Ed Harris Redmond man shoots dog attacking chickens remember me????

[erafter]

I said this before. You all are great.

The systems we have to live in are insane and they work only for the law breakers and the lawyers.
Today I was told. It would cost me $15000. to sue for defamation of character and if I did win it could take years to collect if at all. We may also get them on trespassing.

My family’s metal, emotional, spiritual pain the sleepless nights the fear cannot be gone after.

If we had been bit or knocked down mauled or killed there would have been no end to the money…. and the lawyers to help get it.

I truly wonder what or why a fence would make a difference. If they get over or under or through we would still be looking at the same outcome.

It’s like you built the house your liable for the thief’s wanting in…

We need to get organized and take are yards back...

 

[erafter]

Wombat Thank you.

I'll see what I can do for the e-mails. I like what you said and would like to use it at the council meeting.


These are some of the dog rules vs. chickens

C. No person shall kill any dog for killing, wounding or chasing chickens upon a public place, highway or within the corporate limits of any city.
(Ord. 95 031 §1, 1995; Ord. 90 019 §1, 1990)

Question the dogs were on my private property… trespassing.

6.12.018. Definition-Chasing.
"Chasing" means causing livestock to move from a place or remain in a place involuntarily.
(Ord. 97-011 §1, 1997)

The police question was the dogs truly chasing????


Leash laws. yes. Can’t give ticket they have to witness owner breaking the law.

Dogs at large. yes Same witness thing.

Nuisance yes

6.12.030. Killing, Wounding or Injuring Livestock Nuisance.
A. Except as provided in DCC 6.12.030(C), any dog, whether licensed or not, that, while off the premises of its owner or keeper, kills, wounds, or injures any livestock not belonging to the owner or keeper of such dog, is a public nuisance and may be killed immediately by any person. However, nothing in DCC 6.12.030 applies to any dog acting under the direction of its owner or keeper, or the agents or employees of such owner or keeper.
B. If any dog, not under the control of its owner or keeper, is found chasing or feeding upon the warm carcass of livestock not the property of such owner or keeper it shall be deemed prima facie, as engaged in killing, wounding or injuring livestock.
D. No person shall kill any dog for killing, wounding or chasing chickens upon a public place, highway or within the corporate limits of any city.
(Ord. 95 031 §1, 1995; Ord. 90 019 §1, 1990)

The whole witness thing again.

 

[wombat]

The witness thing might have worked against you when you were being considered for criminal charges for shooting the dog, but if Gapp goes after you in a civil suit, the burden of proof is on him.

You appear to have the law on your side ... that part about within the corporate limits of any city is odd though ... are you inside the corporate limits of a city? I suppose that is in there as to prevent the chicken chasing law from being used to permit the discharge of a firearm where it is otherwise prohibited.

His dog was illegaly at large. Though the police did not see the dog running loose, as I recall, the police were at your place when Gapp approached and said his dog was missing. It was therefore not on a leash attached to Gapp ... and he appears to have made public statements that substantiate that the dog was roaming at large, and because he allowed it to, and did so on a regular basis. So ... although the police did not ticket Gapp for the dog having been running at large, it was quite arguably at large.

You yourself called the police to report the incident before you knew what happened to the dog or encountered Gapp. You reported that the dogs were harrasing your chickens. If Gapp denies this, the burden of proof is on him. The police should have at least looked into your claim ... scattered feathers all over the run? Damage to fencing? Dog tracks? Should not have been hard to tell whether the dogs had been there.

From the laws you cited, it appears that the dogs were considered to be enagaged in chasing. Not sure how the police could question "truly chasing" ... they were either chasing, or they weren't. I would expect that throwing themselves at a pen (that may or may not hold them back for long) would cause them to move from one place to another involuntarily, hence, the dogs were chasing.

You are not required to have a witness in order to act within your rights.

If Gapp alleges that you were off the property and shot the dog, he has no witness to this either. All he has is that the dog was found off the property, which is rather easily explained given the caliber of the weapon used.

I agree that it is not likely to be worth trying to sue this guy for defamation. On the other hand, if he wants to hire a lawyer to play the cheap threatening letter game, you have the option of doing the same, and having yours point out that you have a better case than he has. I would expect that the insurance company's lawyers are well versed in dealing with his approach.

 

[erafter]

Yes you are right. This whole event is nothing but a tragedy and joke on justice. My Insurance is on it and I see it as nothing more the extortion. They are now claiming the dogs were never on my property. They claim I just hunted them down and shot them off site.
My poor children blame themselves for this all because they pushed and really wanted the birds. None of this would have happened had we not got the birds. I’ve done everything in my power to clear that thought from their heads. I have to show them that is not true that we are the victims of a system that fails it’s most innocent members our children deserve better. People like Mr. Gapp reckless, selfish, and dishonest to themselves who is truly at fault for the death of his dog. It must be hard to carry the shame of the choice he made and be the sole responsible party for so much pain for a dog he had 30 day or less and dissevered more then he could give.

6. Newness. A new dog in the house is dangerous for the first 60 days, and a person who is new to a household where a dog resides is in danger of attack for the first 60 days. In 2007 and 2008, 20% of fatal dog attacks involved a new person or dog sharing a household for a period of two months or less.

Here are the rest of the stats.

Dog Attack Danger Scale
Here are the 6 danger-signs that warn of a dog attack. Knowing them can keep you and your children safe.
1. A dog in its own yard, and no master present. In 2008, 78% of the human fatalities were by dogs in their own yard.
2. Pit bull, Rottweiler, Akita or Chow. Most fatal dog attacks are by pit bulls. In 2008, 65% of the fatalities were by pit bulls.
3. The pack mentality. Three dogs are worse than 2, 4 are worse than 3, etc. Docile dogs often become uncharacteristically violent and vicious when they are in a pack. In 2008, 39% of the fatalities involved multiple dogs.
4. Chained or tethered. Dogs that are tied up are dangerous. In 2008, 9% of the fatalities involved chained dogs.
5. Male. Male dogs are several times more dangerous than female dogs. Unneutered male dogs are the worst.
6. Newness. A new dog in the house is dangerous for the first 60 days, and a person who is new to a household where a dog resides is in danger of attack for the first 60 days. In 2007 and 2008, 20% of fatal dog attacks involved a new person or dog sharing a household for a period of two months or less.

The presence of any one factor indicates danger. Two or more of these danger-signs should be avoided at all costs…

 

[wombat]

Hang in there ... the system is slow, but usually works out in the end.

Many years ago, I was faced with the difficult task of laying off about 15% of my staff due to budgetary and economic conditions. I lost a lot of sleep over the task, and put a lot of time into deciding who I would keep on and why.

One of those employees sued me for discrimination. I had a lot of people on my staff, and the demographics of who was kept or let go happened to correspond to the overall demographics, though I had never once considered anyone's "protected status" in my decision. Since that angle didn't pan out, the guy then alleged that it was his supervisor, one of my subordinates, who had made the decision. Oddly enough, the supervisor was both a minority and well over 40, so two protected categories himself.

The disgruntled employee tried to bring suit via both the local and state EEO, and they told him he had no case. We were a bit suprised to be served with a federal EEO suit, as these have higher criteria than state cases generally do.

It came out in deposition that he had fabricated many of the "facts" in his own EEO filing, because, as he said, under oath, he knew if he didn't state those things, he could not bring suit. He had his cheap lawyer sitting with him through all this. I'm no lawyer, but I could have kicked his lawyer's butt in a legal match myself, he was that bad. Cheap lawyers are a dime a dozen.

It was a pain in the butt, but the case got dismissed.

This guy would have to be off his rocker to go into a deposition and lie under oath to bring suit against you, just my opinion.

 

[horsejody]

Let's not forget. It is legal for Ed to have chickens. It is illegal to let your dogs roam. Under the city statutes, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in the city limit, UNLESS you are protecting your property. Ed was protecting his property. You cannot shoot a dog for harassing chickens within the city limits, but you can shoot one to protect your turkeys. The dogs were also harrassing the turkeys. Ed shot the dog with a pellet gun. Under Oregon law, a pellet gun is not considered a firearm, but it is considered a firearm under the city code. That city has some wierd codes. The dogs were behaving in a vicious and uncontrolled manner and threatened Ed by running at him. Ed had no way of knowing if the 2 dogs involved were somebody's pets or feral drop offs. The dog owner is an idiot. Let him spend his money trying to prove Ed did something wrong. I hope Gapp goes broke doing it.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Be sure to counter sue to recover all our expenses in defending yourself. You should also look into whether you can file for defamation of character in small claims court.

 

[erafter]

As promised here are the people to contact for me please....

Mayor Redmond Oregon
[email protected]

Police Chief Redmond Oregon
[email protected]

City Councilors Redmond Oregon
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Deschutes County Commissioners

Tammy Baney
Dennis Luke
Alan Unger

Board of Commissioners' e-mail to reach all three with one e-mail message: [email protected]

We need these people write and informed....

 

[kagedgoddess]

take him to judge judy, let HER tear into him, lol.

i think mr gapp is am idiot And i seriously would think your insuarnce company would fight him with their lawyers considering he is lying and there has already been a court case about this.
we had a man hit our car and then give false info to us about his name etc, (luckily he forgot to pick up his license plate, lol) our insurance co tracked him down and forced his insurance to pay. we got a check for our deductable about 3 yrs later. imagine Mr gapp having stirred up a lawsuit he will have to fight for 3 yrs! our home and car ins were the same company. Anyways, maybe call them and make sure They know the Facts.

My question is tho, if he says You went Off your property to shoot his dog, How and Why is he going after your home owners ins?
seriously tho call his bluff, to me it sounds like he has a "friend" who is a lawyer and may be encouraging this. if he actually does enter into suit, file countersuit.

 

[MoTownChickie]

What a bunch of BS.

Of course, the idiot owner is engaging in the American pastime of "blame somebody else (BSE). Things don't go your way? BSE
You fell down because you weren't paying attention? BSE
You burnt yourself of hot coffee you purchased from a McDonalds? BSE
etc. etc. etc.

I'm sure he is doing this to make himself feel better - yeah, I broke the leash law, yeah; I couldn't see my dogs; yeah, they were molesting livestock on anothers personal land; yeah, this wasn't the first time I'd acted irresponsibly; yeah, it was a new dog and I didn't know its behaviors yet, but hey, somebody else has to be to blame.
And if BSE, then perhaps I can make some money off them too...

Some of my pet peeves:
People not taking personal responsibility.
People treating the legal system like buying a lotto ticket - maybe I'll strike it rich. (don't get me started. I'm in the legal field and know all the BS cases attorneys will take - however there has to be some person bringing it to their attention in the first place!)

I'm so sorry this happened and continues to haunt your family.
It stinks.