Killeen: dog shooter charged

[seamusTX]

On Tuesday, January 6, a Killeen man was walking his dog when a "pit bull" broke through a fence and attacked his dog. The man fired a warning shot and then fatally shot the attacking dog.

He was charged with unlawful carry (no CHL) and discharging a firearm within city limits.

He said he had recently moved to Texas from Maryland and didn't know he needed a CHL to carry a handgun.

A spokesman said the problem was the warning shot. Shooting the dog was justified by necessity.

http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=30566" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[Kythas]

There is no such thing as a warning shot. If you fire your weapon at something you don't intend to kill, it's a negligent discharge.

[fickman]

He's also charged with carrying a handgun without a license. It's sad how many people assume what the laws of "gun-friendly" Texas are without having any factual basis. The stereotypical reputation of Texas as a wild west state is not a sufficient defense to prosecution. Well, now this guy has made the newspaper and helped to contribute a little more to the legend.

FWIW, I don't think we should have to get licensed to carry a concealed handgun, but I think diligence is only appropriate when I don't know if I'm allowed to do something or not.

[TheArmedFarmer]

He was charged with unlawful carry (no CHL)

That's too bad. Unlawful carry is a Class A misdemeanor so he can forget about having a CHL anytime soon. I know ignorance of the law isn't a defense, but I still feel sorry for the guy.

[seamusTX]

He might be able to squeak out of it with probation and deferred adjudication. They generally don't convict on first offenses when no harm is done.

- Jim

[TheArmedFarmer]

That's encouraging. I hope you are right. This is one of the few examples I can think of where jury nullification would be a really good idea. The jurists should be able to correctly say that we have a right to be armed and that the laws infringing on that right are unjust.

[atxgun]

Good! He deserved to be.

Idiot. I don't understand why people think firing a warning shot is acceptable, EVER.

What goes up, must come down. And you can't control that bullet once it leaves the gun.

I forget who said this in another thread on the forum but I liked the line "I'll fire two warning shots COM, if that doesn't deter them I'm going for a head shot"

[seamusTX]

That's encouraging. I hope you are right.

Misdemeanors almost never go to jury trials, because most defendants can't afford the legal fees. The DA's office probably will just want to dispose of a minor case like this quickly.

Anyone know what the authorities' attitudes are like in Bell County?

I think it would be very unlikely for 12 members of a jury to find a law unconstitutional. That is not what the defendant would be arguing. In this case, the jury would be charged with deciding whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" violated PC 46.02.

- Jim

[Morgan]

What do you mean there are no warning shots.

BANG! I must warn you, you're now bleeding from a GSW. If you keep coming, I shall have to warn you that you've been shot again, and are bleeding worse.

[mr.72]

I guess the guy confessed the warning shot to the police? Why else would they know about it? I mean, maybe a "warning shot" is just a "miss".

And on that note, did't Harold Fish get into a bit of a pickle after firing a warning shot to scare off a dog that was rushing him?

If you are not justified to shoot to stop, you are not justified to shoot, period.

Also, don't they normally throw out any UCW charge when the gun is used for self-defense, as in this case?

[seamusTX]

I would have to think the guy talked too much.

I don't remember the details of the Harold Fish case, but he was found guilty of homicide, not a weapons violation.

It is not common to charge people with a weapons violation after a self-defense shooting, unless the person is a felon. I can't say why this guy was charged. Maybe the police had a reason for thinking that he should be arrested and given time to calm down.

We'll probably never hear how it comes out in the end.

- Jim

[Captain Matt]

And on that note, did't Harold Fish get into a bit of a pickle after firing a warning shot to scare off a dog that was rushing him?

He was in Arizona where open carry is legal.

He also was charged with shooting a person not a dog.

[mr.72]

Short story of Harold Fish:

Fish was hiking in AZ
he encountered a man and his two "large dogs"
dogs reportedly rush at Fish, and Fish, fearing the dogs are attacking him, fired a "warning shot" into the ground
dog's owner (reportedly) then proceeded to rush at Fish while yelling and screaming threats
Fish claimed to have yelled back at the dog owner, "I didn't shoot your dog!"
Dog owner did not stop his advance even though Fish was clearly armed and willing to fire, and Fish, fearing for his life, shot the man three times
Fish thought he had done nothing wrong and rendered aid to the assailant and notified authorities
Fish is serving a 10 year sentence for what he thought was a pretty clear self-defense shooting

It's an interesting story and one to which CHL holders should pay attention.

The relevant feature here is the dog and the warning shot. Fish fired a warning shot because he didn't want to kill the dogs. The question that always comes up with a warning shot is, why shoot at all if you do not think that shooting is required to stop the threat? Did fish think the dogs were really attacking him? If so, why didn't he shoot the dogs? The shooting in the direction of the dogs is obviously the event that agitated the dogs' owner and prompted him to rush Fish in defense of his dogs. So the warning shot clearly escalated the conflict, and perhaps it caused it to begin with.

I wonder if Fish hadn't fired a warning shot but everything else happened exactly the same way, if he wouldn't be at home now instead of in prison.

Of course if Fish hadn't fired a warning shot, then perhaps he would have been under attack by the dogs as well as the dogs' owner and maybe he would be the one dead and the dog owner would be the one in prison. If Fish had shot the dogs instead of firing a warning shot, then his claim that he was under attack by the dogs may have been more believable and maybe Fish would not have been convicted. Also if Fish had shot the dogs and not just fired a warning shot, then perhaps the dog owner would have been more convinced that Fish was ready and willing to defend himself with deadly force, and maybe he would not have persisted in charging Fish.

A few things about the Fish case stick out at me:

1. did the warning shot affect the outcome of the case?
2. why would any person in their right mind charge at an armed man yelling threats, especially if that armed man had just fired a "warning shot"?

[WildBill]

I would have to think the guy talked too much.

Another case of not using your right to remain silent.