In what regards? The guy should have never shot the dog and the owners should never have let people that can't control it be in possession of it. I'm not sure what you want me to read about? I'm agreeing with everyone else that the old man should be charged. I'd just like the owners to take some personal responsibility with their part in the situation.
|
|
|
Is it leagl?-not HTA related
- Thread starter omnivore
- Start date
In what regards? The guy should have never shot the dog and the owners should never have let people that can't control it be in possession of it. I'm not sure what you want me to read about? I'm agreeing with everyone else that the old man should be charged. I'd just like the owners to take some personal responsibility with their part in the situation.
Your stated reason for agreeing with this is, in fact, incorrect. The fact that he shot the dog, at all, is reason enough as shown in the case law I linked to.
Maybe not. The applicable Criminal Code statute states:
The latest update from the Op says that the guy apologized to the dog's owner and claimed that he shot at the ground in an attempt to scare the dog away.
If you take this claim at face value, then the injury to the dog was unintentional and not the result of a wilfull attempt to cause injury or death. In absence of clear evidence of wilfull intent, a conviction is far from a sure thing. The previous encounter might provide some basis to show intent to wound or kill the dog, but any decent defence lawyer could easily raise reasonable doubt sufficient to preclude conviction.
That would be the type of "excuse" that he would have to convince a court of. Sounds to me like the old guy didn't apologize, so much as he tried to avoid going to jail.
Actually it was a steel cable leash, sheathed in plastic. The dog had long previously tangled a knot in it. The knot obviosuly got tighter with time from the dog being tied to it and pulling. The steel fibres inside kinked, and due to rust, eventually broke. Picture clothesline type cable and you'd get the idea.
I think maybe you are picturing a dog rampant on a leash dragging kids around the yard. No. One second the dog is tied, and the next she was loose, dragging a short section of leash behind her. Black dog. 8:30 pm. Middle of a rain storm. No the dog is not trained to heel on command or to react like a police dog. It is just a family pet, and when let off it's leash, it ran.
I think maybe you are picturing a dog rampant on a leash dragging kids around the yard. No. One second the dog is tied, and the next she was loose, dragging a short section of leash behind her. Black dog. 8:30 pm. Middle of a rain storm. No the dog is not trained to heel on command or to react like a police dog. It is just a family pet, and when let off it's leash, it ran.
he wasn't speeding and didn't change lanes twice in a minute so they couldn't charge him with stunting.
How about Section 86 - Careless use of firearm, etc, along with 445 - the unintentional injury defence should hang him on the careless use charge. Check Mate at best and $15,000 - $30,000 in legal fees for Mr. Cranky Pants at the very least, win or lose.
Last edited:
Checkmate? Carelessness has to exceed a given threshhold of negligence before it is considered to be criminal carelessness. The Crown would have to prove a criminal degree of negligence to support a careless use of firearms conviction, and a bad outcome by itself won't necessarily provide enough evidence to do that.
A criminal conviction and resulting record is a serious blight to a person's reputation and standing in the community. That's why the threshhold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required to obtain a criminal conviction.
Last edited:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but firing from a location with a limited arc of vision, when there were people just outside of that arc, pretty much defines the charge.
Stop buying the ones made in china and get a good Canadian made product for that beast!
Something similar happened in Uxbridge a couple of years ago. Big city people move to the country and got a lesson in responsible dog ownership etiquette. Case closed. If that dog ran in front of a motorcycle and caused a crash I don't think the members here would have the same sympathy towards the family who owned the dog.
http://newsdurhamregion.com/article/88079
http://newsdurhamregion.com/article/88017
http://newsdurhamregion.com/article/88079
http://newsdurhamregion.com/article/88017
Probably because accidental death and execution aren't the same thing, any more than shooting a 'trespassing' animal is anywhere near protecting farm animals.
Newsflash. No one can completely control a dog, it's not a bicycle.
M
mlc
Guest
Apparently, some pet owners recommend using the Invisible Fence training system to control a wandering dog.
http://www.invisiblefenceontario.ca/testimonials.htm
http://www.invisiblefenceontario.ca/testimonials.htm
I tried one, and it doesn't always work. A stubborn dog will ignore the collar warnings, and a high energy dog running fast will break right through it before it has any effect. The result is you now have a dog on the OTHER side of the invisible fence.
My neighbour across the road has one too, but his seems to work with his dogs. Then again, his dogs are kind of lazy low energy dogs.
I ended up fencing in a half-acre dog run in my back yard pretty much dedicated for my Dobermans and their land mines.
I saw one of these things in effect, and I will honestly say it disgusts me. No one would suggest using the same type of system on Children. If you can't control a pet, maybe you shouldn't have one. We had a number of dobermans on our country lot. With the correct training they can be taught the property lines and never to leave.
M
mlc
Guest
I don't own a dog, and have never used any of these systems, but the website indicates all systems are not created equally....
The Invisible Fence Brand Collar can sense the position of a dog as it enters the signal field over 3x faster than the competition. That means a dog running would have to be running in excess of 200 mph to move through the containment field before the collar responded! This technology positions Invisible Fence Brand as the most secure and safest pet containment system on the market.
and....
In 2002 I purchased a containment system for our dogs from Invisible Fence. It was an easy decision since the OSPCA had tested many systems on the market and Invisible Fence was the only one that they endorsed as humane. It was an investment for us, one that we felt would give us peace of mind and our much loved dogs increased quality of life.
YMMV
The Invisible Fence Brand Collar can sense the position of a dog as it enters the signal field over 3x faster than the competition. That means a dog running would have to be running in excess of 200 mph to move through the containment field before the collar responded! This technology positions Invisible Fence Brand as the most secure and safest pet containment system on the market.
and....
In 2002 I purchased a containment system for our dogs from Invisible Fence. It was an easy decision since the OSPCA had tested many systems on the market and Invisible Fence was the only one that they endorsed as humane. It was an investment for us, one that we felt would give us peace of mind and our much loved dogs increased quality of life.
YMMV
|
|
|
|
|