The caller and property owner, a 54-year-old Town of Farmington man, reported that 2 dogs had attacked his penned up chickens in his back yard. The caller and his two sons had gone outside to personally observe this occurring.
(Note: You'll see later on down in this article that the daughter of the owner of the Chihuahua says the man told her they killed the tiny dog because they THOUGHT he was going to "come after" their chickens. This is important when looking at instances when state laws say it is legal to shoot a dog).
The property owner then went inside his residence to retrieve a single shot pellet air rifle while the two sons attempted to chase the two dogs away.
When the father returned, he gave the pellet gun to one of his juvenile sons as they continued to chase the dogs away. One of the dogs ran away, and according to the witnesses, the other dog circled back around the front of the house where the 6-year-old daughter was standing.
 |
| Police failed to mention in the police report that the dog shot and killed was a 1 year-old 3-lb Chihuahua |
The father told investigators he was fearful the dog is going to attack his daughter so he instructs his son to shoot at it. The son takes aim and shoots the dog and ends up killing the animal. The homeowner told investigators he thought the pellet gun would only injure the dog and cause it to retreat.
The deceased dog was turned over to the owners who do not believe their small dog would have acted in the described manner.
Investigating Washington County (WI) Sheriff's Office deputies say they reviewed Wisconsin State Statute 174.01 which reads that a person may intentionally kill a dog ONLY if the person is threatened with SERIOUS BODILY HARM by the dog AND other restraining actions were tried and failed, OR immediate action is necessary.
Washington County (WI) Sheriff's Office investigators also say they consulted with the Washington County (WI) District Attorney’s Office and concluded there was no violation.
DECIPHERING THE LAW:
Wisconsin 174.01 Restraining action against dogs.
(1) Killing a dog.
(a) Except as provided in par. (b), a person may intentionally kill a dog only if a person is threatened with serious bodily harm by the dog and:
1. Other restraining actions were tried and failed; or
2. Immediate action is necessary.
Obviously I'm not an attorney, but if you break down the elements of Wisconsin's law, it's clear there was NO imminent danger, immediate action was NOT necessary and NO ONE was being threatened with SERIOUS BODILY HARM from a 3-lb Chihuahua running around yapping.
Let's take a look at the legal definition of "serious bodily harm" per Wisconsin state law:
Wisconsin 969.001 Definitions
(2) “Serious bodily harm” means bodily injury which causes or contributes to the death of a human being or which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury.
Would a reasonable person believe that a 3-lb Chihuahua could truly:
- cause or contribute to the death of a human being?
- create a substantial risk of death?
- create serioius permanent disfigurement?
- cause a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ?
- cause any other serious bodily injury?
Certainly, the larger the dog the more a person could use this to justify shooting it. A Mastiff? Absolutely. A German Shepherd? Absolutely. A Beagle? Ehh, it could go either way. A Chihuahua? Absolutely not.
 |
| Gus, when he was a puppy - even smaller than the 3-lbs he weighed when he was shot and killed |
(b) A person may intentionally kill a dog if a domestic animal that is owned or in the custody of the person is threatened with serious bodily harm by the dog and the dog is on property owned or controlled by the person and:
1. Other restraining actions were tried and failed; or
2. Immediate action is necessary.
Even if the dogs (a 3-lb Chihuahua and what looks like a Westie) were "worrying" his chickens, it says right in the article that the chickens were "penned-up". The only way he would be within his rights to shoot the dogs would be if the chickens ("a domestic animal that is owned... [by that] person") were THREATENED WITH SERIOUS BODILY HARM by the dogs. They cannot be in danger of serious bodily harm if they are inside a pen. The dogs would have had to destroy the pen and get inside to justify shooting them.
Or, alternately, they would have had to have destroyed the chicken pen thereby releasing the chickens into the yard and were actively chasing and trying to attack them. I don't see anywhere in the article that either of these events took place. In fact, Erin Stonecipher says that the man told her mother that Gus was shot because he "thought" he would "come after" his chickens.
Surprise, surprise. The initial police report did not mention the dog was a 3-POUND CHIHUAHUA
The family who owned the Chihuahua named Gus is speaking out.
“Our dog had a shot through the chest and was dead,” said Erin Stonecipher, 23, the daughter of the owner of the dog.
“This was only a 2 to 3-pound dog. It was a baby, a puppy, a Chihuahua,” said Stonecipher. “The neighbors own a 65-pound pit bull as a family pet.”
During a one-on-one phone conversation Wednesday evening Stonecipher detailed how the dogs got out from the electric fence in her family’s yard.
“My mom, Lori, tried to call the dogs back into the house,” said Erin Stonecipher. “She drove around the subdivision and then saw the neighbors outside, stopped and asked them if they had seen our puppy and Bobby Minor said “Oh, Lori I’m sorry.”
“My mom got out of her car and saw our puppy dead in the driveway and became absolutely hysterical,” said Stonecipher.
“The owner of the home said, “Lori, we thought your dog was going to come after our chickens. I’m sorry I had to get the pellet gun,”” said Stonecipher.
This is a very interesting comment. She says he told her he "THOUGHT" the Chihuahua "WAS GOING TO" go after their chickens. However, at the top of this article, the Sheriff's Office relays it as a FACT that the dogs had ATTACKED HIS PENNED-UP CHICKENS. Which is it, WCSO? Either they did or they didn't.
The Stonecipher family has lived on Whitewood Drive for about 12 years. The neighbors know each other well.
“Their kids have been on our property and playing with our dogs,” said Stonecipher. “Our dogs have never ever been a threat.”
If these children had been to their house and played with their dogs, surely their father knew who the dogs belonged to when they came onto his property. Why didn't he simply call the owner?
Stonecipher said her family is still trying to wrap its head around the situation and the loss of their pet.
“This was such a timid dog,” she said of Gus. “If you raised your voice or advanced toward him he’d cower; he was afraid of his own shadow.”
Stonecipher said “police did not interview my family.”
“As soon as we found the police report was published and it was one-sided, my parents decided we need to speak out. We were never questioned, nor were we equally represented,” said Stonecipher. “And it never said in the police report that this was a 3-pound puppy.”
(Boots and Sabers - Sept 3, 2016)
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Please send a respectful email to Washington County WI District Attorney Mark D. Bensen (Mark.bensen@da.wi.gov) and ask him to reconsider filing charges against the father. The juvenile boy should not be criminally charged; he was only doing what his father instructed him to do. However, the father clearly violated Wisconsin state law which says that you can only shoot and kill a dog if you are in imminent danger of "serious bodily injury". Clearly, this 3-lb Chihuahua couldn't have inflicted "serious bodily injury" on anyone even if it were allowed to gnaw on a toe for an hour.
No comments:
Post a Comment