Monson Man Convicted in Self-Defense Dog Shooting

[TomH]

Once the guy was confronted with this situation he could have been scared to death and running off of adrenaline until the event was over. When you're in a situation like this you're not thinking in a cool, collected manner. Retrieving a weapon and using it might seem perfectly necessary and reasonable if you are scared. Same with taking that last shot after the 2nd dog. Kind of the same as many shootings involving an intruder or police shootings: they empty the mag and don't even remember it.

 

[HTRN]

they empty the mag and don't even remember it.

Always empty the mag..

Center of mass is the term for what you were shooting at too.

 

[Tara]

When you're in a situation like this you're not thinking in a cool, collected manner. Retrieving a weapon and using it might seem perfectly necessary and reasonable if you are scared

Yup, being scared makes people do things that others might not see as logical. But at the time it might have been the only logical thing that individual could think to do. Unfortunately we live in a society where folks that have never been there done that want to tell us how we SHOULD have reacted.

 

[n1heu]

This entire case further emphasizes the golden rule. "I've done nothing wrong, I will speak to you after I have consulted my attorney." Repeat as necessary. Say nothing else.
I steal a byline from one of the posters here:
"The shaft of the arrow had been feathered with one of the eagle's own plumes. We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction." Aesop, The Eagle and the Arrow

 

[stinx]

§ 156. Killing dogs under certain conditions; wounded dogs

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.

I had never seen this statue before: This makes things a little more intersting under this statue it sounds like the shooter would have been in compliance with the law. I see an appeal coming.

 

[Kaos116]

I see an appeal coming.

If he can afford it....

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There is an old adage "If you are arguing the law, you want a bench trial. If you are arguing the facts you want a jury".

The defendant is an attorney who now has a felony conviction. I suspect an appeal (perhaps even with a non-felony plea bargain being offered somewhere in the process) will occur as a felony CORI might interfere with the ability to maintain a license to practice law. (any MA lawyers on the list have this info?)

 

[n1heu]

The defendant is an attorney who now has a felony conviction. I suspect an appeal (perhaps even with a non-felony plea bargain being offered somewhere in the process) will occur as a felony CORI might interfere with the ability to maintain a license to practice law. (any MA lawyers on the list have this info?)

He can always run for congress.

 

[TonyDedo]

Sorry but inspite of the fact that acording to the MGL mentioned earlier he need only be "worried"...this is neither a shooting or "responsible" gun owner I would like to associate with...

Its funny I see this alot here on the internet boards and with discussions at the range, all to often we take someones side simply because they are "one of us" (a gun owner) and ignore the fact that they f'd up...

+1

We own firearms in case we HAVE to use them, not to sit around and wait until we're ALLOWED to use them. Just because a gun owners is legally justified to shoot doesn't mean he/she SHOULD shoot. MGL is not the end-all, be-all guidance for how we should live our lives. I think there's a higher level of decision making we need to consider: call it morality, responsibility, common sense, whatever you like.

Just because in Texas it's legal to shoot someone for merely trespassing, would you support some curmudgeon who took pot shots at a group of kids who got lost in the woods and wandered onto his land?

Point being is, this guy did not HAVE to shoot the dogs. He was inside and the dogs were no longer a threat. He did it because he WANTED to.

 

[tele_mark]

There is an old adage "If you are arguing the law, you want a bench trial. If you are arguing the facts you want a jury".

The defendant is an attorney who now has a felony conviction. I suspect an appeal (perhaps even with a non-felony plea bargain being offered somewhere in the process) will occur as a felony CORI might interfere with the ability to maintain a license to practice law. (any MA lawyers on the list have this info?)

Am I missing something? According to the article, the neighbor with the dogs was the attorney, not the guy who got convicted of shooting them.

 

[securityboy]

... MGL is not the end-all, be-all guidance for how we should live our lives. I think there's a higher level of decision making we need to consider: call it morality, responsibility, common sense, whatever you like...

Exactly

 

[Another_David]

Lessons learned:

1. Keep your dog on a leash
2. When you retreat to retrieve your firearm, stay retreated and call the police
3. Don't give statements without a lawyer

 

[RichM]

Am I missing something? According to the article, the neighbor with the dogs was the attorney, not the guy who got convicted of shooting them.

This is correct. RB has it backwards.

 

[ASHDUMP]

In this context, worrying follows the webster definition of "to harass by tearing, biting, or snapping especially at the throat"

I learned something new today.

 

[ASHDUMP]

Just because in Texas it's legal to shoot someone for merely trespassing, would you support some curmudgeon who took pot shots at a group of kids who got lost in the woods and wandered onto his land?

Point being is, this guy did not HAVE to shoot the dogs. He was inside and the dogs were no longer a threat. He did it because he WANTED to.

+1

I would call it common sense. You would think more gun owners would represent this.

 

[ateamrob]

here is my take on it. Simply my take and nothing more...

"Keep your freaking rottweilers on your own property and off other peoples deck. These dogs have a history of being violent (All these years I have ignored all the news articles about them mauling kids and thought that stereotyping them was wrong until last week when I just watched one lunge at an 8 year old boy coming out of the laundromat with his Mom minding their own business. Its a good thing the owner had him on a leash. It brought the owner right out of the bench and if that freakin monster was not on a leash it would have mauled that little kid for NO REASON at all!!!) and I dont blame the guy for blasting the heck out of them. That'll learn em..... I have been a dog owner for years (German Shepards, Labs and others and while I dont hate Rottys I certainly think they dangerous no matter what after last week)

I hope he gets off scott free because any dog owner especially a Rotty owner needs to know better than to let them run around rampant like that.... maybe he will think twice next time. Idiot....

good luck home owner...

 

[ASHDUMP]

here is my take on it. Simply my take and nothing more...

"Keep your freaking rottweilers on your own property and off other peoples deck. These dogs have a history of being violent (All these years I have ignored all the news articles about them mauling kids and thought that stereotyping them was wrong until last week when I just watched one lunge at an 8 year old boy coming out of the laundromat with his Mom minding their own business. Its a good thing the owner had him on a leash. It brought the owner right out of the bench and if that freakin monster was not on a leash it would have mauled that little kid for NO REASON at all!!!) and I dont blame the guy for blasting the heck out of them. That'll learn em..... I have been a dog owner for years (German Shepards, Labs and others and while I dont hate Rottys I certainly think they dangerous no matter what after last week)

I hope he gets off scott free....

Sounds like your a media zombie following the trend. You must have known that Golden Retrievers provide the most dog bites nation wide right?

Its almost like we have nothing in common with these so-called "Dangerous Breeds".

...and you hope this guy gets off scott free for being a reckless gun owner? Its reasons and responses like yours that gives gun owners a bad name.

From what I gather here so far on this thread; anyone or anything who comes on my property day time or night, I will shoot to kill making sure I empty my magazine in the process. Talk about idiotic and dumb.

You all better hope your sons or daughters don't go pool hopping at my place 'cause I'll be ready. ...oh and lets hope little Fido doesn't follow them.

 

[radioman]

Golden Retrievers

Need ratio of GR's to other breeds for this to mean anything? If GR's out number RW's 100 to 1 then of course statistically they will rack up more bites.

 

[radioman]

And ashdump,, Keep your kids out of my pool

 

[ASHDUMP]

Need ratio of GR's to other breeds for this to mean anything? If GR's out number RW's 100 to 1 then of course statistically they will rack up more biyes.

Although Goldens might be more popular than Rottweilers, Shepard's fall just underneath them by popularity and have the same "Dangerous" connotation attached to their name.

...they know we have a pool. They must do it for the excitement.

 

[ateamrob]

From what I gather here so far on this thread; anyone or anything who comes on my property day time or night, I will shoot to kill making sure I empty my magazine in the process. Talk about idiotic and dumb.

You all better hope your sons or daughters don't go pool hopping at my place 'cause I'll be ready. ...oh and lets hope little Fido doesn't follow them.

uh.. first off we are talking about dogs who have a KILLING reputation (yes that's right unless you have been living in a box for your life... look at the statistics on Rottys around children, other dogs etc... I just informed you of what I saw with my own eyes last week with the 8 year old and Mom coming out of the laundromat. That was inexcusable) not human beings coming on people's property "pool hoping" as you call it. I would hope no one on this site would be blasting human beings pool hoping. We are talking about 2 dogs who "could have" and I use could have because I do not have the facts nor was I there, attacked this individual on his own land. Sorry, no dog is going to come on my property and threaten my family or pets without getting a rude awakening.
Again we are talking about dogs who have violent intentions not kids pool hoping.

now any dog no matter what kind can turn and become violent... of course.... I dont have anything against Rottys... They are peoples pets and I have no problem with that. A lot has to do with how you train them. But if I was standing on my porch looking at 2 of them with my family scared to death inside the house I cant say I would not have blasted them either. Too many "weird" news articles out there today about stuff like this where the family is dead. Remember the Gorilla last year that ate that womans face and hands and then came after the cops when they showed up? Anyone that says, "he had no right..." is not thinking clearly. Dont monday morning quarterback with boat loads of time what this guy had only seconds to respond to.

 

[jcr]

AHe has a felony conviction now. I wonder what his plea offer was, and if the felony will cost him his bar card.

I'm late to the thread here, and someone might have responded to this already in following pile of replies.

The lawyer was the deceased dog owner. The lawyer is the complainant in the the civil action.

The defendant and shooter was not the guy who was pictured with the lawyer bio.

 

[Martlet]

Sounds like your a media zombie following the trend. You must have known that Golden Retrievers provide the most dog bites nation wide right?

Its almost like we have nothing in common with these so-called "Dangerous Breeds".

...and you hope this guy gets off scott free for being a reckless gun owner? Its reasons and responses like yours that gives gun owners a bad name.

From what I gather here so far on this thread; anyone or anything who comes on my property day time or night, I will shoot to kill making sure I empty my magazine in the process. Talk about idiotic and dumb.

You all better hope your sons or daughters don't go pool hopping at my place 'cause I'll be ready. ...oh and lets hope little Fido doesn't follow them.

You compare pool hopping kids to attacking dogs? I don't care what breed the dog is. If it's aggressive, and on your property, you should be able to dispatch it.

What was reckless about his gun ownership? He dispatched an aggressive dog on his own property without collateral damage.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The lawyer was the deceased dog owner. The lawyer is the complainant in the the civil action

That would explain the incompetence on the part of the defendant and the vigorous prosecution.

 

[TXDMERC]

something dont sound right, how could he get away form 2 rottweilers and go in to the house and retreive a shotgun after one lunged at him? they ar elike 100 pounds of rage , well they were unleashed and on private property so i think the guy who shot the dogs will get away with them cuz they were on private property.

 

[ASHDUMP]

You compare pool hopping kids to attacking dogs? I don't care what breed the dog is. If it's aggressive, and on your property, you should be able to dispatch it.

What was reckless about his gun ownership? He dispatched an aggressive dog on his own property without collateral damage.

I was referring to someones previous post about how in TX you can shoot and kill someone if they are trespassing on private property with no intention of threat. I was being sarcastic about the pool hopping kids, of course.

I would think that any rational person who escaped two "attacking" rottweilers by running into their house would not come back out looking for revenge with a shotgun. Am I wrong?

 

[Martlet]

I would think that any rational person who escaped two "attacking" rottweilers by running into their house would not come back out looking for revenge with a shotgun. Am I wrong?

I certainly would. Not for revenge, though. If there are two aggressive dogs in the neighborhood, they need to be removed before they come across someone else. Perhaps a child. Just because you've escaped danger, doesn't mean the situation is now safe.

Then again, I also stop for accidents, flat tires, and anywhere I can lend a hand.

 

[Phaedo1982]

Just an FYI, the dog owner is an attorney: Michael Facchini: http://www.facchinilawoffices.net/

He had legal/political connections/resources that Markham didn't have access to.

 

[chowchow99]

Justice has been served.
2 1/2 years in the can sounds just right for this vigilante

 

[Spanz]

This sounds like the guy got screwed by someone with a lot of pull. Things that might have changed the outcome significantly:
1) dial 911 and say "two vicious dogs just attacked me, I got back into my hourse but they are trying to break thru the door, come as quickly as you can"
2) counter sue for pain and suffering due to the traumatizing vicious attack on you
2) Keepa you mouth shut! Get a lawyer before blabing. One or two wrong words can change things.
3) Do not keep firing if there is no longer a threat of bodily harm (ie shooting at the dog running away). Let animal control grab him later.
4) Maybe one shot in the air would have sent these dogs running. If not, then you could say "I tried to scare them off with one shot in the air, they kept trying to get in"
5) Make sure you use a lawyer versed in Mass gun laws! This guy should have gotten off.

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20. We were not there at the time with the adrenalin pumping.