Responsibility! Don't Shoot the Dog . . . and Don't Blame the Breed

Last night, a report ran on local television news about the fatal shooting of a dog in Broadlands.  The report indicated that people in the community are upset, and that the shooter is now calling for a ban on Pit Bull dogs in Broadlands.

I suggest we take the rhetoric down a notch and take a look at what we know . . .

First of all, not very much.  Television news stories rarely contain enough facts for anyone to draw a fair conclusion.  Maybe we’ll learn more over the next few days, but for now – here is what we know:

(1) The dog owner and the shooter of the dog are neighbors; (2) the shooter says that he had warned the dog owner that he did not appreciate the loose dog coming onto his property and told the dog owner that he would shoot the dog if he came on his property again; (3) when the dog was shot, he was running-at-large and on the shooter’s property; (4) the dog was identified as being a Pit Bull or Pit mix; (5) the shooter was reported as claiming that the dog was a threat to his children; (6) the dog owner claimed that the dog was nice and wouldn’t hurt anybody; and (7) the police are not prosecuting the shooter for anything because ‘it’s legal to shoot a dog that comes on your property.’

Let’s take the last point first.  Whether the police said this or not, it is not legal to shoot a dog just because it enters your property.  Under the Illinois Humane Care for Animals Act, shooting a dog is Aggravated Cruelty, a felony.  That law states: "No person may intentionally commit an act that causes a companion animal to suffer serious injury or death"  (510 ILCS  70/3.02).  Many municipalities also have laws regarding the discharge of firearms within city limits – so before you go picking up your gun to scare off a local stray dog or cat, you better check your local ordinances.

That said, I think it’s fair to say that if you’re being attacked or seriously threatened by a dog, and you shoot the dog to protect yourself or another human, you’re not likely to be prosecuted for Animal Cruelty.  Call it an “exigent circumstance” or “self defense."

It’s clear to me that we don’t have enough facts – based on last night’s news report – to draw a conclusion about the Broadlands shooting and the decision of the Police not to pursue charges.  If there were no witnesses to the event, we’re left with the statement of the shooter and any forensic evidence (i.e., where did the bullet enter the dog’s body?) to determine whether this was an act of cruelty or an act committed out of necessity to prevent human injury.

Despite all that we don’t know . . . there is one thing that we do know, or can learn, from a case like this.  Saying you love your dog is not enough – you have to “walk-the-walk,” even when it is difficult, inconvenient, or expensive.  As a loving pet owner, it is your responsibility to protect your dog from danger and prevent him from running at large.  Loose dogs can ingest toxic substances and be hit by cars, attacked by wild animals, impaled by sharp objects, or shot by hot-tempered neighbors.  Yes, accidents happen and sometimes your dog breaks out of your yard, gets off his tie-out line, or runs out the front door.  But when this happens repeatedly, and you’ve been warned that your loose dog is a nuisance to your neighbors, the responsibility falls on you to find a way to prevent such incidents.

The “defense” that your dog has a wonderful temperament and wouldn’t hurt anybody doesn’t fly with me.  You cannot expect everyone on earth to intuitively know that your dog is “harmless” when they meet him – especially if they meet him running loose.  Some people find all large dogs threatening; some people have had bad experiences with dogs in the past; some people are uncomfortable with dogs in general.  Everyone should be able to live in their community free from any threat (real or perceived) that someone else’s loose dog will make an unwelcome approach to them, their pets, or their children.

All of that said, if it’s true that the shooter shot the dog simply because the dog re-entered his property after he warned the dog’s owner about his intention – in my opinion, the shooter did commit an act of animal cruelty and should be prosecuted.  Under the Humane Care for Animals Act, shooting a dog is a crime – even if the dog is on your property – and even if you own the dog.  The Act protects companion animals from acts of cruelty and there is no exception for companion animals that wander into your yard.

I certainly hope that nobody in Broadlands takes seriously the shooter’s suggestion that a Pit Bull ban is called for.  Based on the facts as we know them, the breed of the dog may have been a factor only in that it caused the shooter to be trigger happy because he made assumptions about the dog’s temperament based on the dog’s breed.  Far as a I can tell, the dog acted like any dog would.  If Broadlands officials need to examine local ordinances in response to this case, they should look at enactment/enforcement of loose dog/leash laws and discharge of firearms provisions.  And maybe they could consider some programs on being a good neighbor and anger management.

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

Norman wrote on April 01, 2011 at 8:04 am

I agree on your opinion about not blaming the breed. But, if a dog for any reason came onto your lawn and threatened your children. Would you just it go after your children and not shoot it? It sounds to me that you like dogs more.

Glorioski wrote on April 01, 2011 at 11:04 am

Norman - note that Tief did state, "I think it’s fair to say that if you’re being attacked or seriously threatened by a dog, and you shoot the dog to protect yourself or another human, you’re not likely to be prosecuted for Animal Cruelty." I would interpret that to mean that she doesn't believe anyone should allow a dog to attack a child, or any other living thing, without doing something about it.

Pitlover1973 wrote on April 01, 2011 at 12:04 pm

This sounds like a case of someone who has anger issues and needs help himself. People who judge a dog by breed aren't any better than someone who has racial issues. It is profiling completely ridiculous. The other neighbors also verified this dog was friendly NOT vicious. Very sad story and I do believe this man should be prosecuted.

Reader2 wrote on April 01, 2011 at 12:04 pm

Norman, to plenty of kind, responsible, loving people, their pets ARE their children. I for one agree with Andy Rooney's quip, "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person."

There's nothing wrong with preferring animals to humans. The depravity of some people defies their humanity -- after looking at how that NJ woman starved, abused and ultimately tossed her near-dead pitbull in the trash, can anyone justifiably argue she is the better animal?!

http://www.ahscares.org/showarchive.asp?id=772
http://www.patrickslaw.com/index.html

Clark171 wrote on April 01, 2011 at 3:04 pm

It's reassuring to note that animals have some level of protection against being shot on sight..

If the facts as state are correct - that is the shooter believed the dog was a threat to his children rather than the dog was threatening his children - there was no direct danger to the children. Hopefully the shooter will be charged with a felony, convicted and made to forfeit his firearm owner’s ID card.

As a responsible gun owner I believe the last thing we need are trigger happy neighbors taking pot shots are each others' animals.

Wonder if he ever thought of calling animal control?

On the other hand, if you're going to have a dog or dogs - nothing beats having a good fence. We keep ours locked for the dogs' protection!

serf wrote on April 03, 2011 at 2:04 pm

I always get a chuckle out of the 'animals are people too' crowd.

bluegrass wrote on April 03, 2011 at 4:04 pm

Leash laws, anger management courses, unchained dogs, confiscation of FOID cards, good neighbor classes, felony convictions. All ways to fix a resolved problem. The neighborhood block party might be a little awkward this summer.

Regardless of what the police or various pit bull apologists say, isn't it up to the Champaign County States Attorney's office to make the call on whether or not this guy should face any charges? Is it possible to interview someone from their office to find out what the actual law is here?

zipqs wrote on April 16, 2011 at 2:04 am

A few comments here Tief, while you mention it is the responsibility of the dog owner to be responsible and proactive into seeing their dog's are adequately cared for and restricted, there is an animal law on the the books taken from the IL Animal Control Act as stated below that addresses the allowance for killing a dog at large..

(510 ILCS 5/18) (from Ch. 8, par. 368)
Sec. 18. Any owner seeing his or her livestock, poultry, or equidae being injured, wounded, or killed by a dog, not accompanied by or not under the supervision of its owner, may kill such dog.
(Source: P.A. 93‑548, eff. 8‑19‑03.)

I don't think there would be any question (except for technical gun permit laws) of person killing dog in self-defense of themselves or their family but such is not explicitly stated in the law. Broadlands is a very rural community. It may very well be that there is no statute about discharging a firearm there?

You are very correct that the facts released to the public simply aren't known. We don't need to be going down the path of BSL.