Foxboro man charged w/ shooting dog

Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
1,208
Likes
238
Location
Cape Cod
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/wcvb/20060413/lo_wcvb/3396261

Too bad he didnt have any mace. But i think the cops went overboard!


Foxborough man was arrested and charged Wednesday after shooting his neighbor's Siberian husky dog, Kato.
ADVERTISEMENT

NewsCenter 5's Gail Huff reported that the incident has divided many residents in the community, who are debating whether the incident is a case of animal cruelty or self-defense.

The dog was given to Beverly Wigmore by her children 11 years ago.

"My mother used to walk him every morning. He kept my mother young. My mother's in good shape for 67," her son, William Wigmore, said.

Wigmore runs a home day-care center and Kato was part of the backyard family, but neighbors remember the dog sometimes escaping the fence and wandering through other yards.

Wednesday, Kato wandered to East Street where Frederick Grossmith, 48, lives. He said Kato and his own dog started fighting and, he told police, when he tried to break them up, Kato bit him. He then got his gun and shot Kato in the head.

"This guy took a precious, precious ... he's a family member," William Wigmore said.

"Katy was just an amazing dog, and nothing to be fearful of," Wigmore's neighbor Lisa Lyons said.

Grossmith called 911 and EMT's treated him for minor dog bites. He is not known as animal hater. He owns the most recognizable herd of animals in Foxborough. Now, however, he's been charged with animal cruelty and weapons violations. He was arraigned in Wrentham District Court Wednesday and the judge ordered him to stay away from Kato's family. Police confiscated all his weapons.
 
They were talking about this durring the Morning Radio shows. Some of the facts I think are still up in the air.

Still IMHO the man was bitten by the dog on HIS property, and the man had livestock (and allegidly the dog was harrassing them)

I don't see a problem in this.

of course some parts of the story I've heard don't pass the smell test. Still I see it as a protection of life and property shooting.

-Weer'd Beard
 
I wonder why this wasn't an issue when the cops did this to my brother-in-law's wifes family dog.

I guess that the other day, her little brother and sister were playing. She knocked him down and he busted a tooth. 911 was called. They brought over the fire and police. Thier dog went for a fireman when he was treating the brother and the cops shot the dog.

Can't blame the dog, here's a guy dressed to look a lot bigger than they are, and here's the owner crying and such. Dog's don't konw better. But they shot the dog. So he lost a tooth and his dog that's been around almost as long as he has.

No one getting in trouble there....
 
C-pher said:
I wonder why this wasn't an issue when the cops did this to my brother-in-law's wifes family dog.

I guess that the other day, her little brother and sister were playing. She knocked him down and he busted a tooth. 911 was called. They brought over the fire and police. Thier dog went for a fireman when he was treating the brother and the cops shot the dog.

Can't blame the dog, here's a guy dressed to look a lot bigger than they are, and here's the owner crying and such. Dog's don't konw better. But they shot the dog. So he lost a tooth and his dog that's been around almost as long as he has.

No one getting in trouble there....

Yea interesting point, you hear about this from time to time where a cop shoots a family pet and the law has no problem with that. I guess us peasants have to follow different rules!
 
Just to put in my own two cents on this.... a few months ago I was bitten by a dog while out for a run. If I could have, I probably would have shot him, just to get him off my leg! I've got one ugly long scar and two puncture scars on my leg to show for it. From what I understand the law involving dogs and dog bites is very explicitly defined in Massachusetts.. along the lines of if you are not antagonizing the animal and not on his property..his owner, an unltimately, the animal, is always at fault and is always responsible. Now this may only pertain to civil law and lawsuits of that nature. Perhaps the lesson here is to not use a firearm...but is it really more humane to kill the dog with your hands, or something like a club?

If I had taken such an action I would have only sped up the dogs demise; after he passed the 10 day quarantine for rabies he was put down anyway. Of course, the owners were so all up front about saying 'what a wonderful family dog he was, etc, etc...'.

Yeah, really wonderful :) I found out I was the 2nd person he had bitten in 3 months!
 
He got in trouble because he used a gun - plain and simple. If he'd used a bat, we wouldn't have even heard about it.

I had a dog incident three years ago:

A neighbor's 100lb Rotty-mix dog (that had already bitten a couple of people) got loose and came into my yard toward my kids (7yo and 9yo at the time). I was replacing the tank on the gas grill and ran over to get between the dog and my kids. As he tried to get by me and at my daughter, I stuck out my arm to block him and he bit it and did not let go, so I hit him in the head with a 12" Crescent wrench. After about the third whack, he let go. He went down, twitching, after the 5th or 6th whack. I must've hit him another 10 times after that.

I got a puncture wound in my wrist deep enough to see tendons and bone. The dog got dead. I called the cops to CYA, they asked if I wanted to press charges on the neighbor.
 
MGH Ch 140 Section 156 would seem to provide a legal justificaiton for the shooting, however, it might take a decent attorney to get charges of violating a municipal noise ordinance, discharge within 150ft of a roadway and within 500 ft of a dwelling dropped.

----------------------------------------

Chapter 140: Section 156. Killing dogs under certain conditions; wounded dogs

Section 156. Any person may kill a dog which suddenly assaults him while he is peaceably standing, walking or riding outside the enclosure of its owner or keeper; and any person may kill a dog found out of the enclosure of its owner or keeper and not under his immediate care in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, and if any person shall kill or attempt to kill a dog so found, and in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, he shall not be held liable for cruelty to the dog unless it shall be shown that he intended to be cruel to the dog, or that he acted with a wanton and reckless disregard for the suffering of the dog. Prompt killing of a wounded dog, or a prompt report to the owner or to a dog officer of the wounding of the dog, shall be considered evidence of sufficient regard for the suffering of the dog.
 
Dogshoot

MGH Ch 140 Section 156 would seem to provide a legal justificaiton for the shooting, however, it might take a decent attorney to get charges of violating a municipal noise ordinance, discharge within 150ft of a roadway and within 500 ft of a dwelling dropped.

What is interesting that the administration of a coup de grace actually appears to increase the defensibility of the action if the dog is merely wounded on the first shot (read the law to see what I mean).

I know of two cases where this defense was used - the Westfall Dam case, which was settled in the form of a $50 violation citation for having the gun on federal property, and the Douglas Beagle Club case in which the defendant was found guilty. As I understand it, the defendant in the later case did not do a very good job of articulating behavior consistent with worrying behavior.

This section uses the definition of worrying pertaining specifically to agression, baring of teeth, etc. (see www.m-w.com) rather than the more common use of the term as applied to general mental distress and anxiety.

----------------------------------------

Chapter 140: Section 156. Killing dogs under certain conditions; wounded dogs

Section 156. Any person may kill a dog which suddenly assaults him while he is peaceably standing, walking or riding outside the enclosure of its owner or keeper; and any person may kill a dog found out of the enclosure of its owner or keeper and not under his immediate care in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, and if any person shall kill or attempt to kill a dog so found, and in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, he shall not be held liable for cruelty to the dog unless it shall be shown that he intended to be cruel to the dog, or that he acted with a wanton and reckless disregard for the suffering of the dog. Prompt killing of a wounded dog, or a prompt report to the owner or to a dog officer of the wounding of the dog.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
MGH Ch 140 Section 156 would seem to provide a legal justificaiton for the shooting, however, it might take a decent attorney to get charges of violating a municipal noise ordinance, discharge within 150ft of a roadway and within 500 ft of a dwelling dropped.

----------------------------------------

Chapter 140: Section 156. Killing dogs under certain conditions; wounded dogs

Section 156. Any person may kill a dog which suddenly assaults him while he is peaceably standing, walking or riding outside the enclosure of its owner or keeper; and any person may kill a dog found out of the enclosure of its owner or keeper and not under his immediate care in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, and if any person shall kill or attempt to kill a dog so found, and in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, he shall not be held liable for cruelty to the dog unless it shall be shown that he intended to be cruel to the dog, or that he acted with a wanton and reckless disregard for the suffering of the dog. Prompt killing of a wounded dog, or a prompt report to the owner or to a dog officer of the wounding of the dog, shall be considered evidence of sufficient regard for the suffering of the dog.

This guy will be hard pressed to prove the danger was great enough after he went and "got his gun". He already alleviated the threat to himself when he was able to get away.

As for the attack on his dog, dog's have been ruled not to be live stock. he should have staked out a chicken and shot the dog when it went after it.

If nothing else, they should have charged him with being an idiot abroad in the daytime without a permit.

Regards,
 
I did sort of wonder about how he had time to go get a rifle. It would be much easier to explain "I shot since I feared being bit" when you don't have to first be in fear, leave the scene, and then return after fetching a gun.

BUT.... this is a perfect example of why any suspect should make their statement only after consultation with an attorney.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
BUT.... this is a perfect example of why any suspect should make their statement only after consultation with an attorney.

Or not call 911 and just bury the dog.

Remember, friends will help you move. real friends will help you move bodies [wink]
 
Round Gun Shooter said:
Or not call 911 and just bury the dog.

Remember, friends will help you move. real friends will help you move bodies [wink]
Friends wil bail you of of jail. Real friends will sit next to you in the cell and say "that was awesome"
 
Reed Hillman was just on the Howie Carr show and was asked about this. He was a bit non-commital about it, appearing to not be familiar with the case. However it does seem that there are "several" stories about what happened. IIRC Hillman did make the comment that if the dog had been attacking his children then shooting would be appropriate. Howie also brought up the conflict in laws about not just being allowed to shoot a dog (I forgot just how he put it) and the ability too shoot for the protection of livestock.

I wish that I had been able to pay more attention to this discussion.
 
A few more facts...

The man lied about Kato attacking his dog. There was no other dog present. He also said he was afraid that the dog would go after his stock. The stock in question were approx. 1 mile away. The gentleman had to go to his truck to load the .22, and the reports seem to lean in the direction that the dog was either sitting or standing 20 to 30 yards away from him. He was NOT in danger when he shot the dog.

The dog had gotten out twice before (IIRC), and both times, strangers had gotten the dog, saw the tag on his collar and called the owner.

I know Huskies - they are not, by nature, nasty dogs. They are, however, tough to keep contained. They can worm their way out of a number of different confinements. Something stinks about this guys story, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a dog lover. They already caught him in the act of lying about his own dog being there. Granted, he's the one who called the cops, but, he could have gotten in to his truck and called animal control.

BTW Keith - heard your name mentioned on RKO over this. [smile]
 
Lynne said:
A few more facts...

The man lied about Kato attacking his dog. There was no other dog present. He also said he was afraid that the dog would go after his stock. The stock in question were approx. 1 mile away.

WHAT "facts?"

You make declarations about a matter in which you are almost - and probably wholly - ignorant. Hardly the actions of a responsible moderator.

Two glaring errors in your utterly unsubstantiated assertions:

1. The victim's dog WAS present at the initial attack; and

2. There were sheep at the attack locale; the cattle are at his home.

Do yourself a favor and quit before you dig yourself in any deeper.
 
Scrivener said:
WHAT "facts?"

You make declarations about a matter in which you are almost - and probably wholly - ignorant. Hardly the actions of a responsible moderator.

Two glaring errors in your utterly unsubstantiated assertions:

1. The victim's dog WAS present at the initial attack; and

2. There were sheep at the attack locale; the cattle are at his home.

Do yourself a favor and quit before you dig yourself in any deeper.

RKO wasn't the only source of information I listened to or read, dear. And I'm SOOOOO happy you've decided to practice a little more TOLERANCE in your responses.

Edited to add - the POLICE said he lied about his dog being there.
 
Lynne said:
RKO wasn't the only source of information I listened to or read, dear. And I'm SOOOOO happy you've decided to practice a little more TOLERANCE in your responses.

Edited to add - the POLICE said he lied about his dog being there.

That WAS tolerance - as you well know.

And, like you, the police were not there when the attack occurred. Your sources are inferior to mine. Proceed accordingly.

Dear.
 
Scrivener said:
That WAS tolerance - as you well know.

And, like you, the police were not there when the attack occurred. Your sources are inferior to mine. Proceed accordingly.

Dear.

deleted

Or, are you to ignorant to realize that this forum is no place for your primadonna attitude and condescending nature? You have been warned multiple times and apparently lack the cognitive abilty to learn. It is truly sad that an individual of your supposed education can't participate in a civil discourse above the third-grade level.

I suggest you find another forum to display your antics and leave this one to the adults.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TonyD said:

Thank you so much for that little tutorial on civil discourse. It's always enlightening when the "adults" teach us........ [rolleyes]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since the bar has gone so low already I must take this time to say

pwnt-31487.jpg
 
When I was a kid, my brother and I had some rabbits in a hutch out in the back yard. There was this guy who lived up the street who had two German Shepherd Dogs who were as mean as the day is long. Now, understand that I absolutely LOVE GSDs, have owned a couple in the past, and am planning to get a new puppy this summer. German Shepherds are not mean by nature, so I don't know what this guy did to those poor dogs, but they got loose a couple of times and bit several neighbors.

So one morning we hear this ruckus in back of dogs growling and rabbits squealing and my dad runs out the back door to find those two dogs tearing apart the rabbit hutch and ripping the shit out of our bunnies. [frown] He immediately dropped both dogs with his Winchester .22. The owner of the dogs wanted to press charges but the police were like, I don't think so, since the dogs were loose and attacking our livestock. He tried to get something going on discharging a firearm within 500ft of a dwelling, but the police quietly told him to drop the BS and learn to keep his dogs under his control in the future.

So...sometimes the good guy wins.
 
Just a little more in this story.
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2006/04/13/city/city1.txt


Dog shot
BY DAVID LINTON / SUN CHRONICLE STAFF

FOXBORO -- A local family is mourning the death of their 11-year-old Siberian husky, Kato, and a neighbor who shot the dog after he was bitten found himself in court Wednesday on animal cruel ty charges.

The incident occurred about 10 a.m. Wednesday in the backyard of rental property at 209 East St.

`` Call the police. Call the dog catcher. But you don't load a gun and shoot the dog,'' Dale Wigmore, 37, one of Kato's owners, said Wednesday in a hall way of Wrentham Dis trict Court, where the suspect was arraigned.

But prosecutors say that's exactly what 48year-old Frederick F. Grossmith did.

After the dog scratched his right arm and bit him on the right hand as he tried to examine the dog's tags, Grossmith walked back to his pickup truck to retrieve his .22-caliber rifle.

Grossmith `` took the time to load the rifle and shot him once in the head,'' Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Rowe told the court.

Grossmith, who was about 30 feet away when he fired the shot, said the dog died instantly, accord ing to a police report filed by police Detective Brian Gallagher.

The incident occurred in the backyard of rental property Grossmith owns and was working at the time.

Rowe said Kato, which was owned by Dale Wigmore's mother, Beverly, escaped its fenced yard and wandered onto Grossmith's property.

Afterward, Grossmith called 911 and told police, `` I shot the dog,'' Rowe said.

When police told him at the scene they were confiscating his rifle, ammunition and firearms license, Grossmith allegedly said if he is attacked again, `` I'll shoot the dog and dispose of the dog without reporting it.''

Grossmith, who described himself in court as a part-time farmer, pleaded innocent to cruelty to animals, killing an animal and discharging a firearm near a roadway.

He has no record of prior arrests and was released without bail with orders from Judge Warren Powers to surrender his other firearms to police.

Dale Wigmore said his 67-year-old mother was so distraught about Kato's death she was involved in a three-car accident while leaving Tyler's Restaurant on Route 1A in Norfolk, where she went for lunch with a friend.

Norfolk police said no one was injured in the accident.

`` I'm upset but I really feel bad for my mother,'' Wigmore said.

The two animal-related charges carry a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and a $2,500 fine.

But Dale Wigmore and his 38-year-old brother, Bill, said they expect Grossmith probably won't go to jail if convicted.

`` I hope he's embarrassed,'' Dale Wigmore said, adding that he knows Grossmith.

He said Grossmith knew his dog because it has been on his property before.

`` The dog was really nice,'' Bill Wigmore said.

He said his mother would baby sit for him, and the children loved the dog.

Bill Wigmore said he has contacted a lawyer about a potential lawsuit against Grossmith.

`` I'm not against people who have guns. I know it's a constitutional right. But certain people should not have guns,'' he said.

Grossmith's lawyer defended his client's actions.

Attorney Keith Langer of Wrentham said Grossmith acted within his rights under state law regarding the protection of livestock and property.

Grossmith gave a written statement to police in which he said Kato fit the description of a dog that had been attacking his cattle.

Rowe said Grossmith also told him he was injured while trying to break up a fight between his own dog and Kato, but police said they found no other dog in the area.

Langer also said Grossmith's injuries were consisted with his client's statement to police.

When asked if Grossmith was surprised he was arrested, Langer said, `` I think anybody who believes they are acting in self defense would be surprised that they were being prosecuted like a criminal.''

Kato was taken to the Foxboro Animal Hospital for a necropsy and Foxboro Police Chief Edward O'Leary has seized Grossmith's license to carry firearms.

The case was continued to May 15 for a pretrial hearing.
 
Back
Top Bottom