Dog Killer Gets $10,000 Fine

[k9angel]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/break...10-000-penalty/

Update, 6.30pm: An elderly pensioner and hobby farmer, who shot dead his neighbours’ dog with “callous indifference”, has been left more than $10,000 out of pocket after a magistrate today found him guilty of maliciously wounding the tied-up animal.

But Oakford great-grandfather Alf Carter, 75, told The West Australian after the verdict this afternoon that he shot the dog because it was a “dangerous dog” that had mauled his farm animals and he feared it would attack a child.

Armadale magistrate Elizabeth Langdon fined Carter $4000 and ordered him to pay $6400 in prosecution costs after convicting him of maliciously wounding the animal following a trial in February this year.

Carter said he was “very disappointed” with the decision.

Speaking from his home, Carter said he was an “animal lover”.

The mastiff cross named Seven, which Carter shot twice in December 2009, belonged to his neighbours and tenants, Lisa McGarvey, who desperately tried to stop Carter from shooting the tied-up dog on her back patio, and her fiancé William Godsell.

The court heard Mr Godsell punched Carter after the shooting and Carter claimed he needed a hip replacement after falling from Mr Godsell’s “kinghit”.

Carter claimed his neighbours’ dog had mauled and killed chooks, sheep and a working kelpie dog prior to the incident which sparked the shooting – a dogfight which injured his other kelpie.

“That dog had to be put down because I was scared it was going to rip the throat out of a child if it got hold of one,” he said.

Outside Armadale Magistrate’s Court this morning, Ms McGarvey and Mr Godsell said they were pleased their former landlord had been punished and the case was over, but it would not bring their much-loved pet back.

Ms McGarvey said Seven, less than a year old, slept with their kitten and was not a “monster of a dog” as claimed by Carter.

Ms Langdon said Carter’s actions were “cruel and inhumane” and the penalty needed to send a warning to others that animal cruelty would not be condoned in the community.

The court heard evidence it took about 10 minutes for the dog to die after Carter shot it in the chest and head and walked away.

Carter argued he was aiming for an instant-kill “brain shot”, but Ms McGarvey was pulling and pushing at him when he fired.

Carter’s defence lawyer Ross Kerferd said his client made a “mistake of judgment”, but argued it did not involve “prolonged cruelty” and “heightened emotions” were felt by all parties.

RSPCA spokesman Tim Mayne described the shooting as a “disgusting act” and welcomed the penalty.

“Walking on to private property with a loaded shotgun and then shooting a dog is just unacceptable in anyone’s terms,” he said.

Run free girl. XXX

So sad. He would of needed more than a hip replacement had he shot one of my dogs.

May karma pay him a visit.

[minxy]

That's disgraceful. If he believed the dog was dangerous he should have gone through the council. It's not up to him to make that call.

How awful for the owners too who had to witness it

[Odin-Genie]

Even if the dog was attacking his farm animals, he should have gone to the council. Legally, he is only allowed to shoot dogs attacking livestock when they are on his property. he can't walk into someone else's house with a loaded gun and shoot a restrained dog!!!!

I wish he had received a higher penalty and prison time.

[Clyde]

If the shooters version is true, I think the penalty is too harsh.

[Sheridan]

If the shooters version is true, I think the penalty is too harsh.

Rubbish. The dog was not threatening his animals. It was tied up. If he thought the dog had attacked his animals, he should have gone through the council since the dog, being tied up, was not an imminent danger to anything.

[rose of tralee]

A different approach may have yielded more civilised results.

However, sleeping with the family kitten isn't a character reference once out and about.

[BMAK]

just read this i hope the man that drowned two of my fosters brothers/sister gets this if found !!!

[Maddy]

A different approach may have yielded more civilised results.

However, sleeping with the family kitten isn't a character reference once out and about.

Exactly.

I know of two dogs who were shot for mauling sheep when they'd escape the yard at night. By day, these dogs lived with cats and a small baby and were lovely, gentle dogs (I used to see these dogs most weekends and both had lovely natures). By night, these dogs were slowly killing about ten sheep a visit before they were finally caught in the act and shot.

The owner of the dogs was furious and demanded compensation as she did not believe her dogs were capable of harming stock

The shooter in this case could've probably gone about this thing a little better but.. the fact of the matter is, the dog had obviously been allowed onto the neighbouring property at some point. If the farmer had shot the dog while it was busy mauling his livelihood, would people still have so little sympathy for him? Why is a sheep's life worth less than a dog's?

[whiskedaway]

The shooter in this case could've probably gone about this thing a little better but.. the fact of the matter is, the dog had obviously been allowed onto the neighbouring property at some point. If the farmer had shot the dog while it was busy mauling his livelihood, would people still have so little sympathy for him? Why is a sheep's life worth less than a dog's?

I think the thing is that unless caught (ie, shot) in the act, there is no proof that this dog was the one murdering livestock. It could have been some other neighbour's dog who's killing the animals. Shooting a dog while protecting your stock is one thing, shooting a dog that's tied up and THEN not even putting it out of its misery is cruelty.

[Maddy]

The shooter in this case could've probably gone about this thing a little better but.. the fact of the matter is, the dog had obviously been allowed onto the neighbouring property at some point. If the farmer had shot the dog while it was busy mauling his livelihood, would people still have so little sympathy for him? Why is a sheep's life worth less than a dog's?

I think the thing is that unless caught (ie, shot) in the act, there is no proof that this dog was the one murdering livestock. It could have been some other neighbour's dog who's killing the animals. Shooting a dog while protecting your stock is one thing, shooting a dog that's tied up and THEN not even putting it out of its misery is cruelty.

From what I understood of the OP, he fired once at the dog, wounded it and then fired again, killing it. His intention was not to hurt the dog but to kill. If everyone who ever had to use a second bullet on an animal was hauled into court, the RSPCA's lawyers would be very wealthy people.

That aside, I doubt that the farmer would've shot the dog in the manner he did if he hadn't been entirely sure it was responsible for the attacks on his stock. For all we know, he may have been unfortunate enough to witness those attacks.

[Staranais]

I agree, if someone walked onto my land and shot my tied up dog in front of me, they'd need more than a hip replacement.

Not to mention the fact that discharging a gun at an animal while wrestling with another person is a bloody stupid and dangerous thing to do!

[shortstep]

There is a special section just for cruelty, can you please move this to the cruelty and abuse section.

Thanks.