This is a really odd story. Neighbor buys a new dog Keira, doesn’t like Coco, one of the other neighborhood dogs. Accusations fly around about which dogs are mean to the other and neighbors stop taking to each other. Keira apparently mauls Coco once, leaving Coco’s owner with 3000 in vet bills. Keira escapes and charges at Coco and his owner Â shoots Keira dead through the head, and ends up facing animal cruelty charges and disorderly conduct:
“Why didn’t you pick up a shovel, a stick or pepper spray?” Assistant District Attorney Shannon Crake asked Menichini.
I find the ADA’s attitude here more than a bit disconcerting. It is not her place to evaluate the man’s chosen means of self-defense. What he had available is a pistol, not pepper spray. I think pepper spray is a wise choice, but it’s a choice. Does she really expect him to carry a shovel with him? To search frantically on the ground for a stick big enough for self-defense? Sorry Ms. Crake the statute itself says “A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degreeÂ if he willfully and maliciously kills, maims or disfigures any domestic animalÂ of another person or any domestic fowl of another person.” The key words here is “maliciously” which means the actor would need to be acting with malice. If this is a case of self-defense, that’s not a malicious act and not animal cruelty. There very well may be facts not reported here that would indicate malice on the part of the actor, but from this article, it looks like the ADA is more interested in second guessing the means of self-defense the actor had available and used, rather than making an argument for willful malice on the part of the actor.
4 thoughts on “Feuding over Dogs Results in Doggie Shooting”
Sounds like to me good shoot and good shooting, Yes, self-defense, if it was a big dog. But I would guess it was. Use a stick, now that is animal cruelty.
As far as maliciousness goes, I think it was Bill Jordan who recommended not beating (pistol whipping) someone in self-defense or to arrest as opposed to just shooting them, as it’s easier to convince a judge you didn’t shoot them too much than that you didn’t hit them too hard.
But I’m sure the ADA would have NO problem with him beating on the dog with a shovel or stick long and hard enough to stop it. Wouldn’t see that as “malicious” at all, she’d certainly consider it more humane than a clean headshot. =/
My otherwise very well behaved dog got out of the back yard one day and charged at a neighbor several houses away, barking like a maniac. That the man was of a different race than my family added to the appalling nature of the dog’s action. The neighbor, with whom I was on good terms, retreated into his home rather than face the dog.
I immediately explained to my neighbor that my dog had never done that sort of aggressive action before, and offered to have the dog put down for his offensive behavior. The neighbor thanked me for the offer, but declined. The dog has been no trouble since then.
Animals are not family members, and they have to follow the rules of good behavior to continue living among polite society. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
Their’s always two sides of a story.. this post sounds like the author is only stating the facts from the defendants perspective. The defendant in the case had a history of making statements that he doesn’t like the dog Keira and stated that when he and his dog walked by the house that Keira dug a hole under the fence to escape and charge his dog Coco. The facts of the case are their where no holes uncovered under the fence. In addition a neighbor across the street saw that the dog Keira was safely within the fence 5 minutes before the shooting. Now the prosecution was trying to argue that the defendant intentionally unlocked the gate and had planned to shoot the dog. I commend this ADA for taking on this case and trying to make sure justice is upheld in our society.. We need more public servants willing to go the extra mile instead of settling for a plea..
Comments are closed.