Started By
Message
Hunting Dogs Serious Bidness--Star City Jury Awards 145K for Death of Dog
Posted on 3/8/14 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 3/8/14 at 2:47 pm
Star City Jury awards 145K to owner for execution style death of his coon dog. LINK
5
Posted on 3/8/14 at 3:24 pm to Litigator
Killing a dog is a dick move.
But so is fricking trespassing.
But so is fricking trespassing.
Posted on 3/8/14 at 3:28 pm to Litigator
coon dogs cannot be called off once they tree; they have to be pulled off by hand and leashed.
Though there were posted signs on the property, there was no phone number to call for permission to retrieve the dogs. “The hunters rightfully put away their guns and went to retrieve the dogs,” Gibson said.
When they did so, they encountered an irate man armed with a rifle.
The man, Frank Newby of Holly Grove, threatened to shoot the dogs and the hunters if they attempted to retrieve the dogs.
Over Newby’s objections, Gill retrieved his dog, a 4-year-old treeing Walker named Buck, and leashed him.
Newby then ordered Gill to back away from the dog so he could shoot him. Gill refused and the man shot the leashed dog.
“It was a horrible experience for Newel Gill to helplessly watch his leashed dog’s execution then thrash around his feet in agony,”
frick that Newby guy. If he have not been baiting animals to come to his property from the public lands that coon would've never ran to a tree on his property, you've got to a special kind of a-hole to not let people go get their dogs and then hold them at rifle point and shoot the leashed dog.
Though there were posted signs on the property, there was no phone number to call for permission to retrieve the dogs. “The hunters rightfully put away their guns and went to retrieve the dogs,” Gibson said.
When they did so, they encountered an irate man armed with a rifle.
The man, Frank Newby of Holly Grove, threatened to shoot the dogs and the hunters if they attempted to retrieve the dogs.
Over Newby’s objections, Gill retrieved his dog, a 4-year-old treeing Walker named Buck, and leashed him.
Newby then ordered Gill to back away from the dog so he could shoot him. Gill refused and the man shot the leashed dog.
“It was a horrible experience for Newel Gill to helplessly watch his leashed dog’s execution then thrash around his feet in agony,”
frick that Newby guy. If he have not been baiting animals to come to his property from the public lands that coon would've never ran to a tree on his property, you've got to a special kind of a-hole to not let people go get their dogs and then hold them at rifle point and shoot the leashed dog.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 5:37 am to CtotheVrzrbck
I hope this POS pays dearly.
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 6:38 am
Posted on 3/9/14 at 8:34 am to Litigator
That was a dick move to shoot the dog, but it seems to me that he had the right to do so with them being on his property (intentionally or not).
Being a dick isn't a crime. Trespassing is.
There is a larger principle at stake here. Imagine a scenario where aggressive dogs are coming onto someone's property and damaging their own pets or other property. In that case, the property owner should be able to take whatever steps he deems necessary while the dogs are on his property.
The case we have in Star City is really no different. No one can know in what way the property owner felt threatened by the presence of the dogs. If it's me, I let the dogs go. Clearly the dog owners were not intentionally trespassing and pose no (or very little threat). However, my personal preference for how it should have went down has no bearing over who was in the right in this situation - property lines are the only objective way of determining that.
Being a dick isn't a crime. Trespassing is.
There is a larger principle at stake here. Imagine a scenario where aggressive dogs are coming onto someone's property and damaging their own pets or other property. In that case, the property owner should be able to take whatever steps he deems necessary while the dogs are on his property.
The case we have in Star City is really no different. No one can know in what way the property owner felt threatened by the presence of the dogs. If it's me, I let the dogs go. Clearly the dog owners were not intentionally trespassing and pose no (or very little threat). However, my personal preference for how it should have went down has no bearing over who was in the right in this situation - property lines are the only objective way of determining that.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 10:06 am to The Sultan of Swine
quote:If the property owner felt threatened by the dogs, why not let the hunters come and retrieve their dogs so they can be removed from his property? Why hold them at gunpoint and threaten to kill the dogs if they try to get them.
There is a larger principle at stake here. Imagine a scenario where aggressive dogs are coming onto someone's property and damaging their own pets or other property. In that case, the property owner should be able to take whatever steps he deems necessary while the dogs are on his property.
The case we have in Star City is really no different. No one can know in what way the property owner felt threatened by the presence of the dogs. If it's me, I let the dogs go. Clearly the dog owners were not intentionally trespassing and pose no (or very little threat). However, my personal preference for how it should have went down has no bearing over who was in the right in this situation - property lines are the only objective way of determining that.
That's fricking retarded.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 11:09 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
There is a larger principle at stake here. Imagine a scenario where aggressive dogs are coming onto someone's property and damaging their own pets or other property. In that case, the property owner should be able to take whatever steps he deems necessary while the dogs are on his property.
And you can. This dog was not a threat nor were the hunters who had their guns put away. Although I don't do it and it pisses me off when dogs mess up a hunt, it is legal in Arkansas and there was no way for the hunters to easily contact the land owner to retrieve the dogs. They seemed to have done it in as prudent a manner as possible. The landowner then decided to be a complete dickhole and shoot a LEASHED dog. Not an aggressive stray.
Now if I catch a loose pit bull, collared or not, he's toast unless the owners are with him. I've warned surrounding landowners that if they wish to run hogs on my land and their pit bulls come by when my kids are around, they're toast. Call me ahead of time and get permission. I'll make sure all is good. But if I'm squirrel hunting with a couple kids and an aggressive dog comes up on MY land. His arse is dead. And I hate to shoot dogs. If I'm alone, he probably makes it unless uncollared and aggressive.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 1:35 pm to Litigator
$145K was not enough.
There is the 'law', and there is 'what is right'.
Sometimes the letter of the law and what is right do not agree.
A dog does not know about property lines. The hunters had no intention of illegally hunting or trespassing, but should have the right to retrieve their property and exit as quickly and peacefully as possible.
There is the 'law', and there is 'what is right'.
Sometimes the letter of the law and what is right do not agree.
A dog does not know about property lines. The hunters had no intention of illegally hunting or trespassing, but should have the right to retrieve their property and exit as quickly and peacefully as possible.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 2:05 pm to WonderWartHawg
quote:
A dog does not know about property lines
Please don't use that. The guy was wrong to shoot the dog, but it's the dog owners responsibility to keep their dog off of other people's property. I will credit these guys for trying to retrieve their dog in a respectful manner.
If you've ever had to deal with guys dropping their dogs off on your property line and running deer through your lease while you are trying to hunt you'd understand where I'm coming from. We've had that problem and the guys always say "my dog can't read posted signs"
I've also known guys that only hunt 40 acres and run deer dogs or coon hunt the property. They know damn well that this is going to lead to trespassing, yet they do it anyway.
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 3/9/14 at 2:10 pm to WonderWartHawg
There is an interesting legal issue in these types of cases regarding what force can be used against a trespassing domestic animal and I don't know that our appellate courts have ever addressed it. An AG's opinion talked generally about the issue LINK and the Arkansas Criminal Code talks in terms of legal privilege in 5-62-103 and acting reasonably to protect a person's property from damage in 5-62-105. LINK
Posted on 3/9/14 at 2:27 pm to Raz4back
quote:
Please don't use that.
Sorry, I didn't know your dogs knew where the property lines were when they were on a trail.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 2:49 pm to WonderWartHawg
quote:
Sorry, I didn't know your dogs knew where the property lines were when they were on a trail.
Sorry, I didn't know that I don't have the right to hunt my property without having somebody else's dog screwing it up. It's the dog owners responsibility to keep their dog off of other people's property.
I agree that what the guy did was wrong. I would have handled it completely differently. That doesn't change the fact that the dog owners were trespassing. What the dog owners should have done was contacted the guy BEFORE they went hunting and ask him for permission to go onto his property and retrieve their dog should the need arise. If the guy said no then they should hunt far enough away from HIS property as to ensure the dog wouldn't cross the property line.
We have an agreement on our lease with all surrounding property owners that allow for us to retrieve wounded game on their property and vice versa. When I bought a piece of land to hunt the first thing I did was to drive over to the adjacent land owners house and introduce myself. When I left we had a mutual agreement to go onto each other's property to retrieve game and I gave him permission to coon/predator hunt my property outside of deer season provided he follow all game laws and contact me at least 1 day in advance.
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 3/9/14 at 2:51 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
If the property owner felt threatened by the dogs, why not let the hunters come and retrieve their dogs so they can be removed from his property? Why hold them at gunpoint and threaten to kill the dogs if they try to get them.
That's fricking retarded.
I don't think he felt threatened. But that's irrelevant. You completely missed my point.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 3:20 pm to The Sultan of Swine
quote:
That was a dick move to shoot the dog, but it seems to me that he had the right to do so with them being on his property (intentionally or not).
no, he didn't have that right.
quote:
Being a dick isn't a crime. Trespassing is.
sometimes being a dick is, in fact, a crime.
quote:
No one can know in what way the property owner felt threatened by the presence of the dogs.
the dog was on a fricking leash being lead off the property by its owner. the picture you paint is the opposite of what happened.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 3:20 pm to The Sultan of Swine
We once lived on some property with 5 acres, not much at all, but enough to expect a little privacy. Some neighbors moved in with 8 dogs of all sizes, some small, some part pit bull. They chased my kids, one was biting at my little one when I kicked the daylights out of it.
They proceeded to pull up irrigation lines, chewed on electrical cords, and tore into our garbage on three occasions. When I spoke to the owners three times, it didn't matter. They still ran all over our property, barked incessantly, and crapped/pizzed everywhere!
Yet, the animal control office did nothing. As a land owner, and a father.. I had no rights.
The bleeding heart liberal animal rights folks are pathetic.
Now, the jerk above. Pitiful. Let the men get their dogs and move on.. Geezh!
They proceeded to pull up irrigation lines, chewed on electrical cords, and tore into our garbage on three occasions. When I spoke to the owners three times, it didn't matter. They still ran all over our property, barked incessantly, and crapped/pizzed everywhere!
Yet, the animal control office did nothing. As a land owner, and a father.. I had no rights.
The bleeding heart liberal animal rights folks are pathetic.
Now, the jerk above. Pitiful. Let the men get their dogs and move on.. Geezh!
Posted on 3/9/14 at 3:21 pm to WaveHog
shooting someone's dog, which is on a leash, in front the owner, is about as low as it gets.
frick this dude, hope somebody punches him in the nuts.
frick this dude, hope somebody punches him in the nuts.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 3:23 pm to The Sultan of Swine
quote:Sure seemed like it was your point, from the bolded. Care to clarify?
I don't think he felt threatened. But that's irrelevant. You completely missed my point.
quote:If the dog posed a threat, I would agree that the property owner had the right to destroy the dog. But the dog wasn't a threat. It was leashed and the owner was present. The property owner tried to get the dog owner to leave without taking the dog, the dog owner refused, so the property owner shot the dog.
There is a larger principle at stake here. Imagine a scenario where aggressive dogs are coming onto someone's property and damaging their own pets or other property. In that case, the property owner should be able to take whatever steps he deems necessary while the dogs are on his property.
The case we have in Star City is really no different. No one can know in what way the property owner felt threatened by the presence of the dogs. If it's me, I let the dogs go. Clearly the dog owners were not intentionally trespassing and pose no (or very little threat). However, my personal preference for how it should have went down has no bearing over who was in the right in this situation - property lines are the only objective way of determining that.
I don't see how you can defend that.
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 3/9/14 at 3:47 pm to Raz4back
quote:
Sorry, I didn't know that I don't have the right to hunt my property without having somebody else's dog screwing it up. It's the dog owners responsibility to keep their dog off of other people's property.
You do have the right to hunt your land, without someone without FORETHOUGHT, INTENT and MALICE interfering with your hunt.
Reasonable folks understand though that sometimes 'shite happens'. If I understand correctly, this is just one of those things that happened.
Well, at least the good folks where I grew up would be reasonable and understand it that way. Where I come from, messing with a man's dog is only very slightly behind messing with his wife.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 3:50 pm to WaveHog
If someone executed my dog/cat or whatever, my first automatic response would be to retaliate. I would hope I would be able to control that urge.
God, some people are just complete POS.
God, some people are just complete POS.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 4:13 pm to Arkla Missy
yep. i have no idea why any reasonable person would defend the shooter.
Page 1 of 4
Latest Arkansas News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News