Dog vs. cat vs. cops

[Car Doc]

Well she was obviously just trying to catch it because the leash or something broke it was a natural reaction she wasn't the perp here, at that point in time we dont what know her thoughts were.

And yes in dreamland it would be interesting also if she had climbed the wall and did a nose dive into the concrete just for conversation.

And no one has said blow em all away and none of us gun advocates think like that that is the lefts way of distinguishing us from them in their minds.

 

[Sigarms]

Well she was obviously just trying to catch it because the leash or something broke it was a natural reaction she wasn't the perp here, at that point in time we dont what know her thoughts were.

And yes in dreamland it would be interesting also if she had climbed the wall and did a nose dive into the concrete just for conversation.

And no one has said blow em all away and none of us gun advocates think like that that is the lefts way of distinguishing us from them in their minds.

And the woman in question discharged a weapon in city limits. Apparently she broke the law, but since she was able to kill the dog who killed her cat, that makes it ok.

As I've said, if this was out "in the country", no problem as far as shooting whatever you want on your own property (not really "whatever", but in a case such as this). When you live within city limits, there are laws. I can completely understand why the police charged the woman on the scene.

 

[Car Doc]

And the woman in question discharged a weapon in city limits. Apparently she broke the law, but since she was able to kill the dog who killed her cat, that makes it ok.

As I've said, if this was out "in the country", no problem as far as shooting whatever you want on your own property (not really "whatever", but in a case such as this). When you live within city limits, there are laws. I can completely understand why the police charged the woman on the scene.

Yes in rural areas discharging a firearm is safer but **** happens everywhere.

I read on this thread she has had the case dismissed so being charged and convicted are two different things and here it means she was justified. my ,02

 

[JDgreen227]

Local paper that originally printed the story did another follow up today, quoting my opinion:

"She was 100% right to kill the pit bull that attacked her cat, and the police were 100% wrong to charge her"

And for what it is worth, the original story got over 150 email responses in the paper's online forums, and a large majority (about 80%) overwhelmingly agreed with my point of view.

 

[JB4310]

And the woman in question discharged a weapon in city limits. Apparently she broke the law, but since she was able to kill the dog who killed her cat, that makes it ok.

As I've said, if this was out "in the country", no problem as far as shooting whatever you want on your own property (not really "whatever", but in a case such as this). When you live within city limits, there are laws. I can completely understand why the police charged the woman on the scene.

The police charged the woman on the scene because they were not sure what to do and that was the easy thing to do.

There are exceptions to the law, if she was under attack herself, which is what would of happened if she tried to intervene between the dog and cat, there would be no question about it being justified. It was simple self defense, well not that simple cause it was a cat. But it would of been herself being attacked if she didn't have the gun and tried to rescue her pet.

You never loose your right to self defense, no matter the circumstance, even if you're in prison on a murder charge. There is an exception though, if you are in police custody, they can pretty much beat you to near death, if you fought back and killed one of them, it would be near impossible to plead self defense. You can not resist arrest even if you know you are innocent.

I am all for what she did. I'm not for these guys that boast of shooting stray domestic animals on there property for no good reason.

JB.

 

[Iplayfarmer]

... I'm not for these guys that boast of shooting stray domestic animals on there property for no good reason.

I suppose we all have our own definition of a good reason. If a stray shows up at my place it gets shooed away. If it doesn't get the message after about a week I'll ask around. If no one claims the stray and it keeps coming around the animal will come up missing.

There's one exception. I adopted a stray border collie pup after he'd been running around the area for almost a month. Best dog I've ever had. He's getting old now, but he's still a great dog. I'll probably cry when he finally has to go, and I didn't even cry at my grandma's funeral.

 

[hawkeye08]

A few weeks ago I got an email telling me of a friend I had not seen for some time losing his brother (cause of death not known). The LEO that went to notify my friend that his brother was dead ignored the many signs warning of dogs on the driveway and proceeded to my friends house. My friends German Shepard was barking and aggressive at the LEO, the LEO rolled his car window down and shot the dog dead. I hope my friend can recover from that horrible day when he lost both his brother and his best dog. A simple phone call to my friend and he would have restrained the dog.

 

[Sigarms]

There are exceptions to the law, if she was under attack herself, which is what would of happened if she tried to intervene between the dog and cat, there would be no question about it being justified. It was simple self defense, well not that simple cause it was a cat. But it would of been herself being attacked if she didn't have the gun and tried to rescue her pet.

You realize what you just said makes no sense? The woman did intervene between the dog and cat BEFORE she went to get her gun (as well as the dogs owner trying to help her). In some odd ball way, you helped hit one of my points.

 

[RoyJackson]

You realize what you just said makes no sense? The woman did intervene between the dog and cat BEFORE she went to get her gun (as well as the dogs owner trying to help her).

Yes, and her unarmed intrevention wasn't successful. So, the lady did what she had to do to save her beloved cat.

If you follow TBN threads about pets, you'll know that many many folks (including me) love their critters...so much that they aren't considered pets, but part of the family.
Would you defend your child in a dog attack? Of course you would...and to a lot of folks, that pet is just as loved as a child. Yep, it's a very emotional issue when logic should prevail...but it doesn't.

 

[Sigarms]

If you follow TBN threads about pets, you'll know that many many folks (including me) love their critters...so much that they aren't considered pets, but part of the family.
Would you defend your child in a dog attack? Of course you would...and to a lot of folks, that pet is just as loved as a child. Yep, it's a very emotional issue when logic should prevail...but it doesn't.

The lady should of lived out in the country where chances are it isn't against local ordinances to discharge a firearm.

I understand why she did what she did, still doesn't give her an excuse to give her a free ride to break the law. Otherwise, change the law.

Now, if she had the gun on her person when the dog was coming onto the porch and she killed the dog at that point, I can understand the free ride.