VA - Man Sentenced To 11 Years For Shooting Dog

[Kevlar]

Michael McLeod told police in 2003 how he planned, aimed and fired the rifle shot that killed his neighbor's dog.

He pleaded guilty to animal cruelty. Then he fled. Seven years later, McLeod was captured in Florida.....

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/08/norfolk-man-sentenced-five-years-shooting-dog?cid=ltst

 

[Martlet]

I want to buy an island and escape the insanity.

 

[economist]

It's 5 years (not 11), what he did was wrong, and the penalty is excessive.

Oh, and "in" before the tough-guy dog killers show up.

 

[JonathonEmergency]

Good.

 

[BradM]

Glad they locked him away. Killing someone's pet because it barks and you told them once that it bothered you is unacceptable behavior.
5 years is too long but I bet he learns his lesson.

 

[Martlet]

A crime? Yes. An idiot thing to do? Yes. Painful for the family? Yes. Worthy of 5 years in prison? Absolutely not.

An inconsiderate family leaves their barking dog outside. He does the wrong thing. A dog should be property in the eyes of the law. It's not a person.

 

[Kevlar]

It's 5 years (not 11)...

He was sentenced to 11 years, with 6 years suspended.

 

[MisterHappy]

A crime? Yes. An idiot thing to do? Yes. Painful for the family? Yes. Worthy of 5 years in prison? Absolutely not.

An inconsiderate family leaves their barking dog outside. He does the wrong thing. A dog should be property in the eyes of the law. It's not a person.

This is fast becoming a minority view...

My tenant called and asked if I'd be a reference for her to get a shelter cat.

Not too long ago, the solution to unwanted puppies and kittens involved a burlap sack, a brick and water.

IIRC in Boulder CO, you're not the owner of a pet, but a caretaker.

Was it wrong to shoot the neighbor's dog? Absolutely. But it should have been a property crime.

 

[LoginName]

A crime? Yes. An idiot thing to do? Yes. Painful for the family? Yes. Worthy of 5 years in prison? Absolutely not.

An inconsiderate family leaves their barking dog outside. He does the wrong thing. A dog should be property in the eyes of the law. It's not a person.

I don't find it excessive.

Too f**king bad... he screwed up, took off and got caught.

I have zero sympathy for him (he'll be out in 3 anyhow).

Mind you... I'm as far removed from being a PETA type as you'll ever find, but if I ever
was in a situation where someone killed my pet, jail time would be the least of their worries.

I just find this a bit odd coming from someone with their black lab as an avatar (which I assume you love and adore), as being an outrage of justice.

 

[Martlet]

I just find this a bit odd coming from someone with their black lab as an avatar (which I assume you love and adore), as being an outrage of justice.

Love and adore is an understatement. She goes everywhere with me. If someone intentionally harmed her, they'd beg for jail time. That doesn't change reality, though. I try not to let my emotion cloud reality.

A dog is property. The fact that he fled his sentence is not relevant, since that isn't what the bulk of his time was for. He's serving time for killing a dog, because the judge has a soft spot for dogs. That's insane, particularly considering the dog was a barker and the neighbors were warned. Animal cruelty? He did to that dog what people do to wild animals every day, legally. The only difference is it belonged to someone, and people bond emotionally with dogs. That doesn't change the fact that it's property, and was apparently annoying property to boot. Would he have done time if he'd destroyed the neighbor's stereo while they were blasting it after being warned?

 

[01SVTvert]

I am a dog person myself but plenty of people have gotten much lower penalties for killing people. Think the systems broke? Go look up what some child molesters and people who kill others while drunk driving get as compared to this.

 

[LoginName]

Love and adore is an understatement. She goes everywhere with me. If someone intentionally harmed her, they'd beg for jail time. That doesn't change reality, though. I try not to let my emotion cloud reality.

A dog is property. The fact that he fled his sentence is not relevant, since that isn't what the bulk of his time was for.

Well, it is relevant because he didn't man up to it and face the consequences of his actions.

While I disagree with what he did, at least I'd give him some consideration for saying "this is what I did and why I did it" instead of running away like a coward.

He's serving time for killing a dog, because the judge has a soft spot for dogs.

The judge sentenced him to far less than the law allowed.

If she had such a "soft spot", she could have sentenced to a much longer stint.

And let's be honest here, judges are human too and oftentimes their emotions come into play (when they shouldn't), and just as often a judges emotions/opinions result in less time than deserved.

The guy drew a bad hand and lost.

That's insane, particularly considering the dog was a barker and the neighbors were warned. Animal cruelty? He did to that dog what people do to wild animals every day, legally.

You're quoting law.

Comparing taking down game/pests/vermin/cattle to pets is apples and oranges.

The only difference is it belonged to someone, and people bond emotionally with dogs. That doesn't change the fact that it's property, and was apparently annoying property to boot.

Would he have done time if he'd destroyed the neighbor's stereo while they were blasting it after being warned?

Not if the judge had a "soft spot" for stereo equipment.

 

[Martlet]

Well, it is relevant because he didn't man up to it and face the consequences of his actions.

It isn't relevant because his "manliness" had nothing to do with his sentence, and he only received 1 year for FTA.

The judge sentenced him to far less than the law allowed.

The law is an ass.

If she had such a "soft spot", she could have sentenced to a much longer stint.

And let's be honest here, judges are human too and oftentimes their emotions come into play (when they shouldn't), and just as often a judges emotions/opinions result in less time than deserved.

Did you even read the link? The judge said she had a soft spot, so I can only assume it's relevant.

Comparing taking down game/pests/vermin/cattle to pets is apples and oranges.

Why? Because of an emotional attachment? That wouldn't hold up if he had destroyed an automobile. Why should it because it's a pet?

 

[MetalgodZ]

Love and adore is an understatement. She goes everywhere with me. If someone intentionally harmed her, they'd beg for jail time. That doesn't change reality, though. I try not to let my emotion cloud reality.

A dog is property. The fact that he fled his sentence is not relevant, since that isn't what the bulk of his time was for. He's serving time for killing a dog, because the judge has a soft spot for dogs. That's insane, particularly considering the dog was a barker and the neighbors were warned. Animal cruelty? He did to that dog what people do to wild animals every day, legally. The only difference is it belonged to someone, and people bond emotionally with dogs. That doesn't change the fact that it's property, and was apparently annoying property to boot. Would he have done time if he'd destroyed the neighbor's stereo while they were blasting it after being warned?

There was a time in this country when stealing or intentionally killing livestock ended with a short drop and a quick stop, or at the end of the barrel of the property owner.

 

[Martlet]

There was a time in this country when stealing or intentionally killing livestock ended with a short drop and a quick stop, or at the end of the barrel of the property owner.

Sure, for completely different reasons than "awww, isn't Fido cute". During that same period, you could whack 'Ol Yella for being a nuisance and nobody would bat an eye.

 

[MetalgodZ]

Sure, for completely different reasons than "awww, isn't Fido cute". During that same period, you could whack 'Ol Yella for being a nuisance and nobody would bat an eye.

...Unless you did it on the owner's property.

 

[M1911]

There was a time in this country when stealing or intentionally killing livestock ended with a short drop and a quick stop, or at the end of the barrel of the property owner.

Because back then livestock was part of a person's livelihood, not a pet.

We love our cats dearly. Our previous cat had seen interns, cardiologists, ophthalmologists. She'd been in intensive care. She'd had echo cardiograms. But 11 years for killing a dog? Sorry, I think that is absurd.

 

[maee]

McLeod, a 40-year-old Army veteran with sniper training, faced a maximum sentence of 11 years for felony charges of animal cruelty, failure to appear and a misdemeanor count of discharging a firearm in a public place.

Failure to appear. Thats got to account for the majority of the 11 years. Thats a serious crime. If you are charged with a felony, and you skip town for FIVE FREAKIN' YEARS, yes you are going to do hard time. Being a fugitive from justice is not taken lightly. The animal cruelty charge was probably just a few years.

 

[MetalgodZ]

Because back then livestock was part of a person's livelihood, not a pet.

We love our cats dearly. Our previous cat had seen interns, cardiologists, ophthalmologists. She'd been in intensive care. She'd had echo cardiograms. But 11 years for killing a dog? Sorry, I think that is absurd.

So we say it's OK to shoot a thief who's stealing a lawnmower, but not the guy who shoots your dog on your property?

I'm sensing a gap in logic here, and I don't think it's on my end.

 

[M1911]

So we say it's OK to shoot a thief who's stealing a lawnmower, but not the guy who shoots your dog on your property?

Could you show me where I said that?

 

[MetalgodZ]

Sorry, didn't mean you specifically. I'm going off of general NES theory on how to handle a thief. I can dig up a couple of threads if you'd still like me to.

 

[M1911]

Sorry, didn't mean you specifically. I'm going off of general NES theory on how to handle a thief. I can dig up a couple of threads if you'd still like me to.

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to some supposed NES theory, nor have I ever suggested shooting a thief unless said thief is a causing an immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury to you or another innocent.

Feel free to criticize me for what I wrote, but not what others have written.

 

[RadiCS]

A crime? Yes. An idiot thing to do? Yes. Painful for the family? Yes. Worthy of 5 years in prison? Absolutely not.

An inconsiderate family leaves their barking dog outside. He does the wrong thing. A dog should be property in the eyes of the law. It's not a person.

This!! And, I have two dogs.

 

[MetalgodZ]

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to some supposed NES theory, nor have I ever suggested shooting a thief unless said thief is a causing an immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury to you or another innocent.

That's fine. I don't particularly agree with the idea either, for myself. I also don't presume to tell anyone else that it's wrong to shoot a thief, some random guy who's smashing your property, or the dude who just shot your dog. Don't want to get shot? Don't get caught by a property owner with a gun while in the process of taking or wrecking their property.

Feel free to criticize me for what I wrote, but not what others have written.

The gap in logic comment wasn't directed at you, and was unnecessarily antagonistic anyway. Sorry for that. Back to the topic and not directing this specifically at you...

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/81001-OK-here-is-a-topic-that-should-keep-us-busy

Thief dead = good shot.

+1

You think it's stupid, others do not.

I despise thieves. They invade your privacy. It's more than just "taking a material possession". It's robbing you of a monetary item that often represents hours of work, time, and emotion. They violate you, and take something that you must now devote more time and money to replace.

Additionally, they typically move on to rob another person. I have no problem with a property owner removing the problem before another must experience the same loss.

That's your choice. It's also the his choice. It would have been quite easy for the thief to avoid getting shot. Choose not to violate another man's personal property.

+19

Also, see: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/44864-Texas-sure-isn-t-Massachusetts.

Is it the barking that changes the situation? I'm seriously trying to see where exactly I'm missing the jump here where it goes from the guy being lucky he's not shot dead for depriving another of their property to excessive that he's spending 6 years in jail for the same thing.

 

[bfm]

Given a few things I don't know, like how densely populated the area was etc, I could see 5 years for something this premeditated. If the guy had said he hadn't slept for a week because of the dog and one morning had had too much, I could see a year for the dog and a year for illegal discharge of a firearm inside city limits. Given there was little to nothing done to solve this problem like adults first and the amount of planning and thought, I would say 5 years was not unreasonable. If the guy had spent half as much effort taking to the neighbors as he did setting up the shot, he probably could have saved everyone a lot of trouble.

 

[Sibb]

Love and adore is an understatement. She goes everywhere with me. If someone intentionally harmed her, they'd beg for jail time. That doesn't change reality, though. I try not to let my emotion cloud reality.

A dog is property. The fact that he fled his sentence is not relevant, since that isn't what the bulk of his time was for. He's serving time for killing a dog, because the judge has a soft spot for dogs. That's insane, particularly considering the dog was a barker and the neighbors were warned. Animal cruelty? He did to that dog what people do to wild animals every day, legally. The only difference is it belonged to someone, and people bond emotionally with dogs. That doesn't change the fact that it's property, and was apparently annoying property to boot. Would he have done time if he'd destroyed the neighbor's stereo while they were blasting it after being warned?

Yes if he shot it with his rifle. The article says that the state has been cracking down on animal cruelty in the past decade. Someone said once you can judge a society by how they treat their animals. I say this speaks well for us.

 

[Spanz]

5 years is a lot. However, there are plenty of places in this country where shooting a man's dog would get yourself shot in return. Considering that, he is probably getting off easy.

 

[Martlet]

Failure to appear. Thats got to account for the majority of the 11 years. Thats a serious crime. If you are charged with a felony, and you skip town for FIVE FREAKIN' YEARS, yes you are going to do hard time. Being a fugitive from justice is not taken lightly. The animal cruelty charge was probably just a few years.

Did you even read the darn article?

So we say it's OK to shoot a thief who's stealing a lawnmower, but not the guy who shoots your dog on your property?

I'm sensing a gap in logic here, and I don't think it's on my end.

There's a considerable difference between the State prosecuting a crime after it's taken place and a home owner protecting his property. More so since the State is an outside interest acting on behalf of the public. Similarly, you could shoot someone crawling through your bedroom window at 2am. However, if you didn't, and the State caught him 2 days later, they can't shoot him for you.

 

[KBCraig]

The prosecutor congratulated the jury for their common sense and compassion, saying "Animal slaughter will not be tolerated in this district!", then took the victims out for a steak dinner.

 

[MetalgodZ]

There's a considerable difference between the State prosecuting a crime after it's taken place and a home owner protecting his property. More so since the State is an outside interest acting on behalf of the public. Similarly, you could shoot someone crawling through your bedroom window at 2am. However, if you didn't, and the State caught him 2 days later, they can't shoot him for you.

Point taken. He's still lucky he got prison time rather than being caught in the act.

The prosecutor congratulated the jury for their common sense and compassion, saying "Animal slaughter will not be tolerated in this district!", then took the victims out for a steak dinner.