-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Foxboro man charged w/ shooting dog
- Thread starter second
- Start date
![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
jkelly
Shooting at the big range in heaven
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 2,060
- Likes
- 93
Lynne, I'm a bit confused...
Lynne,
I’m a bit confused as I don’t see how you could know what happened at the shooting location if you weren’t there at the time of the shooting, you weren’t were you?
When you said that the shooter lied (twice) about his dog being attacked and that there were no livestock at the shooting location, did you actually know that to be true when you said it was fact? Or were you misrepresenting hearsay as facts.
Mind you I don’t think the shooters response was correct and I doubt he thinks so either, now.
But I really like to know how you came by your "facts".
Respectfully,
jkelly
Lynne,
I’m a bit confused as I don’t see how you could know what happened at the shooting location if you weren’t there at the time of the shooting, you weren’t were you?
When you said that the shooter lied (twice) about his dog being attacked and that there were no livestock at the shooting location, did you actually know that to be true when you said it was fact? Or were you misrepresenting hearsay as facts.
Mind you I don’t think the shooters response was correct and I doubt he thinks so either, now.
But I really like to know how you came by your "facts".
Respectfully,
jkelly
"Langer also said Grossmith's injuries were consisted with his client's statement to police."
Anyone who saw Grossmith's hand saw the bandages. As the arraignment was televised, the injuries are hardly secret.![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Anyone who saw Grossmith's hand saw the bandages. As the arraignment was televised, the injuries are hardly secret.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
My guesses
- It will be straightforward to get a plea deal, but hard to get all charges dropped without a trial.
- Anything but not guilty on all counts, no plead-out, means the LTC is history.
The shooter has one good thing going for him - an attorney who understands that the recovery of the LTC can, for many clients, be as important as avoiding a penalty for the actual charge. Lawyers who do not understand this would consider getting their client a "good deal" with a minimal fine to be a positive outcome. I doubt Scriviner thinks that way.
- It will be straightforward to get a plea deal, but hard to get all charges dropped without a trial.
- Anything but not guilty on all counts, no plead-out, means the LTC is history.
The shooter has one good thing going for him - an attorney who understands that the recovery of the LTC can, for many clients, be as important as avoiding a penalty for the actual charge. Lawyers who do not understand this would consider getting their client a "good deal" with a minimal fine to be a positive outcome. I doubt Scriviner thinks that way.
Scrivener said:"Langer also said Grossmith's injuries were consisted with his client's statement to police."
Anyone who saw Grossmith's hand saw the bandages. As the arraignment was televised, the injuries are hardly secret.
I don't think anyone is contesting that the man got a wound from the dog. The contentious issue is whether Grossmith needed to kill Kato. He knew the dog, he walked 20 or 30 feet to his truck to load a weapon while the dog sat there doing nothing. Like others have said, if he was able to walk away then he should have called the cops or animal control and have the dog removed from his property. Popping a cap in the dog's head is NOT the correct solution. And who knows if that asshat is telling the truth? Who knows if he provoked the dog? Grossman's story smells like fish to me.
Just a personal impression from knowing Ed O'Leary (he was my instructor in the police academy ages ago).
Even if this guy wins hands-down and everyone admits that what he did was "OK" and legal, I doubt that he'll ever see his LTC or guns again as long as Ed is chief or this guys lives in Foxboro. The thing about "suitability" and "chief's discretion" goes a very long way in letting them do as they please and judges almost never demand that they change that "discretionary judgment".
Even if this guy wins hands-down and everyone admits that what he did was "OK" and legal, I doubt that he'll ever see his LTC or guns again as long as Ed is chief or this guys lives in Foxboro. The thing about "suitability" and "chief's discretion" goes a very long way in letting them do as they please and judges almost never demand that they change that "discretionary judgment".
LisaJ said:
Lisa, I doubt that anybody (well, among firearms owners) would be able to justify that resolution. If a person is found to be innocent, why should they be punished afterwards by witholding the right to own and possess firearms? If the court finds them innocent, how could a COP decide that they are unsuitable to have an LTC? Now that would be an interesting case.
edited to add: I know where Len is coming from on his supposition about O'Leary and the issue of chief's discretion. I am just saying that holding this against a person found innocent by the court would be an abuse and should be challenged by one of these "bulldog" lawyers.
Last edited:
Hmm, that's an iteresting observation, Frosty (and I enjoy your posts, btw). 
And I detest that a COP can decide upon anyone's worthiness to own a permit.
I guess my problem is that I don't think that Grossman used his firearm with the express intent of protecting his property and/or livestock. But that just my opinion. /shrug
And I detest that a COP can decide upon anyone's worthiness to own a permit.I guess my problem is that I don't think that Grossman used his firearm with the express intent of protecting his property and/or livestock. But that just my opinion. /shrug
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
There is so much wrong with this entire story. Only two know the true facts and one is dead. We all know clients never lie to their attorney and, even if they did it is attorney / client privliege. Then, again, no attorney would comment on his case on a public forum.
Soley based on what I've read, this ass needs his ass kicked and then punished for his stupidity. I learned around the age of 5 not to mess around the head and neck of a strange dog or I was liable to get bit (self defense on the dog's part).
Two things seem to be undisputable:
The individual was scratched / bitten and, he left the immediate area, retrieved and loaded a rifle, returned and shot the dog while it waited. It appears he did neither while the dog was attacking anything.
I'm a through-and-through dog lover. However, I would not hesitate to put one down that is engaged in attacking a human or pen'ed-up livestock when said dog is off it's property. This doesn't seem to be the case. Again, soley from what I've read.
That being said, the outcome of this incident should have absolutely nothing to do with an indivdual's right to own or carry a firearm. It certainly would not here unless the individual was convicted of a felony. Common sense states leave that to the letter of the law, not subjective interpretation by an appointed crony.
I don't know what happened, and I don't have the confidence that the judicial system will really determine what exactly transpired and in what sequence before rendering judgment.
NOTE: IANAL, but let's paint a parallel scenario that has played out for real numerous times in numerous states:
- 2 guys get into a fistfight in a bar. One leaves, goes to vehicle (or home) and comes back into the bar with a gun. He shoots the other person who had attacked him earlier. From what we read/hear when this happens, the report is that the Jury almost always finds the guy guilty of murder/manslaughter!
- Legal premise is that for a self-defense defense to hold up, the person has to have done nothing to have provoked the situation. Also, once the threat is over, if the person returns to the scene to continue the fight in any way, they are now the aggressor who provoked this particular fight.
So, IF a dog attacks someone/something, during the heat of battle it is at least technically legal to shoot the dog to save the person/other animal from further harm. BUT if the dog breaks off the attack and just sits down, is no longer a threat, and someone then goes to retrieve a gun and shoot the dog, they are in deep legal trouble.
So, in this case, the exact sequence and timing of events mean everything as to what the outcome SHOULD BE.
As for Ed O'Leary, I consider him an excellent instructor and I like him as a person, but I have never felt that he was a pro-gun person. Furthermore, I know some other people who have complained about their treatment by Ed on matters relating to firearms licenses and F/A sign-offs. Thus, I consider this guy's LTC "toast" even if everything he did was righteous (which I am not sure is the case based on what I've read to date).
NOTE: IANAL, but let's paint a parallel scenario that has played out for real numerous times in numerous states:
- 2 guys get into a fistfight in a bar. One leaves, goes to vehicle (or home) and comes back into the bar with a gun. He shoots the other person who had attacked him earlier. From what we read/hear when this happens, the report is that the Jury almost always finds the guy guilty of murder/manslaughter!
- Legal premise is that for a self-defense defense to hold up, the person has to have done nothing to have provoked the situation. Also, once the threat is over, if the person returns to the scene to continue the fight in any way, they are now the aggressor who provoked this particular fight.
So, IF a dog attacks someone/something, during the heat of battle it is at least technically legal to shoot the dog to save the person/other animal from further harm. BUT if the dog breaks off the attack and just sits down, is no longer a threat, and someone then goes to retrieve a gun and shoot the dog, they are in deep legal trouble.
So, in this case, the exact sequence and timing of events mean everything as to what the outcome SHOULD BE.
As for Ed O'Leary, I consider him an excellent instructor and I like him as a person, but I have never felt that he was a pro-gun person. Furthermore, I know some other people who have complained about their treatment by Ed on matters relating to firearms licenses and F/A sign-offs. Thus, I consider this guy's LTC "toast" even if everything he did was righteous (which I am not sure is the case based on what I've read to date).
Len,
Great analysis. I was thinking the same about the fistfight scenario but you explained it much better than I could have. I'm glad that Ileft this to you.
True, but I highly doubt that a dog that really attacked a person would do this. If the dog did just sit down I think that would indicate that the dog had reacted in a defensive manner to handling it considered hostile.
Lots of questions and probably very few ways to ascertain just what happend and how.
Great analysis. I was thinking the same about the fistfight scenario but you explained it much better than I could have. I'm glad that Ileft this to you.
True, but I highly doubt that a dog that really attacked a person would do this. If the dog did just sit down I think that would indicate that the dog had reacted in a defensive manner to handling it considered hostile.
Lots of questions and probably very few ways to ascertain just what happend and how.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
You're right, Frosty. However, I have no idea where to begin to give advice to reconcile your God-forgiven state. To anyone who lives in a relatively free state, what Mass. does is absolutely criminal.
I know I'm new here so I'll watch my footing...
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
The response that I quoted here smells of a certain member who I had to deal with from another forum. The guy, I assume, was intent on busting my chops and attempted to belittle me every chance he got. I truly believe he is trying to overcompensate for something. I won't mention the name of the forum/website, but I'll say that the member's name rhymes with "Bad-icus."
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Danguard Ace said:. . . the member's name rhymes with "Bad-icus."
I don't think it's the same person as his name doesn't rhyme with "Bad-icus". Might be a brother thou?
At any rate, he is the Counsel for the accused, so no doubt he has access to more info than we have seen in the media (which is not known for accuracy under any circumstances).
Oh, I didn't know he was involved in this case. Nor did I know that he's an attorney.
No, no. The person's forum username rhymes with "Bad-icus."
No, no. The person's forum username rhymes with "Bad-icus."
Danguard Ace said:
Scrivener =
The bold emphasis is mine.
Gotcha. Well that explains it.
I think?
I think?
FPrice said:
Hey, Frosty, at trial, there are guaranteed to be lots and lots of people, with and without badges, doing a ton of attesting, and often their testimony is utterly inconsistent.
One thing for sure, Scrivener is going to give his client a hell of a trial. I can't imagine Scriv. will be doing any plea bargaining. Doing so just isn't in his nature!
jkelly
Shooting at the big range in heaven
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 2,060
- Likes
- 93
Fprice, ...why would you ask me that question?
“jkelly,
Can you tell us if there was anyone else there who can attest to the "facts" of the case?---Fprice”
Fprice,
As I asked a question and asserted nothing as “fact”, so I’m at a loss as to why you would ask me that question. Why did you?
As I was not there at the time of the attack or the shooting, and have not spoken with any one who was, I couldn’t know what happened.
Which leads us back to the question I asked Lynne and that is, “…did you actually know that to be true when you said it was fact? Or were you misrepresenting hearsay as facts.” I was attempting to filter the hearsay from the facts.
If Lynne told the truth and knew her statements to be “fact” then I’m very interested in knowing how she knew. If she was misrepresenting hearsay as “fact” then I can understand why Scrivener was upset with her unjustly maligning his client in a public forum.
Like Lynne, I personally I don’t think the shooter was correct in his actions and I’d bet that the shooter no longer thinks so either. I’ve never needed to shoot any dog that has bitten me.
Respectfully,
jkelly
“jkelly,
Can you tell us if there was anyone else there who can attest to the "facts" of the case?---Fprice”
Fprice,
As I asked a question and asserted nothing as “fact”, so I’m at a loss as to why you would ask me that question. Why did you?
As I was not there at the time of the attack or the shooting, and have not spoken with any one who was, I couldn’t know what happened.
Which leads us back to the question I asked Lynne and that is, “…did you actually know that to be true when you said it was fact? Or were you misrepresenting hearsay as facts.” I was attempting to filter the hearsay from the facts.
If Lynne told the truth and knew her statements to be “fact” then I’m very interested in knowing how she knew. If she was misrepresenting hearsay as “fact” then I can understand why Scrivener was upset with her unjustly maligning his client in a public forum.
Like Lynne, I personally I don’t think the shooter was correct in his actions and I’d bet that the shooter no longer thinks so either. I’ve never needed to shoot any dog that has bitten me.
Respectfully,
jkelly
jkelly,
There is a saying that bears repeating here:
There are 3 sides to every story!
The Defendant's,
The Plaintiff's,
and the Truth!
And as Cross-X stated, when everyone testifies in court, you usually only hear the first two . . . the truth to what happened is usually missing!
Most often we (all, a collective "we") repeat what we are told (usually by the media) as "truth", but they have an agenda and it is rarely even close to what happened.
There is a saying that bears repeating here:
There are 3 sides to every story!
The Defendant's,
The Plaintiff's,
and the Truth!
And as Cross-X stated, when everyone testifies in court, you usually only hear the first two . . . the truth to what happened is usually missing!
Most often we (all, a collective "we") repeat what we are told (usually by the media) as "truth", but they have an agenda and it is rarely even close to what happened.
I don't think that anyone has ever cast any aspersions upon Scrivener's legal prowess, knowledge, or capabilities. And I am sure that many here consider him one of the best possible choices to defend this man.
It's other "issues" that are of more concern and have stirred the pot.
![[horse]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/026.gif "Beat a dead horse [horse]")
jkelly said:
See, I disagree. I guess I'm just to "old school". I believe what's mine is mine, and that includes my property.
A dog repeatedly comes on your property for any reason. You get sick of it and pick up the dog to toss it back over the fence. The dog bites you. Shoot it.
Granted, this isn't the least bit neighborly and not how I'd handle it, but it should be within his rights.
I'm surprised there isn't any discussion about him suing the crap out of the neighbors for letting their dog come in his yard and bite him.
jkelly
Shooting at the big range in heaven
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 2,060
- Likes
- 93
LenS and Marlet
“jkelly,
There is a saying that bears repeating here:
There are 3 sides to every story!
The Defendant's,
The Plaintiff's,
and the Truth!---Lens”
Len I have no idea what the truth is in this case and haven’t taken either side of the legal issue, although I don’t believe I would have shot the dog myself.
My question to Lynne was an attempt to determine how she knew that the things she purported to be fact, were indeed facts. No more, no less.
My thought, and it’s a guess, is that she didn’t know that the things she stated as facts were actually true. I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before.
Marlet,
I think that the shooter should have involved the police before the killing the dog. Were there a history of illegal actions committed by the dog (and therefore his owner) then the shooter had ample time in the past to address the problem in a legal manor. Of course I don’t know that he didn’t.
If you should find yourself in a similar position I hope you have the restraint that the shooter seems to have lacked (again I don’t know what actually happened). I would guess that the shooter (who may still believe the shooting to be justified) regrets his actions.
Respectfully,
jkelly
“jkelly,
There is a saying that bears repeating here:
There are 3 sides to every story!
The Defendant's,
The Plaintiff's,
and the Truth!---Lens”
Len I have no idea what the truth is in this case and haven’t taken either side of the legal issue, although I don’t believe I would have shot the dog myself.
My question to Lynne was an attempt to determine how she knew that the things she purported to be fact, were indeed facts. No more, no less.
My thought, and it’s a guess, is that she didn’t know that the things she stated as facts were actually true. I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before.
Marlet,
I think that the shooter should have involved the police before the killing the dog. Were there a history of illegal actions committed by the dog (and therefore his owner) then the shooter had ample time in the past to address the problem in a legal manor. Of course I don’t know that he didn’t.
If you should find yourself in a similar position I hope you have the restraint that the shooter seems to have lacked (again I don’t know what actually happened). I would guess that the shooter (who may still believe the shooting to be justified) regrets his actions.
Respectfully,
jkelly
jkelly said:
Like I said, I doubt I would have handled it that way. I've been bitten by dogs before. I've yet to shoot one.
That being said, I still believe that if their dog was on his property and bit him, regardless of the reason why, he shouldn't be held criminally liable, no matter how stupid his decision to shoot the dog may have been.
Should he have shot the dog? Beats me, I wasn't there. Should he be prosectued for shooting the dog? I don't believe he should. The neighbors dog came on his property. Shouldn't the neighbors be charged and/or sued?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
Actually, you missed one:LenS said:
The side the media presents to the public
ANd we all know that is biased anyways.![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
correct me if I'm wrong about what is known:
1) The dog was in the guys yard, because the owner of the dog did not restrain it in it's ownyard, and
2) the dog was not in it's own yard, but loose in the neighbor's yard, and bit the guy who was in his own yard
Am I correct with these seemingly undisputed facts?
If I'm not please inform.
If I'm correct and I think I am, then the guy had every right to shoot it.
1) The dog was in the guys yard, because the owner of the dog did not restrain it in it's ownyard, and
2) the dog was not in it's own yard, but loose in the neighbor's yard, and bit the guy who was in his own yard
Am I correct with these seemingly undisputed facts?
If I'm not please inform.
If I'm correct and I think I am, then the guy had every right to shoot it.
Similar threads
