Marine shoots a man's coon dog (dawg)

[Skyviper 1,101]

So a buddy of mine is going to court for the killing a man's raccoon hunting dog (coon dawg). The man is suing my friend for $4,500 and if my friend doesn't have the money then the plantiff can take anything off my friends property that equates to the value he's suing for.

 

Here's the story. My friend the Marine, is at home. Its a dark night. He hears a commotion from a field across the road, he figured it may have been coyotes fighting. They get closer and he starts to make out silhouettes and sees them cross his neighbor's drive way, they cross the road and enter his yard.

 

Now at this time the Marine's wife is attempting to get a nine month old baby in their house, the animals are only 75 ft away from the wife and baby.

 

As the pack get's closer my friend shoots a round into the air. All but one of the animals flee. The remaining one approaches the wife and child, growling and showing teeth, and my friend shoots the animal. It was on the ground yelping in pain. When he gets closer he realizes that's it a coon dog and because the dog was in so much pain my friend made a mercy kill.

 

He then waited and flagged down the owner of the dog (which was a quarter mile down the road) and explained the situation.

 

The owner, in a police report states that the dog cost him $2000 dollars, he's suing for $4500. The owner also said that his $4000 hunting dog was gun shy and would've ran away.

 

My buddy collected a lot of evidence to back his case up and I hope he comes out okay today.

[+whiteknight06604 934]

hope this works out for your friend. I love animals but there are tims when you have to do what is right to protect your family.Why were these dogs free to roam the nieborhood in the first place?In the woods behind my home we have coyotes and coydogs and sometimes they come into the yard.I have been confronted at 5am after coming home and had to fight off a coyote in my boxer shorts when it went after my cat.Sometimes you just have to protect your family or animals.

[Skyviper 1,101]

Sorry I didn't mention this before. He lives in a rural area and these people were hunting raccoons.

[Lazarus1177 164]

Accidents happen all the time.The Marine had no way of knowing.Hope he gets through it.

[norman 0]

My question would be whether your friend shot the dog on his property or his neighbor's property. I'm guessing that's an important legal consideration, but I'm no lawyer.

[B52STRATO 215]

I'm, this is a personal opinion, agreed to the holding of a personal weapon at home, which would remain for the "recreational shooting" or our own protection only in the perimeter of his property.

In this case it seems to me that this Marine should not incur a fine, he defended his family of a threat that could potentially, or critically, injure one people. I had many neighbor that holds aggressive dogs only who obeyed to their masters, and it often happened that they escape from their enclosures. What is normal in the West Indies, but the problem is that these dogs then shows dangerous for pedestrians at night.

[Stingray72 6]

It would seem fairly obvious that the owner of the dog should have done a few things different:

 

1) Hunting dogs aren't gun shy, so this guy is either a liar or the dog is no way worth that much money lol, because who in their right mind would pay $4000 for a hunting dog that runs away from guns?

 

2) Kept the dog on his property. How many owners get sued for their dogs attacking kids in streets or other yards? Sounds like the shooter was protecting his family, but he also inadvertently saved the owner from getting sued in the end possibly by the neighbor!!

 

3) Maybe moved to where you can use hunting dogs legally for hunting.

 

Unfortunately our opinions don't count anymore in this country, and even if the jury of peers correctly decided in favor of the shooter the owner is probably going to get his way through appeals. Our judicial system is great.....unless it is figuring on common sense. Lawyers no longer care about people, only money, and they will bend both Constitution and law to get their way for the client. Seeing that we are all in agreement here is heart warming, and I thank my fellow Americans for not being silly. This man should not be in trouble, and the other guy should get stuck with all of the fees for his trouble for making a nonsense claim. Seriously courts, do the right thing please and restore our faith in your system.

 

~Stingray

[Skyviper 1,101]

We're awaiting the verdict now. It could go either way. (he emailed this to me at 12:58 today)

 

The dog was well on the Marine's property no doubt about that.

[Skyviper 1,101]

He lost. It was civil court.

 

His proof would have got him off if it was criminal court.

 

And the Plaintiff testified that he paid $100.

 

And the "judge"( lawyer standing in for a judge) feels that the dog could have been sold for 1000 so the Marine has to pay $1000. He's in route to appeal. Oh and there is no documentation proving that the dog is worth 1000

[+whiteknight06604 934]

let us know the court,I think a few letters are in order.

 

as a matter of fact let this get into the press,i'm sure the media will have a field day with a veteren being mistreated like this.

 

your friend should counter sue the dog owner for mental distress. his wife and child were threatend and they had to witness the dog being killed through the negligence of the dog owner.

Edited May 30, 2012 by whiteknight06604

[Silverbolt 104]

who the hell would pay $1000 for a dog? does this people work?

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Just goes to show you that guns are not always the answer. Too bad he did not have to pay the $4500.

[+whiteknight06604 934]

prob would have been more satisfying to have saved his family and killed the dog with a knife? I have had to kill a couple dogs with a knife and I will say it was not pleasent or fast. I wish I had a firearm as it would have saved me lots of pain and the dogs much suffering.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Bit late in the day but it sounded pretty open and shut to me.... he put down a dangerous animal, on his property, as the animal was progressing at speed to his wife and child.... the fact the animal turned out to be someones pet should not enter into discussion, its still a strong fast willful ball of muscle and teeth.

 

 

Craig

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Just because you where in the Marines does not mean you can kill other people's property. I hate to break it to some of you but just because you are a veteran does not mean you are beyond reproach. There are alot of people who are in prison who were once in the marines....... people kill me I swear. The whole dangerous animal thing is stupid anyway....ever heard of go in the house. The other stupid thing about this is shooting a warning shot. Anybody who has been a trigger puller in the US military for the last 10 years knows not to shoot a stupid warning shot. Whatever, people making a mountain out of a mole hill just because the poor dumb azz was a veteran.

Edited May 30, 2012 by CrazyhorseB34

[+whiteknight06604 934]

if the owner of the dog had any sence he would have controled his animal. anything that come on my property and threatens my family is risking it's life.it's insane to expect somone to risk their family for a freakin dog. the second my loved ones are threatened by an animal it forfits it's life, plain and simple. I don't care if the guy was a vet or not he had his kid there and an unknown danger was aproaching. you do not risk your kid in the hope you can outrun something to get into the house.I'm an animal lover,heck I put myself between a bear and my cat so I don't take an animals life lightly but if it's a choice between human and dog dog loses everytime. Also the owner of the dog has a responsibility to control it. why was it on someone elses property?why was it not in the owners control? the owner of the dog bears the responsibility for it's death. it could have just as easily been struck by a car or attack by a feral animal while away from it's owners control.As I said I would counter sue the reckless owner for allowing his dog to scare my family and force me to use deadly force which has effected his family.normaly I wouldn't sue for something like that but obviously this unfit dog owner only understands lawsuits so give him one and a bunch of bad press to boot. that guy would be a social pariah once I was through rakeing him through the PR mud.....

 

edit; my comments are based on info we have now,obviously if different info comes to light I will rethink my position to acount for the new info.

Edited May 30, 2012 by whiteknight06604

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Word. I hear you bro, but coon dogs are normally beagles so you do the math!

[+whiteknight06604 934]

sucks for all involved I guess. And not knowing the exact situation I should run my mouth a little less. I just have unfortunatly been in similar situations so I can sympathize. ;) it's like the old saying "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Have to say, the fact he's a soldier doesn't even enter into it.

He had to make a call....he did, and now it's up to high flying lawyers to decide, whether he pays up or not!

 

The real 'villian' of this piece, is not the guy who did the shooting...and not the Dog.

 

It's the Dogs owner, who should have been in control of his animal, thus preventing the Soldier from the need to do what he did, to protect his family

 

(just my take)

[+Brain32 265]

Quite honestly this would (probably)never pass on courts here.

Criminal law would completely legalize it simply by determining the danger to the shooters wife and child, danger is the key here and if the danger was objectively present and real, his actions would be completely legal.

 

Taking my "law hat" off, I agree with UK_Widowmaker animal is always the owners responsibility and judging by what was described here, the owner failed.

[Skyviper 1,101]

I think it was a blue tick hound. (not for sure. It wasn't beagle though)

 

I'm sure if the wife could've outran the animals they would have. My friend has a gorgeous dog himself and he told me that if his dog ever got on someone property. He wouldn't hold anything against them if they had to kill his dog. He would collect the body, with tears in eyes, and move on.

 

The animal that was shot was displaying aggressive behavior, it was on the corner of the house and could have easily intercepted the wife and baby. The fact that he fired a warning shot just shows that he didn't want to kill them unless absolutely had to. The rest ran away the one charged and was put down. Now the owner should've seen that the dogs where nowhere near the hunting grounds and should have redirected them accordingly I think.

[JediMaster 451]

Well, it may cost him $1000, but at least his family is safe. To not do anything for fear you may have to pay too much $$ for it? No thanks.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

I still do not understand why they just did not go back in the house, grab a beer and watch Seinfeld reruns. Another thing I do not understand is how they could feel threatened by dogs fighting outside, when they are humans and can simply just go in the house. I am sorry but I don't think a beagle ( ie Snoopy from the cartoons) could lay seige to someone's house.Totally silly situation for all involved.

Edited June 1, 2012 by CrazyhorseB34

[+Dave 2,322]

I guess we had to be there. I don think he went out to try to shoot a dog just for the hell of it. The owner is responsible for controlling his dog.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

 

The viciousness of the Blue Tick Hound on display. Note the massive size and strength of the animal and it's sheer will to destroy all who crosses it's path. Judging by the record of the University of Tennesse's football team in recent years "Smokey" is a fitting mascot.