Emotions are one thing, laws another, and just plain common sense is yet another.And consideration of the rights and yes, feelings of someone else, another matter, as well.
Dog owner was wrong if dog was allowed to run loose with his knowledge. The story doesn't say that this was the case or not. Maybe to dog had gotten out, usually being confined. Who of us haven't had that happen, an animal we normally keep up, gets out..
But, the legal burden IS on the woman that shot it.
* She didn't witness the attack...there were two dogs. The story doesn't even say there was blood on the dog. She doesn't know the dog she shot is the dog that killed the rabbit.
*At that point, there was no immediate attack. That the dog was obviously gentle enough for her to catch and tie up nor anything else in the story suggests she was in any fear of the dog herself.
*Once tied up, she had the animal under control...it could not continue any attack and wasn't at risk of running away, escaping. And she knew the animal belonged to the neighbor.
*She had to go get a gun. Time to think, not an immediate act in the heat of a moment.
* Even if a person had murdered another person, once the offender is restrained and in safe custody, the murder victim's family can't legally shoot and kill him.
*AT THAT POINT SHE HAD MOVED FROM PROTECTING HER PROPERTY, TO A CALCULATED ACT OF VENGEANCE AGAINST AN ANIMAL THAT WAS NOT A THREAT, AND THAT SHE KNEW BELONGED TO HER NEIGHBOR, WAS HIS PROPERTY.
* There is no mention of her claiming this was a repeat offense, and therefore that the owner had any reason to suspect this might happen. The owner claims there had been no history of the dog attacking other animals. anything unrelated to this incident, such as the dog had a grown puppy, is irrelevant. It adds no justifcation to her shooting the dog, or the owner's responsiblity for the incident.
* Killing the dog would not bring her rabbit back. Killing the dog just deprived the other owner of his dog, his property. Her act was of vengeance against that owner, as well as the dog.
*Under many, even most, state/local laws, at that point, she was legally obligated to contact police, to record the indicident and make sure the owner was informed. The owner likely would have been fined and had to pay for the rabbit.
As for her emotional attachment to the rabbit, the rabbit is DEAD, nothing is going to change that.
The other person's dog was ALIVE, killing it wouldn't bring the rabbit back to life, and she was inflicting DELIBERATELY hurt and loss upon HIM, though his part in her own loss was not deliberate.
When it comes to protecting/defending our livestock, especially shooting dogs, both law and common sense and respect for others tell us this kind of matter is quite different from feral running dogs, repeated attacks, unknown owners, or owners that have been informed and warned their dogs are doing harm, and have ignored it.
If my, or your dog, usually confined, got out and did something like this, wouldn't we want the chance to make it good as best you can, and keep the dog up better? In my opnion, it is WRONG to assume the dog owner doesn't care, wouldn't react responsibly, make good our damages and make sure it doesn't happen again...we would want that chance, I think we should give that to others.
Should any dog that kills or would kill a chicken or rabbit be destroyed? NO! As long as an owner isn't willfully letting that happen, he/she has a right to keep their dog.
I'm for throwing the book at the woman.
