Dog walker shot dead

[fix]

As mentioned earlier, we'll only get to hear one side of this story. At the very least, this needs to go to a Grand Jury for investigation. I can't speak to the man's guilt or innocence, but this situation definitely warrants an official investigation.

 

[HiWayMan]

Arc Angel-

"GASP! Give an idiot a gun; and he'll find an excuse to use it! This is a classic example of, 'Why' dumb-ass civilians shouldn't be allowed to carry any lethal weapon."

Dumb-ass civilians shouldn't be allowed to carry any lethal weapon

I beg your pardon

You make me want to

 

[pax]

Moderator Note:

Please remember that on THR, we don't call each other names, we don't attack or insult other posters, and when we disagree with someone we do it in a civil manner.

Members who cannot follow these simple rules will have their posting privileges revoked with no further warnings.

See http://www.thehighroad.org/announcement.php?forumid=2 for further information.

pax

 

[armoredman]

If the PD saw no reason to file charges, in a day and age when civilian use of firearms is frowned upon, then I would say a great deal more is going on that in one reporters' eyes. Perhaps a copy of the police report would be a great deal more informative? As some have said, we weren't there, and have no idea what the other individual was actually doing.
The facts of him being homeless, or a siant, or past history of criminal behavior are immaterial in the eyes of the law. What happened at the actual encounter is, and in the RO's veiw, it was justifiable.

 

[TheLastBoyScout]

Let's see, the chain of events I see is:

1) Man is walking on trail, sees big, aggressive dogs charging him.

2) Man fires warning shot

presumption: Since dogs are no longer mentioned, dogs were probably repelled by warning shot

3) Younger, angry man comes into view showing obvious aggression

4) Younger man ignores warning to stop

Because of the age difference, the unarmed younger man could do serious bodily harm to the shooter

5) Older man responds to threat with lethal force.

Looks justified to me.

 

[goalie]

I am not a homicide investigator, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, so here's a few of my thoughts.

1. Where did the warning shot strike the ground in relation to where the dead body lay? I ask because if the assailant charged past where the warning shot hit the ground, it would be quite easy for the shooter to establish a genuine fear for his life. If I were an investigating officer, the easily verifiable fact that the dead man charged, in the direction of the shooter, past where a warning shot struck the ground would quickly establish a reasonable fear for life and limb. Someone that runs at you after you fire a warning shot is not rational, and, by any reasonable definition, is a threat. Unfortunately, the article does not mention at what distance the shoot took place, despite mentioning a specific distance that the dogs approached to. Not enough info for me.

2. Those of you who mentioned that the shooter was unhurt, as if that is somehow a bad thing are not really thinking straight. You do not already have to have suffered serious bodily harm for deadly force to be justified, and the difference between an injured self-defense incident survivor and an unscathed self-defense incident survivor is often taining and situational awareness, not guilt or innocence.

3. Was the shooter retreating from the advancing assailant? Once again, this would be rather easy to establish with the physical evidence, and I am sure the investigating officers noted it, even if it wasn't in the article. Once again, not enough info.

Conclusion: It appears to me that the article was written with a bias. I say this because of the inclusion of some certain specific distances and facts while noting the exclusion of other distances and facts that would also have been easily obtainable if the included ones were easily obtainable. While I disagree with any blanket statements about the dead guy's mental health based soley on his living arrangements, I would point out that while working in the ER I often see people described by the peers as "gentle" and "would never hurt a fly" going irrationally and ballistically violent. Those that are a few sandwiches short of a picnic who keep it bottle up inside seem to hit more extreme emotional levels when the bottle burts from the pressure. Seeing someone shoot at your loved pet could certainly have been a catalyst that sent the dead guy over the edge. Unfortunately, all of us are just making semi-informed opinions, which are usually worse than completely ignorant ones, especially when the information we do have is potentially seriously skewed in one direction.

 

[Poodleshooter]

I once had some loose rottweilers chase me in the street while jogging. I took a swing at them with my lacrosse stick and then had the pleasure of having the owner charge toward me and threaten me for "taking a swing at his dogs".
Take a guess where my sympathies lie.
It's definitely not with idiot dog owners who don't control their dogs.
MY PISTOL HAS A HOLSTER-DOES YOUR DOG HAVE A LEASH???
It irks me that dogs are sociably acceptable as defensive tools, yet firearms aren't.

 

[spacemanspiff]

i may have posted this a while back, but i dont recall and am too lazy to go back and search to see if i did...

two months ago i was leaving my home, on my front porch. two kids are walking two dogs, not on leashes. on is a rotty mix and he charges towards me. stops at the bottom of the steps and is barking up a storm, and obviously wants to see if my legs taste as good as they look.

i've already locked my front door and i'm sure as heck not gonna turn my back to an aggressive dog long enough to unlock the door.
i'm yelling at the kids to get their dog, but all they do is call to the dog from the street.
i'm ready to kick the dog if it comes up the steps but am not really looking forward to possibly having it latch on to my ankle as i kick. this goes on for what seemed like a while, but it may have been 30-45 seconds of that rotty barking at me and half charging from 5 feet away.
i did sweep my shirt back over the grips of my kimber, and was seconds from drawing it out when the dog decided to run down the length of the street.

one kid chased after it, mistakenly thinking the dog was under voice command. i yelled at the other kid for walking dogs without leashes, which they had with them, they just didnt bother to put them on.


in the case of this arizona dogwalker, i cant say i have much sympathy for him. its too bad hes dead now, but he should have been a whole lot smarter. for starters, any dog with a history of aggression should be put down.

 

[M1911Owner]

A warning shot might indicate that Fish had time to flee, Boa said.

I didn't see where it mentioned that Fish was an Olympic-class runner, which is what you'd need to be to have even a hope of outrunning three, big dogs.

That tends to support that hypothesis that the writer is biased against Fish.

 

[Exposure]

I was going to stay out of this but I can't anymore. As biased as the newspaper article was the majority of the replies in this thread are just as biased.

The person walking the dogs is guilty of not having them on a leash, those dogs charged someone who happened to be carrying. These are the only facts that anyone knows about this whole incident.

Because he had unleashed dogs he is dead. Think about that for a minute. A mans life was taken and through a whole lot of speculation he has been charged with being an enraged lunatic ready to kill the shooter. Only one person really knows what happened and he isn't posting in this thread.

I find it extremely un-nerving that a lot of you have convicted the dog walker based on what is obviously poor reporting.

 

[spacemanspiff]

and i suppose the police decided to call it a 'justifiable homicide' based on poor investigating?

maybe the reason why we put the blame with the dogwalked is because thats where law enforcement placed it?

 

[Kaylee]

I suppose it's because we all bring our own experiences in to "fill in the gaps" of the story. Like Poodleshooter, I've had a dog come charging me from across a public road -- and then had the owner about go ballistic on me for daring to kick at the thrice-darned thing trying to get it off me.

I saw a big ol' dog trying to take me down.. she saw some stranger kicking at her dog in the street.

But yeah, had it been three dogs trying to open me up, followed by a screaming stranger in the woods I can't say as I wouldn't have emptied a magazine on 'em all myownself.

Hence, I'm inclined to sympathize with the shooter.

Others I'd bet have been in the opposite situation -- I can't blame someone for being very close to their dogs (there's a couple I know that I love dearly myself). And while I am NOT accusing anyone in the forum of this, I've known more than a few dog owners who can't seem to grasp that just 'cause Rover is all cuddly and charming with his home pack, doesn't mean he won't try to tear open a passing stranger out of plain ol' territorial dogginess. (Oh, my baby would never do that, he's so gentle and well behaved.. )

Like careless gun owners, they put the responsible ones to shame. And I'm inclined to believe our DOA guy was one of them.

But as pax says, not enough info. Still, I'm inclined to think the cops knew what they were doing when they made the call.

 

[Exposure]

Yeah because law enforcement is always right. So let's just believe everything they tell us and not have our own opinions.

 

[fletcher]

"Personally, I would have shot the dog first," he said.

That's what I was thinking. I can't see the logic, even in a situation like that of Dog rushing at you = shoot the owner.

 

[goalie]

Exposure,

The fact that it appears to many that law-enforcement so often errs to the other side of the spectrum in self-defense shooting cases, yet in this case the investigating officers seemingly had enough evidence to make a quick decision despite potential political fallout seems to buttress the argument supporting a "good" shoot.

I, however, still think that we do not have enough information to voice an informed opinion. Like I said above, there is some information that would appear to be readily available to the article's writer that was left out. Without that information, we may as well flip a coin.

 

[goalie]

That's what I was thinking. I can't see the logic, even in a situation like that of Dog rushing at you = shoot the owner.

It would appear from the article that, at the time of the actual shots going center mass, the human was the only one still attacking. The dogs appear to have been smart enough to find something else to occupy them after the warning shot.

One other thing I noticed is that it would appear to me to be a little odd for a man who tried to stop the dogs without killing them to suddenly transform into a cold-blooded, emotionless killer when it comes to the human being. It appears that the guy didn't even want to shoot the dogs, so I would not personally be inclined to accept that he ruthlessly and unnecessarily shot a human without some good evidence supporting that he did so. Evidence that we don't have.

 

[Exposure]

Goalie-

You are absolutely right. I shouldn't have even opened my mouth as I know I am in the minority here.

But you are even more correct in the fact that we simply do not know the facts and therefore cannot make an accurate judgement.

I am just kind of shocked at the attitude towards a man being killed. Law enforcement opinion or not, if it was a member of highroad.org that had been shot and killed for having a dog unleashed I think everyone would be singing a much different tune.

 

[Standing Wolf]

There isn't enough information in the article for the confident assertions some people are making.

So? We can still trot out half-baked opinions, can't we? This is the internet, isn't it? Are we, like, supposed to be able to spell and reason and all that pre-internet stuff?

 

[goalie]

.

 

[Arc Angel]

Gee, I wonder how the general public views any CCW holder who would use deadly force against an unarmed man? What was the shooter’s greatest risk, here - That he might get pushed, shoved, or, maybe, punched in the eye? Use your head! How long are the rest of us going to be allowed to carry guns if incidents like this continue to occur? This thread is a, ‘Dianne Feinstein/Chuck Schumer delight’ – exactly the sort of firearm misconduct that they are, always, warning the general public against!

First, it isn’t the police who will make the final decision whether or not to prosecute. The grand jury will do that. Second, I’m a great believer in, ‘self-discipline’; and I’ve lived long enough, now, to be aware of some of the, ‘dark corners’ behind human nature. Once some gunmen start pulling the trigger, it’s, just, that much easier to continue shooting. The use of deadly force is supposed to be employed, exclusively, as a last resort NOT an expedient and convenient solution to use against someone who has, ‘scared’ you. No matter which way this account is biased, I’m not buying into the excuse. Granted, nobody wants to put somebody’s grandfather in jail; but, as far as I’m concerned, this is clearly a case of unwarranted use of deadly force by an armed man against an unarmed man.

What are we going to allow ourselves to become: A society of, ‘cowboys’? No dog attack, actually, took place; what did happen is that one man expeditiously shot another one upon the weakest of physical provocations. The shooter is the ONLY person who drew blood, understand? As far as I’m concerned: Me and my CCW guns don’t need this sort of bad publicity. As nicely as I know how to say it; ‘In my opinion, any CCW holder who fails to grasp the haste and misanthropy to this event, also, shouldn’t be carrying a gun – period.’

 

[JJohnston015]

Christ, I almost pulled a knife on a lunatic with a large rock on a TV set last week. It turns out to have been staged, a big joke I wasn't in on, but the people running the show were horrified afterwards that I was armed and that I damn near responded lethally to what turns out to be a joke threat. Understand, guys, they're mad at ME, with no acknowledgement whatsoever that they were wrong in any way.

Well, we may get some good out of this thread. We now have the answer to the question "What would happen if a THRer were set up on "Scare Tactics?"

 

[gbelleh]

We don't have all the facts here, and it’s not my place to make a judgment on this issue anyway. But, people walking dogs without a leash is one of my pet peeves. Not only is it illegal in many places, it's common courtesy not to let your dog invade others' personal space (whether the dog is friendly or not).

 

[goalie]

No dog attack, actually, took place; what did happen is that one man expeditiously shot another one upon the weakest of physical provocations. The shooter is the ONLY person who drew blood, understand?

I could point out numerous not so rare medical conditions that someone the shooter's age could suffer from that would make one punch lethal, especially out on a trail. He could have a blood dyscrasia or clotting disorder or he could be anticoagulated due to recent cardiac intervention or surgery, both would leave a person with a reasonable and rational fear of serious bodily harm if attacked by a younger, unarmed assailant.

Now sure, if that was me on the trail I likely would have just kicked the guys ass and been done with it. That is not an option for many people the shooter's age, and he should not have to take a beating (or even a push) when he did nothing wrong and did not instigate anything. Plus, are you willing to bet your life that it will stop at a punch or a shove?!?!?!

 

[Atticus]

Sad story. But this is one of the primary reasons I applied for concealed carry. I often take my two young daughters on walks in the wilds. There's nothing quite like the sinking feeling in your gut when you see three huge, growling, dogs running towards you, and you're kids, and there is nowhere to run.

 

[rbrowning]

Bias?

Some of the responces to this thread really scare me.

We are given a few "facts" and a story. Maybe there is no bias intended but did anyone else notice that friends of the poor deceased were interviewed, extoling his virtues, but no one was interviewed as a character reference of the victim of an attack where three of the four attackers were smart enough to run from a warning shot. Why do you think that is? And why do some of "US" RKBA folk believe the character references? Have you ever heard a friend or family member tell all of the dirt on some scumbag that just got blown out of his Reeboks by the local cops? But you took this report at face value?

And then you condem a fellow shooter, that was prepared for a bad situation, based on the biased report in the paper? And you take an elietest atttitude of "he shouldn't have a right to self defence but I should". Thinking like that, from members of the anti gun world would not surprise me, but from the people here it scares me!