Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Spotsylvania Commonwealth's Atty suggests OPEN CARRY as protection from dog attack!

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Spotsylvania Commonwealth's Atty suggests OPEN CARRY as protection from dog attack!

    A pit bull attacked and killed a small pet dog in the area recently, an incident which has generated quite a bit of local news coverage.

    Today an article published on the Free Lance-Star website quotes Spotsylvania County Commonwealth's Attorney Bill Neely:

    SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

    Neely has two small dogs and said he carries a walking stick with him when he walks just one.

    He, along with animal experts Williams, Tydings and Fredericksburg Animal Control Officer Thomas Worthy, said a walking stick is useful for scaring away approaching dogs or beating them off if they attack.

    It’s also legal to use pepper spray to ward off a dog and openly carry a gun and use it if a dog is threatening someone’s life or animal, especially on the person’s property, Neely said.

    He cautioned, however, that people should be careful that no one is injured if the weapon is fired.

    “You’re entitled to protect yourself without putting people at risk,” Neely said.
    Back in the "Not Surprised" column, at the end of the article, when the author sums up the various tips and suggestions presented throughout, no mention of carrying a gun.

    TFred

    ETA: By the way, the pit bull's owner was charged with two misdemeanors as a result of the attack.
    Last edited by TFred; 01-25-2014 at 10:59 PM.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I knew Bill Neely for years when I was doing CPS in Spotsylvania. He was, and from what little I've followed since, been a common-sense sort of person. He has never, personally or professionally, struck me as hoplophobic.

    But yes, it's refreshing to see him say it.

    Now - set up some OC breakfasts/dinners in the area and invite him to come share with y'all.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384
    I'm a bit confused about the part where he said it would be justified to shoot an animal attacking yours. I thought pets (both attacker and victim) were considered only property, and would not qualify for protection with "lethal force". So there'd be the issue of unjustifiably discharging a firearm...

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Now - set up some OC breakfasts/dinners in the area and invite him to come share with y'all.
    I'd be up for making the trip over for something like that.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  4. #4
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Neely sounds supportive but what in God's Green Earth does this mean?
    “You’re entitled to protect yourself without putting people at risk,” Neely said
    I can't even parse that. Can I buy an 'if'? What constitutes putting at risk? A miss? A near hit? LOL. I think we need a 'keep your mouth shut or be declared incompetent' ruling

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    Neely sounds supportive but what in God's Green Earth does this mean?
    “You’re entitled to protect yourself without putting people at risk,” Neely said
    I can't even parse that. Can I buy an 'if'? What constitutes putting at risk? A miss? A near hit? LOL. I think we need a 'keep your mouth shut or be declared incompetent' ruling
    I certainly can't speak for the man, but remember, he's talking to a reporter who is writing an article for the general community, and he is sharing information that no doubt a significant percentage of the population is going to find at least surprising, and for some, even appalling. It didn't strike me the wrong way at all, I took it to be a common sense type, "don't go shooting at a dog from behind a tree 200 yards away with kids in the background" kind of thing.

    No, most of us here don't need to be reminded of that, but most folks who read the newspaper aren't us.

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 01-26-2014 at 03:02 AM.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by t33j View Post
    I'm a bit confused about the part where he said it would be justified to shoot an animal attacking yours. I thought pets (both attacker and victim) were considered only property, and would not qualify for protection with "lethal force". So there'd be the issue of unjustifiably discharging a firearm...


    I'd be up for making the trip over for something like that.
    There are statutes that allow people to protect livestock TJ. Matter of fact, one of the statutes has a bill being considered this year that will weaken it. Just another windmill for me this year.

    Probably what he means by being careful about your target is when the hounds are attacking your Pom.....you should hit the hounds instead of the dog hunters
    That would be tragic... They lose enough of their members from friendly fire without losing any from poor shooting.
    Last edited by peter nap; 01-26-2014 at 06:30 AM.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by t33j View Post
    I'm a bit confused about the part where he said it would be justified to shoot an animal attacking yours. I thought pets (both attacker and victim) were considered only property, and would not qualify for protection with "lethal force". So there'd be the issue of unjustifiably discharging a firearm...


    I'd be up for making the trip over for something like that.
    § 3.2-6586. Dog injuring or killing other companion animals.

    The owner of any companion animal that is injured or killed by a dog shall be entitled to recover damages consistent with the provisions of § 3.2-6585 from the owner of such dog in an appropriate action at law if: (i) the injury occurred on the premises of the companion animal's owner; and (ii) the owner of the offending dog did not have the permission of the companion animal's owner for the dog to be on the premises at the time of the attack.

    (2003, c. 841, § 3.1-796.127:1; 2008, c. 860.)
    Better make sure that the dog was attacking a human.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Better make sure that the dog was attacking a human.
    That's what I'm thinking. Although, I can see how it might be difficult to tell a dog's intended victim if he's coming at you and your leashed pet from a distance.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Better make sure that the dog was attacking a human.

    stay safe.
    Dogs, cats and other domestic animals are considered livestock.

    § 3.2-6552. Dogs killing, injuring or chasing livestock or poultry.
    It shall be the duty of any animal control officer or other officer who may find a dog in the act of killing or injuring livestock or poultry to kill such dog forthwith whether such dog bears a tag or not. Any person finding a dog committing any of the depredations mentioned in this section shall have the right to kill such dog on sight as shall any owner of livestock or his agent finding a dog chasing livestock on land utilized by the livestock when the circumstances show that such chasing is harmful to the livestock. Any court shall have the power to order the animal control officer or other officer to kill any dog known to be a confirmed livestock or poultry killer, and any dog killing poultry for the third time shall be considered a confirmed poultry killer. The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner, custodian, or harborer of the dog to produce the dog.
    Any animal control officer who has reason to believe that any dog is killing livestock or poultry shall be empowered to seize such dog solely for the purpose of examining such dog in order to determine whether it committed any of the depredations mentioned herein. Any animal control officer or other person who has reason to believe that any dog is killing livestock, or committing any of the depredations mentioned in this section, shall apply to a magistrate serving the locality wherein the dog may be, who shall issue a warrant requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before a general district court at a time and place named therein, at which time evidence shall be heard. If it shall appear that the dog is a livestock killer, or has committed any of the depredations mentioned in this section, the district court shall order that the dog be: (i) killed immediately by the animal control officer or other officer designated by the court; or (ii) removed to another state that does not border on the Commonwealth and prohibited from returning to the Commonwealth. Any dog ordered removed from the Commonwealth that is later found in the Commonwealth shall be ordered by a court to be killed immediately.
    (1984, c. 492, § 29-213.85; 1985, c. 385; 1987, c. 488, § 3.1-796.116; 1990, c. 222; 1993, c. 977; 1998, c. 817; 2008, cc. 551, 691, 860.)

  10. #10
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Dogs, cats and other domestic animals are considered livestock.
    Is that in writing somehwere?

    I know in King George chickens are not considered livestock, because one of the BoS would have been guilty of keeping them on less than 5 acres (which is illegal in this county) if the definition of livestock had been construed to include chickens. I can't find a definition of livestock anywhere in the King George code either.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by t33j View Post
    Is that in writing somehwere?

    I know in King George chickens are not considered livestock, because one of the BoS would have been guilty of keeping them on less than 5 acres (which is illegal in this county) if the definition of livestock had been construed to include chickens. I can't find a definition of livestock anywhere in the King George code either.
    I don't have a cite but the courts have upheld it...Chickens are mentioned specifically in the statute BTW. The last court case I paid any attention to was Randy Kirby in Hanover who not only shot two dogs, but dragged the carcasses into a board of supervisors meeting. They did charge him with getting blood everywhere but couldn't charge him with shooting the dogs because of this statute.
    Last edited by peter nap; 01-26-2014 at 06:38 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844
    Quote Originally Posted by t33j View Post
    Is that in writing somehwere?

    I know in King George chickens are not considered livestock, because one of the BoS would have been guilty of keeping them on less than 5 acres (which is illegal in this county) if the definition of livestock had been construed to include chickens. I can't find a definition of livestock anywhere in the King George code either.
    Dogs, cats and other domestic animals are considered livestock.

    § 3.2-6552. Dogs killing, injuring or chasing livestock or poultry.
    It shall be the duty of any animal control officer or other officer who may find a dog in the act of killing or injuring livestock or poultry to kill such dog forthwith whether such dog bears a tag or not. Any person finding a dog committing any of the depredations mentioned in this section shall have the right to kill such dog on sight as shall any owner of livestock or his agent finding a dog chasing livestock on land utilized by the livestock when the circumstances show that such chasing is harmful to the livestock. Any court shall have the power to order the animal control officer or other officer to kill any dog known to be a confirmed livestock or poultry killer, and any dog killing poultry for the third time shall be considered a confirmed poultry killer. The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner, custodian, or harborer of the dog to produce the dog.
    Any animal control officer who has reason to believe that any dog is killing livestock or poultry shall be empowered to seize such dog solely for the purpose of examining such dog in order to determine whether it committed any of the depredations mentioned herein. Any animal control officer or other person who has reason to believe that any dog is killing livestock, or committing any of the depredations mentioned in this section, shall apply to a magistrate serving the locality wherein the dog may be, who shall issue a warrant requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before a general district court at a time and place named therein, at which time evidence shall be heard. If it shall appear that the dog is a livestock killer, or has committed any of the depredations mentioned in this section, the district court shall order that the dog be: (i) killed immediately by the animal control officer or other officer designated by the court; or (ii) removed to another state that does not border on the Commonwealth and prohibited from returning to the Commonwealth. Any dog ordered removed from the Commonwealth that is later found in the Commonwealth shall be ordered by a court to be killed immediately.
    (1984, c. 492, § 29-213.85; 1985, c. 385; 1987, c. 488, § 3.1-796.116; 1990, c. 222; 1993, c. 977; 1998, c. 817; 2008, cc. 551, 691, 860.)



    poul·try
    [ pṓltree
    1. domestic fowl: domestic fowl in general, e.g. chickens, turkeys, ducks, or geese, raised for meat or eggs



    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  13. #13
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    I do not know the man, but.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    Neely sounds supportive but what in God's Green Earth does this mean?
    “You’re entitled to protect yourself without putting people at risk,” Neely said

    I can't even parse that. Can I buy an 'if'? What constitutes putting at risk? A miss? A near hit? LOL. I think we need a 'keep your mouth shut or be declared incompetent' ruling

    I just interpret this as a site to Rule 4: Be sure of your target and what is behind it. Could it be just as innocent as that?
    Last edited by The Wolfhound; 01-29-2014 at 05:38 PM.
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •