I only have one objection, otherwise I agree. Here's that objection. OP's dog was unrestrained, staying on its own property, and being a good dog and not wandering off the reservation so to speak. Neighbor's dog was unrestrained, and not staying on its own property. That is what started it. I will grant you that all the dogs should have been restrained, but if your dog doesn't wander, your culpability is not as great as the owner whose dogs wander and cause trouble. OP stated that this was not his first run in with neighbor's dogs loose on OP's property.Excaliber wrote:Oldgringo is exactly on point here.Oldgringo wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:I am happy to know that the three of you survived. It sounds terrifying. If that were my neighbor, we would be in court. I'm not entirely buying the "they were just protecting their property" bit, because you describe the neighbor dogs as having trespassed on your property first, including immediately before the incident happened. That neighbor needs to A) be held liable for the injuries sustained to you, your son, and your dog; B) be cited by law enforcement for failing to have control over the dogs; and C) be told by you that the next time one of his dogs strays onto your property, you will shoot it.
Some people just need to be told the truth, no matter how much they don't want to hear it, and it needs to be repeated, and then acted out, until they get it..........even if they never do get it.
One of my favorite quotes was uttered by former president Harry Truman. He said, "I never gave anybody heck. I just told them the truth, and they thought it was heck."
TAM,
I ordinarily side with you; however, there is too much gray area here.
The dog of the first part intruded onto OP's property. The dog of the second part (OP) chased the dog of the first part back onto and into the dog of the first part's property whereupon dog of the first part's canine friends rushed to its aid. The dog of the second part's (OP) armed human handlers then rushed onto and into the dog of the second part's turf whereupon they were set upon by the defenders' of first dog's turf.
There are several real transgressions here and all go back primarily to the unleashed and uncontrolled dogs of both parts. I suggest that these sleeping dogs be let lie under their respective constraints and all humans learn from this encounter into the canine world of protectiveness and territoriallity and constrain their supposedly domesticated animals (including cats).
PS:
There are few, if any, who love/d there animal family members more than Mr. & Mrs. Oldgingo.
A minor meander by a couple of unrestrained dogs turned into a major deal on the property of the neighbor where the OP's dog, the armed OP, and his son were on really thin legal ice.
As a dog owner myself I fully understand that he couldn't have stood by while his dog was killed by the others, but coming to the aid of the beloved dog placed its owner in an extremely dangerous and legally very sticky position.
I wince at the shot fired in the air, but it caused no harm in this case and apparently helped to break up the melee.
The neighbor might not be the OP's best buddy, but it should be recognized that he could have whipped up a firestorm of trouble for the OP and didn't. He might be due for a small token of friendship and thanks.
I''m glad it turned out without major permanent injury, prosecution, or both, but for sure it had the potential to turn much uglier than it already was.
Many thanks to the OP for sharing this very nasty experience so we might all think it through together and learn - the true purpose of the Never Again topic.
Real life situations are seldom as simple and clean as the ones in our imaginations.
Neighbor is responsible. If his dogs had been restrained, none of this would have even happened.