Dekers Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 What about emotional distress and things of that ilk? What about it, we are going off topic as usual and I am not making any social comment, but if he was so emotional and stressed about his dog in an area he knew shooting was taking place he should have been careful to restrain his dog in the safety of his own property! I am not putting an argument or taking any position, purely an observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 What about emotional distress and things of that ilk? Fortunately, the legal system in this Country hasn't as yet found that particular bed rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Oh, I agree, the dog should have not been there in the first place. Negligence on their part. What about it, we are going off topic as usual and I am not making any social comment, but if he was so emotional and stressed about his dog in an area he knew shooting was taking place he should have been careful to restrain his dog in the safety of his own property! I am not putting an argument or taking any position, purely an observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbo33 Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 I doubt it. A dog in law is a chattel. 1. if your dog escapes your property it's your problem - I don't know of any dog owners suing motorists when their dog runs into a road 2. what's the replacement monetary value of an old whippet - they are two a penny down any rescue centre. Your area of expertise Mungler, isn't a dog owner liable if said dog causes a motor vehicle accident? I do feel for the chap. However, according to his own account, he was in the house, it was dark, the dog was outside "somewhere". He heard the shot and found the dog on the side of the golf course. He has a dog, bred over eons to chase rabbits, lives next door to a place that has a rabbit problem sufficiently serious enough to warrant employing a pest control team/individual. I would imagine that this isn't the first time he has heard a shot at night. So he let the dog out into his un fenced garden. which would and did lead to the dog going onto the golf course, with the possibility of rifles being used there. I think his lack of responsibility plays a reasonable part in this unfortunate event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Good to know. Fortunately, the legal system in this Country hasn't as yet found that particular bed rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 There is some **** talked on here sometimes. Quite how anyone can blame the dog owner or defend the shooters action is beyond me. Dog steps off the owner's property by a few yards and get a shot by some irresponsible twit. Fortunately said twit has no lawful "get out of jail free card" and can and I trust will be sued by the owner for damages. Firearms licensing, whose remit when dealing with all licensing matters is public safety, will I trust revoke said twits license and prosecute for a breach of FAC conditions.. A PR disaster for shooting. We can do without twits like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsdad Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 There is some **** talked on here sometimes. Quite how anyone can blame the dog owner or defend the shooters action is beyond me. Dog steps off the owner's property by a few yards and get a shot by some irresponsible twit. Fortunately said twit has no lawful "get out of jail free card" and can and I trust will be sued by the owner for damages. Firearms licensing, whose remit when dealing with all licensing matters is public safety, will I trust revoke said twits license and prosecute for a breach of FAC conditions.. A PR disaster for shooting. We can do without twits like this. Totally agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadioles Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 What a fascinating, and in some cases rather disturbing, series of posts. The bottom line is that an animal was illegally shot and the shooter failed to properly identify what he was shooting at. That is negligent and it is hard to conjure up any reasonable excuse. Whether the dog should have been there is completely irrelevant. Will we ever hear the full story? I doubt it. Has it damaged the shooting fraternity? You bet it has! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedster Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 There is some **** talked on here sometimes. Quite how anyone can blame the dog owner or defend the shooters action is beyond me. Dog steps off the owner's property by a few yards and get a shot by some irresponsible twit. Fortunately said twit has no lawful "get out of jail free card" and can and I trust will be sued by the owner for damages. Firearms licensing, whose remit when dealing with all licensing matters is public safety, will I trust revoke said twits license and prosecute for a breach of FAC conditions.. A PR disaster for shooting. We can do without twits like this. Well said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 But that's the important bit - RTAs happen all the time but people are not trying to ban car ownership or drivers...the accidental shooting of a pet dog is not acceptable because the tool who did it clearly isn't safe to have a spud gun never mind a firearm. People are frightened of guns, not frightened of cars. Assuming it was an accident. We don't know the facts and this is purely hypothesising, but this case has got history written all over it. Nice hotel, private golf course, neighbouring resident in the habit of letting his dogs take their evening break on someone else's manicured grounds.... We'll probably never know but It wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last. I've heard more than one landowner say "and if you see that ******* dog out there, shoot the ******* thing. I'm sick of it s****** everywhere!" I've never done it of course, I want to keep my license, but my sympathies are with the landowner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) Both at fault Charlie; the dog owner for not really knowing where his dog was, 'it was outside somewhere' and not have a secure garden and the pest controller for shooting something that he had not ID'd 100%. If the dog weren't there it would not have been shot and if the pest controller had ID'd correctly it wouldn't have been shot. Both have to shoulder a certain amount of responsibility. If you read an earlier post of mine you will see that I said the pest controller had no excuse to pulling the trigger, even if he thought it was a fox, he didn't ID correctly. There is some **** talked on here sometimes. Quite how anyone can blame the dog owner or defend the shooters action is beyond me. Dog steps off the owner's property by a few yards and get a shot by some irresponsible twit. Fortunately said twit has no lawful "get out of jail free card" and can and I trust will be sued by the owner for damages. Firearms licensing, whose remit when dealing with all licensing matters is public safety, will I trust revoke said twits license and prosecute for a breach of FAC conditions.. A PR disaster for shooting. We can do without twits like this. Edited September 10, 2013 by Penelope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaquire Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) There are a few variables that are left for us to assume. I don't like the way the Mail writes "toting guns" as if they're a gang of rabbit poachers out to cause naught but harm. Everyone reading it will automatically assume we're all the same. Also, how do we know the hotel owner didn't have a quiet word with the man shooting who was sick of their golf course being dug up by the dogs? Whippets are good at hunting, maybe they were taking duck from one of the lakes that all golf clubs invariably have? I know it's very unlikely but I do hate how the media can cast aspersion on a particular topic and simply do not give the entire story. I find it very difficult to believe that someone shot a domestic dog, without knowing it was a domestic dog. On a similar note, if the media were as quick to highlight the good that responsible land management does, instead of the bad that very rarely occurs such as this sad event, then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about the odd "ammo for antis" propaganda. Gimlet, apologies, I hadn't read your post before writing my own but it's along the same lines. Except I do have sympathy both for the dog and it's irresponsible owner who let it come and go as it please. Edited September 10, 2013 by deaquire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadioles Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Sorry, I don't know what planet some of you people live on but the only person at fault was the shooter for negligently failing to properly identify his quarry. It is possible that the shooting of the dog was a deliberate act, in which case it was not negligent but unlawful. Waffling on about the responsibilities of the dog owner is an irrelevant distraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaquire Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) Waffling on about the responsibilities of the dog owner is an irrelevant distraction. As oppose to a relevant distraction? Yet still a factor. Or when deciding guilt do we only consider the actions of the guilty party? Because there are many more variables that are, and should, be taken into account every single day when pointing the finger. Very little is ever black and white. Oh, you also say that the only person at fault is the shooter, yet identify that there may be lacking some responsibility from the dog owner. Is it the dog owners fault the dog was out? Yes. Is it the shooters fault the dog got shot? Yes. Remove either or both parties and the dog doesn't get shot. So how can one party shoulder 100% of the blame if there are two sides involved? Edited September 10, 2013 by deaquire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) I can't but help think that at 80 yards an old whippet under a lamp would probably look 98% just like a fox - i bet the way they walk is also the same. I still reckon the brain "identitfies" quarry not just the eyes - the eyes present an image to the brain that looks 98% like a fox and the brain fills in the 2% missing with details of the locality, the terrain, the time and the likelihood of it being something other than a fox out on a golf course in the middle of the night and which looks just like a fox, acts just like a fox and runs just like a fox Yes the shooter got it wrong, but it's not like accidentally shooting a 6' 4" african just because it was dark. Edited September 10, 2013 by Mungler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 As usual, amazing assumptions are being made here, nobody has been charged and police are investigating, yet many here have already decided fault/blame on the basis of an emotively written newspaper article that from any view point is written with a major bios to the poor innocent dog/owner. How many Pest controllers were on site? Did the dog have his teeth into one? Was it self defence? Was there a poacher about? Was shooting the dog a deliberate act or an accident? But hey, lets not let facts and the truth get in the way of a good story, lets speculate as much as possible, hang the shooter first then think about it...did anyone notice the Pest controller has been interviewed, but not arrested, did anyone see any mention of the police confiscating his gun/FAC, I don' think so...calm down! I am not taking sides, or any position on the events, because they are not known yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaquire Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 As usual, amazing assumptions are being made here, nobody has been charged and police are investigating, yet many here have already decided fault/blame on the basis of an emotively written newspaper article that from any view point is written with a major bios to the poor innocent dog/owner. How many Pest controllers were on site? Did the dog have his teeth into one? Was it self defence? Was there a poacher about? Was shooting the dog a deliberate act or an accident? But hey, lets not let facts and the truth get in the way of a good story, lets speculate as much as possible, hang the shooter first then think about it...did anyone notice the Pest controller has been interviewed, but not arrested, did anyone see any mention of the police confiscating his gun/FAC, I don' think so...calm down! I am not taking sides, or any position on the events, because they are not known yet! You can't blame people speculating, it's only natural. Blame the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Dear All, Accidents happen in shooting, they are very rare but they do happen...if every shooter properly identified not only their quarry but also realised where their shot could go, and there the shot quarry may go after its been shot, I would see about a 90% fall in claims on the BASC insurance policy. Every single claim thus far that I have dealt with has come from someone who up to that point had never had an accident before, was an experienced shooter, and would consider themselves to be safe... David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 You can't blame people speculating, it's only natural. Blame the media. Ok, the Media did it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadioles Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) And in police parlance it is no longer a road traffic accident (RTA) but a road traffic collision (RTC). Accidents tend not to happen, they are the result of carelessness or negligence. An "accident" implies something that happened and no-one was to blame. At what point is it negligent? The accident was caused because the driver hit a puddle at 70mph and skidded in pouring rain. No, the idiot wrote his car off because he was driving too fast for the road and weather conditions, he was at fault. Too many people look for shades of grey, sometimes it really is black and white. There may be mitigating circumstances and there is often a case of "there but for the grace of god go I" but if you go out with a gun and kill an animal that you have no authority to kill then, although it may be unintentional and highly regrettable or a mistake or whatever other words you choose to excuse the action, including "accident", but it was still negligent and that action is the sole responsibility of the shooter, no-one else. Every single claim thus far that I have dealt with has come from someone who up to that point had never had an accident before, was an experienced shooter, and would consider themselves to be safe... Is that safe, David, or lucky? Reading some posts in these forums is pretty scary, the lack of knowledge, the attitude towards killing and wounding, the desire to blast away in inappropriate circumstances and then boast about it. Ok, I am being a bit of a drama queen but you know what I mean. There are some people out there with firearms licenses that perhaps should not have them (maybe they don't?). One problem with forums is that you don't always know who the real shooters are as opposed to the dreamers and those who fantasise. Mention was made earlier about the scenario where a dog was accidentally shot on a shoot, I doubt the shooter was invited back. Edited September 10, 2013 by dadioles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Both at fault Charlie; the dog owner for not really knowing where his dog was, 'it was outside somewhere' and not have a secure garden and the pest controller for shooting something that he had not ID'd 100%. If the dog weren't there it would not have been shot and if the pest controller had ID'd correctly it wouldn't have been shot. Both have to shoulder a certain amount of responsibility. If you read an earlier post of mine you will see that I said the pest controller had no excuse to pulling the trigger, even if he thought it was a fox, he didn't ID correctly. I'm sorry but that just does not wash. Dogs, children and people of my age with Alzheimer's stray. Does that mean that if they wander a few feet outside their garden and get shot it's their fault ?. I think not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 OK I fully take the negligence- ie failed to take proper care - point. Lucky - maybe so, just like I am lucky not to have has a motor accident / negligent episode for over 25 years I guess - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontbeck Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Identifying your quarry is fundamental in shooting and I' m sure some mistakes have been made but I cannot subscribe to a fox and a whippet looking alike at 100 yds. A fox has pricked ears, a whippets ears drop close to the skul, the fox has a level topline, a whippet is roached backed and as for the gait they couldn't be more dissimilar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Bu Le Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 More ammo for the antis. From the Sunderland Echo Sep 10th (Google it) "Cat shot in eye by thugs" think Dalton le Dale near Seaham Harbour Whilst not being a cat person I do tolerate them, my daughter has a moggie name of Mortimer ............right character and famed seagull killer in Carlisle. I would no more shoot a cat than myself. However the cat owner did raise a point that people do go rabbiting and a shot could have come from the woods, I think the inference was it may have been accidental...........ummmmmm personally I think not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 As we always say - never shoot at eyes....fox, sheep, cat, dog...who knows what will reflect back in you lamp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.