And that XD post was the last of my recent ideas....
Lessee.
HUGE discussion among workmates last week. 74 year old man was walking his little dog. Jack Russel? That dog was set upon by a larger dog. Lab, maybe? Old man drew and shot the larger dog to protect his dog. Large dog owner then comes racing out of the house. Old man shoot the owner as well.
Good shoot?
Absolutely, yes. And most definitely not! We don't have near enough details from this story. It is impossible to send this case to the jury with those meager facts.
Protect your dog from another dog? Yes, ok. But was the Lab acting playful? Was it a Labrador or a snarling attack dog? Did the own open the door and command the dog to "Go eat that azzholes little dog, Chomper! Sick em!" When the owner ran out were they attacking the 74 year old man, or irrationally rushing to the aid of their stricken pet? Was the owner a 6 foot 5 linebacker type with a machete to hand? Or a middle aged housewife? Is the 74 year old an enfeebled disabled veteran?
These details were omitted from the story conveyed to us. So, we can argue all day, but to no real effect. We were ignorant.
Most likely guess in my head? 74 year old over-reacted and now will get very cross-threaded with the judicial system. He shot a person over a dog. Even in the most favorable circumstances if I were the prosecutor I'd say "He shot a person over a dog," and garner a lot of sympathy with the jurors.
This whole circumstance does not cover us fellow CCW toters in glory. Tarnished by association, and if I were a gun banner I'd exploit it to hurt the good guys.
There were Katrina victims on rooftops who would not get into the boat without their pets; never mind that other PEOPLE could occupy that space and weight limit. I don't doubt that someone might shoot another person for a pet. THAT someone? I suppose we need a DA and maybe a jury to sort that out, but it is definitely possible.
ReplyDelete(And when I bring that Katrina situation up with pet lovers the discussion generally does not go well.)
"He shot a human over a dog".
ReplyDeleteI think that that judgement from you doesn't say much nice about you.
I have had dogs that I'd shoot a human over. Several.
If you haven't, then I feel sorry for you.
That's morally questionable. That person has a mother. A pet is not a person.
ReplyDeleteI think you will find that for dog owners, the scale of value for humans and dogs will overlap. Some humans are near worthless except to, maybe, their mothers. And some dogs are considered to be family members. They have value in more than one way.
ReplyDeleteAbout 7 years before my dad died at age 82, his dog was run over shortly after they arrived home from traveling. He was heartbroken. Never got another dog. Six months later, I visited, and figured out who killed the dog. Wasn't an accident. Some thieves were breaking into his tool shed and storage, and they knew the dog would keep them away. I figured that there was a good chance they would make a one way ocean voyage (or reasonable facsimile) if I told him about it, so I didn't. That dog was special, and I wouldn't have blamed him. But, he might have enlisted assistance, and I was pretty sure there would be a long line of people willing to help do the deed, and things might get problematic with loose lips, so...
BTW, what really saved those thieves was I got to meet their mother first, and she was good people.
ReplyDelete