Dog Shot in Norton

[bostonasphalt2]

As my in-law's explained it to me when my MIL shot Fido that got into her chickens, once a dog gets the taste of blood, it will keep coming back for more. I'll say she shot that thing without batting an eye!

I will say that the story posted yesterday by the purported family member provided the final proof to me that the family is responsible for this entire debacle, assuming what was posted is true. It was reported in that post that the dog escaping from the house was a constant occurrence and that the family was aware that the dog would disappear for long periods of time. So, clearly any steps that they had taken, knowing the dog always wanted to get out, were utterly insufficient. Hello......leash law.......responsible ownership..............How many times do you need to be hit over the head to understand you have a problem???

I am now convinced that these people were horrible dog owners, at least based on the record thus far.

lets continue this train of absolving the shooter and blaming the dog owner. Why not? I mean, its not like the public can't get in here and see the shit attitudes some of you have, and then use that to paint all gun owners with the same brush. Oh, wait, the public CAN get in here to see.

Given the facts there isn't enough info to point any blame right now, but the immediate jump to blame the victim is disgusting, and unintelligent drivel from brainless dipshits.

Great job fellas, you really make yourselves out to look like intelligent human beings

 

[ThePreBanMan]

If you don't know what you're shooting at, don't shoot. Durr. That is a needless mistake made by yahoo retards who have no business in the woods, hunting, or really even breathing. The coyote aint about to shoot back. It's not f***ing war, there is no HAVING to decide whether or not to shoot at something you cannot identify. This goes beyond just killing dogs... it's good life advice on how not to be stupid.

Mike

Dude - you have zero experience. Not trying to be offensive - but that much is obvious. Sometimes misidentification at distance, in cover, in a split second when you have a shooting lane - it can and does happen. There's no malicious intent. But truth be told an unattended and unrestrained domesticated dog is the last thing most hunters expect to see in the woods. BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T BE THERE! So when you see an animal like that under those conditions..... Until you spend some time chasing game in the woods - you'll never understand. You just don't get it.

FYI - I shoot coyote on sight and without hesitation. I bet 99% of whitetail hunters operate the same way. Especially if seeing one dogging a deer or a fawn. I guess I shouldn't be breathing in your world because I don't take time to go see if Fido has a collar on. Maybe I can lure him in with a milk bone next time. I can easily see many making the same mistake. I bet most hunters here see how it could happen. We all do our best - but even then mistakes can happen.

You don't get it bro, and to say someone should die because of a mistake.. A mistake that never would have happened had Fido's owners been responsible.... Screw you dude. You don't know what you're talking about. That's all I have to say.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Actually, it can be argued.

Suppose the police would not have arranged an autopsy/necropsy of the dog or bother to recover the bullet? It's not like a human victim where one can be assured there will be a reasonable forensic effort by the system.

I don't think any reasonable argument can begin with the word "suppose"... Sorry, my friend but that's fiction and fairytale land. Unless law enforcement recovers the evidence and handles it properly, it can and will be argued by even the most haphazard defense lawyer that evidence was tampered with, manipulated or even outright planted... and they'll win.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

oh good, the victim blaming patrol is here!

The owners aren't victims any more than someone who shoots someone else via negligent discharge is a "victim". The only victim here is the dog. The owners bear 99% of the blame.

 

[Dennis in MA]

The CSI Effect - when you believe that everything can be gleaned from a case as long as the scene isn't contaminated. Also, the case can be solved in less than 48 hours using tests that require a minimum of 96 hours to complete.

The CSI Miami Effect - that a blond bimbo will work said CSI case and can't remember which shoe goes on which foot - and speaks in a voice that matches her intelligence. (She was the DUMBEST box of rocks on that show. Best was when she wrote her own lines. They came out DUMBER!)

I'm hoping there is no conclusion here. Because there won't be one. With a shooter, you'll get more facts. . . . and nothing more. Eventually, someone will be prosecuted and possibly convicted on speculative evidence, at best. Let it die.

Oh, and for $8,100, I'd blame my BIL, but he lives a town away and doesn't own a gun.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

lol, no. If you do not know what is running, you don't shoot at it. You shoot once you've identified what you are shooting at. So no, "mistaking it for a coyote" is victim blaming and a bullshit cop out to try and justify your position.

No - you're wrong. End of story. Domesticated dogs have no place being in the woods unattended, unrestrained, and running free. Especially during hunting season. And I love how people who have obviously never spent a day in the woods are going to tell others how they should conduct themselves... That would be like me telling you how to pave a driveway and that you do it wrong - without a day's worth of experience under my belt.

The fact is that the perfect ideal conditions you describe - they don't exist in the real world of gun hunting. We have a thick understory in our woods. Animals at distances beyond 20 to 30 yards are often in thick cover, moving quickly, and shooting lanes are few and far between and usually partially obstructed. That's hunting in the real world! We all have to make a judgment call at the moment of truth. We all do our best. But no one is checking to see if Fido has a collar on at distance. That's how it is nearly 100% of the time. We all have to call the ball at the moment of truth. Sometimes people make bad judgment calls. We all do our best not to. That doesn't automatically mean that person is a bad person.

But to say someone shouldn't take a shot unless it fits your description of ideal conditions - that's a fairytale land in which no hunter would ever shoot anything. Because those conditions do not exist.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

The CSI Effect - when you believe that everything can be gleaned from a case as long as the scene isn't contaminated. Also, the case can be solved in less than 48 hours using tests that require a minimum of 96 hours to complete.

The CSI Miami Effect - that a blond bimbo will work said CSI case and can't remember which shoe goes on which foot - and speaks in a voice that matches her intelligence. (She was the DUMBEST box of rocks on that show. Best was when she wrote her own lines. They came out DUMBER!)

I'm hoping there is no conclusion here. Because there won't be one. With a shooter, you'll get more facts. . . . and nothing more. Eventually, someone will be prosecuted and possibly convicted on speculative evidence, at best. Let it die.

Oh, and for $8,100, I'd blame my BIL, but he lives a town away and doesn't own a gun.

No one is expecting CSI here, but having untrained and biased/partial people with a motive to punish doing their own investigative work and evidence gathering.... I'm sure that will end well for whoever stands accused....

 

[W.E.C]

lets continue this train of absolving the shooter and blaming the dog owner. Why not? I mean, its not like the public can't get in here and see the shit attitudes some of you have, and then use that to paint all gun owners with the same brush. Oh, wait, the public CAN get in here to see.

Given the facts there isn't enough info to point any blame right now, but the immediate jump to blame the victim is disgusting, and unintelligent drivel from brainless dipshits.

Great job fellas, you really make yourselves out to look like intelligent human beings

Agree, however...
1:$8100 buys a lot of fence to keep a hunting breed in the yard.
2: when dog owners buy a dog on looks or whatever without studying the needs of the breed , problems arise.
3: letting a coonhound out to bolt into the woods on its own is not “ exercise, “or training. It’s negligence.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

lets continue this train of absolving the shooter and blaming the dog owner. Why not? I mean, its not like the public can't get in here and see the shit attitudes some of you have, and then use that to paint all gun owners with the same brush. Oh, wait, the public CAN get in here to see.

Given the facts there isn't enough info to point any blame right now, but the immediate jump to blame the victim is disgusting, and unintelligent drivel from brainless dipshits.

Great job fellas, you really make yourselves out to look like intelligent human beings

Only about as intelligent as someone else who resorts to throwing insults around just because someone else has a different point of view...

 

[whalerman69]

Not for nothing but when I am in the woods I know the difference between a person, a deer, a dog and a coyote. If I'm not 110% sure of what I intend to pull the trigger on, even if that means a missed opportunity I'm not taking a shot. We do a lot of pushes and generally have a pretty good idea who's where but I have held off taking a shot when I thought it might be in general area of someone.

 

[crazymjb]

Dude - you have zero experience. Not trying to be offensive - but that much is obvious. Sometimes misidentification at distance, in cover, in a split second when you have a shooting lane - it can and does happen. There's no malicious intent. But truth be told an unattended and unrestrained domesticated dog is the last thing most hunters expect to see in the woods. BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T BE THERE! So when you see an animal like that under those conditions..... Until you spend some time chasing game in the woods - you'll never understand. You just don't get it.

FYI - I shoot coyote on sight and without hesitation. I bet 99% of whitetail hunters operate the same way. Especially if seeing one dogging a deer or a fawn. I guess I shouldn't be breathing in your world because I don't take time to go see if Fido has a collar on. Maybe I can lure him in with a milk bone next time. I can easily see many making the same mistake. I bet most hunters here see how it could happen. We all do our best - but even then mistakes can happen.

You don't get it bro, and to say someone should die because of a mistake.. A mistake that never would have happened had Fido's owners been responsible.... Screw you dude. You don't know what you're talking about. That's all I have to say.

Yeah, in the sense I would never shoot at something I couldn't positively identify unless there was a good chance it was gonna kill me, which a game animal or coyote will not.

And I never said someone should die, but I did insinuate idiots in the woods are a waste of oxygen. I've met some idiot hunters who bragged to me that when they got frustrated they just started taking random shots at squirrels with the rest of their deer slugs. Idiots like that have no business anywhere, and frankly that's what I picture when people say "herp derp I just shoot at movement." That is exactly why dogs, or people hanging their laundry, or walking in the woods get shot. And apart from the victim, the most damage done is to the hunting and sportsman community in general.

I said it's not life and death so there's no excuse to be shooting with 100% positive identification. It's not responsible. Because something is common practice and 99% of whitetail hunters do it doesn't make it smart, right, a good idea, or anything else. Sure, I'm not a hunter, but I've spent plenty of time in the woods. 2-3 hours a day almost every day for over 2 years when I lived in the boonies. I saw plenty of deer that were quite obviously deer.

Whenever I eventually get around to hunting, if I don't get anything, so be it, but I'm not gonna shoot at random shit because I'm too antsy. If I were living out on the frontier and I needed to eat to survive, or coyotes had a track record of flanking hunters and gutting them if not killed when spotted, then I'd change my tune. I'm not killing someones pet, or worse, because I'm too impatient to hunt responsibly. I get that it's hard... but you are basically saying in order to successfully hunt you need to be irresponsible. Maybe you should take up a different sport.

 

[Mountain]

No - you're wrong. End of story. Domesticated dogs have no place being in the woods unattended, unrestrained, and running free. Especially during hunting season. And I love how people who have obviously never spent a day in the woods are going to tell others how they should conduct themselves... That would be like me telling you how to pave a driveway and that you do it wrong - without a day's worth of experience under my belt.

The fact is that the perfect ideal conditions you describe - they don't exist in the real world of gun hunting. We have a thick understory in our woods. Animals at distances beyond 20 to 30 yards are often in thick cover, moving quickly, and shooting lanes are few and far between and usually partially obstructed. That's hunting in the real world! We all have to make a judgment call at the moment of truth. We all do our best. But no one is checking to see if Fido has a collar on at distance. That's how it is nearly 100% of the time. We all have to call the ball at the moment of truth. Sometimes people make bad judgment calls. We all do our best not to. That doesn't automatically mean that person is a bad person.

But to say someone shouldn't take a shot unless it fits your description of ideal conditions - that's a fairytale land in which no hunter would ever shoot anything. Because those conditions do not exist.

Your attitude regarding what constitutes a green light to take the shot explains something for me:

Humor aside, it seems like for excuses for not erring on the side of caution. Especially given your earlier comment, "Sometimes misidentification at distance, in cover, in a split second when you have a shooting lane - it can and does happen. There's no malicious intent." Regarding dogs- if you don't have a clear enough view to determine exactly what is the target- you NEVER take the shot. Some of us do spend a lot of time hunting in the woods and/or actually live in or at the edge of hunting grounds. No sh!t that the conditions are less than ideal in the New England woods. That doesn't excuse taking a shot without clear identification of the target and determining what might be impacted by a miss. What is this video game mentality of taking a shot without full consideration that a bad shot could be a life changing event for the one sending and/or receiving the bullet?

I recognize this mentality in a lot of hunters and have accordingly posted the woods within my property line for them to STFO. That and I have had multiple idiots actively hunting way too close to the house. Add to that my dogs are free to roam within the confines of my property and I recognize that dog shooting is a 'thing' here.

As a side note, I used to have access to some prime hunting land in the Ozarks. The neighboring farmer actually lost a cow to a dumbass hunter and every season would mark is cattle 'cow' with dayglo orange spray paint.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Not for nothing but when I am in the woods I know the difference between a person, a deer, a dog and a coyote. If I'm not 110% sure of what I intend to pull the trigger on, even if that means a missed opportunity I'm not taking a shot. We do a lot of pushes and generally have a pretty good idea who's where but I have held off taking a shot when I thought it might be in general area of someone.

....and I'm sure if you asked any hunter they would tell you the exact same thing.... yet mistakes still happen every year. But hey - I'm sure you've never been 100% sure of something in your life - and ever been wrong about it. We should all aspire to be as perfect.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Yeah, in the sense I would never shoot at something I couldn't positively identify unless there was a good chance it was gonna kill me, which a game animal or coyote will not.

And I never said someone should die, but I did insinuate idiots in the woods are a waste of oxygen. I've met some idiot hunters who bragged to me that when they got frustrated they just started taking random shots at squirrels with the rest of their deer slugs. Idiots like that have no business anywhere, and frankly that's what I picture when people say "herp derp I just shoot at movement." That is exactly why dogs, or people hanging their laundry, or walking in the woods get shot. And apart from the victim, the most damage done is to the hunting and sportsman community in general.

I said it's not life and death so there's no excuse to be shooting with 100% positive identification. It's not responsible. Because something is common practice and 99% of whitetail hunters do it doesn't make it smart, right, a good idea, or anything else. Sure, I'm not a hunter, but I've spent plenty of time in the woods. 2-3 hours a day almost every day for over 2 years when I lived in the boonies. I saw plenty of deer that were quite obviously deer.

Whenever I eventually get around to hunting, if I don't get anything, so be it, but I'm not gonna shoot at random shit because I'm too antsy. If I were living out on the frontier and I needed to eat to survive, or coyotes had a track record of flanking hunters and gutting them if not killed when spotted, then I'd change my tune. I'm not killing someones pet, or worse, because I'm too impatient to hunt responsibly.

I'm not excusing that behavior you describe. I'm only saying mistakes happen, even to those who take every precaution. We're all imperfect. Seeing people automatically assume the guy was an ass hat or malicious or whatever else, - it's insulting to me and to other Sportsmen alike. Because it's mumping everyone into that same bucket - and life is a lot more complicated than that.

 

[crazymjb]

Nobody is saying mistakes don't happen... but some of the behavior you described as the norm in the hunting community really shouldn't be. On it's face its violative of "know your target and what lies beyond it." I don't see how that somehow turns into "be pretty sure of your target when hunting because hunting is hard."

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Your attitude regarding what constitutes a green light to take the shot explains something for me:

Humor aside, it seems like for excuses for not erring on the side of caution. Especially given your earlier comment, "Sometimes misidentification at distance, in cover, in a split second when you have a shooting lane - it can and does happen. There's no malicious intent." Regarding dogs- if you don't have a clear enough view to determine exactly what is the target- you NEVER take the shot. Some of us do spend a lot of time hunting in the woods and/or actually live in or at the edge of hunting grounds. No sh!t that the conditions are less than ideal in the New England woods. That doesn't excuse taking a shot without clear identification of the target and determining what might be impacted by a miss. What is this video game mentality of taking a shot without full consideration that a bad shot could be a life changing event for the one sending and/or receiving the bullet?

I recognize this mentality in a lot of hunters and have accordingly posted the woods within my property line for them to STFO. That and I have had multiple idiots actively hunting way too close to the house. Add to that my dogs are free to roam within the confines of my property and I recognize that dog shooting is a 'thing' here.

As a side note, I used to have access to some prime hunting land in the Ozarks. The neighboring farmer actually lost a cow to a dumbass hunter and every season would mark is cattle 'cow' with dayglo orange spray paint.

"Clear identification" does not guarantee misidentification never happens. Everyone waits for "clear identification". But mistakes are still made - every year in fact. Everyone has your same mindset. Myself included. But I'm not foolish enough to think that people are perfect.

 

[whalerman69]

....and I'm sure if you asked any hunter they would tell you the exact same thing.... yet mistakes still happen every year. But hey - I'm sure you've never been 100% sure of something in your life - and ever been wrong about it. We should all aspire to be as perfect.

We are not talking about making a bad stock pick... I hesitated posting my opinion because I did not want to get in a pissing contest but it's guy's like you I avoid hunting with and you are the "Guy's" making those silly mistakes...OAO...

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Nobody is saying mistakes don't happen... but some of the behavior you described as the norm in the hunting community really shouldn't be. On it's face its violative of "know your target and what lies beyond it." I don't see how that somehow turns into "be pretty sure of your target when hunting because hunting is hard."

I'm not saying people spray and pray... What I'm saying is that conditions exist for mistakes to be made by imperfect human beings. Failure to acknowledge that is ignorant and naive.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

We are not talking about making a bad stock pick... I hesitated posting my opinion because I did not want to get in a pissing contest but it's guy's like you I avoid hunting with and you are the "Guy's" making those silly mistakes...OAO...

I've never made such a mistake and I make every effort not to. So don't presume to know shit about me that you don't. I'm merely describing the very real reality that conditions exist for mistakes to be made. But if you want to insult me and then over and out - that says more about you than I.

 

[Tarsook]

....and I'm sure if you asked any hunter they would tell you the exact same thing.... yet mistakes still happen every year. But hey - I'm sure you've never been 100% sure of something in your life - and ever been wrong about it. We should all aspire to be as perfect.

Ive been hunting coyote since I was 10.
If you mistake a coyote for a dog in the woods, you're a retard.
If you're out there pulling the trigger at you dont know what, you're a bigger retard.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Ive been hunting coyote since I was 10.
If you mistake a coyote for a dog in the woods, you're a retard.
If you're out there pulling the trigger at you dont know what, you're a bigger retard.

The world would be a wonderful place if we were all as perfect as you. But for the rest of the population not ordained as perfect and infallible by god almighty himself, sometimes - albeit it is rare, but sometimes people make mistakes. Hindsight is always 20/20 too. I for one am not going to condemn someone to death based on mear speculation as some in this thread seem all too willing to do. I'm also not going to condemn someone to the title of trigger-happy ass hat without a care in the world just because of an acknowledgment that conditions exist for mistakes to be made and they DO happen. That's just reality and this incident is case and point.

Some are making assumptions about me - because I acknowledge those conditions. These people are ignorant. Consider the fact that my being aware of such conditions means I acknowledge them, consider them, and use said knowledge to ensure I don't make a mistake under them. I'm more scared of those who don't acknowledge them and think of everything as black and white. The people who think they're more perfect than everyone else - those people are truly scary. Because they don't think they can make a mistake! In my experience, it's always the people who think they're never wrong who are the most likely to be exactly that. Because they think they have nothing to learn. They already know it all.... Those people - with a firearm - are scary. So maybe take a look in the mirror...

Similarly, I don't think it fair that the evidence gathering - if you can call it that at this point - is being done primarily by the owners who are untrained, motivated and biased. I also don't think it fair that "evidence" gathered is done under the pretense of financial reward either. How would a person who stands accused - should that ever happen - expect a fair shake under such a situation?

As someone else said for 8K+ he'll accuse his own family... That was a joke but I think it makes the point as eloquently as I ever could...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I don't think any reasonable argument can begin with the word "suppose"... Sorry, my friend but that's fiction and fairytale land. Unless law enforcement recovers the evidence and handles it properly, it can and will be argued by even the most haphazard defense lawyer that evidence was tampered with, manipulated or even outright planted... and they'll win.

Only if the ne'er-do-well is savvy enough to STFU, even after the police remind him of the decision of Godfrey v. Wellesley that establishes that exercising the 5th is a valid reason to revoke the subject's 2nd A rights. (yes, really). Confront the person with evidence, do not mention it would not stand up in court, tell him his only chance of keeping his LTC is "coming clean", get the confession, then revoke the LTC and file charges.

Throw in a few comments that indicate you understand anyone would have done a similar thing in the situation, offer a reassuring hand on the shoulder, minimize the moral seriousness of the offense, and all the other classic Reed-Inbau stuff.

It's amazing how often people fess up when confronted with evidence.

 

[commodon]

Confront the person with evidence, do not mention it would not stand up in court, tell him his only chance of keeping his LTC is "coming clean", get the confession, then revoke the LTC and file charges. Throw in a few comments that indicate you understand anyone would have done a similar thing in the situation, offer a reassuring hand on the shoulder, minimize the moral seriousness of the offense, and all the other classic Reed-Inbau stuff. It's amazing how often people fess up when confronted with evidence.

Agreed! Speaking from personal experience in a past career, it is quite amazing how a person will hang him/herself depending on the skills and methods used during an interview and/or interrogation.

 

[HARRYM]

Again, nobody knows what transpired that led to the outcome.

 

[jayhitek]

Agreed! Speaking from personal experience in a past career, it is quite amazing how a person will hang him/herself depending on the skills and methods used during an interview and/or interrogation.

"Excuse me.. Do you have the time?"
I did it!! I shot the bitch!!
"ummmm... well.. you.. thanks?"

 

[Mountain]

"Clear identification" does not guarantee misidentification never happens. Everyone waits for "clear identification". But mistakes are still made - every year in fact. Everyone has your same mindset. Myself included. But I'm not foolish enough to think that people are perfect.

I figured your actual MO was safe, or at least as safe as can possibly be achieved. I do agree that mistakes happen even to the most responsible hunters. You and I both know that there are idiots out there who are causing most of the problems and their lack of caution is begging for a bad 'accident'.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

I figured your actual MO was safe, or at least as safe as can possibly be achieved. I do agree that mistakes happen even to the most responsible hunters. You and I both know that there are idiots out there who are causing most of the problems and their lack of caution is begging for a bad 'accident'.

Truer words have never been spoken...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

One cop I know in the pacific northewest investigates allegations of sexual assault of children (talk about depressing jobs....). One technique he finds is quite effective is "Of course you do have the right to an attorney, but the first thing an attorney will do is tell you not to talk to me and you will not get a chance to tell me your side of the story". He said that usually gets them talking.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Only if the ne'er-do-well is savvy enough to STFU, even after the police remind him of the decision of Godfrey v. Wellesley that establishes that exercising the 5th is a valid reason to revoke the subject's 2nd A rights. (yes, really). Confront the person with evidence, do not mention it would not stand up in court, tell him his only chance of keeping his LTC is "coming clean", get the confession, then revoke the LTC and file charges.

Throw in a few comments that indicate you understand anyone would have done a similar thing in the situation, offer a reassuring hand on the shoulder, minimize the moral seriousness of the offense, and all the other classic Reed-Inbau stuff.

It's amazing how often people fess up when confronted with evidence.

I did not know about that until this post.. Depressing... I was having a good day too...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I did not know about that until this post.. Depressing... I was having a good day too...

I am half hoping some PD tries that post-Heller. Comm2A will be ready.