Here is a better article on the case:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vermont-court-beloved-dog-property-family/story?id=9362668

I do understand the technicalities, and I too doubt the court will do anything.

We don't know the whole story, but it does sound a lot like an escalating neighbor conflict. That's not the kind of act someone does gratuitously, so the guy probably maliciously took the occasion to hurt the animal while they made the mistake to allow him to wander. All of this is obviously pure conjecture, but it wouldn't be the first case of an annoyed neighbor hurting someone's dog just because he doesn't get along with them and the dog appear to be vulnerable.

"I warned that guy several times to keep his animal in his yard, next time the beast comes here it'll understand it's not welcome" is not necessarily a Nobel prize worthy reasoning, but it's fairly common.

This was not their neighbor. They were visiting friends and it was their neighbor.

Ingrid, thanks for that link. It is a much better article. Still doesn't change my thinking on the matter but it does clear up some missing chunks in the story.

 Quote: Ingrid Rosenquist

This was not their neighbor. They were visiting friends and it was their neighbor.

I misread it thinking they let their dog home when visiting their friends, my bad.

If I had been deciding the case, I doubt I would have even provided restitution to the complainants.
After once telling the owners of the dog it was not welcome, the property owner was within his rights to protect his property. Whether it was his flowers, his lawn, his cats, or even just his peace of mind.
That he ended up killing the dog is most unfortunate, but it doesn't alter the facts.
The dog's owners were negligent in caring for their 'property' and were warned that action would be taken if it wasn't cared for in a different manner.

 Quote: ingrid rosenquist

Dogs are not human and comparing a kid trespassing to an animal trespassing just does not fly.

I totally agree with this.

 Quote: melissa thom

A kid is a person, a dog is property just like a horse, cow, or car. Seems pretty simple to me.

I however disagree with this one.

It is certainly wrong to compare a dog with children, but I believe animals should certainly be put one level ahead of broken windows and scratched cars.

The law likely will disagree with me, but it wouldn't be the first time.

But again, we do not have all the information. Was the dog displaying aggressive or threatening behavior? Was the guy just a mentally challenged scrub doing it "because it's funny"? Or a mentally challenged scrub doing it to "make his point"? What exactly prevented that guy from at least giving a warning yell "IF THAT'S YOUR DOG COME GET IT NOW" considering the owners were right next door? Why did he aim for a vital area instead of shooting in the rear or the paws?

In the article, his lawyer says he used a pellet gun instead of kicking him in the rear. So the dog probably did something wrong. But I would have to feel damn threatened in order to aim a pellet gun on a dog's chest; I would certainly not do it just because the beast is annoying me.

I know most of these things wouldn't matter in court, but it'd still be nice to know if the guy had a good reason to put the dog down (albeit accidentally) or if he was just being retarded.

Randy, where did you read that he warned them once? In the article I read the plaintif only mentions how she went "OMG I think Shadow got shot!"

Sorry Francis,
I was operating on your quote here: "I warned that guy several times to keep his animal in his yard, next time the beast comes here it'll understand it's not welcome". unquote
My bad.

Shrug, but it doesn't alter my thinking a bit. If the dog's owners were so caring for this animal, why was it allowed to roam freely in a strange enviroment?
And what of the offended neighbor? Does he have rights?
Sorry as far as I'm concerned the plaintives go home with a fist full of lawyer bills and a dead dog.

 Quote: randy allen

If I had been deciding the case, I doubt I would have even provided restitution to the complainants.
After once telling the owners of the dog it was not welcome, the property owner was within his rights to protect his property.

I agree. I think it's the owners job to see to it that their dog is safe, and that means NOT letting them roam around on other peoples' property. Maybe it's cold, but I think what happened is the complainant's own fault.

While I think the defendant overreacted, I still feel like the dog owners' negligence was the primary cause of their own dog's death.

If not shot by a neighbor, then hit by a car, attacked by a wild animal, etc. because nobody was monitoring the situation. I feel bad for the dog. Less so for the owners because the outcome was within their means to control.

Oops...seems the owners weren't warned. Still, everything I said applies. Your dog isn't likely to trespass and get shot if he/she is at the end of a leash or in your sight, under your control. It seems to me that the most basic part of caring about your dog is keeping them safe from harm. More important than rain coats, anyway.