Foxboro man charged w/ shooting dog

That seems to be what everyone agrees on Pilgrim. Where it gets muddy is, it's been reported that after he was bit he went to his pick up, retrieved and loaded his rifle then went and shot the dog that was allegedly now sitting 30 feet away.
 
JonJ said:
That seems to be what everyone agrees on Pilgrim. Where it gets muddy is, it's been reported that after he was bit he went to his pick up, retrieved and loaded his rifle then went and shot the dog that was allegedly now sitting 30 feet away.

And again, even though it may not have been the action I'd have taken, that "muddy part" shouldn't change a thing. I don't care if he got in his car, drove to his mom's, borrowed her gun, then drove back and shot the dog. I think he was justified. Not very restrained, but justified none-the-less.
 
Martlet said:
And again, even though it may not have been the action I'd have taken, that "muddy part" shouldn't change a thing. I don't care if he got in his car, drove to his mom's, borrowed her gun, then drove back and shot the dog. I think he was justified. Not very restrained, but justified none-the-less.


yup
 
Martlet said:
And again, even though it may not have been the action I'd have taken, that "muddy part" shouldn't change a thing. I don't care if he got in his car, drove to his mom's, borrowed her gun, then drove back and shot the dog. I think he was justified. Not very restrained, but justified none-the-less.
I can't see how that would be justified, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.

But I think it's the "muddy parts" that win or lose court cases. And shooting a non-threatening dog from 30' after returning from mom's with mom's gun would likely not be a positive point for the shooter.


Respectfully,

jkelly
 
jkelly said:
I can't see how that would be justified, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.

But I think it's the "muddy parts" that win or lose court cases. And shooting a non-threatening dog from 30' after returning from mom's with mom's gun would likely not be a positive point for the shooter.


Respectfully,

jkelly

Of course I don't expect everyone to agree with me. The basis for our disagreement comes from our fundemental views on property rights. I'm more of a Libertarian. I believe a man's home is his castle. I believe if your repeated negligence causes me grief on my property, I have a right to act. If your negligence results in your dog walking onto my property, I should have the right to remove your dog. If your dog harms me during it's removal, threatens my property, or attacks my family/pets/livestock, I should have the right to attack your dog which is on my property.

Now, even though I believe I should have those rights, I personally wouldn't have handled it that way, given what I know of the situation (which is basically only what's been posted here). If this was a recurring event, I'd have called the dog catcher and filed a complaint. When the dog bit me I'd have called the dog catcher and most likely the town would have put the dog down.

But just because I would have handled it that way, I don't think I should force other people to allow dogs to roam unwanted on their property and/or bite them.

If I was this guy, I would have already filed a suit against them for allowing their dog to come in my yard and attack me.

You, on the other hand, seem to look at things from a different angle. You seem to believe (and excuse me if I'm misinterpreting you or putting words in your mouth) that a person has no right to protect his property, only his life if it is in immediate danger. That seems to be where we disagree. Many states, maybe most, agree with you and disagree with me. If I come home tomorrow to see a man carrying my tv out my front door, I'm obliged to let him do it and call the cops. I don't believe that's right. I believe the law should let me protect my property.
 
jkelly,

Fprice, ...why would you ask me that question?

I'm sorry, is there a list of approved questions which we are allowed to ask and another list of questions which we are not allowed to ask? To me it seemed an appropriate question which you are allowed to either answer or not answer at your convenience.

I guess I was plain curious counselor as to why you would bring the issue up again. Perhaps you knew more than you were saying? Like I said, just plain curiousity on my part.

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.

Or were you misrepresenting hearsay as facts.

To me that sounds like a strange phrase to use to "filter" something. But again, that's me. I would tend to be a little more direct.

But it seems to me that Lynne has already alluded to her sources ("RKO wasn't the only source of information I listened to or read, dear. ...Edited to add - the POLICE said he lied about his dog being there.)

Now this brings us to the whole issue of "facts". If a person hears reports from reputable sources, can one consider those reports to be factual? Is one to be castigated and demeaned for repeating what these sources have reported?

And is there a hierarchy of sources, some of which are "superior" to others? If there is a hierarchy, who decides which source is better than another?

Scrivener stated that Lynne's sources were "inferior" to his, without mentioning just who his sources were. Were his source(s) the accused, whom we now see seems is being represented by scrivener? Is the accused, the sole surviving participant to this encounter, and who stands to gain by stating the "facts" in whatever light makes him look good really a "superior" source of information?

You know, the more I look at this the more I think my original question might have been the wrong one. A better question might have been, "Why the heck are you bringing this up again at this point?".

What purpose did it serve? To try to embarass Lynne?

Again, my curiosity makes me wonder why.
 
Frosty,
From Post #32,
jkelly said:
Lynne,
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.

Frosty,
I asked Lynne the above because I wanted to know if she was telling the truth or not. Asserting things as “FACT” when they are not known to be fact is not telling the truth. Not knowing what Lynne knew, I think it was a fair question.


jkelly said:
Fprice, ...why would you ask me that question?

Fprice said:
I'm sorry, is there a list of approved questions which we are allowed to ask and another list of questions which we are not allowed to ask? To me it seemed an appropriate question which you are allowed to either answer or not answer at your convenience.

I guess I was plain curious counselor as to why you would bring the issue up again. Perhaps you knew more than you were saying? Like I said, just plain curiousity on my part.

I didn’t mean for my question to upset you Frosty and I hope you are over it. Btw I’m not a counselor but thank you for compliment.


jkelly said:
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.

Fprice said:
Or were you misrepresenting hearsay as facts.

To me that sounds like a strange phrase to use to "filter" something. But again, that's me. I would tend to be a little more direct.

Filter is to sift, so I was attempting to sift or separate the hearsay from the facts. I think it was properly used.
I think, many times in a public forum addressing a touchy subject as truth, it is often better to be subtle then direct.

Fprice said:
But it seems to me that Lynne has already alluded to her sources ("RKO wasn't the only source of information I listened to or read, dear. ...Edited to add - the POLICE said he lied about his dog being there.)

Now this brings us to the whole issue of "facts". If a person hears reports from reputable sources, can one consider those reports to be factual? Is one to be castigated and demeaned for repeating what these sources have reported?

The person would have to know both the source to be reputable and in a position to know the facts. If the source for her information was (W?)RKO and a second or third hand source who said the police said he lied, then no her sources were not in position to know the facts.

Frosty, do you think that the news media is accurate in their broadcasting gun related information? No, I bet you don’t.

Fprice said:
And is there a hierarchy of sources, some of which are "superior" to others? If there is a hierarchy, who decides which source is better than another?

Yes, of course there is. Common sense determines which source is superior to another. Generally, the closer to the incident the more superior the source.


Fprice said:
You know, the more I look at this the more I think my original question might have been the wrong one. A better question might have been, "Why the heck are you bringing this up again at this point?".
What purpose did it serve? To try to embarass Lynne?
Again, my curiosity makes me wonder why.

Frosty,
If you hadn't asked any questions it's likely it wouldn't have been brought up again. If you were trying to defend your friend that's nice but poorly done.

Why do I bring it up again?

In my original post in this thread (#32) I asked Lynne how she knew the facts she was asserting were actually facts.

When you asked me, in post #35 if there was anyone else who could attest to the “Facts” I answered your question in post #52 and restated post #32 in an attempt explain to you that I had no position on what the facts were, but rather I was interested in how Lynne knew what she said she knew.

When LenS pointed out that the Truth is a causality in court case’s I stated in post #56 that I hadn’t taken either side of the legal issue and again restated post #32 to explain I was interested only in how Lynne knew what she said she knew.

And now in an attempt to answer your questions, from post #66, I have again restated post #32. So you should be able to see the purpose restating post #32 is to explain that I had no position on what the facts were, but was only interested in how Lynne knew what she said she knew.

I can not embarrass Lynne she can only embarrass herself.

Now if you’re done, so am I.


Respectfully,

jkelly
 
Mod Hat On!

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's please let this "back and forth" lie as it is. NONE of us know the real truth here, and it is only a "maybe" that we will ever really learn what happened and in what sequence.

All of us can only go on what we've heard/read/been told (in Scrivener's case) and there certainly is no guarantee that it went down in any way similar to any of these stories.

Let's only address this further IF any further real info comes forward to our attention.

Thank you.
 
Sorry to be late to the "party", but I've been working as well as doing Patriots Day stuff with the militia that hubby and I belong to.

jkelly...I didn't lie about what I posted. What I posted was a compliation of a couple different radio stations that I was listening to, as well as a couple news stories I had read on line. Jon posted one of them. Happy?
 
Lynne said:
jkelly...I didn't lie about what I posted. What I posted was a compliation of a couple different radio stations that I was listening to, as well as a couple news stories I had read on line. Jon posted one of them. Happy?

Lynne,
I wanted to know, when you stated as “Fact” that the shooter lied and that there were no livestock at the shooting location, whether you knew this to be fact or whether you were just repeating hearsay.

It appears you were just repeating hearsay without actually knowing whether it was true of not.

As for my being happy, no.


Respectfully,

jkelly
 
Just like absolutely everybody else here, including Scrivner with his sources that he asserts are better than everyone else's. Not one of us was there, so everybody is basing their statements on second (or third, or fourth, ...) hand information. I think it's no longer galloping around the track.
[horse]
Unless someone actually has something new and useful to add, I'd suggest letting it just lie there convulsing.

Ken
 
Just like absolutely everybody else here, including Scrivner [sic] with his sources that he asserts are better than everyone else's.

They were and still are. Deal with it.

Doubt it? Here goes:

Be advised that, at 4 PM today, Judge Warren Powers found as follows:

Count I - Not guilty;

Count II - Not guilty; and

Count III - Not guilty.

Those who claim their sources are superior can be heard exposing their "knowledge" on AM talk radio tomorrow morning, I'm sure. [rolleyes]
 
Be advised that, at 4 PM today, Judge Warren Powers found as follows:

Count I - Not guilty;

Count II - Not guilty; and

Count III - Not guilty.

Scrivener,
He must have had a good attorney. :)

What were the three charges (Counts)?

Is he getting his guns back?
I just reread the last couple of pages of this thread, you know I had agood time in this thread. :)



Respectfully,

jkelly
 
Last edited:
Scrivener,
He must have had a good attorney. :)

What were the three charges (Counts)?

1. Malicious killing of a dog;

2. Cruelty to a dog (both felonies); and

3. Unlawful discharge of a firearm w/i 500 feet of a public way (kiss your license goodbye FOREVER).

Is he getting his guns back?

Different issue. I need hardly explain "discretionary issue" to competent readers.
 
Is he getting his guns back?
If he is allowed to have them back it depends on who has them. In Fitchburg your guns after like 3 days go to a storage company in Norwood where they incur a $25 per day, per gun storage fee. I was told this by the gun safety instructors who are Fitchburg LEOs. If that happened to him and they were taken in april that was about 10 months ago, rounded to 30 days per month X $25 that's $7500 per gun for storage. NFA or collectors aside how many guns are even worth that much? How many guns would be worth bailing out after one month?

Your only alternative according to the instructors is to transfer them to someone with a valid LTC before they are sent to storage.
 
If he is allowed to have them back it depends on who has them. In Fitchburg your guns after like 3 days go to a storage company in Norwood where they incur a $25 per day, per gun storage fee. I was told this by the gun safety instructors who are Fitchburg LEOs. If that happened to him and they were taken in april that was about 10 months ago, rounded to 30 days per month X $25 that's $7500 per gun for storage. NFA or collectors aside how many guns are even worth that much? How many guns would be worth bailing out after one month?

Your only alternative according to the instructors is to transfer them to someone with a valid LTC before they are sent to storage.


With all due respect, I don't believe your firearms instructors have any true idea about firearms storage rates, or you may have misunderstood what they were saying.

I think you might want to call the bonded firearms warehouse Fitchburg PD uses and ask them what their rates are. Typical storage fees are somewhere between fifty cents and seventy five cents per gun per day.

Darius
 
With all due respect, I don't believe your firearms instructors have any true idea about firearms storage rates
Could be but he did state the rate more than once. I don't think he gave us the name of the place they send them to(or at least I don't remember him giving it to us) but he did say it's located in Norwood.

The rates you quoted sound much more reasonable considering the small amount of space a gun takes up. I can store a whole car in a climate controled environment for less than half the amount he quoted.
 
And again, even though it may not have been the action I'd have taken, that "muddy part" shouldn't change a thing. I don't care if he got in his car, drove to his mom's, borrowed her gun, then drove back and shot the dog. I think he was justified. Not very restrained, but justified none-the-less.

He should have grabbed his gun and checked the dog's tag a second time and while the dog lunged he should have shot at that time. Case would be closed.

But I agree with you otherwise. The dog was still on his property and a trheat to his livestock. Obviuously the dog had no intention of leaving after he already had bittne the guy.

What the hell to we get to defend in this freakin state?

You own a dog.....keep it contained or face the consequence.

A dog from a few houses down came into my driveway barking and showing teeth and I was ou there with my 2 and 4 year old daughters. I was washing a car at the time so I sprayed the do and that just pissed him off more. I grabbed a shovel out of my garage and went after the dog until it left my property.....but leave he did....and his owner saw me because I saw him seeing me. He said nothing to me and the dog has not been back.

People get dogs and let them trun and shit and attack innocent people. Be responsible or get a fish.
 
With all due respect, I don't believe your firearms instructors have any true idea about firearms storage rates, or you may have misunderstood what they were saying.

I think you might want to call the bonded firearms warehouse Fitchburg PD uses and ask them what their rates are. Typical storage fees are somewhere between fifty cents and seventy five cents per gun per day.

Darius
I think the typical pricing structure is "pick up and checkin" fee plus daily storage - and $25 sounds about right for the checkin fee.

The bonded warehouses are as Chief Glidden once said "excessively entreprenurial" with trick like "all or nothing" redemption - if you can't afford to bail out ALL your guns, they start selling them to pay storage so they don't get stuck with the cheap ones as the only forfeits.

Also, I very much doubt that any firearms held as "evidence" would go to a bonded warehouse as there is that pesky chain of custody thing.
 
There are NO free bites in Massachusetts. If a dog bites a person, that person has the right to demand that that dog be put down, so whether the dog was shot by someone or given a lethal injection, the outcome is the same....the offending dog is going to be dead. The fact that it happened with a gun wouldn't get any mileage in most states where people take the well being of humans over animals more seriously. Massachusetts being the liberal shithole that it is, blows these situations WAY out of proportion. The press feeds on these situations and caters to the touchy feely public.

Bottom line is, that lady should feel lucky if she only loses her dog in this whole process. If her out of control, trespassing dog bit me on my property she'd be living in a homeless shelter after paying damages in a civil suit.

As for the guy's guns being confiscated, its a bunch of bullshit and as unjust a taking as could possibly occur. I hope he sues the lady into bankruptcy and gets his license and guns back. If he doesn't everyone in this state is in serious jeopardy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Glad to read that the guy was found not guilty. OTOH, "not guilty" really means "allegations not proved", not "innocent". There's not much more to say, since we're all left with nothing more than repeating hearsay. The only person who was there (Keith's superior information source, AKA "the defendant") is hardly a disinterested witness, but he paid Keith and got the results he wanted, so that's all that really matters.

Ken
 
The only person who was there (Keith's superior information source, AKA "the defendant") is hardly a disinterested witness, but he paid Keith and got the results he wanted, so that's all that really matters.

A gross misstatement of fact.

I had access to the 3 witnesses for the defense, the police reports, the doctors' reports, the vets' reports, the necropsy summary, as well as actually hearing all testimony in open court.

But feel free to carp about sources, regardless. [rolleyes]
 
Disclaimer: drgrant linked to this thread in a newer post, blame him.

Looked up this guy. He filed a civil suit against the 2 officers: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1526762.html

All his claims were rejected. Interesting excerpt:

According to evidence the defense presented at trial, however, Grossmith had given a rather different account to the police that day. According to the transcript of the 911 call Grossmith made immediately after the incident, Grossmith only told the operator that he shot Kato after the dog bit him;...

We'll probably never know what really happened, but the guy suffered a traumatic experience. Because his account to the operator and police officers were different than when he was in a calmer state of mind, he screwed himself.

Just another example of STFU. Even if you believe you are 100% innocent, adrenaline wreaks havoc on your mind. If you forget a detail or 2 while still hyped up, the courts will look at it like you're a dirty liar.
 
Back
Top Bottom