Lanse couche couche

Look out your window Mr. A. See that black chopper? You are being monitored too[:@]

stubblejumper

Perhaps you should read the post that you quoted more carefully.

I see no statement of intent to commit animal cruelty.What does stand out is:

"and the next time tehy attacked me I had a gun with me..."

He makes no direct mention of shooting any dogs,he only implies that if he is attacked and has a gun,he might use the gun in self defense.

Using a gun to kill an attacking dog is perfectly legal,and I am going to openly state right here that I would use a gun myself to defend myself if I was attacked by a dog.Feel free to send the sheriffs office my post as well.

If you are indeed silly enough to have forwarded this thread to the Sheriffs department,they are probably wondering if you have all of your faculties,and are hoping that you are going to go away and quit bothering them with this nonsense.

Lanse couche couche

The funny thing is that his actions could well cause the police to get the local animal control people involved. If that happens, most of those dogs will likely end up getting rounded up and gased down at the local dog pound. So, who is the dumass, here?

stubblejumper

That is quite possible,and the more he annoys the police,the more likely it is to happen.If that happens,I sure hope that MJR10 thanks him.

bigangrychicken

I always whip the dogs or shoot them with a paintball gun. I want to inflict pain on them without causing injury. Of course, this is with permission of their owner---he is quite reasonable. I don't blame him for not wanting to keep the dogs penned up and he doesn't blame me for running them off my land. A cold beer or glass of lemonade usually will keep 2 men from letting their testosterone get the best of their common sense and good judgement. Talking to the owner in a reasonable fashion works 90% of the time. And then --you have some DA's..........

madvilledoc

Doesn't this violate some rule of the forum? Any moderators around?

Mizzouhunter

And where is intent, without action, enough to convict someone of a crime? Is intent to commit cruelty to animals a crime?

Probably a better alternative than the hunter taking matters into his own hand.

Then sue the dog owners in tort for nuisance. In reality, doesn't it look like shooting the dogs results in the hunter being exposed to criminal and civil liability? When, as an alternative, the hunter/landowner could sue his neighbors?Either he can killthem and be sued (maybe successfully, maybenot) or he could decide not to shoot them and do the suing himself?(again, maybesuccessfully, maybe not).

Mizzouhunter

Mr. A has made two posts and joined today. Idon't thinka ban from HNI will mean much to him.

Moral of the story: It's a public forum. And if you are going to say "I wouldkill the dog and write with it's blood" before youhit that little"OK" button, you should considerthepotential audience.

Lanse couche couche

Tort suits are not needed if someone is in their legal rights to shoot nuisance animals. If he has called in complaints and identifies them as a threat to people and property, and still nothing is done, then his bases are covered.

Mizzouhunter

But you can't just shoot trespassing livestock that are presumably doing REAL damage to property...why would the law allow you to shoot a dog that isn't doingreal, quantifiable damage?

This is why we have the court system...tosettle disputes peacefully. (andto make theattorneys rich. )

My ultimate point here is to demonstrate that, at least in Missouri, shooting the dog (another person's property) results in tort liability. If you don't want to be sued for shooting Fluffy, don't shoot Fluffy.