Dog walker shot dead

Status
Not open for further replies.
Once a kid ran by him yelling somthing like "come get me" and my dog took off which yanked the leash right out of my hand. I chased the dog but already had my hand on my gun....simply because if my dog lit into a kid, I'm going to kill the dog right then and there. Of course it'll be a sad thing, but I will NOT put my DOGS life before the well being of a kid. Not on any day.
A human's life is worth more than a dog's life? You didn't learn THAT from watching Disney... :)

Seriously--I'm glad to see there are still people with proper perspective. I truly hope you never have to do it, and I respect you for having the guts and forethought to have made such a difficult decision ahead of time.
 
rbrowning,

Excellent post. Absolutely agree with everything you said.

pax

You have the right to remain helpless. Should you choose to waive this right, anything you do may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an assailant. If you cannot find one for yourself, the court will release one for you. -- Steve Munden, quoted by Jeff Cooper in his commentaries
 
OK,,,,,,,,, I gave up on page four,,,,,,,, I am a dog lover, and a dog owner,,,,,,, and a gun owner,,,,,,, Can I take both sides?????? three dogs, and someone shot at them???? My response is to charge the guy shooting my dogs,,,,,,,, My verbalization is,,,,,, " You bstd, you shot my dog,,,,,,,,, I am going to KILL you",,,,,,,,,,,,, bad juju,,,,,,, HE WAS HOW CLOSER FOR THE FINAL SHOT?????? tough call,,,,,,, we do NOT have enough information,,,,,,,,,,,,

What I do know is that if arc angel ever needs to defend himself, I hope Barney Fife is there to share his bullet,,,,,, sorry, arc angel, I think you are out of line........
 
JGReed

When you pull a gun in a public place you have just escalated the situation. You drew first and unless you have a badge in your other hand I'm going to be ready to defend myself.
You'd better study the laws which apply to self-defense in your state. If someone draws a gun to defend themselves against a large, threatening dog, they haven't "escalated the situation", they are defending themselves. If you pull a gun in response, YOU are committing assault with a deadly weapon.
 
I know the laws of self defense in my state, and you and I are just gonna have to disagree on that Carpettbaggerr. You're trying to make things a bit more black and white than they usually play out. As I stated:

"I'm gonna be ready to react. If he's drawing because he's clearly being threatened I may assume he's normal. If he's drawing cuz someone's chihuahua is running in his general direction he's a potential lunatic."

As long as there's a chance that guy will...oh I dunno...turn and put three 10mm rounds into my chest even if I DIDN'T draw, I would have no problem with a DA examining my motives for drawing.
 
I know the laws of self defense in my state, and you and I are just gonna have to disagree on that Carpettbaggerr.

I'm sure you do, but I'm curious as to your reasoning. Under the situation in question, were it to occur in Colorado (I think that's your state), the person being attacked would presumably be covered by the Choice of Evils justification and exemption:

18-1-702. Choice of evils. (1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of sections 18-1-703 to 18-1-707, defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no conduct of the actor, and which is of sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.

You, on the other hand, would not, by reason of the requirement that the situation be, "occasioned or developed through no conduct of the actor." Since you, as handler and owner of the dogs have culpability for both the release of the dogs and their conduct (cites on that are many), you fail the Colorado justification from my naive read. You presumably would have to prove positively that the guy being attacked by the dogs created a separate and distinct occasion of public harm -- a tough sell given that your dogs are loose.

I'm not trying to flame or attack, but what is your reasoning for affirmative defense?
 
As stated in the statute "according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury." And as I put in my earlier post(s) if I could see that the person is being threatened then I might reasonably assume that their actions will be contained to that threat. If there is no threat apparent to an ordinary person, I am not required to assume that the person waving the gun around has some special set of phobias they're dealing with and that the rest of us are safe.

Cases in point: I saw a cop shoot a dog behind my house last year. Rottweiler mix that had slipped his leash and was feeling his oats. Terrified a woman by humping her dog for a while, and when the officer arrived it started jumping towards him and barking quite aggressively. In all reality he wasn't in any real danger because the dog was just showing off, but it was certainly reasonable for him to fear that dog and shoot it.

I also saw a private citizen boot a young retriever in the chops because it walked up to him and sniffed at his knee, tail wagging the whole time. Any reasonable person could see that this was not a threatening situation. As it was I assumed he was a jerk. If he'd have pulled a gun I would have assumed he was nuts.
 
He will be charged...

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0604hikershooting-ON.html

Hiker in fatal shooting of dog owner to be charged





Peter Corbett
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 4, 2004 12:49 PM


Coconino County Attorney Terry Hance will file second-degree murder charges today against a Phoenix man who claimed self-defense in the fatal shooting last month in the woods north of Payson.

Harold Fish, 57, a retired Tolleson High School teacher, shot 43-year-old Grant Kuenzli three times in the chest with 10 mm semi-automatic pistol on May 11.

Fish told Coconino County sheriff's investigators that he felt threatened when Kuenzli's three dogs and then Kuenzli charged at him along the Pine Canyon Trail in the Coconino National Forest.

Detective Scott Feagan said that the evidence would show that Fish acted in self-defense.

But after reviewing the evidence Hance decided to file second-degree murder charges.

The case sparked outrage among Arizonans who could not understand why an unarmed man would be shot even if his unleashed dogs charged at Fish.

Fish, who was completing a hike just before sundown, was not hurt by the dogs - a chow mix, shepherd mix and a yellow Labrador retriever.

Kuenzli's sister, Linda Altmeter, of Fowler, Ill., said the charges are appropriate.

"I'm gratified to know that my brother's life was recognized and was worth a charge against the person who stole it," she said. "I don't think (Fish) had very much remorse."

Fish and his attorney were unavailable for comment.

In his only public statement, Fish said he feared for his life when the dogs and then Kuenzli charged down a hill toward him.



Reach the reporter at [email protected] or (602) 444-6862
 
If I come to your house for a visit and one of your dogs charges me, I'll take my chances that it's a friendy animal. Especially if it's tail is wagging and it's not snarling.

If I am out walking in a public place and several dogs charge me barking there is a very good chance you'll discover what the handgun du jour is.

If your unleashed dog bites me while I am minding my own business in a public place I will kill your dog. And you will just stand there and watch. That's just all there is too it.
Afterwards I will be very, very sorry, because there is no one on the planet that loves a good dog more than I do. I much prefer most dogs I have met over most people I have met.

By the same token, IF I ever point a firearm at you and I announce "Stop or I'll Shoot", then either you will, or I will. Period. There are absolutely no other choices.
 
fog of war...

I present two scenarios that could produce the similar results as reported (I know, incomplete still)

1) good shoot
The dogs charge up, not quite intending to do bodily harm, so a warning shot scared them off. But this has not yet become apparent. the dogs may have slowed, F. still has his weapon trained on one of the dogs. K. is still reacting to the first shot, thiking the dogs will be shot next if he doesn't do something. K. runs up yelling (content is irrelevant: deadman cant say, the survivor gets to write history, you and I can accept or reject the story). the fist may or may not be clinched in an attack (again, intent is irrelevant, truthfulness of detail is irrelevant). K. observes one charging man, shoots the charging man after giving warning (again, truthfulness is irrelevant) and **shot to stop**. The evidence supports the shoot to stop portion.

2) murder (in overreaction or in planned cold blood? irrelevant. we'll never know. Here I present a hypothetical vendetta that is ridiculous)
The dogs were walking by peaceably. F has been shadowing K and figuring out his pattern. this one day was the planned murder date. So F calls the dogs over knowing K would follow, then rushes K to close the distance. Fired three shots, "first at 8 feet, third at 6 inches". the dogs were scared from the first shot (close range, loud, disorienting) and never turned on F. The first shot was fairly close in time with the rest of the shots so K was shot before reacting to the first shot in the ground. Or the first shot could have been a ND as K was closing on F for the kill.

just my $0.02.

I truly hope THR is friendly/receptive if/when one of our own gets tangled up in similar situations
 
But after reviewing the evidence Hance decided to file second-degree murder charges.

Well to give this thread a new turn... How many of you feel the county attorney bowed to the pressure to charge Mr. Fish?

Anyone know anything about Coconino County Attorney Terry Hance? Republican? Democrat? Anit-gun or pro-gun or neither? Reelection coming up?

Why would he charge the man when the investigating detective says the evidence will show self defense? I would think he has a weak case and knows it.
 
Sad and Avoidable Tragedy

Once again -- unleashed dogs running ahead of the person walking him, confronting and challenging and threatening someone out for a walk minding his own business.

This senseless tragedy might have been avoided. The walker should have had the dogs on a leash. The shooter should have stopped the threat by shooting any of the three dogs that seemed to him at that moment to be a true threat to his safety.

The walker was not a threat (at first) to the shooter. But then, advancing on the run towards the other man with clenched fists and yelling at the person whose safety was seemingly at risk was NOT a good move on his part. The shooter may well have felt at even further physical risk by the sight of this big man running toward him in the context.

Good Advice: LEASH and CONTROL the dogs when they are out and about. Assume that anyone encountering the dogs will sense some degree of fear or uncertainty, and this may be escalated --- probably by the dogs.
 
The charges were brought as a result of public pressure but Fish will eventually be declared not guilty because the prosecution will have a difficult time of justifying Kuenzli's actions.

  • Why were the dogs illegally unrestrained?
  • Why did he take the chow when it had a history of violence?
  • Why was Kuenzli charging an armed man?
  • The defense may also attack Kuenzli's character simply because of the ease of doing so.

There are probably others too but those are the ones that I believe will be most effective.
 
my 1st post....Ive got updates..this is on GT, and Sigforums, as well as AR15.com.....brings it into perspective.

My Mother and sister go to church with Mr. Fish, he is a good father and family man.

===================================================

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=88546

Kuenzli sufferedpanic attacks, stress disorder

By LARRY HENDRICKS
Sun Staff Reporter
06/06/2004

Although Grant Kuenzli was known universally to be a gentle, helpful man, investigators with the Coconino County Sheriff's Office came across one man who called state police after a confrontation with Kuenzli.
And despite what some Payson residents may think about the gentle nature of the dogs Kuenzli had in his care the day he was shot, one of them had nearly been shot several months earlier because of extreme aggression.

Among the documents in the case file of the shooting death of Kuenzli, Detective Scott Feagan included a report about a trucker who works with Swift Trucking, who had an emotional confrontion with Kuenzli in late March. The driver was shown a photo of Kuenzli by detectives and said, "That's the guy." An officer with the Arizona Department of Public Safety took a report of the incident.

According to the driver's statement to detectives, he had pulled his truck into a service station near the Payson area and a little white vehicle parked behind him. Once out of the truck, the driver was approached by a man (identified as Kuenzli) yelling at him and waving his arms spastically.

The trucker stated that he warned Kuenzli to stay away while Kuenzli said that the truck driver could have killed him. Kuenzli accused the driver of hitting his car and leaving the scene of an accident.

The truck driver called DPS.

"He was very confrontational," the driver told detectives, adding that Kuenzli went inside the store "mouthing off." The driver stated Kuenzli calmed down when the officer arrived. The driver stated he was doubtful Kuenzli was "playing with a full deck."

After Kuenzli was shot by Fish, detectives found a computer CD titled "lawsuit" in Kuenzli's car. When detectives opened the CD, they found several e-mail documents. Among the e-mails were: The City of Mesa determining Kuenzli's dog was not a working dog; Kuenzli stating that his dog needs to be off the leash as therapy to help him with his disability; an apartment manager's statements of leash law violations; a discussion about his dismissal as a Gilbert fire inspector in 1999; a document for an unemployment appeal hearing; and a document referring to Kuenzli being upset at a lack of dog parks in Mesa.

Also in Kuenzli's car, detectives found a letter from the Maricopa County courthouse, stating that Kuenzli's claim against the court was being denied because one of the courthouse guards had been attacked by Kuenzli's dog.

Several documents from Gila County authorities were included in the file that referred to one of the dogs Kuenzli had in his charge, on loan from the Payson animal shelter, the day he was shot by Fish.

The dog, a chow mix named Hank, nearly had been shot by a Gila County detective several months ago for attempting to bite the detective several times. Hank, whose owners could not keep him fenced in, was eventually taken to the Payson Humane Society. According to documents compiled by the shelter's staff, the dog was not to be released without prior approval because the dog has a history of being a "fear biter" and "aggressive."

Also found in Kuenzli's car after the shooting was an appointment reminder for Kuenzli at Southwest Behavioral Health Center in Payson.

Detectives requested Kuenzli's records from the center. The center provided voluminous records on Kuenzli, who had been receiving treatment there for a panic disorder with agoraphobia, post-traumatic stress disorder and a mood disorder.

On a form dated February 9, Kuenzli stated that he had attempted suicide, was depressed and had anxiety. His sleep apnea was alleviated when he slept outside.

"His situation discourages him," the form preparer wrote.

Kuenzli had become overwhelmed by his firefighter job, began exhibiting signs of PTSD because of events he witnessed as a firefighter and emergency medical technician. His last date of work was in January 2003.

A core assessment was made that he has a number of problems in his effort to go back to work that stem from a stressful work life. Goals he set for himself included an exercise routine, letting go of suicidal thoughts and getting back on his feet.

He listed as his support system for doing this as "the friendly people I meet in Payson; Payson Humane Society."

Linda Almeter, Kuenzli's sister, said she had been made aware of her brother's treatment for mental health issues.

"I don't know the details about the diagnosis or treatment," she said. "I do know that Grant was a very sensitive person, and I can imagine how he was traumatized by his work as a firefighter."

Regardless, her brother was not a violent person, she said. Even if he had a mental problem, that is no reason to take his life.

"He was of no threat to the person who shot and killed him," she said. "He was unarmed."


Editor's note: At the time of the Daily Sun's review of the case file, detectives were compiling background histories of Kuenzli and Fish that were unavailable. Also unavailable was a taped interview between Fish and detectives

==================================================
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=88532

Shots fired from one foot away

By LARRY HENDRICKS
Sun Staff Reporter
06/06/2004

The May 11 shooting death of Grant Kuenzli at a trailhead near Payson has sparked a statewide debate as to whether the man who shot Kuenzli, Harold Fish, acted in self-defense or overreacted and deserves to face punishment.
Investigators with the Coconino County Sheriff's Office have stated that Fish's statements of self-defense and evidence at the scene were consistent with each other.

The Coconino County Attorney's Office filed a complaint Friday charging Fish with second-degree murder.

The following was compiled from the incident case file as of June 2, 2004. Investigative report of Det. Scott Feagan of the Coconino County Sheriff's Office dated May 18.

Upon arriving at the scene, Feagan secured Fish's 10 mm stainless steel Model Target 2, semi-automatic handgun.

"In speaking with Harold Fish, I observed his demeanor to be somewhat frustrated and he appeared depressed about this incident," Feagan stated.

Fish stated to Feagan that he had just finished his hike and was looking forward to getting to his car when two dogs came running at him. Fish stated he thought the dogs were trying to bite him, that they were agressive with "yellow teeth and growling."

"Fish said, 'I had an automatic on my backpack belt. I remember yelling, 'stop the dogs.''" Feagan stated. "Fish said, 'I couldn't tell if it startled him (indicating Kuenzli) or I don't know.' Fish repreated, 'I remember telling him, 'Call off your dogs, stop your dogs.''"

Continued Feagan, "Fish said when they got halfway down the hill, 'I drew my pistol ... and I am still yelling, 'Stop the dogs.'' Fish said, 'They got right up to me and the biggest, most aggressive got about right there.'"

Feagan stated that Fish pointed to an area about five feet from him.

"Fish said, 'I put a shot in the ground in front of the dog to scare and stop him and the dogs jerked and went off to the sides,'" Feagan stated. "Fish said, 'I looked up and here he came.'"

Fish told Feagan that Kuenzli was running at him "full bore" and saying he was going to kill Fish.

"Fish said, 'I don't know if he thought I shot the dog. I don't know. I'm yelling at him, 'Back off, stop' and he's right on top of me and he's swinging his hands, and I couldn't see if he had anything in his hands. I don't know.'"

Continued Feagan, "Fish said, 'He looked crazy. He's coming right at me and the dogs are on both sides of me and it's bam, bam, bam, like that. I couldn't stop him.' Fish said, 'I couldn't get down because it's downhill. I had my pack on. I couldn't go anywhere.'"

Feagan added that Fish said to him that he thought to himself that he couldn't run from the dogs, that they would get him from behind.

"'Gosh, I want to be anywhere else,'" Feagan stated Fish said.

Fish told Feagan that he had dropped his walking stick.

"'I wasn't thinking about the stick, and if I had thought about it, I probably could have beat them (the dogs) with the stick. It was so fast,'" Feagan stated Fish said.

The whole incident took three seconds, Fish told Feagan.

"'Good grief, I had nowhere to go ... I couldn't go downhill, I've got dogs, a crazy guy,'" Feagan stated Fish said. "'I don't know if he picked up something, I couldn't tell, his hands were moving so fast. Good grief, I'm going to get murdered out here in the middle of the woods. I was wishing I was the heck someplace else. I never had anybody do that.'"

Continued Feagan on what Fish told him, "'I wish I could talk to him. I wish I could ask him, 'what were you thinking?''" Incident report of Sgt. David Ramos, Coconino County Sheriff's Office dated May 11.

Ramos, the first deputy on scene, received a similar story from Fish about the dogs approaching and firing a shot into the ground.

"Immediately thereafter, Harold Fish observed an individual running at him, full speed, downhill with a 'wild, crazed look in his eyes' screaming that he was going to kill Fish for shooting his dogs," Ramos wrote in his report. "Fish yelled back at this individual, who was closing the distance rapidly, that he did not shoot the dogs and that the dogs were fine and ordered this individual to stop."

Ramos continued: "When this individual would not slow down and continued to run at full speed at him, Fish pointed his handgun at the subject and yelled several times to 'stop, or I will be forced to shoot.'"

Fish told Ramos that he was in fear for his life at that point, fearing the person running at him would follow through with his death threats. When the man running at him was nearly on top of him, Fish fired.

The man fell to the ground.

Fish told Ramos that he immediately laid the man on his right side, rested the man's head on Fish's backpack, took a space blanket out of his pack and put it over the injured man, who Fish said was still alive.

Fish told Ramos he ran to State Route 87, flagged down a person in a white car. The person in the car called for help. Fish then went back and waited with the man he had shot until medics arrived.

Sheriff's officials found the two dogs back in Kuenzli's car, which had the passenger door propped open with a piece of wood.

Coconino County Animal Control removed the dogs.

"The first dog, which had the appearance of a yellow Lab, was removed from beneath the steering wheel area on the driver's side of the vehicle," stated Ramos' report. "This dog was very submissive to the animal control officer."

Continued Ramos: "The second dog, which was removed from the back seat area of the vehicle, was extremely hesitant in exiting the vehicle and had to be physically taken from the car to be taken into the care of the animal control officer." Incident report of Cpl. Jeff Palmer, Coconino County Sheriff's Office, dated May 13.

Jeff Palmer, a deputy who specializes in tracking, documented Kuenzli's path downhill from his vehicle to the trail where he fell. Evidence suggests Kuenzli had been moving faster than a walk.

Kuenzli's stride varied between 26 and 40 inches, and the straddle between his right and left foot averaged between 18 to 24 inches.

Palmer stated in his report that a person going down a moderate grade hill walking would have a short stride and a 10- to 12-inch straddle between the right and left foot. A person running down the hill would have a stride of 40 to 46 inches and a straddle of 8 to 12 inches. A person loping down a slippery slope would have a stride of 30 to 40 inches and a straddle of 23 to 26 inches.

Palmer described the area where Kuenzli descended as "... a forest mix of pine and manzanita. The area was littered with pine needles and pine needle debris. The trail down from the vehicle was that of course [sic] granite gravel." Report of investigator with Coconino County Medical Examiner's Office, and autopsy report of Yavapai County Medical Examiner, dates not noted.

Kuenzli had been shot on the right and left side of chest three times. Two of the wounds were fatal, with one puncturing the heart and another puncturing a lung. The death was ruled a homicide.

"All three wounds appear to be at very close range approximately one foot away from the shooter," wrote the investigator in his report.

Kuenzli also had a pronounced gunshot wound to his right thumb and a creased wound on the top of his left forearm.

Toxicology reports of Kuenzli were negative except for the presence of two types of antidepressants and caffeine in his system.

===================================================
 
I still maintain the opinion that we need more information, BUT, the fact that the man's own family doesn't care enough to have a service for him certainly doesn't hurt the shooter's case in my eyes. The mentally ill are usually quite adept at maintaining "decent" relationships with casual acquaintances. They are not so good at maintaining their familial relationships, often to the point of the family not being able to deal at all with the mentally ill family member. If the deceased was truely clinically mentally ill, there is a good chance that he responded quite violently and irrationally to someone shooting at his poor wittle doggies. While mental illness is an unfortunate and sad occurance, it does not ever excuse violent behavior towards others.

Well, we have more information, and it looks like I was right about the deceased being on disability for mental illness. It is quite sad that he was shot, but, as someone who has to deal with the mentally ill in the ER much more than I am comfortable with, I have to say it just makes the shoot look more justified to me. The evidence that the deceased was running right up until he was shot also doesn't help the prosecution at all. Then again, the Chow's history of attacking a peace officer in the recent past also isn't going to do much to help the prosecution either I would guess.

If the guy got to within a few feet before getting shot, then, IMO, he got as much of a fair shake from the shooter as any man could ask for.
 
AZG23 thanks for posting the articles.

If the stories in the articles hold up during the Grand Jury, I sure hope those people let Mr. Fish walk. Its too bad the County Attorney jumped the gun in response to 'popular pressure.' Makes me wonder once again why Prosecutors are elected (and thus politicians).
 
Poor Mr. Fish.


It's pretty clear the Kuenzli should not have been allowed to keep dogs, as he was proven to be irresponsible with them.

It's unclear to me how a sister can be distant enough from her brother to not know what sort of troubles/treatments he had, yet be close enough to deserve lawsuit $$ due to his death.

I'm astonished by how people can say they would react in the same situation. Have you been in that many high-stress situations, to really judge? I've only been in a few. In each case, it was quite weird. It's almost like something else takes over. There's no thought process at all, in the ordinary sense of the word.

& people saying he should have run from the dogs - when dog people say running is the last thing you should do, because it will encourage the dogs agressiveness.

& people pretending like the dogs and Kuenzli were separate entities in terms of the attack. It's not like that - dogs stick with their people. Fish was outnumbered 4 to 1.

At best, Mr. Fish is going to have umpteen zillions in legal fees, some very bad times ahead, and he'll probably end up having to move away from his hateful neighbors. Even if he beats the criminal count, he'll still face civil suits from the sister.

I'd like to think that each jury member will be put alone in a room with 3 vicious dogs before they decide on a verdict.

Dog owners, take note, please. If you can't be a responsible owner, get a goldfish instead.
 
I haven't comented on this before, but now anfter reading these detailed articles, it seems to me that Mr. Fish was justified in his actions. The 2nd degree murder charges are soley political and should be dropped immediately, and the DA should lose his job.

By the way, for all of you out there that stand up and loudly proclaim how willing they are to shoot another human, what's happening to Mr. Fish is was our El Tejon refers to as "Problem No. 2". Mr. Fish didn't seem to have any choice, but not all shoots go down this way.
 
At best, Mr. Fish is going to have umpteen zillions in legal fees, some very bad times ahead, and he'll probably end up having to move away from his hateful neighbors. Even if he beats the criminal count, he'll still face civil suits from the sister.

This is why Im trying to get a defense fund going for him....Ive contacted his bishop to get with his attorney to see how it should be handled. Im awaiting their return calls.....
 
Whenever one of these situations happens I try and imagine myself in both of their shoes with just slightly different facts and see if I can justify it morally.

Shooters shoes
Lets say that the dogs were attacking him and not simply running up to him. I serious doubt I would shoot but might draw my gun. A chow isnt that big. If the guy actually was attacking or acting like a nut then warning shots might be fired.

The dog walkers shoes
I walk my dogs all the time off the leash while hiking(including the trail in which this happened on). My dogs are under control but can get startled if someone runs up to them. They might on occasion run up to greet someone. If someone then shot at them DAMN RIGHT I would charge them cussing and screeming. now I am dead because some fool with a gun had an irrational fear.

I am not saying that this is what happened but it could have been. No one will ever know since only one person who was there is alive. I might have a vastly different opinion than some of you but I think a gun is a very very very last resort! I would probably try and take on those three dogs by hand before ever drawing a weapon on them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top