TexasCHLforum.com

Here we go again, this time in San Diego, CA. A citizen shot a dog when the dog came into his yard and attacked his dog. I mean really, did he have to shoot the dog? Couldn't he have tried some other method before executing the dog? Why do citizens always have to shoot somebody's pet? Heck based on his statement that he told the owner he would shoot the dog before, this is almost premeditated. I am getting sick of hearing about these violent citizens that are out of control.

Now lets be serious and look at the difference between that shooting and the recent Austin controversy when a citizen refused to disarm. This citizen did not refuse to be disarmed. He used a legally owned weapon. I know SDPD protocol and this guy would have been told to leave the gun in the home just like in Austin. Had he come outside armed it would have been taken from him. SDPD did their investigation and cleared this shooter. Additionally the dogs owner was cited. Yup that is how it works and that my friends was in CA .

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jul ... -pit-bull/

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jul ... ner-cited/

SAN DIEGO — Authorities say a man who fatally shot a pit bull in a San Diego front yard is not expected to face charges, but the dog's owner was cited.

The first article you cited said he tried to beat the dog off with I guess the butt of the shotgun, the dog was not fazed and bit him too. What's he supposed to do next? I guess you are being sartirical.

rotor wrote:The first article you cited said he tried to beat the dog off with I guess the butt of the shotgun, the dog was not fazed and bit him too. What's he supposed to do next?

Can you not tell I am being a smart person? Just quoting all the comments I read on the 'net when a LEO shoots a dog. That is why I added the laughing dude icon as well

Need at least a cup of coffee before reading these in a.m.

Another Pit Bull and ignorant dog owner....