No criminal charges in shooting death of GSD

[AbbyK9]

People here failed on so many levels.

The original owner who preferred to dump his dog at the shelter than work with a behaviorist or have the dog PTS. The shelter, who probably didn't tell the rescue about the bite history (as most rescues wouldn't take a dog with a bite history). The rescue, who obviously didn't screen the adopters as well as they should have. And the adopters, who shot the dog rather than return him to the rescue (and claim Animal Control told them to do so).

I don't even have any words.

No criminal charges in German shepherd slaying sparks outrage - Connecticut Post

A couple who killed a German shepherd less than 48 hours after adopting him from a rescue group has been cleared of any wrongdoing following a police investigation.


Police say that the couple was never apprised that the dog, whose name was Buddy, had a bite history by the group that placed him.


Finding no probable cause that animal cruelty occurred, investigators say that the couple had a legal right to shoot the dog in the back of the head after he had bitten the new owner twice.

[Kris10]

Grrr. That poor dog was let down so many times by people. I don't understand how shooting a dog is not considered animal cruelty???

[vat]

UGH! That is so sad, this site is depressing me today I think I need a break.

[Lucy Dog]

Yeah, I've been following this story for some time now since it's in my neck of the woods. Sad story all around.

There is a politician in my area, Al camillo, who's been following this case very closely and is fighting for justice for Buddy. He's a German Shepherd owner himself.

http://m.greenwichtime.com/gtime/db_...TGxXyK&src=cat

[Jessiewessie99]

Some humans are just

Buddy needs justice.

[novarobin]

I agree people here failed on so many levels. What a sad sad case.

I am confused on a few points though. There is a different between illegal and wrong. Somethings mentioned in the article made me question if this was truly illegal.

"Police say that the couple also consulted with their local animal control officer before shooting Buddy once in the back of the head with a 12-gauge shotgun that killed him instantly."
Were they told it would be ok to shoot him?

"The state also has guidelines for euthanizing dogs under such circumstances, according to Connors, who frowns upon using a gun."
Frowning upon is not the same as prohibiting. It doesn't specify the guidelines.

I also noted the section quoted at the end of the article refers to punishment for shooting someone else's dog, but doesn't specify your own.

Just to be clear, in no way do I agree with what those people did. I am just wondering if the decision to not lay charges was a correct one or not.

[Deuce]

Wow

[selzer]

If you know what you are doing, shooting a dog is not any more, and may be less cruel than taking it to the vet for "humane" euthanization.

I think that people who get dogs from rescues should ask some questions, like, was the dog fostered and how long. No way can you tell anything about a dog in three or four days.

At the same time, that dog looked like it recently underwent surgery, was in a shelter, was in a home, and then was rehomed. The poor thing was probably needed some time for adjustment. What triggered the bite, and where are the hospital emergency room records.

When a German Shepherd bites you, you know it because there is blood, bruising, and even broken bones on occasion. But so many people think that mouthing, nipping, herding, snapping at, and accidental contact are bites. However, if a dog stood stiffley and growled low, a new owner might euth the dog because of the possibility of aggression.

Euthanasia is euthanasia regardless of the method. Many of the ways pounds that call themselves humane society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, shelters, etc, euthanize dogs are not pretty at all. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black -- they gas dogs, use heart sticks, shoot them, they used to wet them down and electrocute them in Cleveland.

Shooting is certainly not the worst way to go.

Nature and death are not pretty. I am not against the idea that someone be allowed to kill their dog, so long as they do it is such a fashion that the dog is not left to suffer.

ETA: The groundhog I shot was dead instantly, Kitty (my parents' 12 year old diabetic dying cat) took a LONG time and two doses of purple koolaid to get her to die at the vets. Which suffered more?

[AbbyK9]

Whether a gun shot is the most humane way of putting a dog down is completely beside the point. This was a young, healthy dog who had been in his new home for only 48 hours. FORTY EIGHT HOURS. TWO DAYS. Before his "adopters" decided that he was so dangerous that they needed to shoot him.

I don't know on what planet that is a reasonable course of action, regardless of how humane it is. I don't think I would feel any better about this if they'd taken the dog to the vet and had him put to sleep after the two days, instead of shooting him.

The fact remains, this was a dog that was only five years old. In those five years, he's gone from his owner to a shelter, from a shelter to a rescue, and from the rescue foster home into a new home. He never had a chance to get used to his new home - he wasn't even there long enough to be seen by their vet or even to get settled in. Heck, it takes some foster dogs longer than two days before they start eating in a new home, let alone behaving "normally".

If the family didn't want to give him some space and let him settle in, or if he turned out to be more than they could handle (heck, maybe it was a bad match by the rescue), they should have called the rescue and asked them to take him back. They had options other than taking the dog outside and shooting him.

Apparently, they had NO problem calling Animal Control to ask what they should do. They could have called their vet, too. Or the rescue to see if they could return him. Instead, they took him outside and shot him. I don't give a rat's behind whether it was "humane", it was the wrong thing to do.

[arycrest]

Originally Posted by AbbyK9

Whether a gun shot is the most humane way of putting a dog down is completely beside the point. This was a young, healthy dog who had been in his new home for only 48 hours. FORTY EIGHT HOURS. TWO DAYS. Before his "adopters" decided that he was so dangerous that they needed to shoot him.

In your opinon, how many times would it take for a dog like Buddy to bite a new owner before you would consider two days/48 hours to be a sufficient time to put the dog down? He bite the new owners twice in this time frame.

The reason I ask is that when I adopted Bo he bit all the Hooligans at least once and mauled my arm within a 48 hour time span. I would have had him put down if he had bitten me/mauled me a second time. Fortunately for both of us, with a lot of work he never bit again.