Thursday, September 08, 2005

A Lesson to be Learned

This is a report about a woman who allegedly fired a gun to scare off a couple of dogs that were about to attack her:
Lee had been confronted by other dogs while walking her dog in the past, and had been bitten rather severely on one occasion. She also described her own dog as old and having severe health problems, and therefore not reliable protection from the other dogs. She was also a retired deputy sheriff, and still carried a gun. After the dogs refused to leave and - according to Lee - began their encirclement maneuver, she took out her handgun and fired it at the dogs. The sound of the shot scared the two dogs away.

The area where she fired the gun was fairly densely developed. In the general vicinity were an auto repair shop, a Kentucky Fried Chicken, a real estate office, and a wooded area that ended with a large concrete wall. The bullet from Lee's gun struck the hood of a vehicle parked outside the real estate office; the bullet was never found.
First, the idea that self-defense only applies against human attackers (the judge's opinion) is absolutely ludicrious. I propose that this judge should try defending himself from a pair of attacking dogs with his bare hands.

But, the lesson to be learned here, I think, is that a gun is not to be discharged just to scare anything or anyone. That bullet should have been aimed, and it should have stopped when it hit one of those dogs.

1 comment:

  1. "a gun is not to be discharged just to scare anything or anyone. That bullet should have been aimed, and it should have stopped when it hit one of those dogs."

    You make three good points, and I agree with them all!

    #1.) When I was a boy (almost half a century ago) I attended a father/son dinner at our Church in Peru, Indiana -- a small midwestern town. Geust speaker was an FBI agent who said that every time he fired his gun it was carefully aimed, and his intent was to kill. He advised all of us in attendance to do the same. The very idea of a "warning shot" is absurd, he said.

    #2.) By shooting at the dogs her gun would have been pointed downwards. When she fired her bullet would have been less likely to hit an innocent bystander, or the random car.

    #3.) The attacking dogs were the enemy, and most certainly should have been killed. She could have simply pointed to the bodies and said, "See? Self-defense!"

    ReplyDelete