[QUOTE=JSwan;6777133]
[B]No, he’s not a jerk for “resorting to deadly force.” The article mentions that this problem had been continuous - and he’d obviously let the matter go for a while. The dog’s owner is the guilty party. Period. It’s sad for the dog, but the livestock owner doesn’t exactly like coming upon his animals and seeing their guts hanging out, throats slashed, legs broken. The reality of dog attacks on livestock is horrific.
Rallycairn - you need to read up on Virginia law. Shooting a dog passing through your property - whether or not that dog is a hunting dog - is a crime. The law only permits the shooting of a dog if it is in the act of chasing, harassing, or killing livestock. [/B][/QUOTE]
JSwan, it would be a lot more productive for the discussion if you would not “cyber scream” with your boldface. I clearly stated that my animals are harrassed, and repeatedly (over the years), but I’ve never had to resort to shooting anything. But I would shoot something if one of my animals were in immediate danger, at least I think I would.
No one discussing this current incident has stated, implied, or suggested that the shooter acted illegally. All some of us have said is that, based on the report and comments such as the law enforcement officer saying that the situation could’ve been handled differently (but again, was certainly legal) – that perhaps this level of response was unnecessary.
JSwan, when you speak of “horsies” on the one hand but then talk about (in this case) completely nonexistent dangling limbs or disemboweled organs of the (in reality untouched) rabbits, it appears you are “poo-pooing” other viewpoints while painting an unsubstantiated and exaggerated picture of what happened in the current example to support your own view.
Perhaps I did the same with my own examples, of course, though I think we all like to believe we are being as neutral as possible! I appreciate you have a different take on the situation, but sticking more to the report linked in the OP, there weren’t any wounds to any rabbits and I didn’t see any note that the dog has any history of wounding anything, but maybe I missed that.
Again, as I’ve said in both my previous posts, if there was truly danger to the rabbits, fine. But there is clearly a “history” between the two neighbors in this current example, and like barnfairy and vacation1, given this reported history of disputes and the lieutenant’s comments – those things raise a question as to whether killing the dog was necessary. Legal, yes, again and again, yes. But necessary to save the rabbits? I’m not convinced.
It is indeed a sad story, as the thread title asserted, that a dog was not properly contained and paid with its life, and that neighboring people appear to be escalating conflicts. Doesn’t bode well for their future as neighbors.
