|
telemarkist
May 31, 2004, 7:39 PM
Post #26 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2003
Posts: 182
|
vedauwoo is very dog friendly...... or it used to be
|
|
|
|
|
steelmonkey
May 31, 2004, 7:40 PM
Post #27 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2002
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: Yep, I am jerk for posting the subject in hopes of eduacting dog owners as to the repercussions that may happen when they let their dogs run unleashed...
There are bad dogs and bad owners just as there are good dogs and good owners. And bad climbers and good climbers. Facts of life.
Yes, you are a massive jerk for using this tragedy to forward your anti-dog raving.
|
|
|
|
|
w6jxm
May 31, 2004, 7:41 PM
Post #28 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 792
|
As a marathon runner, I encounter a lot of dogs during my training. I have thought about carying mace but have really wanted to bother. But there have been many times when my heart skipped a beat when a dog charges out of someones yard and comes within a couple feet barking his head off. If I had a gun I no doubt would have shot the dog. If I was 40 years older and in the middle of the woods with three viscious dogs coming after me, I would have no idea what I would do. As far as shooting the owner that might have been a bit extreme (ok a lot extreme). But we were not in his shoes and never know what the owner had in mind and what that looked like to the old guy. All we can take from this is keep your dogs on leash at the crags. We al know how anoying it is to have a dog come runing up to the base and either rummage though your stuff while the owner does nothing or the dog attacks your dog that is on a leash while the owner is a half mile away on a three pitch climb. Unless you control them, dogs don't belong at the crags.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
May 31, 2004, 7:48 PM
Post #29 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
There is a duplicate thread in COMMUNITY that I commented on earlier this morning, but I'll copy my post here as well...
In reply to: There is an aweful lot that ISN'T being stated in that story! [*:9fc4833198] It states that the deceased was homeless, but he had a lot of money on him, so where did it come from..?
[*:9fc4833198] Why were the dogs not leashed, especially being shelter dogs..?
[*:9fc4833198] Is it possible that he was actually using these dogs as weapons to attack & rob folks on the remot yet popular trails..?
[*:9fc4833198] What really happened in the confrontation before the guy was shot..?
[*:9fc4833198] What happened to the dogs..? The police seem to feel this is an open and shut case of justifiable homicide, and they must have a very good reason for it. From what was stated in the story, it would be a very sketchy case at best.
Sincec a warning shot was fired, the shooter did respond correctly in an attempt to give a clear and concise warning that he fully intended to stop the threat. The story states that the deceased ran towards him after the warning shot was fired. From a logical standpoint, if someone fires a warning shot, you drop to the deck and damn fast... You don't run at the shooter! :shock:
There is a lot more to this than what is being written, as I mentioned above, and the police sure seem to have reason to feel it was a justified shooting.
|
|
|
|
|
bigdrop
May 31, 2004, 7:57 PM
Post #30 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 20, 2002
Posts: 112
|
Murder, not self defense.
This man was not attacked. There is absolutely no indication in the article that the dogs bit or attempted to bite the shooter or that the apparent aggression was even directed towards him.
What does shooting/killing the owner solve? Assuming the dogs where in fact attacking this man, I fail to see how killing the person walking them would solve the situation? The dogs are still there, and obviously not fazed by gun fire (the “warning” shot did nothing to scare them off). It just makes no sense.
This just strengthens my feelings about why the American “right to bare arms” is counter productive to the safety of society. I would never want to move to the USA due to the existence of that “right” alone.
The American mentality surrounding guns baffles me. I live in Canada where guns nearly out populate people. In fact we probably have more guns per-capita then the Americans. But we don’t have the firearm problems that Americans do.
Why do you Americans feel the necessity to carry a gun with you for protection? Who are you scared of, other gun owners?
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
May 31, 2004, 8:01 PM
Post #31 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
[quote="tgreene"]There is a duplicate thread in COMMUNITY that I commented on earlier this morning, but I'll copy my post here as well...
In reply to: There is an aweful lot that ISN'T being stated in that story! [*:fc9e4eeca8] It states that the deceased was homeless, but he had a lot of money on him, so where did it come from..?
[*:fc9e4eeca8] Why were the dogs not leashed, especially being shelter dogs..?
[*:fc9e4eeca8] Is it possible that he was actually using these dogs as weapons to attack & rob folks on the remot yet popular trails..?
[*:fc9e4eeca8] What really happened in the confrontation before the guy was shot..?
[*:fc9e4eeca8] What happened to the dogs..?
You sir are even more misinformed.
One of the dogs was his, the two other were from a dog shelter where he volunteered.
The guy had a check for a thousand dollars as a security blanket.
The guy reportedly shaved and showered every day.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Just about everybody that has ever been harrased by a dog has had the owner run up and grab the dog. This is not an unusual circumstance.
The fact that Victim kept running towards the dogs after the first shot proves to me that he was more concerned for the welfare of the dogs then he was in fear of his own life. If he had known the jerk was going to shoot him i am sure he would of reacted different.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanpfleger
May 31, 2004, 8:16 PM
Post #32 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2003
Posts: 243
|
In reply to: Why do you Americans feel the necessity to carry a gun with you for protection? Who are you scared of, other gun owners?
Amen. I actually support the right to bear arms but for a different reason entirely than the ones most Americans state. The Bill of Rights and that Amendment specifically was passed to ensure that Americans had the capability to defend themselves and/or rebel against a tyrannous government.
That said, people who are so fearful that they believe they need to carry a gun with them in order to be safe are exactly the kind of people that SHOULDN'T be carrying guns. I also think that just having a gun makes you less inclined to solve problems by other means. I am sure that anyone in that situation who did NOT have a gun would have gotten out of it fine as well.
Whoever it was who came up with the theory that the guy was using dogs to rob people... lay of the hard drugs my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
sixter
May 31, 2004, 8:20 PM
Post #33 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2003
Posts: 262
|
Even though I have had my dog for several years, and she is well trained and obedient, I still keep her on a leash when I am walking somewhere. There is always a chance of some situation you have not encountered before bringing on a reaction from your dog and others that you didn't expect or hadn't planned for.
I am confused as to why the man with the gun would shoot the man with the dogs instead of the lead dog. It makes no sense to take out the person that is the least threat to you. I have always learned to take out the closest threat first then deal with the others as they come. To get three shots off to the chest of a running man doesn't seem to be an easy feat to me.
|
|
|
|
|
ter_bee
May 31, 2004, 8:25 PM
Post #34 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 418
|
I feel sorry for the dead man and am suspicious of the man who had three shots for him and none for his dogs, but after that I am surrounded by a sea of speculation.
But... I have enough time to speculate on whether the originator of this thread is a jerk.
His opinons smack of ignorance, or at least a lack of wide experience with different types of dogs. And certainly an absence of an affinity for them.
But I wonder why he posted this with the question, "Is it worth your life?"
Is that a threat? Or does it just make you feel good to think of dog-lovers being [frightened] killed for their "sins?"
I'm leaning towards yes, you're probably a jerk, roughster. Check the mirror and get back to us.
P.S. I agree that some dogs (and some breeds of dog) should NEVER be allowed off-leash. But if you had ever tried to walk a leashed dog in the woods, you would know it's virtually impossible. They get wound around everything. So to join in the medley of speculation, perhaps that's why the poor dead man made the very bad choice of taking a CHOW off a leash.
|
|
|
|
|
d.ben
Deleted
May 31, 2004, 8:27 PM
Post #35 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
I should have said I think the dogs should have been leashed. But I think most men if truly attacked by most dogs could defend themselves with a kick under the the dog's mouth. And the dog would have to be crazy for me to even resort to that.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
May 31, 2004, 8:52 PM
Post #36 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: You sir are even more misinformed. One of the dogs was his, the two other were from a dog shelter where he volunteered. I said shelter dogs, and 2 out of the 3 were just that, so how is that misinformed..? The guy had a check for a thousand dollars as a security blanket. The story never mentioned anything about a security blanket.. What it did say was: "He had plenty of money, a bank account and a $1,000 check on him when he was killed," McCauley said. The guy reportedly shaved and showered every day. The story also clearly stated he was HOMELESS! =-=-=-=-=-=-= Just about everybody that has ever been harrased by a dog has had the owner run up and grab the dog. This is not an unusual circumstance. The fact that Victim kept running towards the dogs after the first shot proves to me that he was more concerned for the welfare of the dogs then he was in fear of his own life. If he had known the jerk was going to shoot him i am sure he would of reacted different.
Dogs are used as weapons every day when released on individuals and/ or signaled to attack. This is no secret, and it's stated as such in the story.
Again, there is simply way too much missing information to be able to make an informed opinion. The way the story is written, the shooter should be hung, but the official police response seems to be completely opposite... Something is clearly amiss, and I seriously doubt we'll ever know what really happened out there! I am however pretty sure that the shooter will be required to take a polygraph test, as well as undergo tons of questioning to see if there is the slightest variance in his account of what transpired.
Somehow I think the most qualified person to comment on this is Bernie Goetz!
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
May 31, 2004, 9:00 PM
Post #37 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
This site is not where I read the news.
I thought you were supposed to be the responsible gun owner? The way you are portraying this says not.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
May 31, 2004, 9:13 PM
Post #38 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
If you have another source with more info, then please post what you have.
Also, "reasonable" means that all of the facts need to be on the table before forming an opinion, which is precisely what I have stated... :roll:
I also very clearly stated that if the truth is the same as written in the stories posted here, then the shooter should hang! :evil:
Please tell me how I could possibly be any more reasonable...
[*:75b13d930d]Do we know for fact that the deceased didn't order the dogs on the shooter..?
[*:75b13d930d]Do we know for fact that the deceased wasn't attempting to perpetuate a crime..?
[*:75b13d930d]Do we know for fact that the deceased wasn't brandishing weapons of his own..?
We do know that the media has a bias against firearms owners, and could have very easily omitted a few facts to further their own agenda. I'm not suggesting this is the case, just pointing out the possibility.
Again, I have very clearly stated that the story as posted here, does not contain all of the facts, because if it did, there is no way in hell the police would be calling this a justifiable shooting!
|
|
|
|
|
jv
May 31, 2004, 9:28 PM
Post #39 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
In reply to: I am however pretty sure that the shooter will be required to take a polygraph test,
In reply to: as well as undergo tons of questioning to see if there is the slightest variance in his account of what transpired.
This they can do, at least until he says "I want a lawyer."
To be self-defense the shooter's use of deadly force has to be reasonable. Here the shooter would have had to fear for his life from the guy running down the trail. To me fists clenched and yelling does not warrant three shots to the chest. Sounds like voluntary manslaughter, at least.
JV
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
May 31, 2004, 9:42 PM
Post #40 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
All right, misinformed was the wrong word to use, it was a last minute edit to change it from jerk which wasn't appropriate either.
People that like to talk about guns make me nervous.
People that shoot other people in the park make me even nervous.
In reply to: Please tell me how I could possibly be any more reasonable... [*:79ec33a7e8]Do we know for fact that the deceased didn't order the dogs on the shooter..?
[*:79ec33a7e8]Do we know for fact that the deceased wasn't attempting to perpetuate a crime..?
[*:79ec33a7e8]Do we know for fact that the deceased wasn't brandishing weapons of his own..?
No, this is not a reasonable list of questions.
Anybody that follows events like this in the news knows pretty much what most likely happened here. Sadly, it is not all that unusual.
It is also sad that these types of events tend to be more common then the ones with good endings. ie the good guy shoots the bad guy instead of the other way around.
In reply to: Again, I have very clearly stated that the story as posted here, does not contain all of the facts, because if it did, there is no way in hell the police would be calling this a justifiable shooting!
The police/law calls unreasonable shootings justifiable all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
rickvena
May 31, 2004, 9:45 PM
Post #41 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 22, 2004
Posts: 34
|
Totally bogus response from the"scared" gun owner. I didn't see any mention of the dogs actually attacking him. Did they? Even if they did, why shoot the walker? I hear this a lot; "most of the time the owners of the agressive dogs say they have never seen thier dog act this way before." This sounds like hyperbole to me. Do you all really hear that from owners of agressive dogs? I very much doubt it. It sure makes us dog owners look bad if it were true. I don't know where you all live but, in the "civilized" world, the vast majority of responsible dog owners know how thier dog will react in a given situation. True, the few irresponsible pet owners may be in denial about thier pet's misbehavior, but those of us who train and re-enforce good behavior in our pets every day, should not be associated with such jerks.
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
May 31, 2004, 9:45 PM
Post #42 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: Just about everybody that has ever been harrased by a dog has had the owner run up and grab the dog. This is not an unusual circumstance.
True, but would you run towards someone who is armed, firing, and either scared or angry? Not me. I'm outta there or I'm not moving and talking as calmly as I can. High stakes.
We may never know what really happened, but I don't think that was the point Roughster was making. Even if the shooter is entirely in the wrong, the guy with his dogs off leash is STILL just as dead. Dead right, maybe, but still dead.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
May 31, 2004, 9:51 PM
Post #43 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: True, the few irresponsible pet owners may be in denial about thier pet's misbehavior, but those of us who train and re-enforce good behavior in our pets every day, should not be associated with such jerks.
I wonder. How do you propose the people you meet with your dog off leash tell whether you're responsible or not?
Call me crazy, but when I see someone walking by the "Dogs must be leashed" sign with their dog off leash, my general impression is of someone who puts their desire to let Fido run free above everyone else's desire not to have to deal with whatever Fido chooses to do. Maybe "responsible" pet owners keep their dogs leashed in places where they are required to do so?
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
emjay
May 31, 2004, 9:57 PM
Post #44 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2003
Posts: 117
|
In reply to: The American mentality surrounding guns baffles me. I live in Canada where guns nearly out populate people. In fact we probably have more guns per-capita then the Americans. But we don’t have the firearm problems that Americans do. Why do you Americans feel the necessity to carry a gun with you for protection? Who are you scared of, other gun owners?
You have hit the nail on the head. The problem we have in America is not that we have too many guns, but that we have too much fear.
We have a level of paranoia that most countries do not. Perhaps this is due to our media emphasis on sensationalistic but rare events such as murders. Studies have shown that Americans believe the likelihood of events such as murders or home invasions to be much higher than is actually the case. This paranoia then translates into seeing this type of action as "justifiable."
As a gun owner, I think events such as this undermine public support for the right to bear arms. If we as gun owners want to avoid this undermining, we should insist that gun owners behave in a responsible fashion. The available facts (which may be incomplete) suggest to me that the shooter was not behaving responsibly.
As an Arizonan who hikes that same trail, the police department's apparent willingness to write this off as justifiable scares the hell out of me.
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
May 31, 2004, 9:57 PM
Post #45 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: People that like to talk about guns make me nervous. People that shoot other people in the park make me even nervous. In reply to: Please tell me how I could possibly be any more reasonable... [*:cd6ed3fb0d]Do we know for fact that the deceased didn't order the dogs on the shooter..?
[*:cd6ed3fb0d]Do we know for fact that the deceased wasn't attempting to perpetuate a crime..?
[*:cd6ed3fb0d]Do we know for fact that the deceased wasn't brandishing weapons of his own..? No, this is not a reasonable list of questions. Anybody that follows events like this in the news knows pretty much what most likely happened here. Sadly, it is not all that unusual. It is also sad that these types of events tend to be more common then the ones with good endings. ie the good guy shoots the bad guy instead of the other way around. In reply to: Again, I have very clearly stated that the story as posted here, does not contain all of the facts, because if it did, there is no way in hell the police would be calling this a justifiable shooting! The police/law calls unreasonable shootings justifiable all the time.
I fear that you're the one who is sadly mistaken here, because a ruling of "justifiable" is very rarely stated by the police early on, since that is up to the courts to decide.
The list of questions I posed will also be posed by the shooters' attorney, so how are they unreasonable. To think these won't be asked, is insane at best.
I also stated earlier that if a weapon is drawn you hear a warning shot being fired, you drop to the ground so you're not hit by a stray bullet... You don't continue your advance! Again I ask, is it possible that the deceased was in the act of committing a crime..?
Again, we don't know the facts, and you've yet to post up a different source that you stated you got your info from earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
overkill
May 31, 2004, 10:09 PM
Post #46 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 24
|
That is one of the sickest things i've ever heard. Why the hell did this guy shoot the man in the chest three times BEFORE the dogs??? I mean WTF??? If I had been that guy first of all i would not have been carrying a semiautomatic weapon (maybe thats because i'm canadian though) but most importantly i would have defended myself drom the dogs! I just can not even imagine what this guy must have been thinking. Is it just me or do you agree with me that yelling at the dog or kicking it or something is a lot more reasonable than shooting the owner in the chest 3 F---ING TIMES!?!?!?!? This just makes me wonder at the obscurity of US gun laws if a man like that is allowed to carry a semiautomatic weapon. I hope that guy that guy gets some serious help or rots in jail because that is just twisted.
|
|
|
|
|
rockrat511
May 31, 2004, 10:43 PM
Post #47 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 1109
|
I don't know Arizona law, but it can't be too off from California law. In the state of California the only way that would be justifiable homicide is if the victim made a credible threat to the suspect which caused the suspect to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. Shooting a dog would in this case would be justifiable and the shooting of the victim could only be justifiable if the situation matched the above criteria. Regardless of the law, this is a tragic incident which could of been easily avoided.
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
May 31, 2004, 11:42 PM
Post #48 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
I know that if someone started shooting at a dog I was walking off of leash (which would mean I am familiar and fond of the dog and fully expect to be able to handle any situation that may come up) then I would run to try to grab the dog(s). I wouldn't think for one second that the man would shoot at me. I would think that I need to control/rescue my dog(s). This guy killed another human, he will have to live with that whatever the courts decide. If he was truly under attack and in fear for his life, I can't imagine (unless this man recieved some sort of self-defense training) that he would have the presence of mind to stay calm enough to fire three rounds into the chest of a running man. Handguns are not easy to be that accurate with a moving target, not to mention while shaking with fear and panic. I'm envisioning this man getting angry and aggressively firing with intent to kill rather than firing three shots toward the walker in a frenzyed panic while under attack from three dogs which didn't even touch him. It's too bad the only witness is dead now, is that coincidental? The man had full control of how fast he hurried to get help and would have had plenty of time to be sure he had his story in order and that the man was too dead to disagree. I'm suspicious but like others have said, we don't have all the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
May 31, 2004, 11:44 PM
Post #49 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
Also, what bearing does the walkers living situation have on whether or not he should be killed?
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Jun 1, 2004, 1:12 AM
Post #50 of 191
(4793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: The guy shot the other guy because he was pissed about the dogs. If he had been afraid for his life he would of shot the dogs, not the person. Three center mass shots is not panic. He will probably get away with it, but as far as I am concerned, he murdered that person. And you are a jerk for posting this in this context. |
|
|
|
|
|
