Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Dog Shot in Meridian

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Alpine, Utah
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    i just saw this video on the noon-news update and found the article here
    http://www.ktvb.com/news/Dog-shot-Mo...-88980877.html

    Straley was in her front yard with her two family dogs. The animals did their usual and urinated at a bush near the sidewalk.
    Straley says the says the rest happened quickly after her Queensland Heeler Cowboy, began to bark at a man who was walking by.
    She says she immediately called the dogs to return to the house and saw the man had a gun.
    “Ran around and was coming back and he shot. Boom. Boom. Shot him. Dead. He made a beeline into our garage and died right there," said Straley.
    “I can understand if he ripped some guy's leg off, then he might deserve to die but he didn't deserve to die for barking," said Jackie Sieler.
    Sieler is Cowboy's other owner. She never got a chance to say goodbye to her beloved dog.
    "If anybody was scared of a dog they probably would have said 'shoo' or you know 'hey' or try to kick him. Nothing. Not a split second for him to pull the gun and kill him with how many people watching. How many people in the line of fire?" said Jackie Sieler.
    It's what other neighbors we spoke with were concerned about, too.
    "You don't carry a loaded gun in a neighborhood where there's a lot of kids. That's too dangerous," said neighbor Marie Tamas.
    Some talked to investigating officers and say their answers did not comfort them.
    "The officer told me that there is no risk in firing the gun and I asked him why and he said because he was pointing it down towards the dog and that's why there was no risk," said neighbor Seth Myer.
    “They immediately were posturing in favor of whoever shot the dog saying he has every right to shoot a dog if he feels threatened in self-defense,” he said.
    Police are trying to determine if the man who shot the dog is a suspect or a victim.
    If he felt threatened and shot in self-defense, the dog's owner could be charged with having a dog at large.
    If the shooter is charged, it would be for unlawful discharge of a gun.
    Police say they will not release the name of the shooter because they're still investigating.
    Cowboy's owners want to press charges and are frustrated police aren't identifying the shooter.
    They also say they recognize the man as someone who lives in their neighborhood.
    Police tell us this could take about a week to investigate.


    ****MY OPINION****


    edit: *I was mostly surprised with the neighbors anti-gun comment. I dont mean to make light of the loss of the family's companion. whether it was attacking or not is still to be determined. I love pets and feel for their loss.*

    But about the loaded gun comment, I understand that it's the woman's opinion, but when it's not breaking any laws to "carry a loaded gun," REGARDLESS of who is present and IF it ends up being a self defense case, then there's all the more reason to carry a gun with kids around so you can PROTECT the children in the event of a person or pet going berzerk. (thoughts jump back to the nice, lovable chimp that ate that woman's face of a year or so ago).

    I have a newborn in the house. and while i'll take precautions to prevent my son from getting a hold of one of my guns and shooting it in the house or taking it to school or something, I do keep a loaded gun on my hip - even in the house - to protect my young family.

    my .02. how do ya'll feel??


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    I'll probably never know enough about this story to make a firm judgment without being there myself. That being said...

    I am an animal lover, sleep with my dog, spend 24 hours a day with them if I can. I like most dogs better than most people. The one time I had to draw my gun in self defense was because of two charging dogs. I didn't end up having to shoot them: I read body language well and could see their hips wagging back in forth in joy to see me. Thank God.

    The man was clearly not breaking the law just carrying the gun. She was clearly breaking the law if her dogs were not under control and were leaving her property. I might not have been so quick to shoot myself, but it was probably legal. I certainly hope he's not the trigger happy type though as I'd like to see things like this avoided if at all possible. And breaking the law or not, I feel for the lady and her companion. Is hurts to loose your animals.




  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    found this on craigslist, I wonder if it was the dog owner???

    http://boise.craigslist.org/rnr/1657335549.html

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Caldwell, , USA
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    Hey guys. I've been lurking for awhile now and it's been even longer since I've posted. I too have a daughter, and love her dearly. I'm torn on the subject. With my work, I've been bitten by dogs before, and I know that if a dog is able to get you to the ground, there's not a whole lot you can do for defense. I HAVE been in this situation before, and every time it is different. Obviously he felt extremely threatened to have upholstered in the first place, and it seems he did the responsible thing and talked with the LEO's and neighbors. I hope this man isn't targeted by others for defending himself by what appears to be either a vicious dog, or at the very least an aggressive dog not on a leash. My heart goes out to the little girl who lost a good friend.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Anyone whose dog is ever -- even one time -- in a position to make another person afraid enough to resort to a handgun, deserves to lose their dog.

    The only shame is that the dog probably didn't deserve to have such a selfish, irresponsible and negligent owner.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    The owner was careless, and demonstrated that they didn't give a damn about their dog or other people by allowing it to run around freely and create a situation where someone felt they needed to defend themselves against it.

    If your dog isn't well enough trained (and supervised) to respond immediately to a call to heel (delivered prior to the dog causing an issue), then it shouldn't be off-leash in an area where it could attack/threaten someone. Equating that to a firearm, I wouldn't draw and walk around waving my gun at people, even without intent to shoot. I expect people with dogs to keep them restrained or under control in some other way, so that they don't give the wrong impression.

    This isn't to say that all dogs must be leashed at all times. I used to know a lady whose dog was well trained, heeled at command and stayed there whereever she walked, and wouldn't bat an eye at a passing horde of cats without a go ahead from the owner. This lady walked her dog all over the place off leash (but with a leash in her possession), every day when she went walking. But then, a dog and owner like that wouldn't havecreated this problem in the first place where the dog was in a position to get shot due to someone thinking it was about to attack them.

    I've drawn on a dog before. The owner was nowhere around, the dog was next to my car, drops down into a crouch and starts growling/barking at me as I came around the corner of my vehicle to find it. Fortunately I was able to back off, while staying ready, and simply have a cop come out and have a friendly chat with the owner (the dog was afraid of the electric sound of the tazer and backed off, despite initially being agressive to the cop as well). I don't know what was said, but I'm fairly confident that it was something like 'your dog almost got shot, you might want to keep it in the back yard or leashed', since that dog never once got out again while I lived next door.

    My take on it, a negligent dog owner ticked off that their dog caused a problem and got shot for it.

    Also, I liked this link to the story a little bit better. A more thorough story. http://www.ktvb.com/news/Attorney-De...-89087637.html Shows a bit better where the dog was shot (middle of the street, not in the yard like the impression I got from the first clip).

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    As has been said, we'll probably never know if it was justified or not. The police can do their usual post-event investigation and announce their determination. For now, I side with the SHOOTER (ed. removed "owner")BASED UPON THE OWNER'S STORY.

    One of the reasons behind OC is to educate the public with regard to the legal issues and "normal" conditions of carry. The neighbor (quite possibly a friend of the owner or at least allied through the association) is disappointing. Imagine though the feeling that person might have had if she was YOUR friend or co-worker and knew that YOU carried regularly and responsibly.

    As for the Craigslist post, IF that is the animal owner, then we get a bit more of a picture of the type of person in the story. We have probably all met people like this before, opnes who will follow you to the ends of the earth harranguing you with their viewpoint and protesting YOUR action. Just goes with the territory until we get the attitude "fixed".

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    Ya, I didn't realize at first that this was a deputy. I tend to take their word (around these parts at least). I still feel bad for the owner of the dog, but people need to learn to take care of their own responsibilities if they wish to avoid such terrible consequences. +1 for the Ada County sheriff, I'm afraid you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Alpine, Utah
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    I just read online that it was an off duty deputy as well.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    Dang it! I gotta proof-read my stuff more closely. Please note my correction that I side with the SHOOTER, based upon the OWNER'S STORY.

    BTW, I'm having some weird issues with the Posting, Editing and Reply functions. Is anyone else having difficulty once the word box has begun to scroll? Mine jumpsback to the top section whenever I get about two orthree linesbelow the viewable area box.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Alpine, Utah
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    i cant search for anything or i get a LONG list of errors and html code failures.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    I am very good friends with this family and they are greiving so deeply right now over their loss. Their dogs were very well trained and even though i obviously wasn't around 24/7, as far as i had seen, they ALWAYS listened when called.. I have only been around their dogs afew times, but knowing that I was a stranger in their home, the only things i'd ever beenattacked by...were my allergies. The fact that nobody is really trying to do anything about this is maddening. Who are they trying to protect? The family whose dog is only guilty of being curious...AS ALL DOGS ARE...or the off duty guy that shoots at the drop of a hat? Seriously...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    beigedreams wrote:
    I am very good friends with this family and they are greiving so deeply right now over their loss. Their dogs were very well trained and even though i obviously wasn't around 24/7, as far as i had seen, they ALWAYS listened when called.. I have only been around their dogs afew times, but knowing that I was a stranger in their home, the only things i'd ever beenattacked by...were my allergies. The fact that nobody is really trying to do anything about this is maddening. Who are they trying to protect? The family whose dog is only guilty of being curious...AS ALL DOGS ARE...or the off duty guy that shoots at the drop of a hat? Seriously...
    Everything below is my opinion, and not fact. I am not a finder or decider of fact, so take this all as my opinion.

    Seriously, these people are acting out of their minds. I have read alot about this, and haven't commented yet, but the families behavior is horrid. They had an animal they let roam free, as soon as it attacked for this individual, it is defined as a viscous animal. At that point, the family failed the dog, and whoever it was would be authorized to use deadly force.

    Again, the blame lays at the feet of the people who owned the dog. State law is clear, and him being an officer does not change the fact he acted legally.

    I also saw the article where this family was complaining they could not get a lawyer. Their are a couple of reasons, one, a shooting in self defense, the family would end up paying for both sides. Two, there is no money here.

    Now, being a friend of the family, go over to them and try and get them to think straight. They are very lucky to not have been cited for a dog at loose. Further, a complaint has been made (from what I read, both dogs went after him, one pulled back) against their remaining dog.

    TITLE 25 ANIMALS
    CHAPTER 28 DOGS
    25-2805.
    Dogs running at large -- Vicious dogs -- Penalty. (1) Any person, who, after complaint has been made by any person to the sheriff, who shall serve a copy of said notice upon such person complained of, willfully or negligently permits any dog owned or possessed or harbored by him to be, or run, at large without a competent and responsible attendant or master, within the limits of any city, town, or village or in the vicinity of any farm, pasture, ranch, dwelling house, or cultivated lands of another, or who willfully or negligently fails, neglects or refuses to keep any such dog securely confined within the limits of his own premises when not under the immediate care and control of a competent and responsible attendant or master, shall be guilty of an infraction punishable as provided in section 18-113A, Idaho Code.
    (2) Any dog which, when not physically provoked, physically attacks, wounds, bites or otherwise injures any person who is not trespassing, is vicious. It shall be unlawful for the owner or for the owner of premises on which a vicious dog is present to harbor a vicious dog outside a secure enclosure. A secure enclosure is one from which the animal cannot escape and for which exit and entry is controlled by the owner of the premises or owner of the animal. Any vicious dog removed from the secure enclosure must be restrained by a chain sufficient to control the vicious dog. Persons guilty of a violation of this subsection, and in addition to any liability as provided in section 25-2806, Idaho Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. For a second or subsequent violation of this subsection, the court may, in the interest of public safety, order the owner to have the vicious dog destroyed or may direct the appropriate authorities to destroy the dog.
    If the Sheriff hasn't served notice (per 1), the Sheriff should, since a complaint was made. That means they should now keep the remaining dog under tight control. Any further incidence with this animal will expose them to severe civil liability (does their homeowners policy agent know they have a viscous animal housed in their home)?

    As you can see, they are now in fairly deep for not controlling the animal, it may have never done something like this before, but that didn't stop it this time.

    Now, even the family is stating the dog was shot in the road. They have admitted to a dog at large, after trying to cover up the issue saying the dog was on their property when it was shot, why should we believe anything else they say. Why should the police department?

    Finally, say the family was 100% correct (which I think they are not), what is the exposure for the individual that did the shooting? Potential misdemeanor for discharge of a firearm, and he would be liable for the value of the dog.

    TITLE 25 ANIMALS
    CHAPTER 28 DOGS 25-2807.
    Dogs as property -- Proof of value. Dogs are property; and when the value of any dog is material in any civil or criminal proceeding in this state, the same may be established under the usual rules of evidence relating to values of personal property. No entity of state or local government may by ordinance or regulation prevent the owner of any dog from protecting it from loss by the use of an electronic locating collar.
    So, if you are a friend, try and talk them down before they do something stupid. I think they are on a path of major problems. With insurance the way it is now, they may be up against deciding to get rid of the remaining dog, or lose their house (the publicity is outing them to insurance). Further, if it is a self-defense shoot, they may be liable for issues (fear of dogs, psychiatric, etc) to the person the dog attacked.

    --Carl

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    cwp, you were able to post in a coherent manner what I had been thinking since I first stumbled across this topic. Good work!

    I feel for the family that lost the dog, I am a dog lover and still miss mine. In the end, the dogs were off leash and at large out of the yard and decided to go barking after the wrong person. The Craigslist ad will bring its own legal troubles if it were the dog's owners who posted that.

    That said I have been attacked by one, a larger male rott that tried to remove my right thumb, strangely enough I want a Rott myself Dogs of all breeds are unpredictable and breeds that are known for herding, such as the now deceased animal are also very territorial to protect their people and the animals they are trusted to watch. The deputy has been working for Ada for 20+ years and I highly doubt that he would have shot on a whim.

    As far as beigedreams, he/she will never be back on here.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    Thanks,

    We have a great dog, but if it went after anyone off my property, I would understand it being shot. People have the right to self-defense, I do not have the right to let my dog attack and scare others.

    Also, for the dog lovers out there, remember if your dog worries or harasses livestock, the owner of said livestock my shot your dog also. Keep your pets under control and you will never have to worry about it.

    As for beigedreams, these hit and run posts are very irritating.

    By the way, did anyone read the comments on the second statesman article. The one trying to convince people to call the police if the gun was seen, saying if it wasn't concealed it was illegal. Can't bring myself to register an account there to respond, but it steamed me.

    --Carl

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    Don't waste your time with the Mistakesman. The people who post there are what happens when you let idiots near a computer.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    beigedreams wrote:
    I am very good friends with this family and they are greiving so deeply right now over their loss. Their dogs were very well trained and even though i obviously wasn't around 24/7, as far as i had seen, they ALWAYS listened when called.. I have only been around their dogs a few times, but knowing that I was a stranger in their home, the only things i'd ever been attacked by...were my allergies. The fact that nobody is really trying to do anything about this is maddening. Who are they trying to protect? The family whose dog is only guilty of being curious...AS ALL DOGS ARE...or the off duty guy that shoots at the drop of a hat? Seriously...
    Every responsible dog owner agrees with my post:

    marshaul wrote:
    Anyone whose dog is ever -- even one time -- in a position to make another person afraid enough to resort to a handgun, deserves to lose their dog.

    The only shame is that the dog probably didn't deserve to have such a selfish, irresponsible and negligent owner.
    According to you, this dog's owners disagree with my post.

    Therefore, they are irresponsible dog owners.

    QED. End discussion.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Firing within city limits...anyone? there are rules and laws for everything for a reason. Cop or not...fine. But he should know thatone better than anyone else.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    beigedreams wrote:
    Firing within city limits...anyone? there are rules and laws for everything for a reason. Cop or not...fine. But he should know that*one better than anyone else.
    The right to self-defense is not legally void within city limits. Even you know this.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    beigedreams wrote:
    Firing within city limits...anyone? there are rules and laws for everything for a reason. Cop or not...fine. But he should know that*one better than anyone else.
    I don't normally feed the trolls but here it goes.

    In cases of self-defense, meaning defending one's self against and immediate thread of death or serious bodily injury (here is where dog attacks fall), the laws about discharge of a firearm become null and void. Those laws were intended to keep people from shooting guns off on New Year's, 4th of July, weddings, birthdays, alien invasion ala "Independence Day". They are also there to prevent hunting within city limits.

    Stop grasping at whatever little straw you can find to hold the shooter responsible for your friend's irresponsibility and inability to control her dog.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum33/41197.html

    This topic came up earlier today. It was just locked. These conversations tend to get heated, no? For the record, in full support of the shooter; keep your dog on a leash or pay the consequences. 100% legal and justified.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    beigedreams wrote:
    Firing within city limits...anyone? there are rules and laws for everything for a reason. Cop or not...fine. But he should know thatone better than anyone else.
    The right to self-defense is not legally void within city limits. Even you know this.
    Yep, rules and laws for a reason. For you, since you don't seem to want to search out and read Idaho statutes:

    TITLE 18
    CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTSCHAPTER 33 FIREARMS, EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS18-3302J.Preemption of firearms regulation.(1) The legislature finds that uniform laws regulating firearms are necessary to protect the individual citizen’s right to bear arms guaranteed by amendment 2 of the United States Constitution and section 11, article I of the constitution of the state of Idaho. It is the legislature’s intent to wholly occupy the field of firearms regulation within this state.(2)Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city, agency, board or any other political subdivision of this state may adopt or enforce any law, rule, regulation, or ordinance which regulates in any manner the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, transportation, carrying or storage of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition.(3)A county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the discharge of firearms within its boundaries. Ordinances adopted under this subsection may not apply to or affecta)A person discharging a firearm in the lawful defense of person or persons or property;(b)A person discharging a firearm in the course of lawful hunting;(c)A landowner and guests of the landowner discharging a firearm, when the discharge will not endanger persons or property;(d)A person lawfully discharging a firearm on a sport shooting range as defined in section 55-2604, Idaho Code; or(e)A person discharging a firearm in the course of target shooting on public land if the discharge will not endanger persons or property.(4)A city may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the discharge of firearms within its boundaries. Ordinances adopted under this subsection may not apply to or affect:(a)A person discharging a firearm in the lawful defense of person or persons or property; or(b)A person lawfully discharging a firearm on a sport shooting range as defined in section 55-2604, Idaho Code.(5)This section shall not be construed to affecta)The authority of the department of fish and game to make rules or regulations concerning the management of any wildlife of this state, as set forth in section 36-104, Idaho Code;(b)The authority of counties and cities to regulate the location and construction of sport shooting ranges, subject to the limitations contained in chapter 26, title 55, Idaho Code; and(c)The authority of the board of regents of the university of Idaho, the boards of trustees of the state colleges and universities, the board of professional-technical education and the boards of trustees of each of the community colleges established under chapter 21, title 33, Idaho Code, to regulate in matters relating to firearms.(6)The provisions of this section are hereby declared to be severable. And if any provision is declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this section.
    I made the section above (4a) bold for you. The law states that a city may regulate the discharge of a firearm (Meridian does), but that law does not apply in self-defense situations.

    --Carl

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the citation.

    As far as I'm aware, nowhere in the U.S. are discharge prohibitions applicable in self-defense scenarios.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    cwp wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    beigedreams wrote:
    Firing within city limits...anyone? there are rules and laws for everything for a reason. Cop or not...fine. But he should know that*one better than anyone else.
    The right to self-defense is not legally void within city limits. Even you know this.
    Yep, rules and laws for a reason.* For you, since you don't seem to want to search out and read Idaho statutes:
    another post full of win!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Thanks for the citation.

    As far as I'm aware, nowhere in the U.S. are discharge prohibitions applicable in self-defense scenarios.
    Sorry Marshaul, meant to quote the other post only, not you. Too many people believe you can't defend yourself without going to jail. We are not the UK yet.

    --Carl

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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