-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Dog kills duck and duck owner shoots dog dead. Where do you stand?
- Thread starter Rockrivr1
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
- Messages
- 2,730
- Likes
- 4,712
Once again I will post the part from the STATUTE that explains and answers your question: "worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls,"
hpm
NES Member
This sounds like the “if she hadn worn a short skirt” defense.
Again the duck owner can do on his own property as he pleases. No proper fence needed!
It’s the off the leash dog owner’s fault.
Had the dogs attacked a kid playing in the yard you wouldn’t say “ if kid boy had his kids in cages the dogs would not have been able to get them even off leash”.
TOM1960
Banned
He will be prohibited person forever if convicted on the unlicensed firearm charges. Sounds like he used some type of handgun (the "firearm") and no LTC. Dad lives in NH and may be the owner of that gun. He obviously was present during the incident, since he got charged as well.Indeed, his only options from that point on would be air rifle, muzzleloader or archery.Yes, we all know the dogs were off leash. But even so if duck boy had a proper fence or enclosure the dogs would not have been able to get in the yard or at the ducks even if off the leash.
Lots of wrong here for sure but duck boy is the one in jail.
Duck boy would have been better off setting up video cameras and having the dog owners fined and made to pay for his duck.
Now it will seemingly cost him a little freedom and possibly a lot of money.
Mass. man arrested for killing neighbor's dog that attacked his duck
Two more men are being summonsed to court for misleading police's investigation into the shooting death of a neighbor's pet dog.www.wcvb.com
You sound like the "Well if she didnt want to get raped maybe she shouldnt have worn that high cut tight dress."
You can't just pay for a duck and replace it, thats not how ducks work.
There was stupid on both sides but blaming the victim for not having his ducks in a run at the time of attack is liberal retardedness 101. That's literally the equivalent of keeping a dog inside a crate its entire life.
I don't equate a dog attacking a duck or any other animal to a women being raped.
I guess if that's the level we have downgraded women to then we have reached yet another sad chapter in human history.
Again, not blaming the duck who is the victim here.
Maybe not, but we seem to be getting closer to a more accurate comparison as opposed to degrading women.
Perhaps if you said you left your doors and windows wide open and someone strolled in to take or damage your stuff we would be closer.
The guy wants free range ducks that's fine. There is a risk associated with that from all kinds of predators and not just dogs.
Whatever way the dogs were able to get to the ducks it would be just as easy for a fox or a coyote to do the same.
So this should have been no surprise to the duck owner.
He allegedly warned the dog owners in the past that he would kill their dogs if on property again.
He is a man of his word and now look at all the trouble he is in because of it all.
Anyway, don't care about the duck, nor the dog, or the dog owner or the duck owner.
People acted stupid.
And if the duck guy wasn't prohibited from owning firearms already, he will likely be prohibited after its all over.
Sounds like a win/win for everyone involved.
You guys can call me a liberal douche all you want for me thinking duck boy bears responsibility for that duck being dead.
But think about this....there was a post earlier in this thread that someone thought they could identify the dog owner as a liberal and the duck owner as a 2A supporter.
lets say that is all true.....
Then would you not agree that for the price of a dog's life and maybe a $25.00 leash violation ticket that the liberals turned another 2A supporter/gun owner into a prohibited person?
We have to be smarter than they are people. Or we will all lose what is left of our 2A rights.
The duck could have been killed by a fox or other wild animal... but it wasn’t. And if it was justification for killing would be the same.
Not sure who is degrading women in this thread. Woke people some times can’t see clearly
And if he did that then probably nobody would be the wiser. But he killed a dog and someone misses their dog. And now he is in trouble with the law.
But to use your unlocked door analogy....why do people lock their doors? To mitigate any potentiality of some unwanted person from entering?
So if you have livestock then why would you not put up a protective fence and make sure it is in good repair so that a domestic or even wild predator cannot enter your space?
Isn't that the same thing?
People who compare women wearing a sexy outfit or bathing suite as an invitation to rape as being the same as a guy not putting up a fence to protect a duck is beyond degrading to women.
Not even sure how that comparison comes into play.
Anyway, you all have a nice day with this.
I don't care about the dog. I don't care about the duck. I don't care about the shooter and I certainly do not care about the dog owner.
I'll just sit back and wait for the gun control crowd to start screaming for more gun control because a dog got killed.
Last edited:
Seems duck boy is in trouble.
Mass. man arrested for killing neighbor's dog that attacked his duck
Two more men are being summonsed to court for misleading police's investigation into the shooting death of a neighbor's pet dog.
RumRunner
NES Member
So this gets more interesting. If duck guy was following the law as we thought and it was a good shoot on the dog for being on his property and killing ducks, then why all the charges? I can see the no LTC/FID charges, but they are charging him with animal abuse, the 500' rule, etc, etc. Does the fact that he was not licensed make it so he does not get the benefit of the other laws for protecting his livestock? Or is there something else that he did that affects that? Seems odd, the charges indicate that duck guy was in the wrong for everything.
Because that's what prosecutors do. They start with the laundry list and then go for plea bargain.
Arraignment was today those are always just a formality, he will plead not guilty to all charges and then it proceeds down the path.
Arraignment was today those are always just a formality, he will plead not guilty to all charges and then it proceeds down the path.
Amputee Marksman
NES Member
They're going to make an example of him regardless. They are going to go scorched earth on this guy so the next person won't even consider shooting the dog, coyote, wolf, cat, insert your favorite predator here when it goes after their chicken, duck etc.
I did look at the municipal code in Salisbury too see what they could potentially charge him with. I knew they were not going to let it slide. I would have bet money they were going to charge him with something.
SHOCKNAWE
NES Member
I value a Dogs life much more than any Duck but who am I to tell someone that their pets life is worth less than someone else’s pet?
I personally wouldn’t have shot the dog but I got no problems with the guy who did, it’s his property and he has a right to defend what’s on it the way I see it.
I personally wouldn’t have shot the dog but I got no problems with the guy who did, it’s his property and he has a right to defend what’s on it the way I see it.
Well, how about we all assume we're all reading at a 6th grade level and saw your post, because then we can look at the question I actually asked instead of the one you wish I'd asked. Both your initial post and the one above are totally non-responsive to the question: "Does that / how would that statute override the 'not within 500' requirement in MGL 269 12E?", because 269.12E is one of the things he's being charged with.
269.12E allows you to "defend life and property", but is livestock considered "property" under the current reading of the law? Just saying a duck is "property" is unlikely to fly, because by that reading, there is nothing to stop you from shooting a deer in your backyard in July when you find it eating your rose bushes. Similarly, there's a house near where I work in Hopkinton that has several chickens. The houses on that street are at best 100' apart. Can someone go out and fire away in a fairly dense suburban neighborhood at a dog killing a chicken in that instance?
Last edited:
RumRunner
NES Member
All the charges should be BS, except for anything related to being unlicensed (without getting into the fact that he shouldn't need to be of course).The 500' charge is BS
Tallahassee
NES Member
Charges don't have to be just, accurate, or even plausible. They can charge you with whatever bullshit they want, and let you piss money away at court.
Zero accountability for false charges.
Coda
NES Member
"Salisbury police announced Wednesday that after a thorough, weeklong investigation, they arrested 28-year-old Jacob Dow at his Beach Road home."
MA translation……… After a week of pressure from left leaning gun grabbers the police decided to create a laundry list of charges.
MA translation……… After a week of pressure from left leaning gun grabbers the police decided to create a laundry list of charges.
StevieP
NES Member
I readily admit I haven't read the entirety of this eight-page thread.
Normally I'd be on the side of the duck owner being able to lawfully defend his livestock.
BUT:
He was not in lawful possession of the gun used (?). If not, then everything he did with it was wrong, too.
He lied & said he didn't do it. I friggin' hate liars. Own up to it.
Normally I'd be on the side of the duck owner being able to lawfully defend his livestock.
BUT:
He was not in lawful possession of the gun used (?). If not, then everything he did with it was wrong, too.
He lied & said he didn't do it. I friggin' hate liars. Own up to it.
HARRYM
NES Member
You do know the deep and long standing corruption that is the Salisbury PD correct? They make the Methuen PD look like pre-schoolers.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
TOM1960
Banned
Yes, the gun charges for both guys are the most serious. Two (potentially) more prohibited persons for life added to the list. Should have used a good powerful air rifle or compound bow with 100 grain Muzzie broadheads.
- Status
Similar threads
