To add to my statement. Legal culpability is one thing and it sound like the shooter could be at fault. But what's the good of a potential legal settlement when your dog is dead. The owner carries that burden either way.
Printable View
To add to my statement. Legal culpability is one thing and it sound like the shooter could be at fault. But what's the good of a potential legal settlement when your dog is dead. The owner carries that burden either way.
I can see both sides and while I feel bad for the owner of the pup, I have to agree with most of you guys that he did not do his part to ensure his dogs safety. We don't have the full story and the shooters side, although it does sound like he's been known to be an ass. I've been on both ends of this story and neither are any fun. I grew up on a ranch in western Colorado and we raised race horses, one of the neighbors German shepards continued to get out from their yard and would chase the horses. My grandpa warned the owner repeatedly to remedy the situation or actions would be taken. We started with a pellet gun and shot the dog in the ass on two separate occasions, the third time grandpa used a 12 gauge. The later instance was from a distance and with bird shot as grandpa definitely didn't want to kill another mans dog. He told the owner immediately and offered to pay the vet bill to have the few pellets removed. The cops were called and the owner was the one who received a ticket for harrasing livestock. Unfortunately that wasn't the last time, the dog wasn't very intelligent and a few months later I caught the dog chasing two colts in the arena, and after he ran one through a fence, I had had enough. Pulling that trigger was not easy but my lively hood comes before that dog. i only share this to point out that while the guy was an ass and clearly tried to cover it up maybe there is more to the story than what meets the eye. And for the record, I have never felt so bad in my life as I did walking down the road to the owners house to let them know that I had just killed their dog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitz19d
well that just solved that debate whenever it comes up again! [Coffee]
Does this guy treat wildlife the same that comes onto his property? I know the dog owner failed his animal and ultimately the dog paid the price. As a pet owner you are taking full responsibility for their well being. The land owner was clear about his property. As Vigil said, right or wrong keep YOUR animals safe.
Lying, hiding the evidence, removing the slugs, burying the dog; sounds like he might have been questioning his decision.
EDIT: Proably should let some of pre workout get out my system since 4:30am before I start typing.
I have one neighbor who's dog kept getting out. I loved the dog and generally like dogs so I always looked after him until my neighbor got back. This is how I am with most of the neighbor's dogs; I know most of them better then their owners. Now, I have another neighbor who's dogs are a menace. They constantly bark, they killed my other neighbor's ducks. In general, they are not trained at all. As much as I love dogs, I would kill them on sight if I see them on my property, call the sheriff, and claim self defence. Are the dogs bad, no. But a stupid owner makes a stupid dog and they are a menace. If this guy's dog was causing problems, then it probably needed to be handled. The shooter was a dumbass for trying to hide it; which makes it look like he just killed the dog for the hell of it.
The only one I feel sorry for is the dog. If the shooter is an animal lover, I'll feel sorry for him too because nobody who loves animals wants to kill someone's pet. The owner is grossly negligent both as an animal caretaker and neighbor. He's the kind of person who shouldn't have a pet because he's not responsible enough to ensure their well-being. We don't know the shooter's side of the story so we can't yet judge him. The collar and bullets could have been a lapse in judgement brought about by the stress of having killed something he may well love (again, if he's an animal lover).
My neighbor is the same kind of ass hat (though she's a hot ER nurse so the ass is nicer). She keeps her dog - his name is Earl - outside 24/7 and doesn't pay enough attention to him. Daily Earl climbs his 6' electrified fence to get out and get attention from the neighbors. Problem is, he's prone to aggression (might be the daily shock therapy). Even after he and I had been friends for months (lots of play time and relaxing on my porch on an almost daily basis), he turned on me and bit me when I got too close to his house (I stepped onto the grass between our houses - 60' feet from the property line). I didn't shoot him (though my hand was on my gun) and I didn't turn him in to Animal Control. I talked to his owner who had him gone by the next morning. He's back now - she had merely sent him to live with the guy who's now moved in with her - and meaner than ever. The mailman gets chased every day delivering the mail. Joggers get chased - though none have been bitten. Heck, the little bastard even chased the animal control deputy last week when another neighbor called them on the dog.
All that could have been avoided by the owner properly training Earl and giving him the attention he craves. He will either be shot or euthanized one day. That's a given - and it's sad.
If you can't control your pets, don't have them. If you can't meet their needs, don't have them.
I've got to say, I've seen some crappy journalism in my day, but printing hearsay, not attempting to verify facts, and not even attempting to interview the other party (and instead, painting him in a negative light by using subjective terms, speculation, and implication) is an MSNBC level of journalism. There's no law against being an asshole. Thankfully, this asshole prefers to be left alone in his wooded sanctuary, and lets people know this fact by being rather unpleasant. For those that have not encountered him, he has no trespassing signs. It sounds like he has enough property that he even has a firing range.
Despite that fact, the dog owner still let his Akita mix run free? Akitas are big dogs, and if someone doesn't know the dog is friendly, it is easy to misconstrue the dog's intent. You don't let your dog run loose, especially if you know your neighbor has a firing range. The story even provides examples of the dogs running loose and going on Miller's property several times. He didn't shoot them when they were on the driveway, which begs the question: if the roommate was there to witness Miller shooting above the dogs' heads and shouting at them to get out of there, WTF was the roommate doing? Just standing by, watching? Or was there some exaggeration involved?
It would be nice to know how far apart the properties are. The story implies there is a belt of woods where the dog was buried, but I'm not sure if it's owned by either of the property owners. Did Davis trespass on Miller's land to find where his dog was buried? It strikes me as odd that the dog's collar would be removed; assholes normally know their rights and are happy to stand by them and shove them in one's face if questioned. And how does Davis know the bullets have been dug out? WTF kind of speculation is that? This whole story is slanted toward Davis and poor puppy (which, by the way, was taken from the dam 2 weeks too early- those last 2 weeks are when a puppy learns crucial socialization techniques.) Davis never spoke to his neighbor, according to the article, but he could drive up past the no trespassing signs and ask Miller if he shot a dog, while Miller "held out his gun in an attitude of intimidation"? Wouldn't it make more sense for Davis to tell Miller that his dog was loose, and had he seen him?
I know, I know. Crappy journalism. I need to let it go. Davis let his dog run loose, his jerk neighbor allegedly shot the dog, and we're supposed to feel sorry for Davis, who has PTSD and finds comfort with his buddy (even though he coudn;t be bothered to train the dog.)
I feel bad for the dog. He was young and untrained and clearly didn't know any better. I suppose if he had been hit by a car, Davis would have blamed the driver.
As the story paints Miller as a complete asshole, (and is corroborated by Ah Pook) I have to wonder the mindset of someone that would shoot a pet dog. If the dog frequently went onto his property and caused destruction, or was a thief (I really don't think deer legs count) I could see Miller having some strong words with either the owner or someone that would get word back to the owner. If he did shoot him, he must have been very frustrated. Was it a horrible thing to do? Yes. Was he within his rights to do so? I don't know. Maybe he did remove the collar in the hopes that the dog's body wouldn't be found until it had begun to deteriorate. I think the rampant speculation of digging out the bullets is horse hockey. Why would anyone do that? It's not like the county is going to run ballistics to pin it on Miller. I also think the PTSD part is just to add more weight to Davis' side of the story. He may have PTSD, but a PTSD dog must be trained- and we all know Ragnar was not trained.
I had assumed (but don't know) that the dog owner found out the bullets were dug out from a report from the Nederland Animal Hospital. I don't know how extensive of an autopsy (if any) would be done though.
That's the thing. We don't know anything because only Davis and his roommate were apparently interviewed. It doesn't say squat about whether an animal necropsy was performed; the sheriff's report isn't released so we don't even know if the deputy actually told Davis that Miller shot the dog. It's all hearsay. There isn't even a mention of speaking with Animal Control to see if there had been any complaints about the dog running loose. It's all implication, for people to speculate and assume. CRAPPY journalism.
Welcome to the Mountain Smear. There is a reason I put the "don't click" caveat in the first post.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrey