Another one for NRA's Armed Citizen page

[Agent Orange]

At least she made out better than this guy:

http://tinyurl.com/3hua9oy

[The Shadow]

She home schools 6 kids = shes a nut case.....

all kidding aside, no one was in immediate danger, everyone was already safe inside the home. Why not just call the police and let them take care of it? sorry in this case i dont think she "HAD" to fire a shot.

Things i need to know
did she know the dog?
had there been run in's with the dog in the past?
has there been any problems wih the owner in the past?

Honestly, I'm all for putting down wild dogs. However, this is a BAD shoot. Mom needed to come to her kid's aid WITH the gun, not go back out after it when all were safe.

Never mess with a Woman's kids !!! Never.

IMO she did what any parent would of done years ago. (Back in the good old days). Yes her kids were safe and she did not have to open the door. But I like her argument that other kids are not far away. If that dog had seen anything move in a nearby yard then it most surely would have attacked it.
Just imagine she's in the house and someone else happens down the street to see what all the fuss and noise is about. The dog goes after the person with the same results. Now this lady is ready to run out with a gun and drop the dog with the victim very close by.
I must say good kill.
On the other hand if it were a person outside the door that had done anything such as hurt the kids and could not get into the house, then opening the door and shooting would be a bad Kill. Even though the person probably deserved it.

BTW nice gun.

That's how I see it.

She didn't need to shoot. But she did everybody a favor. (And infringed on police union's turf -- "WE run the protection rackets around here! If everybody just helped themselves, we'd be outta jobs!").

This shoot would be different if it were a human and she came out of the house just to shoot him/her/it. But as a dog, good shoot. Good shooting too.

Interesting arguments on both sides. But I'm thinking, you could apply the argument to a human being as well. What I mean is, if the logic is, it's okay to shoot the dog to avoid it attacking anyone else in the neighborhood, then why wouldn't you do the same to a human being who could potentially be far more dangerous. On the other hand, why would you go outside and risk attack by a dog, if you wouldn't go outside and risk being attacked by a human being. The dog was faster and smaller potentially making it a faster and harder target to hit. Of course that didn't happen, but how would you know that until you committed yourself to that action ?

[Maestro Pistolero]

On the other hand, why would you go outside and risk attack by a dog, if you wouldn't go outside and risk being attacked by a human being.

then why wouldn't you do the same to a human being who could potentially be far more dangerous.

What's far more dangerous than a dog trying to maul small children?
But ok, I'll play: If a criminal had taken a few random shots at some neighborhood kids, and he was still armed in front of my house, and there were other neighborhood kids at risk, would I be justified in opening my door and aerating his wardrobe to save those kids? If anyone has to think about this for more than a second or two, I would respectfully question their decision making ability in a threat/no threat situation. Remember, the threat doesn't just have to be directed at you.

Sometimes I seriously wonder what some folk's idea of a clear and present danger IS. Seriously, If it's that foggy for a person, how how can they expect to make a split second decision if that time should ever some (God forbid)?

There are definitely plenty of threat scenarios that may be wobblers, but this, IMO isn't one of them.

[Scream_4637]

She home schools 6 kids = shes a nut case.....

all kidding aside, no one was in immediate danger, everyone was already safe inside the home. Why not just call the police and let them take care of it? sorry in this case i dont think she "HAD" to fire a shot.

Things i need to know
did she know the dog?
had there been run in's with the dog in the past?
has there been any problems wih the owner in the past?

I agree!

[Maestro Pistolero]

It true, she didn't need to save those neighborhood kids from being maimed or killed. No legal obligation whatsoever. But morally she did what she should have done, and it was clearly legal behavior.

[1st5]

Good shoot.

[Which Way Out]

What's far more dangerous than a dog trying to maul small children?
But ok, I'll play: If a criminal had taken a few random shots at some neighborhood kids, and he was still armed in front of my house, and there were other neighborhood kids at risk, would I be justified in opening my door and aerating his wardrobe to save those kids? If anyone has to think about this for more than a second or two, I would respectfully question their decision making ability in a threat/no threat situation. Remember, the threat doesn't just have to be directed at you.

Sometimes I seriously wonder what some folk's idea of a clear and present danger IS. Seriously, If it's that foggy for a person, how how can they expect to make a split second decision if that time should ever some (God forbid)?

There are definitely plenty of threat scenarios that may be wobblers, but this, IMO isn't one of them.

Very well said. One of the reasons I like CalGuns

[jmust1991]

IMO she did what any parent would of done years ago. (Back in the good old days). .

^This

My Father shot and killed a boxer for chasing cats around our property when I was a little boy......I say good shoot

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Interesting arguments on both sides. But I'm thinking, you could apply the argument to a human being as well. What I mean is, if the logic is, it's okay to shoot the dog to avoid it attacking anyone else in the neighborhood, then why wouldn't you do the same to a human being who could potentially be far more dangerous. On the other hand, why would you go outside and risk attack by a dog, if you wouldn't go outside and risk being attacked by a human being. The dog was faster and smaller potentially making it a faster and harder target to hit. Of course that didn't happen, but how would you know that until you committed yourself to that action ?

In addition to the clear & simple case presented by Maestro Pistolero, I'll add that that shooting a human being always a different thing than shooting an animal. That's why you cannot apply the argument to shooting a human being.


The Raisuli

[Flintlock Tom]

I agree that it was a "good shoot". However the follow-up was not.
It appears, in my opinion, that she gave too much info after-the-fact.

When questioned I would have said:
"The dog attacked my children." "I shot the dog."

period

[ArmedWolf]

Story of Old Yeller, Good shoot? Bad shoot?