Dog vs. cat vs. cops

[xtn]

I would argue that the leash or collar breaking IS negligence, not an accident. I believe a pet owner is responsible for ensuring their gear is up to the task.

If the gear fails to work as intended and the animal/weapon gets out of control and kills something, how is that any different than a bullet that ricochets beyond the shooter's intended path and killing something? Both events should carry the same responsibility.

 

[JB4310]

Alot of fur flying over cat vs dog vs lady

I think even if it was not her own cat and it happened on a public street, they shouldn't charge her with the firearm discharge law. Unless the shot was made irresponsibly and was an immediate threat to people close by.

It would be the right thing if she came to the rescue of any-one's cat in that situation. I'm pretty sure a LEO/ Animal control officer would be forced to shoot the dog in that scenario.

JB

 

[Sigarms]

I think even if it was not her own cat and it happened on a public street, they shouldn't charge her with the firearm discharge law. Unless the shot was made irresponsibly and was an immediate threat to people close by.

It would be the right thing if she came to the rescue of any-one's cat in that situation.

What if it were two dogs fighting in the local street? You're going to shoot the dog, but how do you know it wasn't the cat that instigated the fight?:laughing:

Sorry, I'm all for people owning firearms to protect their lives, but when you give people the right to play LEO out in the street discharging their weapon, I can't help but think you're asking for trouble.

 

[Bird]

Better yet, when you were in law enforcement, did you let people break the law if nothing bad happened if they broke it?

Sorry, I had to run do something else, so I cut my last answer short. Did I allow people to break the law? Absolutely! I'll bet you can't find an officer who hasn't. Why, I've even been known to stop a speeder and let him go without a ticket. And since speeders killed more people than guns, I guess that was a terrible thing for me to do.

Stop and think about what you've been saying. You're saying it's OK to allow someone to violate some laws some of the time, or a particular law some of the time, but not in other circumstances, and you've expressed your opinion about when you think it's OK to violate the law (actually city ordinance) that prohibits the discharge of firearms in the city limits. And you're entitled to your opinion.

In the city of Corinth, TX, where I now live, there is the following city ordinance:

ｧ 130.02 DISCHARGING OF

FIREARMS

, AIR GUNS AND BB GUNS PROHIBITED; EXCEPTION.
(A) Except as listed in division (B) of this section, it is an offense to discharge any firearm, air gun or BB gun within the corporate limits of the city.
(B) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of force, including deadly force, in the protection of one's life or property, or the lives or property of theirs, as allowed under Chapter Nine of the Texas Penal Code, or the use of

firearms

for legitimate agricultural uses, or for the protection of livestock from predators, or the eradication of varmints or reptiles on property owned or controlled by the person involved, and used in a manner that does not pose a threat to the lives and property of others, or for the shooting of targets on a legitimate target range approved under the zoning code of the city, or the shooting of targets on ones own property of three acres or more, and in a manner that does not pose a threat to the lives and property of others.
(Ord. 89-9-21-25, passed 9-21-89) Penalty, see ｧ 130.99

And yep, there's a typo on the city's website; should be "lives or property of others" instead of "theirs".:laughing: Maybe such an ordinance exists where the lady in question lives, but I don't know how her ordinance reads. But in this city, there would be no violation.

 

[RoyJackson]

What if it were two dogs fighting in the local street? You're going to shoot the dog, but how do you know it wasn't the cat that instigated the fight?:laughing:

Sorry, I'm all for people owning firearms to protect their lives, but when you give people the right to play LEO out in the street discharging their weapon, I can't help but think you're asking for trouble.

Bro...you ain't gonna win this argument...or even bring it to a draw.
People (including me) are very passionate and emotional about their critters, even if they are, by law, property.

And, regardless of the law in Lansing, the DA did not follow through with prosecution...that should tell you something.

 

[Sigarms]

Stop and think about what you've been saying. You're saying it's OK to allow someone to violate some laws some of the time, or a particular law some of the time, but not in other circumstances, and you've expressed your opinion about when you think it's OK to violate the law (actually city ordinance) that prohibits the discharge of firearms in the city limits. And you're entitled to your opinion.

I could be wrong, but I believe even in Michigan, it would be allowed under law to defend your life with a firearm in your own home. That is why I took the position that if the woman had the gun on her person before the dog came onto the porch and the woman believed her life was in danger, it would be "legal" to discharge the firearm, even within city limits (I could be wrong, but I believe the city would even have a provision for it due to future incidents).

I've got to ask, when you you were in law enforcement, when you let people off for speeding when you had them breaking the speed limit, how did you determine if you should let them go with just a warning? Was is the story they told? or was it you just feeling in a "giving" mood at the time?

 

[Sigarms]

Bro...you ain't gonna win this argument...or even bring it to a draw.
People (including me) are very passionate and emotional about their critters, even if they are, by law, property.

And, regardless of the law in Lansing, the DA did not follow through with prosecution...that should tell you something.

Perhaps if you repeat this enough times you might get the idea, "sigarms understands why the woman was let off by the DA's office".

The original thread was started by a member who thought it was in no certain terms "hogwash" why she (the woman who killed the dog) was even charged in the first place. I can understand why she was charged by the police, and I can understand why the case was dropped.

 

[JDgreen227]

Perhaps if you repeat this enough times you might get the idea, "sigarms understands why the woman was let off by the DA's office".

The original thread was started by a member who thought it was in no certain terms "hogwash" why she (the woman who killed the dog) was even charged in the first place. I can understand why she was charged by the police, and I can understand why the case was dropped.

OP here, I said "Bull Roar', not hogwash. And she fired ONE shot and killed the menacing dog. It's not like she was spraying a clip all over the neighborhood. Total over reaction by the cops, IMO. I live next door to a city policeman and he agrees with me 100%.

 

[RoyJackson]

It's not like she was spraying a clip...

Magazine, not a clip...

 

[JDgreen227]

Magazine, not a clip...

Picky, picky, picky.....!!!! :laughing:

Since it was a wheelgun, can we agree on "cylinder"....?