Man charged with shooting dog

**CHAUKA** · August 14th, 2007, 10:37 PM

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07225/809128-100.stm

This came from yesterdays Pittsburgh Post Gazette, I guess this answers the question what charges you may face while protectng your dog?

Although You have to think did he really need to do it? A Yellow Lab is not really a Pitt Bull?

**1927A1** · August 14th, 2007, 10:46 PM

The problem is that "he thought" the lab was going to attack. The humane law 5511c, as well as the State Dog Law allows the destruction of another persons animal "if" it is in the act of attacking, yourself, another person or your pet. The destruction of life must also be in a humane fashion. Not shooting a leg, tail, chest then the head.

Other charges could lead to discharging a firearm within the city limits, or reckless endangerment.

The brief article leaves out a lot of information.

**Michele** · August 15th, 2007, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by CHAUKA

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07225/809128-100.stm

This came from yesterdays Pittsburgh Post Gazette, I guess this answers the question what charges you may face while protectng your dog?

Although You have to think did he really need to do it? A Yellow Lab is not really a Pitt Bull?

IMHO, the article is unclear.
Probably a neighbor/neighbor dispute. We should be seeing the story on Judge Judy.

Besides the fact, once PETA gets a hold of this one, theres going to be trouble.

This jerk shouldn't be able to own a firearm. Whats next, a child with a watergun?
PLEEEEEZZZZZEEEEE! Just my opinion.

**brewguy** · August 15th, 2007, 10:45 AM

A yellow lab is perfectly cappable of killing a tiny rat dog. Would it be more justified if he left it snap his dogs neck first?

My parently Yorkie was attacked by some big white dog, not a pitt. Luckly my father tackled the thing and put it in a choke hold.

**Michele** · August 15th, 2007, 03:20 PM

This guy exhibited paranoia to the enth degree. "he thought"
Somebody this paranoid, should not handle a firearm. He shouldn't even have a drivers license.
There is more to this story than was printed, and it has nothing to do with shooting the dog.

**brewguy** · August 15th, 2007, 03:24 PM

"shot a golden labrador last week because, he said, he believed it was going to attack his chihuahua "

We really need more details but why was the lab not on a leesh?

At what point do you feel shooting the lab would be justified?

How about we put some blame on the dog owner who did not take responsibility in keeping their dog under control.

**knight0334** · August 15th, 2007, 04:04 PM

Without being there to see what happened, as it happened - its impossible to pass judgment on this guy. The lab could have been inches away as it lunged to attack the smaller dog, or it could have been barking from it's own yard without any further aggression. One of which would have justified the shooting of the bigger dog, the other wouldn't have. If the bigger dog was actually trying to attack the smaller, but the guy shot it right before it did - then despite the fact that he said that "he thought it was gonna attack" it would still be an affirmative defense.

Either way, the owner of the bigger dog could face charges as well if it weren't leashed or fenced up. I don't know of any place in this state that DOESN'T have a leash law, and if your dog roams - you are responsible for what it may do or what happens to it.

But like any other news story in the media, we only get a fraction of the story. Even those who were involved rarely know 100% of what happened because of the different viewpoints.