Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
A Lincoln County jury awarded a Star City man $145,000 this week after a Monroe County man shot and killed his $10,000 hunting dog.
Newell Gill and three hunting companions, Mackie Edmonds, Lee Edward McGriff, and Darrel McGee, all of Star City, were coon hunting in late 2012 on the North Branch of White River National Refuge in Monroe County when their dogs crossed over onto private property and treed a raccoon.
The dogs had trailed and treed raccoons that were attracted to corn dispensed by deer corn feeders on the landowner’s property, according to Gill’s attorney, Charles Sidney Gibson of Dermott.
Gibson said coon dogs cannot be called off once they tree; they have to be pulled off by hand and leashed.
Though there were posted signs on the property, there was no phone number to call for permission to retrieve the dogs. “The hunters rightfully put away their guns and went to retrieve the dogs,” Gibson said.
When they did so, they encountered an irate man armed with a rifle.
The man, Frank Newby of Holly Grove, threatened to shoot the dogs and the hunters if they attempted to retrieve the dogs.
Over Newby’s objections, Gill retrieved his dog, a 4-year-old treeing Walker named Buck, and leashed him.
Newby then ordered Gill to back away from the dog so he could shoot him. Gill refused and the man shot the leashed dog.
“It was a horrible experience for Newel Gill to helplessly watch his leashed dog’s execution then thrash around his feet in agony,” Gibson said. “Gill has nightmares yet about that night.”
Gill filed a civil suit against the man and was awarded $145,000.
The 5-man, 7-woman Lincoln County jury on Wednesday awarded Gill $100,000 in punitive damages and $45,000 in compensatory damages.
In the criminal case in Monroe County last year, Newby was convicted of a misdemeanor, fined, and sentenced to six months in jail.
Gibson said he doesn’t know how much of that sentence, if any, Newby served.
__________________
Newell Gill and three hunting companions, Mackie Edmonds, Lee Edward McGriff, and Darrel McGee, all of Star City, were coon hunting in late 2012 on the North Branch of White River National Refuge in Monroe County when their dogs crossed over onto private property and treed a raccoon.
The dogs had trailed and treed raccoons that were attracted to corn dispensed by deer corn feeders on the landowner’s property, according to Gill’s attorney, Charles Sidney Gibson of Dermott.
Gibson said coon dogs cannot be called off once they tree; they have to be pulled off by hand and leashed.
Though there were posted signs on the property, there was no phone number to call for permission to retrieve the dogs. “The hunters rightfully put away their guns and went to retrieve the dogs,” Gibson said.
When they did so, they encountered an irate man armed with a rifle.
The man, Frank Newby of Holly Grove, threatened to shoot the dogs and the hunters if they attempted to retrieve the dogs.
Over Newby’s objections, Gill retrieved his dog, a 4-year-old treeing Walker named Buck, and leashed him.
Newby then ordered Gill to back away from the dog so he could shoot him. Gill refused and the man shot the leashed dog.
“It was a horrible experience for Newel Gill to helplessly watch his leashed dog’s execution then thrash around his feet in agony,” Gibson said. “Gill has nightmares yet about that night.”
Gill filed a civil suit against the man and was awarded $145,000.
The 5-man, 7-woman Lincoln County jury on Wednesday awarded Gill $100,000 in punitive damages and $45,000 in compensatory damages.
In the criminal case in Monroe County last year, Newby was convicted of a misdemeanor, fined, and sentenced to six months in jail.
Gibson said he doesn’t know how much of that sentence, if any, Newby served.
__________________
-
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:23 pm
- Location: State?...The one where ruffed grouse were.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Good!...someone leave the horsewhip at home?
Deer feeders.... :roll: ...so sad, so sad.
Deer feeders.... :roll: ...so sad, so sad.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Rifle or not he woulda been done right there. No sueing needed just a lawyer and bail money for me.Gill refused and the man shot the leashed dog.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
What about the charge for the unsafe use of a firearm. yikes!
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
I really don't understand how sick some people are. No thoughts about forgiveness for the dog/owner, no thoughts about the potential to harm/kill the person holding the dog, and no thoughts about the legal implications of his acts. Folks like that aren't wired right.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
This is NOT a good thing, in my opinion. if the dog was worth $10,000, then that's what the owner should have been awarded. Then the shooter should be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm and possibly reckless endangerment. But to give the owner that much money for the dog sets a terrible precedent for future cases of loss of an animal. I know we love our dogs, but under the legal system they are still just property, in most states anyway.
-
- Rank: Junior Hunter
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:05 pm
- Location: Mountainous end of NC
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Dogs may be considered property by the State, but my dogs are family.
I can't say what I would have done had I been the one holding a leashed dog and someone shot it.
I say they didn't fine him enough, set the bar higher for dog shooters. It ain't about the money, but the money will make the next idiot think before he shoots a dog.
I can't say what I would have done had I been the one holding a leashed dog and someone shot it.
I say they didn't fine him enough, set the bar higher for dog shooters. It ain't about the money, but the money will make the next idiot think before he shoots a dog.
- birddog1968
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:40 pm
- Location: Wherever I may roam
-
- Rank: 5X Champion
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:22 pm
- Location: Sullivan IN
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
i have to agree with DogDr. If someone steals my car insurance pays to replace my car. If someone shoots one of my cows on pasture Insurance might pay to replace the cow. Dogs are only your family in your mind. As far as the law is concerned that dog is something you own and as such should be replaced as would any other piece of property. I feel like the man doing the shooting should be spending years in jail, for discharge of the firearm. At that point I would consider the death of the dog secondary.
Jim
Jim
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
If that happened to me, he wouldn't have to worry about jail time or a big fine. I would go completely nut's!
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Maybe 10 g for the dog the rest for emotional damage. Lawyer gets 1/3 off the top. Happens often in these types of cases.
- nikegundog
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 1508
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:21 am
- Location: SW Minnesota
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
They gave him $5K for the dog.markj wrote:Maybe 10 g for the dog the rest for emotional damage. Lawyer gets 1/3 off the top. Happens often in these types of cases.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
The man should have been charged with attempted murder and loose all right to ever own a firearm for life. He discharged a firearm towards another human. There is a special place in heck for this guy.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Sooooooo, a crazy maniac just murdered your dog that was on a leash at your side...............and you think that he wont shoot you if you tried to put him in his place?..........hmmm........I would rethink that one. :roll:
Maybe to much money was awarded, but I am glad it was if things happen as described the owner clearly tried to do right and get his dog under control and get out of there. You read about cases like this often and I think it is time to be held accountable for your actions. Car, cow, pig, pigeon or dog, it was unnecessary and put others lives in danger.
I also am aware that some places consider animal property and nothing more. But those with a conscience know darn well that they are living breathing things and are more than property.
Maybe to much money was awarded, but I am glad it was if things happen as described the owner clearly tried to do right and get his dog under control and get out of there. You read about cases like this often and I think it is time to be held accountable for your actions. Car, cow, pig, pigeon or dog, it was unnecessary and put others lives in danger.
I also am aware that some places consider animal property and nothing more. But those with a conscience know darn well that they are living breathing things and are more than property.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
And it also will make the idiot holding a dog try to make someone do something stupid so he can sue. I have no problem with someone having to pat for real damages but if there are going to be punitive damages then that should go into the government budget and not to the plaintive or his lawyer.jack the dog wrote:Dogs may be considered property by the State, but my dogs are family.
I can't say what I would have done had I been the one holding a leashed dog and someone shot it.
I say they didn't fine him enough, set the bar higher for dog shooters. It ain't about the money, but the money will make the next idiot think before he shoots a dog.
Family or not money doesn't negate the loss and will never bring anything back to life other than giving someone an idea how to get rich.
IL doc has it right, excess of anything will end up causing more problems than it solves.
Ezzy
-
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:23 pm
- Location: State?...The one where ruffed grouse were.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Hopefully, the dead dog's owner will collect it all.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
You dont know me nor my abilities there. Nor what I have on my hip at all times. Please rethink the post, or come over and find out, we can shoot it up and chew the fat. I can show you how to disarm a fella that is within range and disable his breathing at the same time. Not trying to be all macho, but some folks have training.....others do not haveSooooooo, a crazy maniac just murdered your dog that was on a leash at your side...............and you think that he wont shoot you if you tried to put him in his place?..........hmmm........I would rethink that one
See I have this special type of skills...... and when angered,well most folks just dont want to be around then.
140,000.00 for mental anguish. Lawyer fees are usualy 1/3 of the total.They gave him $5K for the dog.
- roaniecowpony
- Rank: 5X Champion
- Posts: 817
- Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:05 am
- Location: westcoast
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
ADW. For the threat to the owner.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
I have no idea why these kind of posts always bring out the people who try to tell us how big and bad their reaction would be. It becomes a shooting match to see who can claim to be the biggest and baddest person in the whole darn town. It gets to the point usually fairly quickly where they are claiming to be a bigger idiot that the original offender. Reminds me of the Hatfields and the Mc Coys. And of course nobody ever does it and no body is really impressed and no one ever wins. But you can be sure, the same ones will keep responding and wait for the next opportunity.
- nikegundog
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 1508
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:21 am
- Location: SW Minnesota
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
So someone shoots my $2000 dog at my feet, I have to pay $3000 for my lawyer and the money awarded (-$2000) goes to the Government, I don't think that would work to well. Although corporate America would fall in love with the idea, it would pretty much put an end to 95% of legitimate cases.ezzy333 wrote:And it also will make the idiot holding a dog try to make someone do something stupid so he can sue. I have no problem with someone having to pat for real damages but if there are going to be punitive damages then that should go into the government budget and not to the plaintive or his lawyer.jack the dog wrote:Dogs may be considered property by the State, but my dogs are family.
I can't say what I would have done had I been the one holding a leashed dog and someone shot it.
I say they didn't fine him enough, set the bar higher for dog shooters. It ain't about the money, but the money will make the next idiot think before he shoots a dog.
Family or not money doesn't negate the loss and will never bring anything back to life other than giving someone an idea how to get rich.
IL doc has it right, excess of anything will end up causing more problems than it solves.
Ezzy
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
I can agree that the extra money going into some kind of a fund could work. Minus the court costs and lawyer etc.. The owner gets what the dog is worth because, as you said, it cant be replaced. But shouldnt something be payed for having to watch your dog screaming and thrashing and suffering on the ground in front of you. Wouldnt that cause SOME folks serious emotional distress. I know I am pretty tough and can handle seeing a lot of things that would make most run for their mama. But I dont know how I would react to such a violent and vicious attack on one of my dogs.ezzy333 wrote:And it also will make the idiot holding a dog try to make someone do something stupid so he can sue. I have no problem with someone having to pat for real damages but if there are going to be punitive damages then that should go into the government budget and not to the plaintive or his lawyer.jack the dog wrote:Dogs may be considered property by the State, but my dogs are family.
I can't say what I would have done had I been the one holding a leashed dog and someone shot it.
I say they didn't fine him enough, set the bar higher for dog shooters. It ain't about the money, but the money will make the next idiot think before he shoots a dog.
Family or not money doesn't negate the loss and will never bring anything back to life other than giving someone an idea how to get rich.
IL doc has it right, excess of anything will end up causing more problems than it solves.
Ezzy
I wonder if, even though the law may be on your side, if a person should just contact a CO and let them know that they have to get their dog from a piece of private property. Of coarse in most cases you would have the dog and be gone with no problems.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Who is to say how much your dog is worth ? my dogs are young, do I get less money ? they are not finished yet, do I get less money? I would not sell my dogs for $5000 they are my family, point is, the dog is worth what is is worth to the owner and he should receive any money awarded JMO
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
In the area where this occurred, it is legal to enter private property to retrieve your dog ONLY if you are unarmed.markj wrote:Nor what I have on my hip at all times.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
As hard as it would be I think you would have to leave the emotion out of it. I would assume that if you had a heavily titled dog it would be worth more than a young dog that hasnt done a lot yet. But, I have no idea how they would put a monetary value on the dog. It could get tricky.cjj wrote:Who is to say how much your dog is worth ? my dogs are young, do I get less money ? they are not finished yet, do I get less money? I would not sell my dogs for $5000 they are my family, point is, the dog is worth what is is worth to the owner and he should receive any money awarded JMO
The whole situation owuld be tough.
- birddogger
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 3776
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:09 pm
- Location: Bunker Hill, IL.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
When I first starting reading this thread, I new they would come out. It happens every time. I am one bad arse!!! :roll:ezzy333 wrote:I have no idea why these kind of posts always bring out the people who try to tell us how big and bad their reaction would be. It becomes a shooting match to see who can claim to be the biggest and baddest person in the whole darn town. It gets to the point usually fairly quickly where they are claiming to be a bigger idiot that the original offender. Reminds me of the Hatfields and the Mc Coys. And of course nobody ever does it and no body is really impressed and no one ever wins. But you can be sure, the same ones will keep responding and wait for the next opportunity.
Charlie
-
- Rank: Junior Hunter
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:33 pm
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Don't think you can compare hunting dogs to livestock. I don't know anyone who lets their livestock sleep in the house with them! Yes, a dog may be considered property, but the emotional attachment is far greater than most other property. Punitive damages are just that...punishment...for inflicting harm on someone. This guy should be locked up for a long time. Anyone who can shoot a leashed dog is seriously disturbed, and could very well be a threat to people who happen to tick him off. I'm old and about half crippled with arthritis, but if it was my dog I would give it all I had to make him regret his actions for the rest of his life. As for putting some of the money awarded into a gov't fund...that is just what we need...more money in the gov't hands. Why not volunteer to pay more taxes?
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
The point is there would not be the ridiculous settlements if the money didn't end up in some lawyers pocket. I am no sure what the right price is but just off hand the offender should have to pay all the court cost for both sides and the value of the dog plus a little. And then any thing awarded as punitive should go somewhere else.
Ezzy
Ezzy
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
ezzy333 wrote:The point is there would not be the ridiculous settlements if the money didn't end up in some lawyers pocket. I am no sure what the right price is but just off hand the offender should have to pay all the court cost for both sides and the value of the dog plus a little. And then any thing awarded as punitive should go somewhere else. Awards like this is exactly what is wrong with our health system. Doctor get stuck with claims against them with outlandish settlements and we pay the bills because of their insurance costs.
Ezzy
- birddogger
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 3776
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:09 pm
- Location: Bunker Hill, IL.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
I have nothing against compensation for punitive damages, but one of the problems this country has today is the exhorbant amount of money being awarded to people and has been going on for a long, long time. The lawyers love it but the courts need to use some reason and common sense once in awhile. Should this guy be fairly compensated for his loss and autrosity against him and his dog? Absolutely. Should the offender be punished? Again, absolutely. Should the victim become wealthy because of it? I don't think so.
Charlie
Charlie
- birddogger
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 3776
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:09 pm
- Location: Bunker Hill, IL.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Sorry, Ezzy and I were apparently typing at the same time.
Charlie
Charlie
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
I am not bad, just the opposite till someone does something like this. Most folks would stand in horror and thats just fine. You do not know me nor my history, nor that I was shot once and stabbed in my neck by a couple of tough guys. or anything about my abilities. I am not some old gal telling folks how they need to be either.I have no idea why these kind of posts always bring out the people who try to tell us how big and bad their reaction would be
In any fire fight situation, you attack fast and overcome the shooter.
We used to run dogs at night on coons, not one of the people where I live would do this deed. Not one.
I would not recommend shooting my dog like that. You will have to rack another round in that gun.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
The article doesn't say what the actual civil damages were awarded for in terms of theory. If the shooter was truly fairly wealthy, and the punitive damages were aimed at making him feel the pain a bit financially, I can actually understand the amount of the award. But, I do agree the money should then go to some good cause, so the person whose dog got shot doesn't get a windfall. They don't say if the shooter pled to a misdemeanor or was only prosecuted for the misdemeanor. Shooting a restrained dog on a leash right next to a human being is scary stuff, and the shooter at very least shouldn't be allowed to own firearms again.
I do see the point that's been made, more or less, that if dogs start being viewed as the equivalent of children in this type of case, then someone will start saying your "child" shouldn't be running around with guns being shot over it, etc.
I do see the point that's been made, more or less, that if dogs start being viewed as the equivalent of children in this type of case, then someone will start saying your "child" shouldn't be running around with guns being shot over it, etc.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
You dont want to mess with me either.I once stubbed my big toe on the stove while burning my pinky finger at the same time and managed not to collapse the souffle I was taking out of the oven OR say one bad word!..................I guess I am pretty tough too. :roll: Sorry, couldnt help it.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
I knew you would have to tell just how bad you are. I thought I was tough but soufflé collapsed , I dropped the pan and broke my toe and I never said a word or even limped as I headed to the barn to take care of the dogs.Munster wrote:You dont want to mess with me either.I once stubbed my big toe on the stove while burning my pinky finger at the same time and managed not to collapse the souffle I was taking out of the oven OR say one bad word!..................I guess I am pretty tough too. :roll: Sorry, couldnt help it.
Mary you are the best......................
Ezzy
PS You sure the soufflé didn't collapse?
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
With all respect, a person simply does not know what they will do in a situation as was this until they are in that situation.
I had two dogs shot at one time but it was nothing like this situation as I was not present. One survived and one was lost.
It will affect a person more than I believe some realize and for many (myself included) their dog is not mere property.
I had two dogs shot at one time but it was nothing like this situation as I was not present. One survived and one was lost.
It will affect a person more than I believe some realize and for many (myself included) their dog is not mere property.
-
- Rank: Champion
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:57 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
markj wrote:I am not bad, just the opposite till someone does something like this. Most folks would stand in horror and thats just fine. You do not know me nor my history, nor that I was shot once and stabbed in my neck by a couple of tough guys. or anything about my abilities. I am not some old gal telling folks how they need to be either.In any fire fight situation, you attack fast and overcome the shooter. We used to run dogs at night on coons, not one of the people where I live would do this deed. Not one. I would not recommend shooting my dog like that. You will have to rack another round in that gun.
I agree, and that guy is lucky to get away with just a lawsuit. He could have ended up as dead as the owners dog if he tried it on someone with a bad temper. Turning a gun anywhere near another human and discharging it killing something like ones dog is unacceptable. He should have gotten more jail time too.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
This is a spot on and very true statement, we just dont know how any of us would react in ANY situation until it happens. We know how we would want or hope to react.Tooling wrote:With all respect, a person simply does not know what they will do in a situation as was this until they are in that situation.
Hopefully this ends it.
Ezzy, I dont even know what the heck a souffle is, I had to look it up!
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
I like my dogs pretty well but each member of my family out ranks any of my dogs and I certainly would not put my life in jeopardy or risk considerable jail time, which would mean I wouldn't be there either, to protect my already dead dog. Get the heck out of there and call the law. Chances are unless you buy a puppy when you are eighty you will have to deal with your dog dying. Probably not being shot. But, it is a dog and you would survive if you didn't get yourself shot too. He would be armed and if you are following the law you wouldn't be. Silly to die over a dead dog. My money would be with the guy with the gun.
I think the awards are excessive but most times that is the case...................Cj
I think the awards are excessive but most times that is the case...................Cj
- roaniecowpony
- Rank: 5X Champion
- Posts: 817
- Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:05 am
- Location: westcoast
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Awarding and collecting are two different things. If the landowner was off his rocker enough to threaten people with a gun and shot a dog, he is unlikely to do anything to comply with a court award without force. Im guessing he will go to jail for more threats and gun related tomfoolery. Hopefully nobody dies over a dog and a few guys chasing onto this nut's property.
- legallyblonde
- Rank: Junior Hunter
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:52 am
- Location: Michigan
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
1. $100,000 of the award was punitive (probably mostly taking into consideration that the gun was aimed and fired so close to a HUMAN) and $45,000 was his actual cost. I'd imagine that was the value of the dog if it was somehow proven (alleged at $10,000) potentially the loss of revenue from the dog (stud fees, prize money if he ran in PKC, etc) and could have also been attorneys fees too; I don't know Arkansas law but some states provide for attorneys fees in certain cases.
2. Will he ever get this money? Well if the shooter has this kind of money he will most likely appeal which could totally reverse the decision, and if he doesn't have money, I wish the dog owner good luck in collecting.
3. I am sure this jury was taking into consideration that the man got a tiny slap on the hand in criminal court. Notwithstanding the destruction of property, he directly threatened the men attempting to retrieve their hounds, aimed, and discharged a gun at them. Had they been armed and shot back, I would argue that to be defensible. However they were following what most right to retrieve laws state, that if you enter the land of another to retrieve your dogs you must leave firearms behind--only thing is there is no right to retrieve law in Arkansas.
I personally think the outcome of this case was fantastic, and hope is not reversed on appeal because it could be good precedent for other cases like this one in the future. It doesn't do anything to elevate dogs beyond property status in the eyes of the law--ALL states still recognize dogs as property--but it does warn others that dog shootings can be taken very seriously and have potential to be punished.
2. Will he ever get this money? Well if the shooter has this kind of money he will most likely appeal which could totally reverse the decision, and if he doesn't have money, I wish the dog owner good luck in collecting.
3. I am sure this jury was taking into consideration that the man got a tiny slap on the hand in criminal court. Notwithstanding the destruction of property, he directly threatened the men attempting to retrieve their hounds, aimed, and discharged a gun at them. Had they been armed and shot back, I would argue that to be defensible. However they were following what most right to retrieve laws state, that if you enter the land of another to retrieve your dogs you must leave firearms behind--only thing is there is no right to retrieve law in Arkansas.
I personally think the outcome of this case was fantastic, and hope is not reversed on appeal because it could be good precedent for other cases like this one in the future. It doesn't do anything to elevate dogs beyond property status in the eyes of the law--ALL states still recognize dogs as property--but it does warn others that dog shootings can be taken very seriously and have potential to be punished.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
FYI...Not every state allows trespassing to retrieve a dog. For example, this is being debated in MO: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/03/12/ ... ting-dogs/
In many states, shooting a dog other than in self-defense is illegal and considered animal abuse.
BTW...
There was a recent case in Idaho where a bird dog was killed while hunting: http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/local/ ... U4blg.cspx
Sadly, no criminal charges were brought against the shooter. The owner is trying a civil suit.
In many states, shooting a dog other than in self-defense is illegal and considered animal abuse.
BTW...
There was a recent case in Idaho where a bird dog was killed while hunting: http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/local/ ... U4blg.cspx
Sadly, no criminal charges were brought against the shooter. The owner is trying a civil suit.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
This story just sickens me the more I think about it.
A misdemeanor!! I will echo those that have suggested the aggressor should do some serious jail time. Clearly the guy is a nut-job beyond any rationale and as Roanie suggested, the notion this guy would be likely to comply with anything court imposed outside of force is absurd as he has already demonstrated the use of bullets to settle his quarrels and to protect his deer. Granted it is/was his land and all but a guy fetching his dog!!! Really!!! In the few short minutes that this likely happened, this guy decided his effort toward "maybe" bagging that buck took precedent over this mans dogs life and even the dog owners life should he be caught in the crossfire. A bit of an over-reaction maybe??
The guy deserves 3-5 years minimum coupled w/court imposed psychiatric follow-up along with having his right to own firearms stripped for life. Perhaps if the laws that already exist are taken seriously we the people can put some politicians who beat this horse for a living out of business.
A misdemeanor!! I will echo those that have suggested the aggressor should do some serious jail time. Clearly the guy is a nut-job beyond any rationale and as Roanie suggested, the notion this guy would be likely to comply with anything court imposed outside of force is absurd as he has already demonstrated the use of bullets to settle his quarrels and to protect his deer. Granted it is/was his land and all but a guy fetching his dog!!! Really!!! In the few short minutes that this likely happened, this guy decided his effort toward "maybe" bagging that buck took precedent over this mans dogs life and even the dog owners life should he be caught in the crossfire. A bit of an over-reaction maybe??
The guy deserves 3-5 years minimum coupled w/court imposed psychiatric follow-up along with having his right to own firearms stripped for life. Perhaps if the laws that already exist are taken seriously we the people can put some politicians who beat this horse for a living out of business.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
My cell phone is on my hip at all times, it will record what another person is doing. Then you dial 911 and get the law out there. Thinking about getting a personal gopro just for this reason.In the area where this occurred, it is legal to enter private property to retrieve your dog ONLY if you are unarmed
Man you guys kill me, I grew up in a fighting family, boxing was our pasttime, from there martial arts, judo etc. Sports in school, was the largest person on the team and the strongest.
I been to them ft, many there couldnt get out of a wet paper bag.....
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Yeah buddy, renters trashed one of our houses, sued them for damages, still havent collected a dime. Lawyers eat up the judgement too cause you gotta re sue them or garnish wages etc, this takes a lawyer and they are not cheap.Awarding and collecting are two different things.
I had a guy shoot my radiator in the truck, didnt like where I parked in a public field. I got nothing from it, paid the lawyer 500 to sue that guy. Shoulda shot his butt.
- roaniecowpony
- Rank: 5X Champion
- Posts: 817
- Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:05 am
- Location: westcoast
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
What I didn't get was why the nut wasn't charged with assault with a deadly weapon. That's a felony everywhere that I know of.
-
- GDF Junkie
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:23 pm
- Location: State?...The one where ruffed grouse were.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
To hear the stories....a lot of folks could be profiting from law suit overreach once the chests start to swell. :roll:
As stated, I hope the dog owner got all the cash but I reckon it was or will be a percentage.
I see little reason that damage money should be put into some fund that is most likely to be slowly whittled away as many fingers grab at it....there seems far better examples of lawsuit abuse than this one.
Shooting at a dog in that situation though implies that control was truly lost.....a dog owner slappin' leather simply adds to the likelihood of a tragic situation becoming an even greater tragedy.
Fighting stupid and fighting a degree of insanity are two different deals entire....pretty clear which fit this situation.
Reverse is often a very wise gear to engage.
Best to the dog owner....and Karma often receives a helping hand years down the road.
As stated, I hope the dog owner got all the cash but I reckon it was or will be a percentage.
I see little reason that damage money should be put into some fund that is most likely to be slowly whittled away as many fingers grab at it....there seems far better examples of lawsuit abuse than this one.
Shooting at a dog in that situation though implies that control was truly lost.....a dog owner slappin' leather simply adds to the likelihood of a tragic situation becoming an even greater tragedy.
Fighting stupid and fighting a degree of insanity are two different deals entire....pretty clear which fit this situation.
Reverse is often a very wise gear to engage.
Best to the dog owner....and Karma often receives a helping hand years down the road.
Last edited by Mountaineer on Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
I question the misdemeanor vs a felony of some sort, but seems like the court system otherwise handled this well. However, if it were my dog I would make a career out of making sure the shooter's life was ruined. At a minimum I'd make sure that every potential employer when the googled the guy's name, on the first page would be details on what he did.
I don't know what I would have done in the moment of the shooting considering I would have been unarmed (following the law and all that).
I don't know what I would have done in the moment of the shooting considering I would have been unarmed (following the law and all that).
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
In my opinion markj is speaking the truth and I agree with most of what he has written.
The idea that you don't know what you will do in an intense situation is very true. In some of the training
I had they tried to make things as real as possible. The problem is we all knew they had no intention
of really hurting us or killing us. In the real situation the opponents were trying to kill us.
I believe it was a Marine who once said this in an interview. "In this world there are sheep, sheep dogs and
wolves. The wolves will always try to kill or in some way take advantage of the sheep. The sheep dogs are
the type of people who, when they hear of a wolf taking advantage or killing a sheep, will usually think,
'I wish I had been there, I could have helped.' They run toward trouble believing they can help the sheep.
It is simply part of these type people. It is instinctive. They are much more rare then the sheep.
There is nothing wrong with being one of the sheep. It is who you are. But do not take what a sheep dog does in
certain situations as bravado. They 'know' they can help, and they will. To many they seem some what out of control
or extreme. In the right situation they are dangerous."
Not saying markj is a wolf. I have no idea. If I knew him I may not know either. If he is a wolf and n intense situation like this came up it might become clear to all that he is a wolf.
Just how I see it.
Mike
The idea that you don't know what you will do in an intense situation is very true. In some of the training
I had they tried to make things as real as possible. The problem is we all knew they had no intention
of really hurting us or killing us. In the real situation the opponents were trying to kill us.
I believe it was a Marine who once said this in an interview. "In this world there are sheep, sheep dogs and
wolves. The wolves will always try to kill or in some way take advantage of the sheep. The sheep dogs are
the type of people who, when they hear of a wolf taking advantage or killing a sheep, will usually think,
'I wish I had been there, I could have helped.' They run toward trouble believing they can help the sheep.
It is simply part of these type people. It is instinctive. They are much more rare then the sheep.
There is nothing wrong with being one of the sheep. It is who you are. But do not take what a sheep dog does in
certain situations as bravado. They 'know' they can help, and they will. To many they seem some what out of control
or extreme. In the right situation they are dangerous."
Not saying markj is a wolf. I have no idea. If I knew him I may not know either. If he is a wolf and n intense situation like this came up it might become clear to all that he is a wolf.
Just how I see it.
Mike
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Took care of a kid at the end of my shift the other day, 6am - big, ex-football, ex-military dude, trouble with the Mrs...shot in the left chest with a 9mm handgun. Begging for all the help he could get between bouts of spitting frothy red blood all over the place. Life is different for him now. Ballistics is a pretty simple equation that does not calculate in who you are or what skills you have. IMO, if you want the best chance of continuing life in your present state of health and skill, if at all possible, leave the guy with the gun alone, call the authorities.
Re: Man Awarded $145,000 in the Shooting of His Dog
Great advice Doc. And the odd thing about it is it often takes a real man to walk away and not follow your instincts. Always good in my mind to walk away and fight another day compared to the alternative. Hard to do sometimes.DGFavor wrote:Took care of a kid at the end of my shift the other day, 6am - big, ex-football, ex-military dude, trouble with the Mrs...shot in the left chest with a 9mm handgun. Begging for all the help he could get between bouts of spitting frothy red blood all over the place. Life is different for him now. Ballistics is a pretty simple equation that does not calculate in who you are or what skills you have. IMO, if you want the best chance of continuing life in your present state of health and skill, if at all possible, leave the guy with the gun alone, call the authorities.
Ezzy