Chihuahua owner cited for shooting firearm

[waterrescuedude2000]

The owner of a chihuahua killed by a neighbor's pit bull was cited for shooting a firearm into the air during the mauling.

Both dog owners were cited for having dogs at large.

The incident occurred about

7:48 p.m. on Thursday on Maddux Drive.

No further information was available Friday.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070804/NEWS01/708040330/1321/NEWS

So the owner could have shot the pit bull and not been charged but shot into the air and did get charged?? WTF?? I read about things like this that the owner shot the vicious animal and never got charged for it. Yes shooting into the air is stupid anyways if I have to fire a warning shot I'd shoot torwards the ground if its the dirt. Thats what I was taught. But also there were studies that showed that the chances of a projectile penetrating anything when it came down is like 1 in 500,000 or something like that because the projectile goes so high and loses velocity and when it comes down it is aerodynamic and would not pick up enough speed to do any damage. Anyways I thought it was stupid that they charged him for it.

[Trigg]

The owner of a chihuahua killed by a neighbor's pit bull was cited for shooting a firearm into the air during the mauling.

Both dog owners were cited for having dogs at large.

The incident occurred about

7:48 p.m. on Thursday on Maddux Drive.

No further information was available Friday.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070804/NEWS01/708040330/1321/NEWS

So the owner could have shot the pit bull and not been charged but shot into the air and did get charged?? WTF?? I read about things like this that the owner shot the vicious animal and never got charged for it. Yes shooting into the air is stupid anyways if I have to fire a warning shot I'd shoot torwards the ground if its the dirt. Thats what I was taught. But also there were studies that showed that the chances of a projectile penetrating anything when it came down is like 1 in 500,000 or something like that because the projectile goes so high and loses velocity and when it comes down it is aerodynamic and would not pick up enough speed to do any damage. Anyways I thought it was stupid that they charged him for it.


The guy should have shot the pit bull, I'm surprised the cops didn't make the pit bulls owner put the dog down.

[diuretic]

The bloke should not have been pinched, he was trying to save his dog. This is too petty for words on the part of the authorities.

[waterrescuedude2000]

welcome to the city I live in. That was here. I am going to write our city council and complain about it.

[Gunny]

The owner of a chihuahua killed by a neighbor's pit bull was cited for shooting a firearm into the air during the mauling.

Both dog owners were cited for having dogs at large.

The incident occurred about

7:48 p.m. on Thursday on Maddux Drive.

No further information was available Friday.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070804/NEWS01/708040330/1321/NEWS

So the owner could have shot the pit bull and not been charged but shot into the air and did get charged?? WTF?? I read about things like this that the owner shot the vicious animal and never got charged for it. Yes shooting into the air is stupid anyways if I have to fire a warning shot I'd shoot torwards the ground if its the dirt. Thats what I was taught. But also there were studies that showed that the chances of a projectile penetrating anything when it came down is like 1 in 500,000 or something like that because the projectile goes so high and loses velocity and when it comes down it is aerodynamic and would not pick up enough speed to do any damage. Anyways I thought it was stupid that they charged him for it.

Shooting into the air is irresponsible.

[diuretic]

Shooting into the air is irresponsible.

It is. But in the circumstances was it excusable?

[Gunny]

It is. But in the circumstances was it excusable?

No. As waterrescuedude said, you fire it into the ground if you are going to fire a warning shot. Shots fired into the air always come down.

BTW ... Marines don't do warning shots. I'd have blown the dog's head off.

[waterrescuedude2000]

But If I had to fire a warning shot it would be at the ground. But anyways I still say he shouldnt have been cited. There have been many studies that say that by the time a projectile comes down it probably wouldnt penetrate a human body. Key word being probably of course.

[Gunny]

But If I had to fire a warning shot it would be at the ground. But anyways I still say he shouldnt have been cited. There have been many studies that say that by the time a projectile comes down it probably wouldnt penetrate a human body. Key word being probably of course.

There are exceptions to that rule, and I wouldn't want to be one. I don't discharge a firearm without a target.

[manu1959]

No. As waterrescuedude said, you fire it into the ground if you are going to fire a warning shot. Shots fired into the air always come down.

BTW ... Marines don't do warning shots. I'd have blown the dog's head off.

my dad used to say that you wouldn't live to hear his warning shot

[waterrescuedude2000]

my dad used to say that you wouldn't live to hear his warning shot

:laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

The law is for stupid people, anyone with common sense is charged.



The owner of a chihuahua killed by a neighbor's pit bull was cited for shooting a firearm into the air during the mauling.

Both dog owners were cited for having dogs at large.

The incident occurred about

7:48 p.m. on Thursday on Maddux Drive.

No further information was available Friday.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070804/NEWS01/708040330/1321/NEWS

So the owner could have shot the pit bull and not been charged but shot into the air and did get charged?? WTF?? I read about things like this that the owner shot the vicious animal and never got charged for it. Yes shooting into the air is stupid anyways if I have to fire a warning shot I'd shoot torwards the ground if its the dirt. Thats what I was taught. But also there were studies that showed that the chances of a projectile penetrating anything when it came down is like 1 in 500,000 or something like that because the projectile goes so high and loses velocity and when it comes down it is aerodynamic and would not pick up enough speed to do any damage. Anyways I thought it was stupid that they charged him for it.

[waterrescuedude2000]

Like in Nevada use of lethal force on your property is "If you are in fear of you family property or livestock you are authorized to use lethal force" its still on the lawbooks in Nevada. Thats only one of them you don't even need a permit to carry a gun in Nevada if its in a holster and not concealed.