GA Woman Shoots Neighbors Dog

[mohillbilly]

Quote:



Obviously, neither of you has ever attempted to get restitution for a financial loss. Yes, that "fantastic system" sounds good on paper, however in practice, it doesn't work out quite so great.

as a matter of fact I have gotten restitution for a couple of financial losses ....Here they have a crime restitution fund and when someone is found guilty of a crime and ordered to pay restitution they pay the fund and it pays you ....the fund is run by the courts so failure to pay gets you back in jail with a contempt of court charge.

You should have put the lien on his house then sent a registered letter with your bill giving him 30 days to pay ...then when he didnt pay filed a foreclosure with the courts and taken the property from him....I have done this and yes it cost more money but in the end you get the property.

 

[Mattemma]

That fund is a great idea.Good place you live Mohillbilly!

I did not know anyone could put liens on a home for any type of bill. Always heard of contractors doing it,but no one else.

 

[mohillbilly]

anyone that does work on a home or its grounds is considered a contractor by the courts.
the building i took was a apartment building with 30 apartments in it and i took it after doing 1500.00 in landscaping and then not getting paid....I have anyone I'm going to do work for sign a contract just for this reason. he refused to pay the 1500 then didn't show in court when I got the lien or when I foreclosed ...he showed at the auction when i sold the building and won the auction but it cost him 40,000 instead of the 1500 as once i foreclosed it became mine.

 

[Mattemma]

You got him good! Wonder if he learned his lesson to pay those bills. Good idea on the contract clause. Wish my brother would have done that.He was always crying about people scamming after a job was done, but then not wanting to spend the money to put a lien on them.

 

[redhen]

Another example of someone being "trigger happy", .. :/

 

[hdowden]

its hard to choose whosside to be on as there is not enough info for an accurate assumption...in one hand you have the dogs roaming the streets which the leash laws all forbid them to do. on the other hand you have the women who took a guess that the dog killed the rabbit and was protecting her rabbits. fact being she had no right to shot the dog.
1. she did not see the dog kill/attacking the rabbit.
2. if said dog had attacked rabbit blood would be around the muzzle. (i do know this as a fact)
3. she had the dogtied which made it a non threatening animal on which animal control should have been called. since said dog was tied as well as not seeing it attack/kill rabbit it's against the law to shot the dog.
4. dogs shouldnt have been roaming in the first place but without the dog posing a threat towards human or animal you can not shot it, just call animal control
to me both parties need to be fined owners of dogs for letting them roam and the woman for shooting the dog after it posed no threat (animal cruelty)
the dogs could have been attracted to her yard by the smell of the dead rabbit and they were investigating as there are many different predators that could have killed the rabbit and without knowing if said rabbit was mangled or not that means the rabbit could have died by some other means other than an animal.

 

[SassyKat6181]

It is one thing to protect your livestock, but it is another to tie up the dog and then shoot it. Clearly it wasn't a vicious beast if she was able to get a leash on it. The authorities should have been called to take the dog. And if she felt she was justified in killing the dog, why not kill the pup with it?

 

[dainerra]

really, the fault is entirely on the woman. I'm a big fan of "shoot the dog" I don't even believe that you should do the "shovel and shut up" part.

But, the woman doesn't KNOW that the dog killed the rabbit. And no, blood on the muzzle means nothing. Dead animals have blood in them, so blood on the muzzle doesn't automatically mean it killed the rabbit. If dog killed the animal, it could have licked the blood off, so no blood doesn't automatically mean that it DIDN'T kill the rabbit.

Second, she tied the dog up. The minute she was able to catch the dog and restrain it, she lost all rights to use lethal force. The dog was no longer a threat.

Here in AR, all I need is a reasonable belief that the dog had attacked or was getting ready to attack livestock. And that includes running and jumping on the fences since the caged animals can hurt themselves in a panic. But, if I catch the dog, then it isn't doing any of those things nor CAN it do those things.

Personally, I say throw the book at her. Stupid actions like that are the things that make the responsible among us lose the right to defend our livestock and property.

 

[mestaske]

Just read the first page of replies. I am on the womans side. Tying up the dog execution style? Please. How do we kill our chickens? We catch them and then do it we don't try to shoot them whle they are walking around with the possibility of hitting something else by accident. I caught a raccoon and shot it, I didn't let it out to shoot it. Around where I live people realize that if your animal is doing this, it is likely to get shot. Honestly, if it kills animals it will keep doing it unless the owner is constantly keeping it caged somehow. Who is to say that the dog has more right that other animals?Also, just because you can catch an animal doesn't mean it does not have the potential to hurt animals. My uncle and aunt have chickens and a tiny little terrier, you would never think she was vicious but it is in her blood. When she got out back by accident while the chickens were out she went crazy.

 

[dainerra]

sorry, but the law is pretty clear on this, that is the problem. You can only shoot the dog when it is an active danger to your livestock. You can't shoot it because it came back, for example. Once she had captured the dog, she had several alternatives to shooting it. Her actions opened her up to a world of legal trouble, especially since she admitted to the police what happened.

There is enough bad press when the public hears about a "defenseless" dog being shot by the mean old farmer. Cases like this just add fuel to the fire.