So, I was supposed to be
continuing on today with part 2 of my previous post, but instead I found
something more interesting that I would like to cover. Also, after looking into
a few other people who have responded, I found some really great videos and
figured you could watch those instead. The Amazing Atheist's video is my
favorite.
So what am I going to post on today? Well this morning I found a Facebook post and I shared it on the Cult of Dusty page. If you don't know who or what that is, please check it out here. Anyways, the post sparked a lot of comments and a lot of debate, plus some name-calling, and other things. So I figured, why the hell not? I'll blog about it.
So in the original post, which you can read fully here, Janice Galloway stated a man (Wendell Kelley) came into her front yard and shot her golden lab. She stated that her 13-year-old daughter, who was home sick from school, ran outside after hearing the first shot and was screaming, begging the man not kill her dog. The man then stopped, looked at the child, and shot three more times. She also included that this man was "suppose ably a Christian church goer." In my opinion, his religion DOES NOT matter.
Then in another post she said her daughter was standing next to the dog as the man shot the last three rounds.
I'll admit, I didn't really do my research before posting this to the Cult of Dusty page, but I was more interested in other people's opinions on that matter.
Someone posted a link to an actual news article of the incident, in which all parties were interviewed. After I looked at both posts by Ms. Galloway, and the news article I found some discrepancies.
In the news article, by Andy Cordan of News 2, Kelley says that lab approached him and he tapped the dog in the face to get him to move. He was pressured into his truck in his driveway.
*This word, "tapped" really bothers me. It is a very subjective word. What I think of as a tap, and what Mr. Kelley thinks of as a tap could be two very different things. In fact, his version of a "tap" could be my version of "slap."*
He then says he went into his home...
*Okay, so Mr. Kelley did something right. He's being pestered by a neighbor's dog, who is showing hostile attitudes.. so he enters his home. Good choice, or was it?*
...and got his semi-automatic rifle, then exited to check the mail.
*Let me make sure I have this right.. There is a dog, showing hostile attitudes outside your house. You make it safely inside, and instead of just calling animal control, and getting your mail AFTER they have done their job. You grab a gun, and go check your damn mail? It couldn't wait?*
Mr. Kelley said the dog approached him again with his ears laid back. He also said the dog was snarling, making him feel unsafe. The dog was 8 feet away when Mr. Kelley says he fired a "few" shots. He also says he saw the child, AFTER he fired the last shot, and when he saw her, he stopped shooting.
*That paints a very different picture than the one Mrs. Galloway did. She said that this man, stared straight at her daughter as he fired the last 3 round into the family dog. He says, he stopped shooting as soon as he saw her. So, what did the 13-year-old say?*
In the interview with Andy Cordan, Peggy Galloway said she exited the house after she heard the first shot...
*Janice got that part right.*
She was half-way up the driveway when Mr. Kelley fired the second shot, at the top of the road when he fired the third, and running to him when he fired the fourth. AFTER the fourth shot, Peggy said she screamed "Please, don't shoot my dog."
*Now,
if she didn't scream until AFTER the fourth shot, isn't it logical to
assume that Mr. Kelley had no clue that she was even there? Also, if Peggy had
to run down the driveway and to the road before she was near the shooting,
isn't it logical to assume that the dog was NOT in his own front yard?*
Now that I've analyzed the articles, and found the problems with the posts made my the victim, it's easy to see that this case is one big.. he said/she said case and both sides did break Tennessee Laws. There was supposedly a witness, that contacted Janice and told her what had happened, but he/she was not interviewed for the article, so I don't know what they saw.
Animal Laws
On the Cult of Dusty page, a user commented:
"The owner failed at her responsibility to her pet. The shoot everything in the neighborhood neighbor, is questionable, wish we had his side. He's probably a psycho, but we don't know."
The person got a lot of grief for this comment, and the rest that she posted, but she was 100% correct.
In §44-8-408 part
A. "owner" is defined as a person who, at the time of the offense,
regularly harbors, keeps, or exercises control over the dog. Part B: states
that they have committed an offense if the animal goes on the premises of
another without consent or on a highway, public road, street, or any place generally
open to the public.
In §44-8-413 Part a1 says that the owner has a duty to keep their dog under reasonable control and from running at
large at ALL TIMES.
*In my opinion, if Peggy had to come running out of the house
when she heard the first shot, her dog was NOT
under reasonable control. Yes, dogs can be trained to stay in the yard when let
out to go potty, but the animal should still be watched, especially if there
are other people outside.*
Part a2 says that if the animal causes injury to another person that the owner is held liable, regardless of whether the dog has shown any dangerous tendencies before.
Part a2 says that if the animal causes injury to another person that the owner is held liable, regardless of whether the dog has shown any dangerous tendencies before.
*This goes
back to Mr. Kelley stating that he was acting in self-defense. Mrs. Galloway
tried to say that wasn’t true, because the dog was good with kids, but based on
this part of the statute, that doesn’t matter.*
Part b5 says the owner of the animal is NOT liable if: the injured person was enticing, disturbing, alarming, harassing, or otherwise provoking the situation.
Part b5 says the owner of the animal is NOT liable if: the injured person was enticing, disturbing, alarming, harassing, or otherwise provoking the situation.
*In my
opinion, Mr. Kelley did provoke the situation. He didn’t need to “tap” the dog
on the nose, nor did he need to re-exit his house. He could have simply called
authorities.*
This is probably the biggest one for this case though:
§39-14-205 states that it is an offense to knowingly or unlawfully kill the animal of another without the owner’s effective consent.
HOWEVER, killing an animal without consent is justifiable if the person acted under reasonable belief that the animal was creating an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to him/herself or others.
*Now, as stated before, just because Mrs. Galloway says that her dog is friendly and good with kids, does not mean that her dog did not growl, snarl, or act menacingly toward Mr. Kelley, and based on this statute, if the dog did any of these things and Mr. Kelley felt endangered, he was legally justified to kill the animal.*
§39-14-205 states that it is an offense to knowingly or unlawfully kill the animal of another without the owner’s effective consent.
HOWEVER, killing an animal without consent is justifiable if the person acted under reasonable belief that the animal was creating an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to him/herself or others.
*Now, as stated before, just because Mrs. Galloway says that her dog is friendly and good with kids, does not mean that her dog did not growl, snarl, or act menacingly toward Mr. Kelley, and based on this statute, if the dog did any of these things and Mr. Kelley felt endangered, he was legally justified to kill the animal.*
It is NOT JUSTIFIABLE to
kill an animal without the owner’s permission, regardless of the animal’s
actions, if the person is trespassing
on the property of the owner of the animal.
*Statements made by Peggy Galloway herself, revealed that the man was not on the owner’s property.*
*Statements made by Peggy Galloway herself, revealed that the man was not on the owner’s property.*
The liability of the shooter falls under §44-17-403, which states that if a pet is killed or injured to the point of death by unlawful and intentional, or negligent acts by another they can be fined up to $5,000. It also says, that the act MUST occur on the property of the deceased pet’s owner or caretaker or while under their control or supervision.
In the state of Tennessee, carrying a firearm is only an offense if the
person carries with “the intent to go armed.”
*Mr. Kelley, entered and got his firearm, then exited again to get his mail. Based on these actions, in my opinion, he had the intent of using the gun.*
*Mr. Kelley, entered and got his firearm, then exited again to get his mail. Based on these actions, in my opinion, he had the intent of using the gun.*
However, the person is not
charged or convicted if they possessed, displayed, or employed a handgun in
justifiable self-defense.
§39-17-1311 states that it is
unlawful to possess or carry a firearm on the grounds of a public park,
playground, civic center, or other building facility, area, or property of any
municipal, county, or state government.
*If the dog was in a public road, it is very likely that the road was owned by the government. This statute means that regardless of where the event took place, Mr. Kelley could be in trouble with the law, whether that trouble be for shooting the dog, or simply carrying the fire arm.*
*If the dog was in a public road, it is very likely that the road was owned by the government. This statute means that regardless of where the event took place, Mr. Kelley could be in trouble with the law, whether that trouble be for shooting the dog, or simply carrying the fire arm.*
My opinions on the matter have
been intermingled throughout this post, and can be seen in italics, but there is
more to it.
Do I agree with what the man did?
NO! I think it would have been just as easy to WAIT to get the mail, and call the authorities after re-entering the house. As the child was home, it would have been better for everyone involved for animal control to return the dog to the house (if it had tags), or take it to the pound, where the owner would have had to pay a fine for breaking the leash law.
Do I agree with what the man did?
NO! I think it would have been just as easy to WAIT to get the mail, and call the authorities after re-entering the house. As the child was home, it would have been better for everyone involved for animal control to return the dog to the house (if it had tags), or take it to the pound, where the owner would have had to pay a fine for breaking the leash law.
Do I agree with the woman posting these things on Facebook?
No, I feel she should have posted
the story just as the reported did, and actually talked to her daughter first,
considering she was “taking her husband to work” when the incident occurred. It
really bothers me, that her own daughter’s story of events is so different than
her own. I feel that she is trying to make the man look even more heartless
than he already does, so that she can play the sympathy card.
Do I think it was pre-meditated?
The woman had stated that the man
watched their house and waited until she and her husband were gone, unaware of
the fact that their daughter was home. I’m not sure how the man could have been
unaware that the daughter was home, unless it’s a normal habit to leave the dog
outside, unleashed, when no one is around. So, from her story… No, I didn’t
think it was premeditated. However; after reading the news article in which he
stated he had made it back to his house safely, then grabbed his firearm and
exited again, I do think it was premeditated. I mean really, you know a hostile
animal is outside your house, you come out with a loaded gun. Are you seriously
going to try to tell me you have no intentions of using it?
Is Mrs. Galloway to blame for the incident?
No! Just because her dog was unleashed, does not mean the man needed to shoot it. Again, he made it back to the safety of his house before he even had the firearm in hand. SHE IS NOT TO BLAME!
No! Just because her dog was unleashed, does not mean the man needed to shoot it. Again, he made it back to the safety of his house before he even had the firearm in hand. SHE IS NOT TO BLAME!
Does his religion matter?
In her original post, Mrs. Galloway found it was necessary to add that Mr. Kelley was “suppose ably a Christian church goer.” In this case, I don’t think that matters. I feel that she is just trying to slander all Christian’s names by comparing them to this one man, and that I’m not okay with. Just because someone is a Christian, doesn’t mean there aren’t going to be some crazies, or that they won’t protect themselves when they need to.
In her original post, Mrs. Galloway found it was necessary to add that Mr. Kelley was “suppose ably a Christian church goer.” In this case, I don’t think that matters. I feel that she is just trying to slander all Christian’s names by comparing them to this one man, and that I’m not okay with. Just because someone is a Christian, doesn’t mean there aren’t going to be some crazies, or that they won’t protect themselves when they need to.
