AB-solutely.
If the dog was restrained from leaving the yard, the person would have had no excuse to shoot him.

Owner responsibility there, 100%.

However, discharging a firearm in a residential area, with citizens close by, and houses possibly in the line of fire was a dangerous thing to do, in my opinion.

 Quote: steve patrick

Judy
I have never heard so much rubbish, Did the Cop have 'Bite Marks'
So' he has to get bitten or someone else has to before he can stop this dog, What planet are you from.

Relax there Englishman, living in Belgium. The shooter said he killed the dog in self defense. I simply want to know did the dog attack him, thereby necessitating a discharge of his weapon. Simple line of questioning.

It's his word/reputation/possibly even his careeer on the line. If his actions could be deemed inappropriate, he has ever reason to lie, doesn't he? If he had no scratch, cut, bite or bruise of any kind, didn't even skin his knee, one has to wonder; was he really attacked by this dog? Doubt it. Was he about to be attacked by this dog? Doubt that too.

If there was 110 feet between him and the dog, I ask, does this man have a professional background or depth of knowledge enabling him to read a dog and its supposed harmful intentions from such a distance? Doubt that too.

And and one more thing...most articles may not describe things as truthful or as comprehensive as we'd like but the very fact that somewhere it states that this man has shot two other dogs; makes one wonder. Google just about every last one of us on this website and I'll bet you won't find a story like that floating around about anyone. His shooting 3 dogs - finally, something I believe.

And while this vicious 30 lb dog was closing in on him, did he have no other alternative? What I'd like to know is why my wishing for him to have acted with less deadly force has you all upset? You'd prefer my thought process went something like: Yeesh, glad he killed the mongrel? He's loose and running, shoot him dead?

I would love to be a fly on the wall of your home if it was your dog he shot. What planet am I from? I'd seriously doubt you'd be asking me that question if it was your dead dog I was speaking up for.

I dare say I think some of you are looking at this "differently" because he's a cop. What if he were a teenager from a potentially questionable background? Maybe has some speeding tickets, maybe the cops were called to his home for, you pick, I don't know, domestic violence. I think for most of you on here getting mad at me for questioning his aggressiveness, I think you're defending your own. I have to wonder, would you be so mad at me if I were questioning the aggressiveness if it were a troubled youth who shot the dog?

And Jenni, yep, as usual you are always right! Thanks for the spot on interpretation .

After Reading The Story It could be that the Cop is a person who hates Dogs, more so as it seems he killed another Dog Prior to this one, I expect the truth will come out, But you get a Dog like the one who had me and had been okay for a week then attack was not at all nice when you have his jaws locked on your leg
A little different scenario than the cop one, But the Owner is at fault for not having it under control
Sorry Judy, i was a little hard on you, but it bought it back to me when i read your post

<<< but the guy was CHARGED-not just accused. Can't a person be wrong, LEO or not?>>>

Neither of which are a guilty sentence. Yes LEO's can be wrong. I'm aware of a few serving time.

DFrost

My final thoughts; if he's guilty, he'll be punished. If he's not guilty, he can be thankful some of the people on this board were not on jury duty that day.

DFrost

While neither charged nor accused equal guilty, it does seem that if there's NO BASIS for the charges, they're either not filed, or are quickly dismissed. So, I do think that "charged" carries slightly more weight than simply "accused."

Hopefully, if we were on a jury, we'd hear both sides, in detail, which we do not have the privilege of in this situation.

 Quote:

I think for most of you on here getting mad at me for questioning his aggressiveness, I think you're defending your own.

14 of the 16 people who could be construed as defending him on this thread are not LEOs.

 Quote: steven lepic

... 14 of the 16 people who could be construed as defending him on this thread are not LEOs.

Thank you, Steven. And may I rephrase that slightly to say "defending the court system over the popular press."

I'm about as dog-oriented as anyone you could find, but that doesn't change the way I feel about the way sensationalist stories are treated in most of the press.

Steve-O, Don't quote someone and reply to me; I didn't write that.

 Quote: Judy Troiano

To Michael: regarding your comment that shooting the gun in the air is a bad idea - maybe I stand corrected. I foolishly assumed that by the time the bullet looses its momentum going up, all it can do is drop to the ground. But as I said, I surely could be wrong. And if I'm wrong, yeesh, shooting the gun into the air would be a very bad idea.

Being an obsessive physics student (but this is the short version )...

The bullet will come down fast enough to kill or seriously injure a person. Also, it will come down God-kows-where because no one can fire at exactly verticle. So you are correct, shooting into the air is a bad idea.

Back to your regular programming...