Dog vs. cat vs. cops

[JB4310]

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.

I'll be honest I didn't read the storey, was just going by what I learned from the replies. But it sounds pretty straight forward, I don't see how what I said makes no sense?

If she tried to save the cat but couldn't with out using deadly force, that pretty much proves it was justifiable. I'm not sure what your point was either, I was just commenting about how/why the police mistakenly arrested her.

I can't see how there could even be a debate, whether one feels a cat is a family member or just a furry piece of property, the dog got what it had coming. Tragic for the dog owner, but that's no fault of the cat owner.

JB.

 

[JB4310]

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.

Yeah I knew as I was typing, it was an ambiguous statement.
I'm not completely against euthanasia for unwanted animals, if done humanly.
Which could be a high velocity projectile thru the brain. My problem is with some who seem to glorify it, (from what I've seen in OTHER threads).

JB

 

[Sigarms]

If she tried to save the cat but couldn't with out using deadly force, that pretty much proves it was justifiable. I'm not sure what your point was either, I was just commenting about how/why the police mistakenly arrested her.

You previously stated "But it would of been herself being attacked if she didn't have the gun and tried to rescue her pet." The fact is, the woman tried to rescue the cat without a firearm and she WAS NOT attacked.

I understand it could be argued that the cat may not of been already dead when she came out with the weapon, but I doubt it. I can see the others parties position that the dog was killed for retribution for killing her cat. Now, out in the "country", animal on your property, you do as you wish. HOWEVER, in city limits where I believe it is a crime for discharging a weapon (I could be wrong about Lansing's firearms ordinances), I could see where the woman should be charged for discharging her weapon.

It all comes down to what the gun laws were in Lansing. If she broke the law and you want to let her go, change the law.

 

[JDgreen227]

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.

Roy, you took the words right out of my mouth, only you said them better !!! :thumbsup:

 

[JB4310]

I understand it could be argued that the cat may not of been already dead when she came out with the weapon, but I doubt it. I can see the others parties position that the dog was killed for retribution for killing her cat.

Oops, Maybe I should read the stories before I comment

I thought she saved the cat, that does change my opinion a little, but just a little. The dog was still a potential threat and it would be almost impossible to prove she did not feel that she had a chance to save the cat.
My personal feeling now is it MAY of been partly retaliation, but women get away with a couple of years of probation for shooting their husbands, cause they were having a bad PMS day :confused2: shouldn't surprise you to much.

It all comes down to what the gun laws were in Lansing. If she broke the law and you want to let her go, change the law.

I really don't think the law is meant to revoke a persons right to defense.
It was not a frivolous discharge, like shooting at a can on a stump.

If she was being threatened with physical attack by a gang and broke out an illegal full auto assault weapon to kill her attackers, the gun laws would never even be considered. even if she were a convicted felon and it happened in a school yard.

Like I mentioned before you never loose your right to self defense.

JB.

 

[Sigarms]

The dog was still a potential threat and it would be almost impossible to prove she did not feel that she had a chance to save the cat.

The law considers pets to be personal property. That is a FACT, I can assure you, no one loves their pets as much as I do. However, if someone were to try and kill one of my pets on or off my property and I kill that person in defense of my pets life, I'm still up for murder. I realize the example I just gave is not the same as topic of the thread, but it can open a can of worms of what people are allowed to do, by law, when their pets are involved in a situation with the law. The woman in Lansing Michigan was charged with "discharging a weapon in a public place ... or in a manner that endangers life or property." I happen to agree with that charge due to the circumstances.

Everyone here in support of this woman argues the fact that she is trying to save her cat and the dog came onto her property. I understand that, and would agree with the woman's actions if she lived in a rural area OUTSIDE of city limits (my understanding is that the woman was within Lansing's city limits). I wonder how many of those same people would hold the same position (allowing the woman to shot at the dog when her own life isn't in danger) if their children were walking across the street and the bullet discharged intended for the dog were to hit their child by a freak accident?

As I've said, if the circumstances were different, such as she already had the gun on her person and she was able to shoot the dog BEFORE she got involved trying to separate the animals, I could see the premise that she acted in self defense and justified discharging the weapon within city limits.

People also tend to forget that fact that on the surface, the dogs owner was a responsible owner and the dog got loose by accident (I'm certain if their would of been past incidents with the law by this dog and owner, it would of been brought up due to the outcry of public support of the woman).

This story just reminds me of why I live where I do.

 

[Bird]

People also tend to forget that fact that on the surface, the dogs owner was a responsible owner and the dog got loose by accident

Accidents don't count? And you say it would have been OK if she lived out in the country, but not in town???? Do you really believe country cats are more valuable than city cats?:laughing: People who own dangerous animals themselves just see things differently from a lot of the rest of us.

There can be all kinds of hypothetical questions . . what if a kid was walking by, what if . . . what if . . . from now on, but what if we just consider the facts as they existed instead of the hypotheticals? A dangerous animal attacked her pet on her property and she shot it. Good for her.

 

[Sigarms]

Accidents don't count? And you say it would have been OK if she lived out in the country, but not in town???? Do you really believe country cats are more valuable than city cats?:laughing: People who own dangerous animals themselves just see things differently from a lot of the rest of us.

No Bird, I don't think country cats are more valuable than city cats, just the fact that there are probably fewer restrictions "law wise" pertaining to discharging a firearm "out in the country" compared to "in the city".

You still cant get the fact that I can understand why the woman did what she did, can you?

As far as "accidents" go, my point was that negligence due to the dogs owner was shown as not to be a contributing factor to the incident. Now, if the dogs owner was shown to be negligent in the incident, I'm guessing that would give the homeowner a little more leeway as far as the actions they could of taken within city limits. Since I'm not a lawyer, I don't know this for a fact, do you?

The fact is, the woman was not in fear for her life at the time she went for her firearm, she was in fear for her cat's life. I can't help the fact that she lived in the city that had firearm ordinances. Like I said, work to change the law.

Better yet, when you were in law enforcement, did you let people break the law if nothing bad happened if they broke it? We're not talking about jaywalking here, but discharging a firearm within city limits. Can you comprehend the fact that I could also understand that she shouldn't be charged if she thought her life was in danger?

 

[Bird]

Can you comprehend the fact that I could also understand that she shouldn't be charged if she thought her life was in danger?

Can you comprehend the fact that if she violated the law by discharging a firearm in the city limits to protect her cat (or other property), she would also be violating the same law if she discharged her firearm in defense of her person or life?

There are exceptions to every rule. So why do you think it would have been OK in one scenario, but not another? The fact of the matter is that, in Texas at least, there are a number of circumstances in which it is legal for a person to use deadly force to protect property, regardless of any city ordinance about discharging a firearm.

 

[Sigarms]

Can you comprehend the fact that if she violated the law by discharging a firearm in the city limits to protect her cat (or other property), she would also be violating the same law if she discharged her firearm in defense of her person or life?

There are exceptions to every rule. So why do you think it would have been OK in one scenario, but not another? The fact of the matter is that, in Texas at least, there are a number of circumstances in which it is legal for a person to use deadly force to protect property, regardless of any city ordinance about discharging a firearm.

Simple question...is it legal in Dallas city limits to shoot a dog on your property if the dog in question is attacking your cat?

Why it would be ok in my mind comparing the different scenarios is if you thought your life was in danger.

As I've mentioned previously, this is one of many reasons why I live in the "country".