tegemu
Member
With so little info in th e report, my first thought was, "I wonder if he provoked the dog, resulting in the bite?"
Man charged after shooting dog that bit him
- Thread starter Erebus
- Start date
- Status
In the UP of MI a loose dog.....
is considered chasing deer and is a target. Down here in Texas, the three "S's" apply, shoot, shovel, shutup........I have not had to shoot one here yet........several shots between the feet though........chris3
is considered chasing deer and is a target. Down here in Texas, the three "S's" apply, shoot, shovel, shutup........I have not had to shoot one here yet........several shots between the feet though........chris3
justashooter
member
seems that the guy was no longer in imminent danger, and neither were his livestock, substiantiatably. in this case, capital action is not called for, no matter where you live.
he should have called animal control.
he should have called animal control.
Devonai
Member
I showed a would-be carjacker the business end of my Glock on Washington Street in downtown Boston a couple of years ago. All the police did was take a report. I agree that Massachusetts is relatively unfriendly to firearms owners, but it's hardly a universal guarantee. I think it all depends on which cop you happen to be dealing with on any given day.
Knob Creeker
Member
It does matter where you live
I’m sure that in Mass. dogs are more protected under the law than their victims, but in Kentucky the law says capital action is justified. The law states “Any person, without liability, may kill or seize any dog which is observed attacking any person” & “Any livestock owner or his agent, without liability, may kill any dog trespassing on that owner's property and observed in the act of pursuing or wounding his livestock”
Sigma (who lives near the victim) said,
The report said,
This is Kentucky law, but I’m sure other states have similar provisions (although Mass. is probably not one of them). Just to let you know, it does matter where you live.
I’m sure that in Mass. dogs are more protected under the law than their victims, but in Kentucky the law says capital action is justified. The law states “Any person, without liability, may kill or seize any dog which is observed attacking any person” & “Any livestock owner or his agent, without liability, may kill any dog trespassing on that owner's property and observed in the act of pursuing or wounding his livestock”
Sigma (who lives near the victim) said,
Had it happened in KY, Grossmith was justified.
The report said,
again, he was justified in shooting the dog in KY.
This is Kentucky law, but I’m sure other states have similar provisions (although Mass. is probably not one of them). Just to let you know, it does matter where you live.
Just for the sheer novelty of it,
I provide the applicable Massachusetts statute, so that all the armchair lawyers and Monday-morning quarterbacks might actually have a clue concerning the law:
M.G.L.c. 140, § 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 provide the applicable Massachusetts statute, so that all the armchair lawyers and Monday-morning quarterbacks might actually have a clue concerning the law:
M.G.L.c. 140, § 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.
Erebus
Member
So from what Tory posted I see no reason why this guy should have been arrested or punished in any way.
Did he follow this dog home to shoot it or was it shot on his property? If it was stil on his property after he had time to retrieve his gun it apparently doesn't intend to leave and if it has bitten you once I think it still being there falls under the catagory or worrying you.
What did they want him to do, call the dog officer and remain captive in his house until the dog officer gets around to coming and picking up the dog? Was he expected to just stay in his house and hope it didn't attack his animals?
They say they found no evidence it was fighting with his dogs. Well when 2 dogs are about to get into it you can tell before the teeth and claws start to fly. Perhaps he fired before the actual fighting happened? It already bit him, is he supposed to wait until one of his animals is injured? Ever seen 2 dogs fight? Try and get a shot off that you are sure won't hit the wrong one.
Did he follow this dog home to shoot it or was it shot on his property? If it was stil on his property after he had time to retrieve his gun it apparently doesn't intend to leave and if it has bitten you once I think it still being there falls under the catagory or worrying you.
What did they want him to do, call the dog officer and remain captive in his house until the dog officer gets around to coming and picking up the dog? Was he expected to just stay in his house and hope it didn't attack his animals?
They say they found no evidence it was fighting with his dogs. Well when 2 dogs are about to get into it you can tell before the teeth and claws start to fly. Perhaps he fired before the actual fighting happened? It already bit him, is he supposed to wait until one of his animals is injured? Ever seen 2 dogs fight? Try and get a shot off that you are sure won't hit the wrong one.
Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
Member
The funny thing is that he'd be good to go if he shot a man that attacked him.
Does PETA run that town?
Does PETA run that town?
EddieCoyle
Member
Way more to this story...
OK, I've been following this from the start. There's a lot more to the story than what is indicated in the article.
They guy supposedly broke up a dog fight (although they can't find the other dog) and the husky bit him (although he has no injuries), and after breaking up the dogs, he went to his vehicle, got and loaded a .22 rifle, and then shot the dog as it sat there 30 feet away.
OK, I've been following this from the start. There's a lot more to the story than what is indicated in the article.
They guy supposedly broke up a dog fight (although they can't find the other dog) and the husky bit him (although he has no injuries), and after breaking up the dogs, he went to his vehicle, got and loaded a .22 rifle, and then shot the dog as it sat there 30 feet away.
Erebus
Member
More articles on this story
http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_102135323.html - according to this one his story has changed
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...6/04/13/foxborough_man_charged_in_dogs_death/
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=134876
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/8662466/detail.html?rss=bos&psp=news
NOthing really new in these articles with the exception of the top one reporting his story has changed. TRyingt o see if there is a local newpaper with an online edition that might be more up to date.
http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_102135323.html - according to this one his story has changed
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...6/04/13/foxborough_man_charged_in_dogs_death/
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=134876
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/8662466/detail.html?rss=bos&psp=news
NOthing really new in these articles with the exception of the top one reporting his story has changed. TRyingt o see if there is a local newpaper with an online edition that might be more up to date.
Really?
"They guy supposedly broke up a dog fight (although they can't find the other dog) and the husky bit him (although he has no injuries), and after breaking up the dogs, he went to his vehicle, got and loaded a .22 rifle, and then shot the dog as it sat there 30 feet away."
Whence cometh these blinding insights?
"They guy supposedly broke up a dog fight (although they can't find the other dog) "
Did "they" look? I doubt it. He owns a dog; the dog was with him; he took the dog back to his house when he went to call the cops. How hard is THAT to find?
"...the husky bit him (although he has no injuries),"
Patent mendacity. The bandaged hand was evident in court.
"...and after breaking up the dogs, he went to his vehicle, got and loaded a .22 rifle, and then shot the dog as it sat there 30 feet away."
And you know this distance HOW? Only 1 human was there and it certainly wasn't YOU.
"They guy supposedly broke up a dog fight (although they can't find the other dog) and the husky bit him (although he has no injuries), and after breaking up the dogs, he went to his vehicle, got and loaded a .22 rifle, and then shot the dog as it sat there 30 feet away."
Whence cometh these blinding insights?
"They guy supposedly broke up a dog fight (although they can't find the other dog) "
Did "they" look? I doubt it. He owns a dog; the dog was with him; he took the dog back to his house when he went to call the cops. How hard is THAT to find?
"...the husky bit him (although he has no injuries),"
Patent mendacity. The bandaged hand was evident in court.
"...and after breaking up the dogs, he went to his vehicle, got and loaded a .22 rifle, and then shot the dog as it sat there 30 feet away."
And you know this distance HOW? Only 1 human was there and it certainly wasn't YOU.
Quote
"They guy supposedly broke up a dog fight (although they can't find the other dog) and the husky bit him (although he has no injuries), and after breaking up the dogs, he went to his vehicle, got and loaded a .22 rifle, and then shot the dog as it sat there 30 feet away."
If the dog bit him, and he was "treated for injuries" from a dog bite (as the news article states) I am wondering why you say he "had no injuries".
Isn't a dog bite, an injury? I don't get it.
If the dog bit him, on his property, and he fears it will bite him again, I believe he had more than enough right under common understanding of law, to shoot the dog. First, the dog is supposed to be somewhere other than the man's property. Secondly, if it bit him, even if it was involved in a fight with his dogs, it bit him. So I don't see any issue, other than the owner of the dog is probably distressed and felt his dog should not be shot, even if it was attacking something on another person's property.
We have a lot of folks move out here in the country that think that way. They believe their dogs act the same way when they are off roaming other people's property, as they do in their owners house.
Dog's don't act the same when they are running deer, or goats, or other animals as they do at home. For the life of me, I cannot understand why people don't keep them behind a fence, or on a leash.
The guy that should be charged with any animal cruelty, is the owner, for caring so little about his animal, that he doesn't know where the dog is.
From all the info I read, the guy gets bit by a strange dog, on his own property, and he gets charged with killing an animal that should not be there in the first place.
"They guy supposedly broke up a dog fight (although they can't find the other dog) and the husky bit him (although he has no injuries), and after breaking up the dogs, he went to his vehicle, got and loaded a .22 rifle, and then shot the dog as it sat there 30 feet away."
If the dog bit him, and he was "treated for injuries" from a dog bite (as the news article states) I am wondering why you say he "had no injuries".
Isn't a dog bite, an injury? I don't get it.
If the dog bit him, on his property, and he fears it will bite him again, I believe he had more than enough right under common understanding of law, to shoot the dog. First, the dog is supposed to be somewhere other than the man's property. Secondly, if it bit him, even if it was involved in a fight with his dogs, it bit him. So I don't see any issue, other than the owner of the dog is probably distressed and felt his dog should not be shot, even if it was attacking something on another person's property.
We have a lot of folks move out here in the country that think that way. They believe their dogs act the same way when they are off roaming other people's property, as they do in their owners house.
Dog's don't act the same when they are running deer, or goats, or other animals as they do at home. For the life of me, I cannot understand why people don't keep them behind a fence, or on a leash.
The guy that should be charged with any animal cruelty, is the owner, for caring so little about his animal, that he doesn't know where the dog is.
From all the info I read, the guy gets bit by a strange dog, on his own property, and he gets charged with killing an animal that should not be there in the first place.
idaho_brian
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2004
- Messages
- 19
First, I am a dog owner, have a shepard/husky mix and spoil him rotten. We also have some neighbors dogs that come to visit and play, no problems with them at all, and once in a while they get into a minor tussle. On the other hand, if a stranger's dog bit myself or the wife, there is no doubt that I would put it down. Looking at the reports:
"Wednesday, Kato wandered to East Street where Frederick Grossmith, 48, lives. He said Kato and his own dog started fighting and, he told police, when he tried to break them up, Kato bit him. He then got his gun and shot Kato in the head."
"Grossmith called 911 and EMT's treated him for minor dog bites. He is not known as animal hater. He owns the most recognizable herd of animals in Foxborough."
So, the shooter was the one that called 911 and reported it, and the bites were sufficient for an EMT response. Should be a no-brainer. The dog owner should be cited and cover any medical costs for the shooter. It's the dog owner's responsibility to control the animal.
Bri
"Wednesday, Kato wandered to East Street where Frederick Grossmith, 48, lives. He said Kato and his own dog started fighting and, he told police, when he tried to break them up, Kato bit him. He then got his gun and shot Kato in the head."
"Grossmith called 911 and EMT's treated him for minor dog bites. He is not known as animal hater. He owns the most recognizable herd of animals in Foxborough."
So, the shooter was the one that called 911 and reported it, and the bites were sufficient for an EMT response. Should be a no-brainer. The dog owner should be cited and cover any medical costs for the shooter. It's the dog owner's responsibility to control the animal.
Bri
Siberian Husky. Neighbor has oneof those. They are large, and aggressive. The dos running loose and threatning people it comes into contact with is a common MO. After seeing property damage that my neighbors dog has done (which has yet to bite anybody), I really understand why he felt the way he did, even if his injuries were superficial.
However, I believe he is skrewed if he retreated, got his gun and then fired on it. That does not equal justifiable self defense, IMHO. Now, if he happened to have the rifle with him, that would be IMHO.
Hopefully he'll get at least one reasonable person on the jury, who will give him a break.
However, I believe he is skrewed if he retreated, got his gun and then fired on it. That does not equal justifiable self defense, IMHO. Now, if he happened to have the rifle with him, that would be IMHO.
Hopefully he'll get at least one reasonable person on the jury, who will give him a break.
748
member
I would have shanked the dog. It would have drawen a lot less spot light.
I would never live in MA, NY, NJ, IL
I wish I lived in AZ, TX, NM or Alaska
CA it's a nice place a visit, but my car and some of my guns would be illigal there. I would so live there if the laws were more like ME or VA.
I would never live in MA, NY, NJ, IL
I wish I lived in AZ, TX, NM or Alaska
CA it's a nice place a visit, but my car and some of my guns would be illigal there. I would so live there if the laws were more like ME or VA.
Just checked the CT law and it's justified here in the Nutmeg state. Ironic, I came the closest I've ever come to drawing my firearm this evening. I was walking with my 10 month old son, wife and GSD this evening when the neighbor down the road's dog charged us. 
My dog intercepted the charge in the middle of the road. His teeth were showing and he was growling like mad. I got between my son and the dog, cover garment pulled up, hand on the firearm...I was that close to drawing and killing it on the spot. Had my dog not been with us this story would be different. I hate irresponsible dog owners that let their "babies" run loose without any boundry or recall training. :banghead: I've worked hard to train my dog not to leave our property and I feel others should step up to plate and do the same. Good thing is we practice taking a shoot at a charging animal about once a month in our tactical matches. Shooting low at something charging you is whole new experience. No matter what the circumstance, if the dog/animal bites a human...it's dead. My $0.02.
My dog intercepted the charge in the middle of the road. His teeth were showing and he was growling like mad. I got between my son and the dog, cover garment pulled up, hand on the firearm...I was that close to drawing and killing it on the spot. Had my dog not been with us this story would be different. I hate irresponsible dog owners that let their "babies" run loose without any boundry or recall training. :banghead: I've worked hard to train my dog not to leave our property and I feel others should step up to plate and do the same. Good thing is we practice taking a shoot at a charging animal about once a month in our tactical matches. Shooting low at something charging you is whole new experience. No matter what the circumstance, if the dog/animal bites a human...it's dead. My $0.02.
Last edited:
defender48
Member
not the pooch to blame
Nothing justified to shoot the dog. Hunt down the dog owner. You can’t blame the pooch of being a dog
Nothing justified to shoot the dog. Hunt down the dog owner. You can’t blame the pooch of being a dog
Ignoring the threat
"Nothing justified to shoot [sic[ the dog."
Those who have been attacked by one, or who have had their family members or animals attacked by one, know better.
"Hunt down the dog owner."
After the attack, yes. That does nothing to neutralize an immediate threat, however. Grasp the concept.
" You can’t blame the pooch of [sic] being a dog "
"Blame" isn't the issue. Dealing with an immediate threat is; however unwilling or unable you are to acknowledge that fact.
"Nothing justified to shoot [sic[ the dog."
Those who have been attacked by one, or who have had their family members or animals attacked by one, know better.
"Hunt down the dog owner."
After the attack, yes. That does nothing to neutralize an immediate threat, however. Grasp the concept.
" You can’t blame the pooch of [sic] being a dog "
"Blame" isn't the issue. Dealing with an immediate threat is; however unwilling or unable you are to acknowledge that fact.
The husky was fighting with his dog, he got in between, and got gnawed.
You know, having busted up my fair share of dog fights in my lifetime (among my dogs), it's usually pretty difficult to figure which dog bit you during the fight.
But that's okay, he'll just change his story:
My advice as a dog owner and as a Peace Officer: a lot of people treat their dogs as members of their families.
If you have to kill a dog, have your story straight before you start telling it. If you start changing your story, owners and officers might get the impression that you could be lying through your teeth about the whole incident to begin with.
LawDog
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
