Again, and Again and Again...when does it stop?

An unpleasant situation, but yes, one with a happy ending, or happy as one can be after a totally unnecessary shooting (with only the article as a source).



I know we don't usually see eye to eye on LEO issues, so don't take this the wrong way, but are you exagerating this statement for effect, or do you honestly believe that a loss of animal life justifies taking a human life?

So, if someone is in your yard and draws a bead, then fires on your dog, what's to say that you are not next? I don't care if it's an intruder, an LEO or Jesus H Christ, if someone draws a weapon with intent to harm any member of my family, it's all about the on....
 
So, if someone is in your yard and draws a bead, then fires on your dog, what's to say that you are not next? I don't care if it's an intruder, an LEO or Jesus H Christ, if someone draws a weapon with intent to harm any member of my family, it's all about the on....

I was asking Raoul Duke about his personal opinion, which he answered politely and privately. [grin]

However, to answer your question, if someone were in my yard and drew a bead on my dog and shot them, yes, I would correct their lead deficiency without hesitation.

But with that said, the news article doesn't say that some random person entered the yard and shot the dog. It says:

Gutierrez, who was then a Teton County Sheriff's deputy, was investigating a report that a dog had bitten someone.

and

Authorities said that between Oct. 25 and Nov. 12, deputies responded four times to complaints about the dog, most from a woman who said the dog had mauled her, according to the Associated Press.

As it was reported, I don't believe the LEO was right to shoot the dog. But, I personally don't view pets as a member of my family, and although I would certainly be upset, shooting the cop who shot my dog probably wouldn't help the more human members of my family.

My intent is to be informative, not combative, so don't take offense at me quoting your post.
 
My intent is to be informative, not combative, so don't take offense at me quoting your post.

What information are you trying to present in your informative post? The LEO was absolutely wrong to shoot the dog. It wouldn't have happened that way were I the dog owner.
 
While I am certainly not defending the (former) LEO in this scenario was he not charged and convicted?

The tone of the thread is such that he was allowed to get away with it.

He was charged, fired and convicted and sentenced to jail.

There was recently a case down on the Cape where two thugs (one with a lengthy prior record) took two pit bulls into the conservation area for a walk and shot both dogs dead with an AR-15. Each dog was shot about 20 times. They then left the dogs.

They were caught and confessed.

They did not get sentenced to jail.
 
While I am certainly not defending the (former) LEO in this scenario was he not charged and convicted?

The tone of the thread is such that he was allowed to get away with it.

He was charged, fired and convicted and sentenced to jail.

There was recently a case down on the Cape where two thugs (one with a lengthy prior record) took two pit bulls into the conservation area for a walk and shot both dogs dead with an AR-15. Each dog was shot about 20 times. They then left the dogs.

They were caught and confessed.

They did not get sentenced to jail.

Which is a tragedy...The sentences/penalties for animal cruelty are ludicrous - rarely larger than a slap on the wrist. Obviously the former officer met with a jurisdiction that penalizes barbaric behavior and likely holds officers charged with serving the public to a higher standard.....
 
Which is a tragedy...The sentences/penalties for animal cruelty are ludicrous - rarely larger than a slap on the wrist. Obviously the former officer met with a jurisdiction that penalizes barbaric behavior and likely holds officers charged with serving the public to a higher standard.....

Animal cruelty laws themselves are insane. Unfortunately, it's really hard to make black and white laws in these areas.

First, dogs are property. Anyone who knows me realizes my pup is part of the family, but legally, she should just be property. Someone shooting my dog, legally, should be depriving me of property and convicted appropriately. Personally, the blow would be far greater than stealing something from me of equivalent monetary worth.

Furthermore, I should be able to do what I will with my property providing it's not "cruel". That's where the hang-up is. Most of us can agree that pouring gasoline on any animal and lighting it is cruel. Many of us agree that shooting an animal is not cruel. The MSPCA will prosecute many methods of killing an animal that I would think is not cruel, but they do. They informed me I would be prosecuted for poisoning, drowning, gassing, etc a squirrel. Rat poison is sold in stores, though. There is just no clear line.
 
What information are you trying to present in your informative post? The LEO was absolutely wrong to shoot the dog. It wouldn't have happened that way were I the dog owner.

My point (poorly expressed, I'll admit) was that it wasn't a random act of violence, the police had been called several times for reports of issues/attacks with that dog, and they responded. Yes, the LEO responded incorrectly IMO, but it wasn't a Godfather-style surprise "hit." It was incorrect police response to an ongoing issue.
 
My point (poorly expressed, I'll admit) was that it wasn't a random act of violence, the police had been called several times for reports of issues/attacks with that dog, and they responded. Yes, the LEO responded incorrectly IMO, but it wasn't a Godfather-style surprise "hit." It was incorrect police response to an ongoing issue.

Not necessarily, at least from the information given. There is no mention of citations or charges. It states the complaints were primarily from a single party who also claims to have been mauled, yet the dog was still in the home. The LEO didn't just respond incorrectly, he responded criminally.
 
A former Teton County Sheriff's deputy who shot a dog three times after its owner had tied it to a tree pleaded guilty Wednesday to misdemeanor trespassing, according the Idaho Attorney General's Office.

Gutierrez can ask the judge to have the guilty plea taken off his record if he completes probation successfully.

Gutierrez, who was then a Teton County Sheriff's deputy, was investigating a report that a dog had bitten someone.

The sheriff's deputy asked Barboza to tie the dog to a nearby tree, and the dog owner complied.


Authorities said that between Oct. 25 and Nov. 12, deputies responded four times to complaints about the dog, most from a woman who said the dog had mauled her..
...also said the unidentified woman who made the complaint has a reputation for making false reports.


Un Friggin real!!! Sheriff tells the dog owner to go tie the dog to a tree so he can then shoot it 3 times??

The woman complaining, history of false accusations, where are the wounds? Where is the civil suit?

Cop is "investigating a complaint" not has a warrant to go on property, order person to tie to to tree and then use it as target practice while owner watches.

And if he's good, he gets it taken off his record and probably his job back? that'll teach him!!!
 
Last edited:
shocked.gif


Not really, but the dog did survive. What the heck did the Deputy use? [thinking]

Must have been a 9mm [wink]
 
Back
Top Bottom