I've been thinking about this thread, and the certainty with which Antiqueshell has been stating his position.
But the caution from NHHEMI and others (myself included) about what actions to take don't seem to have taken root. So, for the benefit of all those who have been following this; in order to to articulate how taking the wrong steps can get you in trouble; in order to articulate how important it is that armed men understand the full legal context in which they carry a firearms, and in order to drive home the responsibility of armed men to avoid confrontation, please read the "other side of the story" which I have drawn from the facts you have presented, and presumed that you had to defend yourself:
"Your Honor, the state will prove that the defendant maliciously and deliberately killed the (insert neighbor's name) dog "Fluffy". Fluffy was a Boxer mix, fond of people, who never bit anyone. Since the (neighbor) moved to this neighborhood, the defendant has gone out of his way, walking several blocks nearly every day, to antagonize Fluffy. In his daily routine, he would confront Fluffy, he would act hostile towards the dog and the (neighbor), which ,naturally, Fluffy would sense. He yelled at the (neighbor's wife) several times and openly threatened her with physical violence about Fluffy.
He never called animal control. He never involved the police (though the neighbors did, to register their concerns about this unstable person who didn't like Fluffy, and seemed to go out of his way to torture the poor dog). No involvement of the authorities, while he continued to antagonize the dog, verbally assault the neighbors and develop his pre-meditated plan to kill the dog in a violent confrontation. With no complaint on record about Fluffy, the argument of "self-defense" is specious at best, but it's really a lie to cover up a vengeful, vicious killing of a family pet.
We've discovered internet posts by the defendant. Those posts reveal his hate for Fluffy, his repeated confrontations with Fluffy's owners, his plan to arm himself, his refusal to contact the authorities and yes, most heinous of all, his plan to execute a harmless family pet.
This killing of Fluffy was no accident. It was pre-meditated. He thought about it, even fantasized about it in his posts over a period of weeks leading up to the shooting. It was planned over weeks with clearly staged confrontations, confrontations that he had to go out of his way to create, and false representations of events that the (neighbors) witnessed.
When Fluffy was shot, the entire neighborhood was shocked. The charges against the defendant included assault, aggravated assault, battery, felony discharge of a firearm, felony cruelty to animals and reckless endangerment. Because of the danger that the defendant poses to himself and others, his reckless disregard for the safety of others, and his vicious, planned killing of a family pet, the state recommends that this psychopathic animal killer be held without bail pending trial."
Don't think a lawyer can take the same facts that you've presented and argue them this way? I wouldn't be so certain. Eager young prosecutor, representing a crying, grieving family in shock...and the internet evidence that you refused to avoid the dog, that you considered killing the dog, that you planned to continue confronting and provoking the dog...and your innocence is not at all clear...in fact, it's looking a lot like hard time for the dog killer.
But the caution from NHHEMI and others (myself included) about what actions to take don't seem to have taken root. So, for the benefit of all those who have been following this; in order to to articulate how taking the wrong steps can get you in trouble; in order to articulate how important it is that armed men understand the full legal context in which they carry a firearms, and in order to drive home the responsibility of armed men to avoid confrontation, please read the "other side of the story" which I have drawn from the facts you have presented, and presumed that you had to defend yourself:
"Your Honor, the state will prove that the defendant maliciously and deliberately killed the (insert neighbor's name) dog "Fluffy". Fluffy was a Boxer mix, fond of people, who never bit anyone. Since the (neighbor) moved to this neighborhood, the defendant has gone out of his way, walking several blocks nearly every day, to antagonize Fluffy. In his daily routine, he would confront Fluffy, he would act hostile towards the dog and the (neighbor), which ,naturally, Fluffy would sense. He yelled at the (neighbor's wife) several times and openly threatened her with physical violence about Fluffy.
He never called animal control. He never involved the police (though the neighbors did, to register their concerns about this unstable person who didn't like Fluffy, and seemed to go out of his way to torture the poor dog). No involvement of the authorities, while he continued to antagonize the dog, verbally assault the neighbors and develop his pre-meditated plan to kill the dog in a violent confrontation. With no complaint on record about Fluffy, the argument of "self-defense" is specious at best, but it's really a lie to cover up a vengeful, vicious killing of a family pet.
We've discovered internet posts by the defendant. Those posts reveal his hate for Fluffy, his repeated confrontations with Fluffy's owners, his plan to arm himself, his refusal to contact the authorities and yes, most heinous of all, his plan to execute a harmless family pet.
This killing of Fluffy was no accident. It was pre-meditated. He thought about it, even fantasized about it in his posts over a period of weeks leading up to the shooting. It was planned over weeks with clearly staged confrontations, confrontations that he had to go out of his way to create, and false representations of events that the (neighbors) witnessed.
When Fluffy was shot, the entire neighborhood was shocked. The charges against the defendant included assault, aggravated assault, battery, felony discharge of a firearm, felony cruelty to animals and reckless endangerment. Because of the danger that the defendant poses to himself and others, his reckless disregard for the safety of others, and his vicious, planned killing of a family pet, the state recommends that this psychopathic animal killer be held without bail pending trial."
Don't think a lawyer can take the same facts that you've presented and argue them this way? I wouldn't be so certain. Eager young prosecutor, representing a crying, grieving family in shock...and the internet evidence that you refused to avoid the dog, that you considered killing the dog, that you planned to continue confronting and provoking the dog...and your innocence is not at all clear...in fact, it's looking a lot like hard time for the dog killer.
Last edited:
