gate, a sidewalk or established pathway to your front door, a door bell/knocker - implied consent can be established to present ones self at your door.

You must control your dog no matter what, and the mere presence on your lands does not justify the use of force by you or your dog. Any dog attack, anywhere, is a justification to killing that dog.

i'd like to see where you get this "fact" i also don't see how your senario actually applies to the story at hand.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by GTI19403

i'd like to see where you get this "fact" i also don't see how your senario actually applies to the story at hand.

Hey, if you dont want to believe me, I hope you or your beloved four legged friend do not find out the hard way. No where in § 459-501 does it say "except on the owner's property".

There are three ways you could find out the hard way.

1. The dog is shot by the person being attacked under provisions provided in §459-501.
2. The person who was attacked doesn't kill it but presses charges, and the courts/police order it destroyed.
3. The person sues you and is awarded the dog, since dogs are property, and then kills it at his/her leisure.


Now any argument on your side could be:
1. that the dog was doing so on it's own so to protect your life
2. or you order the dog to attack to protect yourself or others, but then you'd have to present an affirmative defense to justify the use of force.

EDIT:
BTW, this is how it was explain to us utility employees, by very well paid lawyers hired by very rich telephone companies, when dealing with loose dogs on public and private properties, and on right-of-ways of both types of properties.

[GTI19403]

Originally Posted by knight0334

Hey, if you dont want to believe me, I hope you or your beloved four legged friend do not find out the hard way. No where in § 459-501 does it say "except on the owner's property".

There are three ways you could find out the hard way.

1. The dog is shot by the person being attacked under provisions provided in §459-501.
2. The person who was attacked doesn't kill it but presses charges, and the courts/police order it destroyed.
3. The person sues you and is awarded the dog, since dogs are property, and then kills it at his/her leisure.


Now any argument on your side could be:
1. that the dog was doing so on it's own so to protect your life
2. or you order the dog to attack to protect yourself or others, but then you'd have to present an affirmative defense to justify the use of force.

EDIT:
BTW, this is how it was explain to us utility employees, by very well paid lawyers hired by very rich telephone companies, when dealing with loose dogs on public and private properties, and on right-of-ways of both types of properties.

are you aloowed to carry a weapon as a utility worker?

[thetruepyromaniak]

Originally Posted by GTI19403

Untrue. If you wander into my yard and my dog attacks you then you are tresspassing. If this dog was trained with an invisible fence there is no legal need for a traditional fence. Now the only way my dogs would harm you is if you're allergic to dog drool

Not True. Not only are you responsable for your pets, but a beware of dog sign, or a No trespassing sign holds no real value in pa. If you post a no trespassing sign and someone comes on your property, then you call the police, then they may or may not come out, but if they do, the tell the person to leave. If the person comes back, now it is a criminal trespass and they can be arrested. The sign really dosent affect the outcome at all.

[thetruepyromaniak]

Originally Posted by GTI19403

are you aloowed to carry a weapon as a utility worker?

The answer would legally be yes, but im sure the company has a policy against it.

[GTI19403]

Originally Posted by thetruepyromaniak

Not True. Not only are you responsable for your pets, but a beware of dog sign, or a No trespassing sign holds no real value in pa. If you post a no trespassing sign and someone comes on your property, then you call the police, then they may or may not come out, but if they do, the tell the person to leave. If the person comes back, now it is a criminal trespass and they can be arrested. The sign really dosent affect the outcome at all.

who said anything about a sign?? how does this apply to the original story of the guy who returned from the safety of his house with a gun and shot a dog on his neighbors property??? was he trying to read the meter??