My state does it again.

[Bramble]

http://www.wthr.com/story/13871884/c...ing-dog-attack

So because he didn't let the dogs tear him apart instead of shooting at them he gets fined. I love the part where the officer told him if he didn't kill the dog then it wasn't self-defense. I hate Carmel.

[crashhelmet]

Hopefully he can get a lawyer to work for free. Otherwise, it'll cost him more to fight it than the fine is set for.

[Andara Bledin]

Wow. Way to go with the letter of the law over the spirit.

^-.-^

[lordlundar]

The city's ordinance states that it's unlawful to point, aim or shoot a gun within the city limits unless its to protect life, property, livestock or farm animals.

Funny, I see nothing there about the shot having to kill the threat...

[Rageaholic]

That has got to be the stupidest law I have ever heard in my life. Only shoot to kill? What kind of assbackwards reasoning would inspire someone to enforce, let alone create such an idiotic law?

[Andara Bledin]

Shooting to kill is one of the litmus tests they use when trying to determine if one person shot another in self defense versus trying to use self defense to excuse what was an unprovoked attack.

However, in the case of animals, you have to use different criteria.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Shouldn't even need a lawyer. Should be able to go up to the judge and say, "I fired near the dog that was attacking me and he let go and ran away, saving my life." The judge should respond, "Okay, case dismissed."

What a stupid case.

[Cheshire]

That has got to be the stupidest law I have ever heard in my life. Only shoot to kill? What kind of assbackwards reasoning would inspire someone to enforce, let alone create such an idiotic law?

If one shoots to kill, then the courts don't have to waste taxpayers money through a trial. There's only a dead body, and someone claiming they were attacked.

However, this interpretation of the law is quite humorously bad. No harm was done to any except for the ground. The man could easily have sued the dog's owners, yet he didn't. For all intents and purposes, nothing happened. Yet it's the policeman who was called to the scene which made the poor decision, forcing the court to uphold the law.

[Rageaholic]

Sounds like the interpration of "self defense" needs some updating.

[DrFaroohk]

How do these people keep getting badges? Seriously...this is why police have such a bad name.

[Andara Bledin]

I imagine this isn't so much the men on the front line as the bureaucracy looking to make an example.

^-.-^

[wolfie]

Shooting to kill is one of the litmus tests they use when trying to determine if one person shot another in self defense versus trying to use self defense to excuse what was an unprovoked attack.

However, in the case of animals, you have to use different criteria.

^-.-^

This is covered in Massad Ayoob's column in the current issue of Backwoods Home Magazine (unfortunately it's not one that's readable online). Basically, in a self-defense case, if you testify that you "shot to kill", you've bought yourself a jail sentence. What you need to do is "shoot to stop the threat", but unfortunately projectile weapons aren't phasers from Star Trek, so shots that immediately stop the threat usually do so by killing the cause of the threat.

This was a classic case of "shooting to stop" - he fired, and the dogs stopped attacking him.

[bainsidhe]

The article states the law says he can fire to protect property. So is his leg property? What about his pants? I don't care if it was a teeny little poodle, any animal can cause serious and lasting bodily harm. He fired a warning shot in self-defense, the ticket was silly.

[Bramble]

http://www.wthr.com/story/14342122/c...r-shooting-dog

Update they did find him not guilty. Some of the comments ticked me off tho. Evidently you shouldn't defend yourself against a dog that's charging at you you should only do something if they're tearing you apart.

[BlaqueKatt]

ok so the shooter in question is a retired police officer, I would generally trust his judgment on "threat assessment", especially since the dog broke through his fence and charged him.

How does a police officer(the one that wrote the ticket), that wasn't present know the dog "wasn't a threat", Did the dog's owners say "oh killer wouldn't hurt a fly, he's not at all aggressive around us". And were the dog's owners fined for not having their animal under control?