Ed Harris the shooter remember me story goes on>>>>

[Tweeza]

Quote:
Editted to say: Sorry, this was a computer misfire. Can you delete stuff like this?

 

[erafter]

Hello I'm working on this summon so I can show you'all

I told you all before thank you, We are new to are area and are feel very attacked.
Please pray for my wife she is really hurt by all this, my kids have asked do they have to go to court we saw the dogs they can't understand the lies....
they are asking is this ever going to stop.

 

[erafter]

We are looking at all available options I feel like most of you there is not much room for Gapps story given that if need be my kids have to talk. That maybe all the better to really show the judge what Gapps about what gets me the hardest is that we talked he knew my kids saw the dogs yelled at them and still goes on this angry attack pray that the system see Gapp has nothing more than and irresponsible member of our society
I’ve told my children we need to forgive him and they say they have

Also from the report and his own word the Gapps had that dog for 30 days
Yes my children raised these birds from chicks holding them in the evening while they watched TV we kept them in the house until I finished the coop. they got so big we had to clean the boxes a couple times a day but the kids did most the work they were great

They still hold these birds in the pen. The chickens trust. They eat out of their hands.
Would follow them anywhere.

 

[erafter]

Hello all
I'm meeting with an attorney today. Who sounds great.
Has handle cases like this. Sounds like he just did one…
We could use your prayers
I’m still typing up the summons so you all can take a look at it.
I want everyone to know what I and my family are going through.
He says state law makes it simple I have a right to protect my property
He may have me stop talking. I don’t know.
I do have the summons rough draft trying to decide if I should show it without the Numbers yet???


Here it comes

 

[erafter]

At all times relevant hereto, plaintiffs were the owners of a young female Golden
Retriever dog named "Kellie" who was a companion animal kept and maintained on plaintiff’s private residential property in Redmond. On June 19, 2009, Kellie was off of plaintiffs' property.

On that date, Mr. Harris observed Kellie, shot at her twice with two, different
Weapons and killed her with the second weapon.
Just before and during the incident, the dog had not exhibited any aggressive
Behavior to Mr. Harris nor to any animal on Mr. Harris's property, had not posed any threat to Mr. Harris nor to any animal on Mr. Harris's property, and neither Mr. Harris nor any animal on Mr. Harris's property had been in any physical danger from the dog during any part of the incident.

At all times relevant hereto a reasonable person in Mr. Harris's circumstances.
Would have been aware that Kellie was a companion animal.

Immediately after the incident, Mr. Harris made statements admitting his actions and his responsibility for his actions.

Plaintiffs had owned and formed a relationship with Kellie since obtaining her, caring for and being cared for by each. Plaintiffs and Kellie had been close companions throughout that period and Kellie had special value to the plaintiffs, aiding each of the plaintiffs in turn in their well-being, growth, development, and daily activities.

Plaintiffs had obtained Kellie as a companion pet. As of June 19,2009, plaintiffs had invested significant amounts of time and money into the dog and had taken active steps, including accumulating specific resources and materials for those purposes.

The expect normal life span of Kellie was 15-18y ears and plaintiffs reasonably anticipated that, with training, the dog would act as an effective and close personal companion for plaintiffs for the majority of those years. As of June of 2009, the dog had already begun fulfilling the roles plaintiffs had developed for her, and her value in those regards was increasing such that plaintiffs reasonable anticipated obtaining further economic benefit from the future development of the dog as a fully trained personal companion.
At the time of the incident and before both John and JoAnn Gapp were health and active adults, fully capable of engaging in, and actually engaging in, normal day-to-day mental and physical activities.
Since the incident, their ability to perform and enjoy their usual activities, including family and work-related activities, has been impaired due to the incident. Each has suffered emotional distress and despair affecting their psychological development, as well as physical manifestations there of including, but not limited to, nausea, sleeplessness and physical stress as a result of the incident.

As a consequence of the incident, plaintiffs have incurred economic and noneconomic damages, including loss of the special value of Kellie, and emotional distress from the incident. Mr. Harris's actions destroyed and thus permanently compromised the value of plaintiffs' dog as their valuable personal property, and destroyed and thus permanently compromised plaintiffs' relationship with the dog. The specific factors supporting Kellie's special value to plaintiffs include, but are not limited to:

a) the length of time that plaintiffs had invested in the dog during which plaintiffs spent money and energy caring for, working with, training, developing maintaining good health on, fostering the personality of, and promoting the life and usefulness of the dog;
the particular and peculiar physical qualities, the particular and peculiar behavioral characteristics, and the particular and peculiar pedigree of the dog that made her unique and desirable compared to other dogs of similar age and breed ")
b) the length of time that the dog would have continued to live, based on the normal longevity of the breed, that plaintiffs lost in terms of use and enjoyment of the dog; d) the dog's aesthetic use and utility to plaintiffs for work, entertainment pleasure and a as personal companion; and e) the dog's usefulness and value to plaintiffs' own residential and social communitie.

FIRST CLAIM for RELIEF Conversion

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-14, inclusive, as set forth above.

On June1 9, 2009 defendant intentionally exercised dominion or control over plaintiffs' personal property to wit, the dog Kellie, permanently The manner in which defendant exercised such dominion or control was both inconsistent with, and seriously interfered with, plaintiffs' rights as the property's owners to use, control and enjoy the benefit of the dog as their personal property Plaintiffs have lost the full value of the use of the dog as their personal property. Permanently due to defendant's acts

As a result of the intentional conduct of defendant as alleged above plaintiffs have suffered economic and noneconomic damages as more specifically set forth in the prayer below.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF _
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraph 1- 14, inclusive as set forth above

In engaging in the acts alleged above on June 19, 2009 defendant shot and killed
Kellie knowing that the dog was another's domestic pet, and defendant intended to inflict mental and emotional distress on plaintiffs in so doing Defendant’s acts constituted specific violations of law

In the alternative there existed a special relationship between plaintiffs and defendant in that plaintiffs were the neighbors of defendant in an outlying rural community.

Defendant's acts as alleged were conducted with malice and caused severe mental and emotional mental and emotional distress to plaintiffs on account of and within the confines of that special relationship

Defendant's acts in fact caused plaintiffs' severe mental and emotional distress

Defendant's acts in shooting and killing Kellie in the manner that he did were an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct, and/or exceeded any reasonable limit of social toleration.

Defendant's acts were unlawful, willful, and malicious The distress plaintiffs suffered was in time and manner sufficiently substantial such that a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities should suffer under the circumstances and plaintiffs foreseeable did so

As a result of the intentional conduct of defendant as alleged above, plaintiffs have suffered economic and noneconomic damages as more specifically set forth in the prayer below.

PAGE 5 _COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF _ LOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs 1 -14, Inclusive as set forth above

Before and on June 19, 2009 ,Kellie was the animal companion of plaintiffs and provided each plaintiff with solace, affection, friendship, love, and protection for a substantial period of time up until the date of the animal's death

As their animal companion in all those respects Kellie maintained a special relationship with plaintiffs, situationally and emotionally similar to that of a human family member or relation.

As of June 19,2009 defendant was aware of all or some aspect of the relationship and intentionally acted In the manner that he did on June 19, 2009 ,in order to harm the
Relationship and/or in a manner that reasonable person would know or be aware that they would harm the relationship in doing so

In causing the death of Kellie in the manner that he did, defendant thereby destroyed that relationship and its intrinsic value, and consequently caused plaintiffs to permanently lose Kellie's companionship of the special nature described above.
That subsequent damage was a foreseeable result of the actions and misconduct of defendant as described As a result of the intentional conduct of defendant as alleged, plaintiffs have suffered economic and noneconomic damages as more specifically set forth in the prayer below


Prayer

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendant as follows:
1. For economic damages of $2500.00, including for the special value of Kellie at the time of loss based on the animal's qualities, characteristics and pedigree
2. 2. For non-economic damages of $3000.00, representing


PAGE 6 _COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

a. emotional distress of plaintiff John Gapp of $1500.00
b. emotional distress of plaintiff JoAnn Gapp of $1500.00

3. For reasonable attorney fees pursuant to ORS 20.080
4. For costs of suit; and,
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper


Plaintiffs reserve the right to plead punitive damages in this action at a later date.



DATED: October 22, 2009

 

[EweSheep]

Oh for Heaven's sake, the judge would throw this case out of the door! How in the heck Mr Gabb KNOWS what's happening in your yard, your chickens and the horrid sight your children heard or saw or both!!!!!!!!

I think the dog's owner is grabbing at all straws! He let the dog loose at will and he will pay for his own mistakes! Case closed!

 

[horsejody]

Ed, I sent you and e-mail with an attachment earlier. Did you get it?

 

[wombat]

That dog's not worth $2500 based on it's "pedigree and characteristics" unless they can show that they paid that for the dog, or that others paid similar amounts for other offspring in that same line, or that the dog has special training, earned titles, etc.

Anyone who claims a lifespan of 15 to 18 years for a Golden Retriever as being typical is smokin' something.

They are not backing up their claim of this dog being more hightly trained or in any way more desirable than other dogs of this breed with any tangible facts. How was this dog trained? By whom? What were the trainer's qualifications, and what was this dog specifically trained to do? Looks like a lot of lawyer Drat! to me. If they'd spent $1000 getting this dog trained for something in the month they had it, they'd have come out and said so.

I'm not a lawyer, but the dog being a "companion animal" confers little status under the law, in my opinion. In most states, animals are treated as property, and "market value" is generally the limit of liability. A handful of states have allowed intrinsic value for pets, but often only to the extent that courts have allowed that veterinary care exceeding the "market value" of a pet is a reasonable damage. For example, if your dog is hit by a reckless driver, and you spend $3000 on vet care instead of buying a new $750 dog, a court might find this to be reasonable given that it was a companion animal. That doesn't turn a dead $750 dog into a $3000 dog, though.

Again, "market value" would be best determined by what the plaintiff paid for the animal, unless there was verifiable proof that the animal had increased in value (specialized training, titles, etc.). I don't want to come off as calous here; I have pets, and I love my pets, but the law is the law ... and in most cases, the law treats pets as property and that's that.

Loss of companionship and emotional distress? Legally, I'd say this is rare to nonexistent when applied to pets. Especially a pet owned for a whole whoppin' 30 days. Again, I'm not a lawyer, just my opinion.

On top of all that, the obvious defense, regardless of what the dog was worth, how much it was loved, yada yada yada is that it was illegally roaming off leash, out of sight or control of its handler, and entered private property and harrased livestock. Case closed.

Gapp is making Ed's case for him, to some extent. Gapp indicates that the dog was shot by the same person but with two different weapons. The obvious question would be "why?" Out of sport, or because the first weapon was inadequate to drive off the dog? Ed's got plenty to back the answer being the latter, including being the one who called the police to report the incident.

I can see the interrogatory for this one ...

(Never mind the obvious questions regarding the establishment of the value of the dog ...)
Why was the dog off the plaintiff's property?
Was the dog leashed while off the plaintiff's property?
Was the plaintiff aware of the leash law governing the control of animals not on the plaintiff's property?
If the dog was not leashed, why was the dog not leashed?
Was the dog at any time not under control of the dog's handler?
Why was the dog not under control of the dog's handler?
Was the dog out of sight of the dog's handler?
How much time elapsed between when the dog was last oserved by the handler and when the dog was found by the handler?
How far was the dog found from where it was released by the handler?
What efforts did the handler make to regain control of the dog?
Why did the handler search for the dog in the vicinity of the defendant's property? Did the handler have reason to believe that the dog was roaming in the residential area, and not in the area where the dog had been released?
Was the dog in the company of other dogs while it was roaming?
Where was the dog's handler at the time that the alleged shooting incident occured?
Was the handler in a position to regain control of the dog during the alleged shooting incident?
Does the plaintiff dispute that the dog in question entered defendant's property?
Can the plaintif provide any evidence or witness testimony contradicting the defendant's claim that the dog was harassing defendant's animals on defendant's property?

I don't see how this gets past an interrogatory and taking Gapp's deposition. Seriously, given what you've read about this case, would you want to be Gapp and answering those questions under oath with a stenographer taking down your testimony in a deposition???

 

[EweSheep]

Good one, wombat!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Agreed.

Another thing to note is the strong and repeated implication that Gapp had owned the animal for a considerable periond of time. I won't attempt to give you words as you are the one who lived through it, but my first thought is to one by one rebut his statements. Take the copy you have above and, for example:

At all times relevant hereto, plaintiffs were the owners of a young female Golden
Retriever dog named "Kellie" who was a companion animal kept and maintained on plaintiff’s private residential property in Redmond. On June 19, 2009, Kellie was off of plaintiffs' property.
perhaps mention that she was off-leash and out of her owners sight, not because she had escaped her yard, but because Gapp deliberately took her off-leash and allowed her to roam at large.

On that date, Mr. Harris observed Kellie, shot at her twice with two, different
Weapons and killed her with the second weapon.
here is where you say what happened and why you used two separate weapoons, and exactly what they were. You might also list the technical specs on the weapon that killed her--how accurate it is at the distance fired--and your own qualifications or lack thereof--how often had you had occasion to shoot in the last month, year, etc. Have you ever been awarded any recognition for your marksmanship, etc.
Just before and during the incident, the dog had not exhibited any aggressive
Behavior to Mr. Harris nor to any animal on Mr. Harris's property, had not posed any threat to Mr. Harris nor to any animal on Mr. Harris's property, and neither Mr. Harris nor any animal on Mr. Harris's property had been in any physical danger from the dog during any part of the incident.
rebut this by stating exactly what occurred during this incident, how you felt, how your children reacted and how your birds reacted. Mention the non-presence of Gapp until however long afterwards it was that he showed up.

Anyways, answer each statement or claim. As appropriate acquire third party data, such as AKC information on the life expectancy of a Golden Retriever, or even data from several published books (be sure to include your sources in your response). List the date that the dog was acquired, and if possible the price paid. Research the local cost for obedence training--everything from chain petstore classes to private lessons. Look at the police reports filed and statements witnessed by the police or that Gapp provided that contradict his current claims or undermine them.

The more of the background work you can do the less time the attorney will have to spend, and that will save you many $$$. Attorney fees tend to run $200-400 per hour, at least here.

Somewhere in there tack on your request to recover all attorney and court fees based upon Gapp's callous disregard of leash laws, dangerous animal laws, trespassing laws, animals attacking livestock laws, etc. Make sure to mention the actual length of time your children and family devoted to raising their birds as compared with the beating around the bush implications of much time spent that are not in fact accurate. Toss in a few words about how his dog beseiged your home and property, endangering your family and livestock, who also happen to be pets. Throw in damages for your, your wife's and your children's emotional distress. If you have to take any time away from work or have associated costs for defending yourself in this suit, include them as well. As Wonbat said, the emotional impact may not end up carrying much weight, but fight fire with fire.​