Family pet mauled to death in bucklin

[Bubba]

On a semi-related note, the victims can apply for concealed carry weapons in July and then start carrying in January. After January while carrying if they feel threatened by the dog, they should be able to shoot and kill it to save their own life.

[TexKan]

The only charge I can see commin out of anything would be unlawful discharge of a firearm.......... how much is that???....... $50???? I woulda already had a ticket and a couple of dead dogs............... Dispatchers down here are a dime a dozen............. It's not like there is a Bachelor of Dispatch degree.............. good lord.......They do a fine job don't get me wrong and it's a very stressful job I'm sure. Don't give you a "free pass" when it comes to right and wrong...........

[Bubba]

Once the carry law becomes effective, I don't think they could even ticket you for unlawful discharge. If you are threatened and in fear of bodily harm or loss of life, I would think that self defense is valid and if you are licensed to carry, that firearm is a means of self defense. The final result is one dead dog and end of problem.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Once the carry law becomes effective, I don't think they could even ticket you for unlawful discharge. If you are threatened and in fear of bodily harm or loss of life, I would think that self defense is valid and if you are licensed to carry, that firearm is a means of self defense. The final result is one dead dog and end of problem.

I wouldn’t make any guesses about that Bubba. Part of the required training should be about what is legal and what ain’t. Unless I find out different, I’m assuming a CCW permit doesn’t allow any extra privileges or rights that don’t already exist. An unlawful discharge would still be an unlawful discharge.

In the case of a dog (or person) attacking you or your pet, that’s self-defense. To go after the dog (or person) after the fact would fall under the definition of “vigilante”. How many times have you hear opponents of CCW claim self-defense was “vigilante justice”? Too many for me.

[Bubba]

That's kinda what I meant, if you are trained and have a permit to carry you should be able to protect yourself. I thought I read in the thread that the dog is still loose and threatening. If so, the next time it theatened you, you would be within your rights to shoot the dog to protect yourself. By shooting the dog while it was threatening you it would fall under the category of self-defense and the discharge of the firearm wouldn't be unlawful because you were protecting yourself.

[TexKan]

I still can't believe the "victim dog's" owners have still done or said nothing..... no one is that nice and there is a way around every obstacle. I just don't understand.... politics or not...... that poor little doggie victim in my eyes deserved some hell raisin at least........... both sides just kinda irritate me when I think about it............ but hey..... maybe the rots could come visit auntie TK......... we could go fishin..... bout 9 miles offshore...... ya know lots of splashin and stuff......... maybe they could bring thier folks so they could watch em play in the water with the fishies.......... Plus we could have a fish fry to boot!!........... OK... every one start collectin for the train fare....... LOL

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by TexKan

..... maybe the rots could come visit auntie TK......... we could go fishin..... bout 9 miles offshore...... ya know lots of splashin and stuff.........

Can we say “shark bait”?

[Detector]

I don't think its so much the Vitim's haven't done anything but that they've found a pretty solid wall where they have gone. I believe their only recourse would be through a lawsuit. Its a small town and the rott's owners have already shown where they stand with the law.

[Fred Sanford]

The Smiths are pretty much known to be white trash and their response isn't unexpected. What is unacceptable is that the SO can look the other way while their employees flaunt the law. Worse, if their employees are allowing their PA to be used to harass the victim, that IS worthy of a lawsuit. Against the SO.

I wonder how funny the SO would think the situation is if they were defending a hefty lawsuit. Like I said before, I'll write the first check to pay for an attorney to sue the Smiths and/or the SO. Just say the word.

It is the responsibility of citizens to stand up to this kind of abuse of power. Those who won't fight for our rights, don't deserve them.

If the Smiths have done nothing wrong, that will come out too. Lets find out.

[TexKan]

If anyone was gonna do "the right" thing - they would have the wheels turnin by now. Both sides are meant for that comment.

Seems like it appawls us more than anyone else. It doesn't take an attorney to go to meetings with the Co. If a leash law was broken it doesn't matter who you are - the law is the law - IF you are persistant and don't let the "who they are"...... intimidate you - then you win by pure insistance. When ya give up cause your scared or would rather someone else fight your fight - then it ain't that important to ya to begin with. You are already beat all the rest of the excuses is to just make yourself feel better bout not doin anything.

If a law or ordinace was broken then there is something they can do. Persistance is better than any attorney you can buy when it comes to small town politcs......... Just based by what's on here there is support of the victim dog's family. It up to them to use that support in a positive manner. I wouldn't be happy just knowin....."well everyone felt I was in the right"....... I would have to act on it............. Like I said lucky it was them and not me....... too bad for the little dog that his owners are so mild mannered they just let it go by instead of stayin the course...............