Monson Man Convicted in Self-Defense Dog Shooting

[tj western ma]

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

Your kidding right?

 

[namedpipes]

Yeah baby! 2 1/2 years in the can because the dog owner not only couldn't be bothered to take responsibility for his dogs, but went out of his way (according to reports here) to ensure that guy was persecuted.

That takes a**h***ry to new heights. I see a Congressional future for that lawyer.

If you received neg reps for that comment they didn't come from me, but you deserved them.

 

[Mark from MA]

It's obvious the lawyer is connected.....my guess this guy was screwed from the start. My brother in law is a lawyer, and beleive me it makes a difference who you know.....

The dog owner/lawyer is obviously a DB and should be counter charged with not having his dogs leashed, etc....

Without being there and just looking at what's been said here, the guy probably went a little overboard on shooting the dogs, especially if they were retreating, but who knows what really happened, the media certainly is gonna lean towards the "poor" dogs. I'm definately not in agreement of finding him guilty.....possiblly poor judgement, but there's no way those dogs should have been on his property.

As far as the people that say they should be able to shoot a dog for crapping on their lawn, a BB gun with a few pumps slapping a dog's A$$ goes a long way towards preventing that......

 

[jobowker]

In my experience, jerk people own jerk dogs. It almost never fails. Both dog and owner deserve the same fate. But that's just me.

Too bad this worked out as it did.

I noticed that as well.

 

[Realtor MA]

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.

+1 Items 2 and 3 are the key points

 

[Martlet]

+1 Items 2 and 3 are the key points

I have a hard time with #3. Why on earth should you let an aggressive dog, possibly wounded, return to the neighborhood? Just because it's no longer a threat to you, doesn't mean the kids next door, lady across the street, or man walking HIS dog are safe.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

counter sue for pain and suffering due to the traumatizing vicious attack on you

Unrealistic in this case:

1. The only damages are non-tangible psychic damages in this situation and the plaintiff has been convicted of a felony for his actions in this case. This is not the kind of case one is going to be able to get a contingency fee attorney interested in.

2. The defendant is an attorney. Attorney's don't like suing each other. My guess is that any attorney the shooter sees about a suit will react with "I'll take a pass on this and spend my time on someone hit by a well insured driver".

On the other hand, the dog owner has suffered documentable damages. Although the fault remains under debate, the only question at this point is "How much will the shooter of his insurance company pay?"

 

[Realtor MA]

I have a hard time with #3. Why on earth should you let an aggressive dog, possibly wounded, return to the neighborhood? Just because it's no longer a threat to you, doesn't mean the kids next door, lady across the street, or man walking HIS dog are safe.

I think that's why we call it 'self' defense. Seriously, if another party is threatened that becomes a law enforcement issue. When I got my LTC years ago, I seem to recall being handed information that outlined justifiable shooting situations. I believe according to that information you are allowed to protect parties who you have a relationship with ie)family but it is frowned upon for an LTC holder to intervene in an event which includes only strangers.

 

[Martlet]

I think that's why we call it 'self' defense. Seriously, if another party is threatened that becomes a law enforcement issue. When I got my LTC years ago, I seem to recall being handed information that outlined justifiable shooting situations. I believe according to that information you are allowed to protect parties who you have a relationship with ie)family but it is frowned upon for an LTC holder to intervene in an event which includes only strangers.

Being expected to watch strangers suffer harm simply because they are strangers is a large part of what's wrong with our community. I refuse to accept that.

 

[Pete85]

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.

No, something certainly doesn't sound right. I'm guessing there is something we're not being told here like the shotgun was right inside the screen door leaning up against the wall (illegaly stored) or something along those lines, and his "retreating into the house to get the shotgun" was him reaching in the door from the ground where the dog had knocked him down. This is pure speculation on my part, but unless the man had reasonible fear for another person in the neighborhood, which I think anyone on this board would have had seeing two strange, aggressive dogs, unrestrained, with no owner in sight roaming around (and just attacked him).

I'm surprised that the jury didn't eat up the fact that these dogs had bitten a young girl prior to this incident, and had a history of aggression. While MA laws only require a leash in "protected areas", the dog owner was a moron for letting two dogs with a history of aggression walk around unchecked. For those defending the dogs, had they attacked and killed a child or a little old lady, and not a strong and equipped man, capable of defending himself, would you still be saying there was no justification to shoot?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I'm surprised that the jury didn't eat up the fact that these dogs had bitten a young girl prior to this incident, and had a history of aggression.

Do you know for a fact that the judge allowed this evidence to be introduced at trial and that defense counsel did so?

 

[jcr]

The defendant is an attorney.

Why do you keep on insisting on this. Someone else and I both have pointed out that you seem to be in error. Unless, you know that Markham is also a lawyer

So, let me post a couple excerpts from the article:

"...trial for Erwin C. Markham III, the man who shot two rottweilers..."

"...said Markham killed Michael D. Facchini's dog..."

and from http://www.facchinilawoffices.net/MFacchini.html :

"Michael graduated from Western New England College of Law in May, 1998 and was sworn into the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a practicing Attorney in November, 1998"

So, what did you find that implied that the defendant would now lose his bar card?

 

[Mark from MA]

Being expected to watch strangers suffer harm simply because they are strangers is a large part of what's wrong with our community. I refuse to accept that.

Then in perfect world you would be the MA Attorney General....but in the real world of liberal idiots called MA, we have Martha Coakley. "People really.....really should not take matters into their own hands".......

 

[TheIglu]

As a responsible dog owner, I sure as hell hope he never manages to get away from me one day with all the comments I've seen in this thread.

I'll give anyone else's dog the benefit of the doubt if someone will do the same for me.

So I have to sit in my house for 20 minutes until animal control comes. Oh good god, my pride is ruined.

Jesus f'in christ.

 

[Martlet]

As a responsible dog owner, I sure as hell hope he never manages to get away from me one day with all the comments I've seen in this thread.

I'll give anyone else's dog the benefit of the doubt if someone will do the same for me.

So I have to sit in my house for 20 minutes until animal control comes. Oh good god, my pride is ruined.

Jesus f'in christ.

Not just your pride. Maybe the neighbor's kids. You don't care, though, as long as your safe.

 

[TheIglu]

Not just your pride. Maybe the neighbor's kids. You don't care, though, as long as your safe.

Or the neighbor's kids dog.

Perhaps I'll drive around waiting for a dog to bark at me, then shoot it. We'll all be safer.

 

[ASHDUMP]

I'm going out on a limb here and say that these dogs never knocked this guy down. You've got to be a complete klutz to fall down from a dog that lunges at you. Yes, these are large breed dogs but if your a man in your younger years this shouldn't happen. If a human being such as ourselves lunges at another human with arms wide open, grabbing and holding on, then someone might fall down.

Also, where does it say that this man was bitten? Did the dogs grab onto clothing and rip anything? Nothing was mentioned of this. I just don't believe that if two large breed dogs that was attacking someone who actually knocked him down would give up. They would have a least bit this guy? Maybe I read over this part or missed it.

I also understand everyone's concerns here on this thread. I would protect my family as well if two attacking dogs came charging at my family. I wouldn't however, shoot a dog that was barking or growling at me. If anyone did this, we'd all be labeled as "cowboys".

Yes this dog owner was not right by letting them outside without a leash on or having full control of them, but sometimes it happens. Unless you live in a crowded neighborhood or city, most dogs are never on leashes.

 

[Martlet]

Or the neighbor's kids dog.

Perhaps I'll drive around waiting for a dog to bark at me, then shoot it. We'll all be safer.

Why drive around? If you sit on your porch, the neighbor's dog will come to you. Sounds like it does more than bark, too.

Like I said. You don't care about your neighbors, as long as you're safe.

 

[wolf223]

I'm going out on a limb here and say that these dogs never knocked this guy down. You've got to be a complete klutz to fall down from a dog that lunges at you. Yes, these are large breed dogs but if your a man in your younger years this shouldn't happen. If a human being such as ourselves lunges at another human with arms wide open, grabbing and holding on, then someone might fall down.

Also, where does it say that this man was bitten? Did the dogs grab onto clothing and rip anything? Nothing was mentioned of this. I just don't believe that if two large breed dogs that was attacking someone who actually knocked him down would give up. They would have a least bit this guy? Maybe I read over this part or missed it.

I also understand everyone's concerns here on this thread. I would protect my family as well if two attacking dogs came charging at my family. I wouldn't however, shoot a dog that was barking or growling at me. If anyone did this, we'd all be labeled as "cowboys".

Yes this dog owner was not right by letting them outside without a leash on or having full control of them, but sometimes it happens. Unless you live in a crowded neighborhood or city, most dogs are never on leashes.

i wrestled with a 50ish pound pit bull terrier. it's more tiresome than most would think. i was younger, in my 20's and in the same or better shape than I am in now.

it was a long 45 seconds fending that f**ker off while making way towards a fence....

 

[TheIglu]

Why drive around? If you sit on your porch, the neighbor's dog will come to you. Sounds like it does more than bark, too.

Like I said. You don't care about your neighbors, as long as you're safe.

You got me nailed down. I don't care about anyone but myself, and in doing so, won't kill one of their pets who threatened my screen door. I'm a cruel cold person. How dare I keep their pets alive.

Then again, I can see your point. If I lived on the North Shore instead of a nice small town with a sense of community, I'd probably think the same way.

 

[Martlet]

You got me nailed down. I don't care about anyone but myself, and in doing so, won't kill one of their pets who threatened my screen door. I'm a cruel cold person. How dare I keep their pets alive.

Then again, I can see your point. If I lived on the North Shore instead of a nice small town with a sense of community, I'd probably think the same way.

No you wouldn't. You've bought into the sheeple mindset.

My neighbor's dogs get into my yard all the time. I've been bitten by the neighbors dog while leaning against my fence. The thought of shooting them didn't cross my mind, because I know the dogs. That's much different than cowardly running to the safety of my own home when there are large dogs who tried to attack me running loose in the neighborhood, then staying there while they were a threat to the neighborhood.

If you had a sense of community, you'd feel a responsibility to it. Obviously, you don't.

 

[TheIglu]

Judge all you want. I've had the same situations in my neighborhood.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Why do you keep on insisting on this.

I've already accepted the correction and sent a rep point to the person who pointed it out. I am no longer "keep insisting".

2. The defendant is an attorney. Attorney's don't like suing each other.

When I made this comment, I was referring to the potential defendant in a possible "pain and suffering" suit brought by the person who shot the dogs. I should have added the words "potential litigation" before "defendant" to make that clear.

 

[n1oty]

Had my first neg rep for this post.............

And I'm a dog owner. I keep my dog on a leash and OFF of other folk's property. I demand the same in return.

.........and I almost pissed my pants laughing about it. I'll tell you, it must have been a real turd to neg rep me for proclaiming myself a RESPONSIBLE dog owner. Maybe I would have gotten green if I proclaimed myself irresponsible!!!!

Obviously, also failed to identify himself/herself. Well, guess how much I value your opinion? (Hint: not much).

 

[n1oty]

And here is what he posted for a comment to go with the neg rep:

>>Making pleanty of friends... just not from those who can not think rationally.<<

So, am I reading this correctly? I am making friends amongst those who CAN think rationally and I am not making friends amongst those who can NOT think rationally. OK, works for me.

 

[RichM]

's OK, I just helped repair your soiled reputation...

 

[alexshy]

Being Rottweilers Doesn't matter I'll leave the rest alone.

 

[tele_mark]

And here is what he posted for a comment to go with the neg rep:

>>Making pleanty of friends... just not from those who can not think rationally.<<

So, am I reading this correctly? I am making friends amongst those who CAN think rationally and I am not making friends amongst those who can NOT think rationally. OK, works for me.

Here's some more rep to make up for the ball-less little turd who puss-ily neg repped you.

 

[flintoid]

I'm not really sure what to think about some of your opinions. Being that I've had to put down my german shepard when I was 16 because he was as old I as, and grumpy, and bit a neighbor kid that liked to torment him (he was six... he didn't know better, but it still makes me upset), I have mixed emotions about this.

I honestly believe in an ultimate responsibility that every dog owner has taken on when they receive their pet. Technically, you are taking on a responsibility to control that animal as it does not have enough judgement to make rational decisions on it's own. Your dog has no rights. It is a domesticated wild animal and you should be lucky that you have the privilege in this glorious country to own one without having the government shoving a boot up your rear.

But then I get emotional and think about using rational thinking when it comes to someone else's pet. Unfortunately, this does not affect any aspect of the law.

So shoot away, because technically you should have the right to do so if you believe you are in danger. If you do not believe in this, think it over, and try to remove the emotional irrational thoughts from your head. It's tough to do so. I know because I probably couldn't do that in the heat of the moment.

 

[ASHDUMP]

I would only expect a human to think rationally. Maybe ask yourself while in the heat of the moment. "is this dog attacking me?" If you can't do this, then you shouldn't own a gun. The article says the dog "lunged". If this is considered attacking then we have lost all common sense as a society.

I still don't know how to large breed dogs could knock someone down and not bite or shred any clothing and have it be considered an attack. I'm willing to bet the two dogs were wagging their tales and were jumping with excitement.

Again, this owner should have control of his dogs, but the gunmen shouldn't be that disassociated with common sense.

If a Golden Retriever ran onto your property and you went pet it and it bit you. Would you pull out your gun and shoot it? Or better yet, if a Golden lunged at you, would you shoot it? ....I think not. The breed of this case shouldn't even be considered. This was a dumb gunman who was playing god.