Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Man shoots dog for running into his yard.
  • Subject: Man shoots dog for running into his yard.
Subject: Man shoots dog for running into his yard.


Posted by: Methew
Even if he's legally right, assuming that they state that they can play loose in rural settings with Iowa law which states that you can't shoot a tagged, non aggressive dog on your property, he's still a massive giant -blam!-ing -blam!- for killing a person's tagged, non aggressive pet.

It's like getting a participation ribbon for coming in last place at a race.

Never said he wasn't an ass for doing it, but still it isn't as big of an issue as people make it out to be. It isn't like he shot a kid on his property which happens more than people would like to think. Also the dog was relatively new so it isn't like it was a family pet or something she grew up with.

  • 12.26.2012 10:38 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:


Posted by: ZealousAnubis09
I guess you could say the dog...

*glasses*

Was more of a silver retriever.

YYYYEEEEAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!

Doesn't make sense.

Bullets aren't silver. It's not even shiny. Especially not buckshot.

  • 12.26.2012 10:38 AM PDT

If pro is the opposite of con, then the opposite of progress is...


Posted by: Methew

Posted by: ZealousAnubis09
I guess you could say the dog...

*glasses*

Was more of a silver retriever.

YYYYEEEEAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!

Doesn't make sense.

Bullets aren't silver. It's not even shiny. Especially not buckshot.


Killjoy. F/

  • 12.26.2012 10:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:


Posted by: What Is This1
still it isn't as big of an issue as people make it out to be.

So it's downgraded from a watermelon sized issue to cantaloupe sized.

Okay.

Also the dog was relatively new so it isn't like it was a family pet or something she grew up with.
Did you watch the video?

Did you see the tears in her eyes? Her voice choking up as she described to the camera how she picked up her hurt and confused dog and how he died?

  • 12.26.2012 10:42 AM PDT

I suck at Halo 3, deal with it.

I share this account and GT with a family member so expect different types of posts.

Now this is a tear-jerker.

  • 12.26.2012 10:44 AM PDT


Posted by: Methew
Did you watch the video?

Did you see the tears in her eyes? Her voice choking up as she described to the camera how she picked up her hurt and confused dog and how he died?

Never said she wasn't sad, but I am saying it could have been worse. Also she is a woman they tend to cry over a lot of thing.

  • 12.26.2012 10:48 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:

Posted by: What Is This1
Also she is a woman they tend to cry over a lot of thing.

A Good Troll was right.

You are a troll.

9/10.

You had me going for quite a while. One point off because the above sentence just revealed yourself to me.

  • 12.26.2012 10:50 AM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.


Posted by: What Is This1

Posted by: Methew
And if she's being neglectful, the appropriate response is to call the police again to have them enforce the law.

Not shoot the animal.

True, but it is still within his right depending on the law and situation of the given town/state along with the police's interpretation of the situation.


No, he was not within his right. Do I have to spell it out for you?


This happened in Iowa.

Therefore, this case falls under Iowa state law.

Iowa state law says that you cannot shoot and kill an animal on your property unless
1) The animal is threatening your life or
2) The animal is rabid

The owner shot and killed the animal.

The owner stated his motive for killing the animal: "I killed the animal because I didn't want it playing in my yard."

The owner did NOT state that the animal was threatening his life. Nor did the owner state the animal was rabid.

Therefore, the shooting was unlawful.

  • 12.26.2012 10:51 AM PDT


Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr

Posted by: What Is This1

Posted by: Methew
And if she's being neglectful, the appropriate response is to call the police again to have them enforce the law.

Not shoot the animal.

True, but it is still within his right depending on the law and situation of the given town/state along with the police's interpretation of the situation.


No, he was not within his right. Do I have to spell it out for you?


This happened in Iowa.

Therefore, this case falls under Iowa state law.

Iowa state law says that you cannot shoot and kill an animal on your property unless
1) The animal is threatening your life or
2) The animal is rabid

The owner shot and killed the animal.

The owner stated his motive for killing the animal: "I killed the animal because I didn't want it playing in my yard."

The owner did NOT state that the animal was threatening his life. Nor did the owner state the animal was rabid.

Therefore, the shooting was unlawful.

Yeah, she can sue and win. However, I bet she would rather have her dog back than a million dollars by the way she was acting on camera.

Unfortunately, dogs are treated as property to the law, so she will only receive the amount of money the dog is worth.

  • 12.26.2012 10:55 AM PDT


Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
No, he was not within his right. Do I have to spell it out for you?


This happened in Iowa.

Therefore, this case falls under Iowa state law.

Iowa state law says that you cannot shoot and kill an animal on your property unless
1) The animal is threatening your life or
2) The animal is rabid

The owner shot and killed the animal.

The owner stated his motive for killing the animal: "I killed the animal because I didn't want it playing in my yard."

The owner did NOT state that the animal was threatening his life. Nor did the owner state the animal was rabid.

Therefore, the shooting was unlawful.

You forgot the 3rd case which is another animal is in danger. Considering the dogs were playing with each other that could easily work in his favor.

  • 12.26.2012 10:56 AM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.


Posted by: SRQ baller24

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr

Posted by: What Is This1

Posted by: Methew
And if she's being neglectful, the appropriate response is to call the police again to have them enforce the law.

Not shoot the animal.

True, but it is still within his right depending on the law and situation of the given town/state along with the police's interpretation of the situation.


No, he was not within his right. Do I have to spell it out for you?


This happened in Iowa.

Therefore, this case falls under Iowa state law.

Iowa state law says that you cannot shoot and kill an animal on your property unless
1) The animal is threatening your life or
2) The animal is rabid

The owner shot and killed the animal.

The owner stated his motive for killing the animal: "I killed the animal because I didn't want it playing in my yard."

The owner did NOT state that the animal was threatening his life. Nor did the owner state the animal was rabid.

Therefore, the shooting was unlawful.

Yeah, she can sue and win. However, I bet she would rather have her dog back than a million dollars by the way she was acting on camera.

Unfortunately, dogs are treated as property to the law, so she will only receive the amount of money the dog is worth.


She can also sue for animal abuse. Killing an animal is animal abuse under Iowa state law and punishable for up to $5000 dollars and 2 years in jail.

Depending on how close she was to the man when he discharged the weapon, she can also sue for reckless endangerment.

  • 12.26.2012 10:57 AM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.


Posted by: What Is This1

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
No, he was not within his right. Do I have to spell it out for you?


This happened in Iowa.

Therefore, this case falls under Iowa state law.

Iowa state law says that you cannot shoot and kill an animal on your property unless
1) The animal is threatening your life or
2) The animal is rabid

The owner shot and killed the animal.

The owner stated his motive for killing the animal: "I killed the animal because I didn't want it playing in my yard."

The owner did NOT state that the animal was threatening his life. Nor did the owner state the animal was rabid.

Therefore, the shooting was unlawful.

You forgot the 3rd case which is another animal is in danger. Considering the dogs were playing with each other that could easily work in his favor.


........

Not sure if stupid or just trolling.

  • 12.26.2012 10:58 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Not sure if stupid or just trolling.

I'm going with trolling.

Article doesn't mention the dog playing with another. The guy who shot the dog didn't say he shot the dog to stop the 'fight.'

  • 12.26.2012 10:59 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
She can also sue for animal abuse. Killing an animal is animal abuse under Iowa state law and punishable for up to $5000 dollars and 2 years in jail.

Uh, no. Such a sentence would be from a criminal court, so she can not "sue" in a situation where the penalty would be a fine and/or jail time. Such a charge would have to come from the state. And since the police have already made their charge(s) by citing the shooter, unless the state prosecutor steps in, there is no likelihood of such an outcome.


Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Depending on how close she was to the man when he discharged the weapon, she can also sue for reckless endangerment.

Same as above. Criminal charge, can not be brought by an individual.

  • 12.26.2012 11:00 AM PDT

Bones of my enemies.

Posted by: Crazy LlamaX
We should shoot and kill him with a shotgun.

That man is clearly an -blam!-, so yes we should kill him.

Posted by: St Major Dan
The only logical next step is to arm dogs.

Also this.

  • 12.26.2012 11:02 AM PDT

Why Bungie, why would you do this?! - Halo Community


Posted by: Sh1n1ng Wolf

Posted by: Opt1mu5Pr1m3 15
Trigger happy morons.

  • 12.26.2012 11:03 AM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.


Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
She can also sue for animal abuse. Killing an animal is animal abuse under Iowa state law and punishable for up to $5000 dollars and 2 years in jail.

Uh, no. Such a sentence would be from a criminal court, so she can not "sue" in a situation where the penalty would be a fine and/or jail time. Such a charge would have to come from the state. And since the police have already made their charge(s) by citing the shooter, unless the state prosecutor steps in, there is no likelihood of such an outcome.


Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Depending on how close she was to the man when he discharged the weapon, she can also sue for reckless endangerment.

Same as above. Criminal charge, can not be brought by an individual.


Well, that is a shame. Is there any legal action this woman could pursue so that the state decides to bring criminal charges?

[Edited on 12.26.2012 11:04 AM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 11:03 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I like how one sided this post is. I'd do the same thing if a dog came running at me. Happened before.
Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr

Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
She can also sue for animal abuse. Killing an animal is animal abuse under Iowa state law and punishable for up to $5000 dollars and 2 years in jail.

Uh, no. Such a sentence would be from a criminal court, so she can not "sue" in a situation where the penalty would be a fine and/or jail time. Such a charge would have to come from the state. And since the police have already made their charge(s) by citing the shooter, unless the state prosecutor steps in, there is no likelihood of such an outcome.


Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Depending on how close she was to the man when he discharged the weapon, she can also sue for reckless endangerment.

Same as above. Criminal charge, can not be brought by an individual.


Well, that is a shame. Is there any legal action this woman could pursue so that the state decides to bring criminal charges?
youre pathetic. It's a damn animal.

[Edited on 12.26.2012 11:07 AM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 11:06 AM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.


Posted by: Pongee Opressee
I like how one sided this post is. I'd do the same thing if a dog came running at me. Happened before.

youre pathetic. It's a damn animal.


I'm just discussing the legal side of this, man.

  • 12.26.2012 11:08 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
She can also sue for animal abuse. Killing an animal is animal abuse under Iowa state law and punishable for up to $5000 dollars and 2 years in jail.
Uh, no. Such a sentence would be from a criminal court, so she can not "sue" in a situation where the penalty would be a fine and/or jail time. Such a charge would have to come from the state. And since the police have already made their charge(s) by citing the shooter, unless the state prosecutor steps in, there is no likelihood of such an outcome.


Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Depending on how close she was to the man when he discharged the weapon, she can also sue for reckless endangerment.

Same as above. Criminal charge, can not be brought by an individual.


Well, that is a shame. Is there any legal action this woman could pursue so that the state decides to bring criminal charges?

She can do what she has done, go public and generate public outrage/support. That can (sometimes) motivate a prosecutor who is looking for their name in the papers and some votes next time around to "re-examine the case" and extract a pound of flesh.

Her only recourse as a citizen is civil action. Which, considering the fact that this occurred in an area where "animals are livestock/property" and not "treasured members of the family deserving of the same protections"... her "best bet" would be to get an urban/suburban jury and go for "emotional damages" in seeing her pet shot and killed.

  • 12.26.2012 11:09 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

The dog didn't attack him, he wasn't hurting anyone, it was just lost and decided to plop himself down on the guy's yard. The guy could have just ignored the dog, or called the ASPCA, but what did he decide to do? Shoot the dog. And why? "Because he didn't want him on his yard."

The man had NO legal right to shoot the dog.

  • 12.26.2012 11:19 AM PDT


Posted by: Dr TimothyLeary
I'd be going to jail if that were my dog.

  • 12.26.2012 11:20 AM PDT


Posted by: Darkm0d

Posted by: Methew
Posted by: What Is This1
I don't see the issue

He shot a person's pet.

A domesticated dog isn't a rabbit or a deer.


That's why they invented leashes.

A lot of people will want to get all emotional about this sort of stuff but I certainly don't care.

I own guns, and would I shoot a dog if it was on my lawn? Probably not, but if I felt it was threatening me in any way I wouldn't shed a tear if I had to shoot it.

A dog is not a person. It's the owners responsibility to keep the animal on a leash to avoid issues like this.

  • 12.26.2012 11:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Pongee Opressee
I like how one sided this post is. I'd do the same thing if a dog came running at me.

Reading comprehension fail.

Dog didn't attack home owner.
Dog was playing in the snow.
Home owner came out of his house and shot the animal.

youre pathetic. It's a damn animal.
You're pathetic.

Being unable to see other's point of view and react with an ounce of compassion.

  • 12.26.2012 11:26 AM PDT