TexasCHLforum.com

A man was walking his Labrador in a park in the Cleveland, Ohio, area Saturday when a reported Rottweiler being walked on a leash broke away and attacked the Labrador. When the dog owners were unable to separate the dogs, the owner of the Labrador produced a handgun and fatally shot the Rottweiler.

The Labrador is expected to recover.

Park Prosecutor Joe Feighan will decide whether charges will be filed.

http://www.cleveland.com/crime/?/base/i ... xml&coll=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The story implies but does not state that the man had a concealed-carry license or permit.

I have no idea what laws might apply.

- Jim

Discharging a firearm within city limits?

Seriously, I wonder if the "shooter" felt that once the Rottweiler was through with his Lab, he could have been next.

I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't have done the exact same thing. I don't know to what extent I could be prosecuted, but Rotties are not nice and my Dog is my family.

As a jury member given these facts, I would say not guilty, justified.

Also, please don't lump all Rotties together as not being nice. I have known ones that are absolute sweethearts and wouldn't harm a flea even if it's biting the dog. I've also known cute little rat dogs that will give you a real nasty bite as soon as look at you.

The "viciousness" of the dog comes down to how it's raised and trained. All dogs should be properly trained to obey voice commands no matter what is happening for the safety of the dog, its owners and the public in general. This is particularly true of any dog that is capable of inflicting serious bodily harm (and that is most dogs).

I don't have a problem with Rotties. That being said, I would think that if you are allowed to shoot in defense of your property, and your dog is your property, then shooting the attacking Rotty would be legal... ...at least, that would be my interpretation.

The reason that I wrote "reported" Rottweiler is that I haven't seen the dog's pedigree. Dog breeds are misidentified as often as "assault weapons."

It seems clear that the dog was not suitable to be taken out in public, and its owner was not capable of controlling it. (I don't buy the "he never did that before" which you often hear in connection with this type of event.)

The Annoyed Man wrote:I would think that if you are allowed to shoot in defense of your property, and your dog is your property, then shooting the attacking Rotty would be legal...

Keep in mind that Texas has the broadest justifications for use of force and deadly force of any state.

In many states, including Texas, it is a felony to kill an animal without justification. The "animal rights" people have been quietly and successfully pushing this trend for years.

I have no idea what Ohio laws are.

- Jim

txflyer wrote:Also, please don't lump all Rotties together as not being nice. I have known ones that are absolute sweethearts and wouldn't harm a flea even if it's biting the dog. I've also known cute little rat dogs that will give you a real nasty bite as soon as look at you.

My apologies on that. It was a bit of a generalization. My experiences haven't been all that great with them, so I was basing it off of that.

Like it was said, it all comes down to how they are trained.

This will be interesting to watch as I would have done the same given the situation. Having grown up in Ohio and just back from a recent visit, Cleveland is in my opinion, the most anti of all cities in the state. I predict that no matter how justified the owner was, he will be a scapegoat for a city that has much bigger issues that need to be dealt with than this.

pbwalker wrote:I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't have done the exact same thing. I don't know to what extent I could be prosecuted, but Rotties are not nice and my Dog is my family.

Yep, and after you shoot that guy's mean 'ol dog...you might have to shoot him cause he may attack you!

Bad thing about this is...he may wait a while and come after you at a later date.
Down side to altercations these days.

Greetings from Cuyahoga County Ohio...

Just an update. First, the shooter did have a CHL. Our local "action" news station ran with this one til the cows came home, complete with snazzy graphics of a cute puppy in the cross hairs. They even had "Bubba" (the Rott owner) as he became affectionately known on the Ohio CCW Forum being interviewed multiple times. In Ohio it is not illegal to kill a dog that is off its property that is "approaching in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, that attempts to bite or otherwise endanger, or that kills or injures a person..."

This incident happened in the Cleveland Metroparks, which is a separate jurisdiction from Cleveland proper. All the Cleveland Metroparks rangers I know are pretty reasonable when it comes to carrying. One summer day I was open carrying on a hike because it was too doggone hot and we came across a ranger and his only comment was "good for you!"

After about two weeks the news totally dropped the story and never mentioned it again. Why? The prosecutor decided that although the Rott was primarily attacking the other dog, the shooter was legitimately in fear of injury because his dog ran behind him trying to escape leaving him between the Rott and its victim. No charges were filed against the shooter. The Rott owner was cited for 'dog at large' and he failed to show for his court hearing, so a warrant has been issued for his arrest. They may also file on him for menacing because while the CHL was sitting in the Ranger's car discussing the event, Bubba was dumb enough to walk over and demand to see the guy who shot his dog because he planned to kill him right there. Unfortunately for Bubba, he didn't know that the ranger's cruiser was camera equipped and it was all captured on audio.

Dutchster wrote:Greetings from Cuyahoga County Ohio...

Just an update. First, the shooter did have a CHL. Our local "action" news station ran with this one til the cows came home, complete with snazzy graphics of a cute puppy in the cross hairs. They even had "Bubba" (the Rott owner) as he became affectionately known on the Ohio CCW Forum being interviewed multiple times. In Ohio it is not illegal to kill a dog that is off its property that is "approaching in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, that attempts to bite or otherwise endanger, or that kills or injures a person..."

This incident happened in the Cleveland Metroparks, which is a separate jurisdiction from Cleveland proper. All the Cleveland Metroparks rangers I know are pretty reasonable when it comes to carrying. One summer day I was open carrying on a hike because it was too doggone hot and we came across a ranger and his only comment was "good for you!"

After about two weeks the news totally dropped the story and never mentioned it again. Why? The prosecutor decided that although the Rott was primarily attacking the other dog, the shooter was legitimately in fear of injury because his dog ran behind him trying to escape leaving him between the Rott and its victim. No charges were filed against the shooter. The Rott owner was cited for 'dog at large' and he failed to show for his court hearing, so a warrant has been issued for his arrest. They may also file on him for menacing because while the CHL was sitting in the Ranger's car discussing the event, Bubba was dumb enough to walk over and demand to see the guy who shot his dog because he planned to kill him right there. Unfortunately for Bubba, he didn't know that the ranger's cruiser was camera equipped and it was all captured on audio.

Dutchster,

First off welcome to the forum! Glad to have you with us. With the new Ohio laws that have been put into place recently it will be good having someone from there on the forum to provide info.

Secondly, thanks for the update on this event. Glad to hear the dog owner is in the clear. Media tends to sensationalize on anything they can, and knowing that the CHL holder was justified is a good thing.

Welcome and thanks for the follow-up. Too often, the initial story makes a splash, and we never find out how it ended.

- Jim

Keith B wrote: First off welcome to the forum! Glad to have you with us. With the new Ohio laws that have been put into place recently it will be good having someone from there on the forum to provide info.

Secondly, thanks for the update on this event. Glad to hear the dog owner is in the clear. Media tends to sensationalize on anything they can, and knowing that the CHL holder was justified is a good thing.

Thanks for the welcome. Can't promise I'll be here as often as I'd like because I'm quite active on the Ohio CCW forums (although with my old handle). I've got family from the Dallas area so we are in your great state several times a year. I wish I could carry there on my Ohio license rather than my handwritten one from PA, but oh well. My brother-in-law actually sent me here to look up some holster reviews and I happened to find this topic while browsing around.

Nevertheless, Ohio has some really wacky gun laws, although they are getting better. I'll be sure to drop in and scan for discussions of interest periodically!

With regards to this incident, this is a classic example of how you can be 100% right but still go through the mud for it. The Rangers are fighting to keep his name out of the record because of the threats made by Bubba and his friends, and the media was relentless until the prosecutor decided it was a good shoot. Then not a peep was heard again. A very small blurb appeared in the newspaper later on saying that no charges would be filed. Of course even though he's clear from the criminal side, that doesn't mean that one of the local ambulance chasers won't offer to sue on a contingency basis, so the shooter is boning up for a very expensive civil action down the road.

Unless Ohio has some bizarre civil liability laws, the value of an animal is its market value. IOW, if the average adult Rottweiler sells for $200, that's the most that someone could be liable for if they kill the dog. If it's a mutt, the value may be zero. No lawyer will take a case like that.

There have been some efforts to allow pet owners to sue for loss of companionship or emotional distress; but as far as I know, none have been successful.

- Jim