You are obviously stuck on your position no matter what anybody else says so why this was posted in the first place I have no clue.
The same thing could be said for you as well.
You are obviously stuck on your position no matter what anybody else says so why this was posted in the first place I have no clue.
The same thing could be said for you as well.
Agreed.The same thing could be said for you as well.
"But you're simply choosing to argue semantics and what if's about a situation you were not involved in to prove a point which is already understood and identified by everyone here."
Sounds like you were not actually involved in the situation either. Just after the fact. Also not sure what the point "understood and identified by everyone on here is" I have seen more than a few posts disagreeing with what you believe the outcome should be. I am guessing nobody else feels up to arguing the valid counter points because it is obviously a lost cause. I am now joining those ranks.
Guess lesson taken away here is we should all realize differing points of view of a situation should no longer be tolerated. OP is always right because they said so.
I know how to solve it, we don't need gun control, we need dog control! You are only allowed to have dogs like mine!
Although she is vicious and will bite your ankles off...
I know how to solve it, we don't need gun control, we need dog control! You are only allowed to have dogs like mine!
Although she is vicious and will bite your ankles off...
I know how to solve it, we don't need gun control, we need dog control! You are only allowed to have dogs like mine!
Although she is vicious and will bite your ankles off...
If the dog is close to him and jumps at him or knocks him over and he fires is the only way the bullet traveling parallel would make sense.
I know how to solve it, we don't need gun control, we need dog control! You are only allowed to have dogs like mine!
Although she is vicious and will bite your ankles off...
Neither the officers or myself could identify an area on the driveway that the round could have ricochet'd. Other than that, you're exactly right in the facts that others seem to be misinterpreting.I don't have an opinion on this as I'd like to hear the rest of the story. However, when the OP talks about "parallel", I think he's really just meaning a much "flatter" trajectory. If the guy were to shoot the dog at a life threatening distance of inside several feet, the trajectory would take the round into the groun. From a non-life threatening position of 25 yards, a round would be traveling "flatter" which is the way it would reach the garage door. Of course, this doesn't consider any ricochets which is another reason the rest of the story is required.
That is cause you now think like a Combat Veteran, and not a Civilian...Regardless of species, if you shoot in defense isn't it only "the right thing to do" to render aid afterwards until further help arrives. Yet, they did absolutely nothing other than make the previously mentioned statement.
OP it does sound like an interesting day. I just got a puppy and would be pissed if someone shot it.
Brought some purple to the thread it seems we may have ran out on some posts.
That is cause you now think like a Combat Veteran, and not a Civilian...
Shoot...
Assess the Persons in the Area...
Secure the Area...
Call for Medics...
Begin the Triage, render First Aid from the most seriously injured that may survive to the least serious...
Does that sum up what you were thinking...
I do not condemn a man for protecting family and I completely feel that everyone deserves a fair trial as our Constitution has laid out. BUT, there is NOT one speck of evidence to support any of this man's claims. None, of the dozen or so "witnesses" saw a second dog. All of which came from various directions to which there was no possible route to take that someone wouldn't have seen another dog. There wasn't anything to suggest ANY immediate danger to the couple. If anything, the evidence only suggests that HAD the dog presented any aggression they had plenty of distance to have gotten in their front door from the assumed position the round was fired from. Indeed, I feel this man needs to be charged and I will be calling the officer who responded.
Several of the DOZEN other "witnesses" would have been able to see the family walking on the other side of the street from their locations, distance, direct line of sight, etc. Also, if they had been that close the angle of the impacted round would have been in a downward trajectory, which it was not. It was nearly parallel with the ground, as was the bullet wound on the dog's neck. The owner was not near the dog before I got there. He had gotten there a few seconds after I did. My information was not presented as a "quick observation as I came in range." I stayed on the scene, assisted the officers with locating the blood spatter, round impacts, telling them what we had "witnessed," etc. If you cannot tell where a round's trajectory comes from by two clearly identifiable points of impact on non-deflecting, relatively soft material then you have not shot very much.
He shot into a neighbor's home, across the street, within city limits (all are illegal), and with no clear threat feasible at a distance of over 75+ feet away when he was standing only 6 feet away from his front door and was clearly NOT "distraught," or out of breath in any way to indicate any form of violent confrontation. So on what ground in your "right" mind do you think he should NOT be charged?
Feel free to ask questions all you wish, because I will answer them 100% truthfully as best that they can be answered but respect works both ways.
Guys position in his yard from the sidewalk = 50ft,
sidewalk width=4ft,
grassy edge=4ft,
concrete curb=1ft
street=16ft
opposing concret curb=1ft
opposing grassy edge=4ft
opposing sidewalk=4ft
edge of sidewalk to the downed dog=5ft
total of 74 feet distance, modestly estimating.......where the witnesses were on the other side of the street they could have clearly seen the man if he was anywhere in his yard OTHER than where I saw him when I turned the corner, and the dog as well....so their positions did not change from shooting, to arrival
I thought this was supposed to be a picture of a *DOG*?I know how to solve it, we don't need gun control, we need dog control! You are only allowed to have dogs like mine!
Although she is vicious and will bite your ankles off...