[2nd Amendment]

On the Derry Brownfield show now he is discussing a fellow forced to pay thousands in restitution to the owner of two dogs and a humane shelter not involved in any way to plead down from a felony. He shot two dogs on his property. They were six miles from where they belonged and damaging his property at the time.

Derry said that as the article presented it, it appeared to be an automatic felony charge for shooting a dog in illinois...? he couldn't find anything else involved in this case, just the out of control animals and the farmer who shot them. is this the case?

[El Tejon]

For what I recall, IIRC, Illinois had a fairly broad DARLA (Domestic Animals Running at Large) statute which would permit such actions. However, it was mostly applied in civil matters (I worked for an insurance defense firm through grad skul).

I'll look it up.

[jefnvk]

There was a thread on TFL, the title of which summed up these situtations perfectly. 'Don't want your dogs shot? Then keep them locked up!'

Some people believe that the world is their pet's play ground. I blieve that your property is your pet's playground.

[whm1974]

Sounds like there is more involved then some dogs getting shot.

-Bill

[20cows]

There was a thread on TFL, the title of which summed up these situtations perfectly. 'Don't want your dogs shot? Then keep them locked up!'

Unfortunately for this fellow, the above thread was in Alaska IIR.

[2nd Amendment]

Sounds like there is more involved then some dogs getting shot.

-Bill

That's rather the point. No other charges filed or claims made, nothing. The show should be archived tomorrow so I'll get the fellow's name and Google around...

[jnojr]

A little like if someone's forced to shoot a mountain lion in California... automatic felony.

Just remember the three Ses... Shoot, Shovel, STFU :)

[jefnvk]

Unfortunately for this fellow, the above thread was in Alaska IIR.

Yeah, I know. A dog, though, running around 6 miles from its home, destroying property, probably deserves to be shot.

Actually, probably not. Owner should have never left it out to roam free in the first place, oughta lose the right to keep pets. But I am not going to throw the guy in prison for animal cruelty charges over something like this.

[Jeff White]

I think there is more to the case then what we know. Illinois law says:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1704&ChapAct=510%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=41&ChapterName=ANIMALS&ActName=Animal+Control+Act%2E
(510 ILCS 5/18) (from Ch. 8, par. 368)
Sec. 18. Any owner seeing his or her livestock, poultry, or equidae being injured, wounded, or killed by a dog, not accompanied by or not under the supervision of its owner, may kill such dog.
(Source: P.A. 93‑548, eff. 8‑19‑03.)

(510 ILCS 5/18.1) (from Ch. 8, par. 368.1)
Sec. 18.1. The owner or keeper of a dog is liable to a person for all damages caused by the dog pursuing, chasing, worrying, wounding, injuring, or killing any sheep, goats, cattle, horses, mules, poultry, ratites, or swine belonging to that person.
(Source: P.A. 88‑600, eff. 9‑1‑94.)

(510 ILCS 5/19) (from Ch. 8, par. 369)
Sec. 19. Any owner having livestock, poultry, or equidae killed or injured by a dog shall, according to the provisions of this Act and upon filing claim and making proper proof, be entitled to receive reimbursement for such losses from the Animal Control Fund; provided, he or she is a resident of this State and such injury or killing is reported to the Administrator within 24 hours after such injury or killing occurs, and makes affidavit stating the number of such animals or poultry killed or injured, the amount of damages and the owner of the dog causing such killing or injury, if known.
The damages referred to in this Section shall be substantiated by the Administrator through prompt investigation and by not less than 2 witnesses. The Administrator shall determine whether the provisions of this Section have been met and shall keep a record in each case of the names of the owners of the animals or poultry, the amount of damages proven, and the number of animals or poultry killed or injured.
The Administrator shall file a written report with the County Treasurer as to the right of an owner of livestock, poultry, or equidae to be paid out of the Animal Control Fund, and the amount of such damages claimed.
The County Treasurer shall, on the first Monday in March of each calendar year, pay to the owner of the animals or poultry the amount of damages to which he or she is entitled. The county board, by ordinance, shall establish a schedule for damages reflecting the current market value.
If there are funds in excess of amounts paid for such claims for damage in that portion of the Animal Control Fund set aside for this purpose, this excess shall be used for other costs of the program as set forth in this Act.
(Source: P.A. 93‑548, eff. 8‑19‑03.)

If they were killing his livestock he is clearly within his rights to shoot them. Illinois also has a law about dogs running at large:

(510 ILCS 5/9) (from Ch. 8, par. 359)
Sec. 9. Any dog found running at large contrary to provisions of this Act may be apprehended and impounded. For this purpose, the Administrator shall utilize any existing or available animal control facility.
(Source: P.A. 93‑548, eff. 8‑19‑03.)

(510 ILCS 5/10) (from Ch. 8, par. 360)
Sec. 10. When dogs or cats are apprehended and impounded by the Administrator, they must be scanned for the presence of a microchip. The Administrator shall make every reasonable attempt to contact the owner as soon as possible. The Administrator shall give notice of not less than 7 business days to the owner prior to disposal of the animal. Such notice shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner. Testimony of the Administrator, or his or her authorized agent, who mails such notice shall be evidence of the receipt of such notice by the owner of the animal. In case the owner of any impounded dog or cat desires to make redemption thereof, he or she may do so on the following conditions:
a. present proof of current rabies inoculation, and registration, if applicable, or

b. pay for the rabies inoculation of the dog or cat, and registration, if applicable, and

c. pay the pound for the board of the dog or cat for the period it was impounded,

d. pay into the Animal Control Fund an additional impoundment fee as prescribed by the Board as a penalty for the first offense and for each subsequent offense; and

e. pay for microchipping and registration if not already done.

Animal control facilities that are open to the public 7 days per week for animal reclamation are exempt from the business day requirement.
This shall be in addition to any other penalties invoked under this Act.
(Source: P.A. 93‑548, eff. 8‑19‑03.)

I don't see how the person could be charged with a felony. I don't see how he could be charged at all. The section on animal cruelty is here:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1717&ChapAct=510%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B70%2F&ChapterID=41&ChapterName=ANIMALS&ActName=Humane+Care+for+Animals+Act%2E
(510 ILCS 70/3.01) (from Ch. 8, par. 703.01)
Sec. 3.01. Cruel treatment. No person or owner may beat, cruelly treat, torment, starve, overwork or otherwise abuse any animal.
No owner may abandon any animal where it may become a public charge or may suffer injury, hunger or exposure.
A person convicted of violating this Section is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. A second or subsequent conviction for a violation of this Section is a Class 4 felony. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, upon conviction for violating this Section, the court may order the convicted person to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo any treatment at the convicted person's expense that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evidence. If the convicted person is a juvenile or a companion animal hoarder, the court must order the convicted person to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo treatment that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation.
(Source: P.A. 92‑650, eff. 7‑11‑02.)

(510 ILCS 70/3.02)
Sec. 3.02. Aggravated cruelty. No person may intentionally commit an act that causes a companion animal to suffer serious injury or death. Aggravated cruelty does not include euthanasia of a companion animal through recognized methods approved by the Department of Agriculture.
A person convicted of violating Section 3.02 is guilty of a Class 4 felony. A second or subsequent violation is a Class 3 felony. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, upon conviction for violating this Section, the court may order the convicted person to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo any treatment at the convicted person's expense that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation. If the convicted person is a juvenile or a companion animal hoarder, the court must order the convicted person to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo treatment that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation.
(Source: P.A. 92‑650, eff. 7‑11‑02.)

(510 ILCS 70/3.03)
Sec. 3.03. Animal torture.
(a) A person commits animal torture when that person without legal justification knowingly or intentionally tortures an animal. For purposes of this Section, and subject to subsection (b), "torture" means infliction of or subjection to extreme physical pain, motivated by an intent to increase or prolong the pain, suffering, or agony of the animal.
(b) For the purposes of this Section, "animal torture" does not include any death, harm, or injury caused to any animal by any of the following activities:
(1) any hunting, fishing, trapping, or other activity allowed under the Wildlife Code, the Wildlife Habitat Management Areas Act, or the Fish and Aquatic Life Code;
(2) any alteration or destruction of any animal done by any person or unit of government pursuant to statute, ordinance, court order, or the direction of a licensed veterinarian;
(3) any alteration or destruction of any animal by any person for any legitimate purpose, including, but not limited to: castration, culling, declawing, defanging, ear cropping, euthanasia, gelding, grooming, neutering, polling, shearing, shoeing, slaughtering, spaying, tail docking, and vivisection; and
(4) any other activity that may be lawfully done to an animal.

(c) A person convicted of violating this Section is guilty of a Class 3 felony. As a condition of the sentence imposed under this Section, the court shall order the offender to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo treatment that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation.
(Source: P.A. 91‑351, eff. 7‑29‑99; 92‑650, eff. 7‑11‑02.)

If you note the section I put in bold type, you'll see that if it was lawfully done to the animal which shooting the dogs if they were damaging his livestock clearly is, then it's not illegal under the staute.

There is nothing in Chapter 720 (Criminal Code) that could be used to charge him either.

Illinois law holds the owners responsible for their pets and and any damage done by them. It is also probably illegal under the local ordinances in whatever jurisdiction it happened for the dogs to be running at large. There has to be more to the story that we aren't hearing. Either that or this guy has a good civil case against whatever states attorney is threatening prosecution to force this settlement.

Jeff

[Sindawe]

Link to news story on this: http://www.goedwardsville.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14528024&BRD=2291&PAG=461&dept_id=473648&rfi=6

Based on the info from the article, and the highlighted section of the laws that Jeff White posted above, this looks to me like a wrongful prosecution. But of course, INAL.

[2nd Amendment]

Yup, that's it. I just got the info from the archived show. I can't find any other aspects to the case at all. I'm wondering if they are claiming since the animal didn't drop dead immediately it was "cruelty"? I don't see any other possible offense here, especially since the neighbor was not charged.

*********************************************************

Always remember: Shoot, Shovel and Shaddup.

[Jeff White]

Here is the story at the link Sindawe posted:
Man defends shooting
Steve Horrell, stevehorrell@hotmail.com 05/14/2005[/B]


Less than a week after Mike Harman pleaded no contest to charges of attempted cruelty to animals, the 45-year-old rural Bethalto man doesn't know if he will appeal the punishment, requiring him to pay $6,000 in restitution and surrender his shotgun.

"I have 30 days," Harman said Friday. "I've had some offers from high profile organizations that feel this was totally inappropriate."

Harman shot at two dogs that had entered his barn in November and had begun chasing his kittens. Harman said the dogs were not purebred hunting labs, as some in the media had portrayed them, but were "mixed breeds." The dogs belonged to Bill Matheny, who lived in rural Alton, six miles away. The dogs had escaped after Matheny's fiance let them out while she was feeding them or letting them out for a run.

Harman said that after confronting the dogs he threw rocks at them and tried to run them off his property twice more.

Harman said he had loaded his shotgun with quail shot and shot one of the dogs and clipped the other. His neighbor found the first dog and decided to "put it out of its misery" by shooting it with a .22 calibre rifle.

Deputies with the Madison County Sheriff's Department questioned the neighbor, who led them to a ditch where he had put the dog. According to police reports at the time, a veterinarian determined that the dog died from the rifle shot rather than the shotgun shot. The neighbor has not been charged in the case.

The other dog has not been found.

Harman said he was simply protecting his children and his property. The dogs could have had rabies, he said, and in the past stray dogs have killed the family's guineas, sheep and goats.

Harman said he agreed to a deal only to avoid a jury trial and the possibility that he would be found guilty of a felony.

That would cost him his auctioneer's license and his livelihood as the owner of Harman Auction Service. Harman is not only caring for his family but a mother who has Parkinson's disease.

The no contest plea allowed the charges to be reduced to misdemeanors. He was ordered to pay $4,000 to Matheny and $1,000 to Five A, a no-kill animal shelter in Alton.

Harman said he has gotten plenty of calls from people offering their support.

"This is not my cause, it's everybody's cause," he said. "If they can do this to me, the next person that shoots a dog to protect their property will get charged. It's got to stop."

I don't imagine the press can get anything right. :banghead: For it to be a felony it would have to be Aggravated Cruelty which is:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1717&ChapAct=510%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B70%2F&ChapterID=41&ChapterName=ANIMALS&ActName=Humane+Care+for+Animals+Act%2E
(510 ILCS 70/3.02)
Sec. 3.02. Aggravated cruelty. No person may intentionally commit an act that causes a companion animal to suffer serious injury or death. Aggravated cruelty does not include euthanasia of a companion animal through recognized methods approved by the Department of Agriculture.
A person convicted of violating Section 3.02 is guilty of a Class 4 felony. A second or subsequent violation is a Class 3 felony. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, upon conviction for violating this Section, the court may order the convicted person to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo any treatment at the convicted person's expense that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation. If the convicted person is a juvenile or a companion animal hoarder, the court must order the convicted person to undergo a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and to undergo treatment that the court determines to be appropriate after due consideration of the evaluation.
(Source: P.A. 92‑650, eff. 7‑11‑02.)

There is nothing in chapter 725 Criminal Procedure that allows for the charge to be attempted. Either the defendent committed the act or he didn't. I don't see how he can be charged with attempted cruelty to animals, no such law exists. His shooting the dog with the shotgun would meet the criteria for the crime of Aggravated Cruelty, but I would think that 510 ILCS 5/18 would give him the lawful purposes exemption to the charges. I wonder if he hired a lawyer or just thought he'd spare himself the expense and represent himself?

Jeff

[2nd Amendment]

I read the article three times and never saw the "attempted" cruelty phrase, which is why I was wondering exactly what the charges were. All I could imagine was cruelty, based on your prior post, since as you note there is no such thing as "attempted" cruelty.

Someone must have scared the hell out of the guy, using his auctioneer's license as a club. Pathetic.

[TallPine]

I guess the moral of the story when it comes to getting rid of problem dogs is "shoot to kill" and "use enough gun"

That and the SSS rule.

:(


(7.62*39 has worked well for me ;) )

[halfacop]

I am an Animal Control Officer in Michigan. They have no case. As long as he did not "allow" them to suffer after shooting them and the other simple little fact that "if he knew" who they belonged to he needed to notify them of the incident and tell them to come get the dogs OR he needed to bury them or he could face a "failure to bury" charge.

non of which I would charge him with considering the circumstances with past incounters. He had every right in shooting the dogs in my book!

Sounds like the guys getting the shaft.

[Standing Wolf]

Harman said he agreed to a deal only to avoid a jury trial and the possibility that he would be found guilty of a felony.

I'd say the prosecutor needs to be fired.

[2nd Amendment]

Derry is reading through this thread on-air right now :)

[jefnvk]

I'd say the prosecutor needs to be fired.


What about his lawyer, who let him go along with this plan?

[2nd Amendment]

I didn't see any mention of a bottom-feeder. Surely he must have done this ignorance on his own...