From the Local News - Estacada man gets jail time for gunning down dog

[WiredPig]

Firstly, I wasn't sure where else to put this as it is a LEO encounter -

Estacada, Oregon - via KXL and OregonLive -

Estacada man gets jail time for gunning down dog with children nearby​

Gerald Patrick Nagle lived in fear of his neighbor's large German Shepherd, a watchdog that would bark and snap when Nagle went to the mailbox.

.​

 

[Ghost Rider]

That judge is such a dumb ass, were she says im shocked, no one goes out with a full clip (in a gun) to garden unless they intend to use it. Just another person stuck in there own little world that is hardly qualified to pass judgement on another person that has to defend them selfs from on coming danger.

I live out in the country, so im sure this stupid judge would be just as shocked if she knew I carried my gun while im out mowing the lawn, WITH A FULL CLIP IN MY GUN.

 

[Flanmedic51]

I would have to say that for me to kill a dog, it would have to actually bite me...so I could have the evidence and justification to shoot it so something like this wouldn't happen. Most dogs make a racket and bark because they are territorial and don't require a bullet. But I must say that the judge's comments are moronic regardless. Obviously not a pro gunner.

 

[The_Outlaw]

Circuit Judge Susie L. Norby had no sympathy for Nagle and sentenced him to 30 days in jail and two years supervised probation for the misdemeanors. Prosecutor Matt Semritc had asked for 20 days in jail and a year of bench probation.
"I'm shocked," Norby said. "No one goes out with a full clip (in a gun) to garden unless they intend to use it."
Rapidly firing bullets in a residential neighborhood where children are playing is outrageous, Norby said.
"What you did on this day would shock the consciousness" of any community, she said. "It makes me question your mental health."

This Judge Norby character sounds like a real ignorant piece of work i.m.h.o.
WHAT ABOUT THE OUTRAGEOUS / IRRESPONSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE DOG'S OWNERS?

I kind of feel bad for the dog, but then again that dog should have been either on a leash or gated behind a fence.

Maybe those very irresponsible dog owners will think twice next time when it comes to having an aggressive dog running loose on the streets terrorizing the neighbor/s. The dogs owner should also face some jail time i.m.o.
F'ng idiots.

 

[eagleeyes]

i feel bad for the dog and its owners but the guy didn't have any right to shoot that dog imo
as far as carrying while doing yard work i think is a smart idea and i would probably do so too after i get a holster and belt to do so cuz ya never know if some cat burgler or someone is watching for a right moment to do you harm...........alot of assaults and robberies rapes .....happen on your own property

 

[Woody1960]

I feel bad for all involved.Mostly the dog,as it was just doing what dogs do when someone they dont know gets to close. 1st thing I did when we moved here 3 years ago was take my dog with me to meet the nieghbors. That way the dog know the good guys. If that dog had never bit the man, he should not have shot it imho.Most dogs will try to scare your till you stand your ground then they will back off unless they are just a mean dog.

 

[Mobuck]

My opinion is the dog was more dangerous to children than the shooter. That said, the guy was a dumb azz for doing the deed in daylight and in front of witnesses. He should look into filing charges of endangerment, keeping a dangerous animal, and assault by proxy(animal). There is NO place in this world for an aggressive dog that is not fully controlled. The cops should have already taken a hand in the situation.

 

[nogods]

In New York it is not a crime to dispatch a dog that is threatening serious personal injury to you, another human, or a domestic animal, but you still have to obey the firearm possession and discharge laws. So if you are on school grounds and get attacked by a dog, then shoot the dog, you can't be prosecuted for shooting the dog, but you can be prosecuted for possessing and discharging a weapon on school grounds.

It sounds like that is what happened in this case - he wasn't prosecuted for killing the dog, he was prosecuted for the discharge of the weapon in an unlawful manner.

But I do agree that the judge's comment about a full clip is inane.

 

[ScottNY]

I would have to say that for me to kill a dog, it would have to actually bite me...so I could have the evidence and justification to shoot it so something like this wouldn't happen. Most dogs make a racket and bark because they are territorial and don't require a bullet. But I must say that the judge's comments are moronic regardless. Obviously not a pro gunner.

You would let a dog bite you first? Have you seen trained German shepherds attack? What if he gets your gun hand? I am very surprised all of the agreement with this statement.

 

[Bikenut]

I would have to say that for me to kill a dog, it would have to actually bite me...so I could have the evidence and justification to shoot it so something like this wouldn't happen. Most dogs make a racket and bark because they are territorial and don't require a bullet. But I must say that the judge's comments are moronic regardless. Obviously not a pro gunner.

So.... before you would shoot a bad guy would you wait until he stabbed you, shot you, knocked you out, or raped you?

I suspect that those who would wait until a dog bit them before shooting the dog have never seen how fast and viscous a dog attack can be... nor have they seen how much irreparable damage that a dog can do to tendons, blood vessels, and arteries leaving your limbs deformed and/or paralyzed for life. And I don't think the dog's owner is going to care about someone losing the use of their hand/arm for life but will complain that they are evil because they shot his "baby".

 

[Rayb]

I usually carry a gun while in out doing yard work, I don't see any issue with that. And only a left coast liberal judge would make a such a totally stupid statement. What was she expecting, that you load one in your magazine and are good to go?

 

[Flanmedic51]

I would have to say that for me to kill a dog, it would have to actually bite me...so I could have the evidence and justification to shoot it so something like this wouldn't happen. Most dogs make a racket and bark because they are territorial and don't require a bullet. But I must say that the judge's comments are moronic regardless. Obviously not a pro gunner.

So.... before you would shoot a bad guy would you wait until he stabbed you, shot you, knocked you out, or raped you?

I suspect that those who would wait until a dog bit them before shooting the dog have never seen how fast and viscous a dog attack can be... nor have they seen how much irreparable damage that a dog can do to tendons, blood vessels, and arteries leaving your limbs deformed and/or paralyzed for life. And I don't think the dog's owner is going to care about someone losing the use of their hand/arm for life but will complain that they are evil because they shot his "baby".

Don't be ignorant. A dog attack is vastly different than a human attacking. You can spin it any way you want. I still wouldn't open fire a dog unless it was last resort.

 

[Bikenut]

Don't be ignorant. A dog attack is vastly different than a human attacking. You can spin it any way you want. I still wouldn't open fire a dog unless it was last resort.

-sigh- Insults will get you nowhere. In fact resorting to insults is weak.

A threat of great bodily harm is still a threat of great bodily harm whether it comes from a dog or a human.

And talk about spin....... you said you wouldn't open fire on a dog unless it was a last resort. That is different than waiting until being bitten. Or do you consider it necessary to wait until the threat of great bodily harm actually becomes bodily harm?

One good bite from a good sized dog can tear tendons and even after they have been surgically repaired the function of a hand, arm, or leg can still be severely compromised for life.

Most folks understand that it isn't necessary to wait until a criminal stabs, shoots, or rapes them before they can defend themselves... so why would anyone wait until a dog bites them first?

 

[Flanmedic51]

Don't be ignorant. A dog attack is vastly different than a human attacking. You can spin it any way you want. I still wouldn't open fire a dog unless it was last resort.

-sigh- Insults will get you nowhere. In fact resorting to insults is weak.

A threat of great bodily harm is still a threat of great bodily harm whether it comes from a dog or a human.

And talk about spin....... you said you wouldn't open fire on a dog unless it was a last resort. That is different than waiting until being bitten. Or do you consider it necessary to wait until the threat of great bodily harm actually becomes bodily harm?

One good bite from a good sized dog can tear tendons and even after they have been surgically repaired the function of a hand, arm, or leg can still be severely compromised for life.

Most folks understand that it isn't necessary to wait until a criminal stabs, shoots, or rapes them before they can defend themselves... so why would anyone wait until a dog bites them first?

You comparing this to a human attack is in fact, ignorant. A territorial dog barking and going ape $hit at someone isn't grounds for shooting it. And it is quite rare that a dog would attack soemone just walking by unless it is conditioned to do so. That is vastly different than a human who is psychopathic or sociopathic. And I'm not throwing insults, you're just not making much sense. No kidding a dog bite can be bad....that would be the case to shoot it!! Shooting a dog or a human, its the last resort in any case!!!

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Flanmedic51 View Post
I would have to say that for me to kill a dog, it would have to actually bite me...so I could have the evidence and justification to shoot it so something like this wouldn't happen. Most dogs make a racket and bark because they are territorial and don't require a bullet. But I must say that the judge's comments are moronic regardless. Obviously not a pro gunner.

I quoted this so we understand that you said you would wait until the dog actually bit you before shooting it.

Don't be ignorant. A dog attack is vastly different than a human attacking. You can spin it any way you want. I still wouldn't open fire a dog unless it was last resort.

I quoted this so that we understand I am talking about how, to the victim needing to defend themselves, an attack is an attack regardless of whether it is a human or a dog doing the attacking. And there isn't any "spin" involved in that concept.

You comparing this to a human attack is in fact, ignorant. A territorial dog barking and going ape $hit at someone isn't grounds for shooting it.

I have been, and still am, talking about a dog attack.. not a dog that isn't attacking.

And it is quite rare that a dog would attack soemone just walking by unless it is conditioned to do so.

Doesn't matter how "rare" the occurrence might be or if the dog was trained to attack or not...........to the victim an attack is an attack.

That is vastly different than a human who is psychopathic or sociopathic.

I suspect that some folks think there is some kind of difference between a criminal with the intent to stab... and a dog with the intent to bite. There really isn't any difference since both fully, and intentionally, want to do harm. The reason(s) why they want to do harm is immaterial to the victim... the victim's only concern is to avoid being harmed.

The harm suffered by a dog attack or by a human attack is still harm that could be avoided by not waiting until being hurt before responding. Where the harm comes from.. a dog's teeth or a criminal's knife (for example) ... doesn't matter since the harm is still done.

And I'm not throwing insults, you're just not making much sense. No kidding a dog bite can be bad....that would be the case to shoot it!! Shooting a dog or a human, its the last resort in any case!!!

I agree... defensive shooting is always the last resort. My point is that it would be foolish to wait until actual harm is suffered (being bit or stabbed for example) before defending from the threat of... being bit or stabbed.

I am looking at this from the perspective that regardless of where the threat of great bodily harm is coming from.. dog or human... or what the reasons for that threat of great bodily harm are (territorial dog (that is actually attacking) or an attacking human criminal wanting to beat or rape) it would be unwise to wait until the criminal is actually beating or raping ....... or the dog is actually biting .. before defending.

And a dog attack can result in life changing injuries just like a criminal attack can result in life changing injuries.

My point is .... waiting to be bitten by an attacking dog before defending yourself from the dog is as unwise as waiting to be stabbed or shot or raped by an attacking criminal before taking action to defend yourself from the criminal. Now if you think that is "ignorant" .. or that I'm "just not making much sense".... you are entitled to your opinion.

Rest assured I have my own opinion concerning folks who would wait until they are already bitten before defending themselves from an attacking dog.

 

[Flanmedic51]

Originally Posted by Flanmedic51 View Post
I would have to say that for me to kill a dog, it would have to actually bite me...so I could have the evidence and justification to shoot it so something like this wouldn't happen. Most dogs make a racket and bark because they are territorial and don't require a bullet. But I must say that the judge's comments are moronic regardless. Obviously not a pro gunner.

I quoted this so we understand that you said you would wait until the dog actually bit you before shooting it.

Don't be ignorant. A dog attack is vastly different than a human attacking. You can spin it any way you want. I still wouldn't open fire a dog unless it was last resort.

I quoted this so that we understand I am talking about how, to the victim needing to defend themselves, an attack is an attack regardless of whether it is a human or a dog doing the attacking. And there isn't any "spin" involved in that concept.

You comparing this to a human attack is in fact, ignorant. A territorial dog barking and going ape $hit at someone isn't grounds for shooting it.

I have been, and still am, talking about a dog attack.. not a dog that isn't attacking.

And it is quite rare that a dog would attack soemone just walking by unless it is conditioned to do so.

Doesn't matter how "rare" the occurrence might be or if the dog was trained to attack or not...........to the victim an attack is an attack.

That is vastly different than a human who is psychopathic or sociopathic.

I suspect that some folks think there is some kind of difference between a criminal with the intent to stab... and a dog with the intent to bite. There really isn't any difference since both fully, and intentionally, want to do harm. The reason(s) why they want to do harm is immaterial to the victim... the victim's only concern is to avoid being harmed.

The harm suffered by a dog attack or by a human attack is still harm that could be avoided by not waiting until being hurt before responding. Where the harm comes from.. a dog's teeth or a criminal's knife (for example) ... doesn't matter since the harm is still done.

And I'm not throwing insults, you're just not making much sense. No kidding a dog bite can be bad....that would be the case to shoot it!! Shooting a dog or a human, its the last resort in any case!!!

I agree... defensive shooting is always the last resort. My point is that it would be foolish to wait until actual harm is suffered (being bit or stabbed for example) before defending from the threat of... being bit or stabbed.

I am looking at this from the perspective that regardless of where the threat of great bodily harm is coming from.. dog or human... or what the reasons for that threat of great bodily harm are (territorial dog (that is actually attacking) or an attacking human criminal wanting to beat or rape) it would be unwise to wait until the criminal is actually beating or raping ....... or the dog is actually biting .. before defending.

And a dog attack can result in life changing injuries just like a criminal attack can result in life changing injuries.

My point is .... waiting to be bitten by an attacking dog before defending yourself from the dog is as unwise as waiting to be stabbed or shot or raped by an attacking criminal before taking action to defend yourself from the criminal. Now if you think that is "ignorant" .. or that I'm "just not making much sense".... you are entitled to your opinion.

Rest assured I have my own opinion concerning folks who would wait until they are already bitten before defending themselves from an attacking dog.

In regards to the original story here, the guy shot the dog because he was scared of it and thought it MIGHT bite him. He didn't work so well for him and it certainly wouldn't work against a human unless there was significant probable cause.

 

[Flanmedic51]

ALSO...dogs will always bark, and in a sense, humans too. Doesn't mean you feed em lead. And since dogs can't speak and say they are going tear you a new one such as humans can, my evidence for shooting a dog will be the bite...as sucky as that might be. But as I said, that's a rare occurrence and I don't lose sleep over it.

 

[Bikenut]

In regards to the original story here, the guy shot the dog because he was scared of it and thought it MIGHT bite him. He didn't work so well for him and it certainly wouldn't work against a human unless there was significant probable cause.

I am aware of that. I wasn't addressing the original incident but I gave my views concerning the wisdom of your statement in bold below.

Originally Posted by Flanmedic51 View Post
I would have to say that for me to kill a dog, it would have to actually bite me...so I could have the evidence and justification to shoot it so something like this wouldn't happen. Most dogs make a racket and bark because they are territorial and don't require a bullet. But I must say that the judge's comments are moronic regardless. Obviously not a pro gunner.

Now I'll address what you have said below...

ALSO...dogs will always bark, and in a sense, humans too. Doesn't mean you feed em lead. And since dogs can't speak and say they are going tear you a new one such as humans can, my evidence for shooting a dog will be the bite...as sucky as that might be. But as I said, that's a rare occurrence and I don't lose sleep over it.

I wasn't talking about barking dogs and I wasn't addressing crap talking humans... I was addressing that when attacked it is unwise to wait until stabbed, shot, beaten, or raped, by a human .... or being bit by a dog... before defending one's self simply because the whole idea behind defending one's self is to prevent being stabbed, beaten, shot, raped.... or bit in the first place.

But to each their own. It is your choice if you want to suffer the loss of a few fingers or the use of a hand/arm/leg for the rest of your life by waiting until an attacking dog bites you before defending yourself.

However, I consider an attacking dog as dangerous as an attacking criminal and I will do my very best to protect all my fingers/arms/legs/hands and not only my life but also my future quality of life from either.. or both.

 

[Flanmedic51]

In regards to the original story here, the guy shot the dog because he was scared of it and thought it MIGHT bite him. He didn't work so well for him and it certainly wouldn't work against a human unless there was significant probable cause.

I am aware of that. I wasn't addressing the original incident but I gave my views concerning the wisdom of your statement in bold below.

Originally Posted by Flanmedic51 View Post
I would have to say that for me to kill a dog, it would have to actually bite me...so I could have the evidence and justification to shoot it so something like this wouldn't happen. Most dogs make a racket and bark because they are territorial and don't require a bullet. But I must say that the judge's comments are moronic regardless. Obviously not a pro gunner.

Now I'll address what you have said below...

ALSO...dogs will always bark, and in a sense, humans too. Doesn't mean you feed em lead. And since dogs can't speak and say they are going tear you a new one such as humans can, my evidence for shooting a dog will be the bite...as sucky as that might be. But as I said, that's a rare occurrence and I don't lose sleep over it.

I wasn't talking about barking dogs and I wasn't addressing crap talking humans... I was addressing that when attacked it is unwise to wait until stabbed, shot, beaten, or raped, by a human .... or being bit by a dog... before defending one's self simply because the whole idea behind defending one's self is to prevent being stabbed, beaten, shot, raped.... or bit in the first place.

But to each their own. It is your choice if you want to suffer the loss of a few fingers or the use of a hand/arm/leg for the rest of your life by waiting until an attacking dog bites you before defending yourself.

However, I consider an attacking dog as dangerous as an attacking criminal and I will do my very best to protect all my fingers/arms/legs/hands and not only my life but also my future quality of life from either.. or both.

If you are able to interpret a dog that's going to attack you and a dog running up to sniff your nuts then great. I've had many dogs sprint from a house barking and carrying on only to stop and my feet to take a sniff...it has startled me but never did I think I was going to have to shoot it.

 

[mattman]

Mattman

First. Its a magazine, not a clip. Second; you do indeed have the right to carry at all times in all legal areas. I to often carry when doing things like mowing my lawn or feeding the chickens.