Yep...exactly what I said earlier. Make it to where everyone has some skin in the game. It will make dog owners think twice about where they turn their dogs loose in the future. It's the ONLY fair thing to do. No reason for hunters to have no recourse on their own land.

You should take that to the Legislators and the CAB.

Let us know how well it works out.

That is a quote from one article.

Now, pray tell, would they look for evidence and ask for confessions for an act that was legal.

You need any more rope?
The one you have is getting tight!

Haven't seen anything saying that yet. Have a link?

Look it up.
I have nothing to prove.

But, I will tell you......I am personal friends with one of the deputies who went out.

So, make sure you get it right!

I'm calling BS. Dog hunters have no friends.

LMAO

I let him hunt my place for free then, OK????

I don't have time to search for an obscure article. Post a link since you're the one who read the details.

At least I'm backing up what I say with links, quotes, and law.

I also sure hope your deputy friend hasn't discussed the details of an ongoing investigation with you. That could get him in trouble if you tell the wrong info to the wrong person. I'm sure he didn't and you just read it somewhere though.

Last, looking for a confession and/or evidence is what officers do. Until they find evidence of a crime, then there's nothing to use to get a conviction. No conviction in this case means no evidence of a crime. I thought that was obvious...

If an officer pulls you over for weaving, he suspects a crime (DUI) and investigates. If you fail the roadside tests then he has evidence and will arrest. If he investigates and determines you just spilled hot coffee in you lap, he laughs and you don't get arrested because you didn't break the law. Suspicion is nothing more than suspicion.

I honestly know of NO police work that involves searching for evidence and/or confessions of crimes that were not committed.......

WOW!

You are really getting desperate, aren't you?

Danny. It's obvious you cannot have a simple discussion without resorting to this type of behavior. Enjoy your dogs and Hog Hunting. Maybe the water will go down and you can get a few before it gets too hot. I'm not going to waste anymore time in this thread going around in circles. You're the one that has investment in the issue. As I have stated before, I don't shoot hunting dogs and I was hoping to have a simple discussion about the law and not circumstantial instances or what-ifs. Take care.

Here is the REST of the article that you got your quote from.
You know, the part that you said you can't find........even though it is in the SAME article.

Now, who exactly was that who said something about someone acting an a$$??????

So you shoot someone in your house. You claim they broke in and you shot them dead. So, for now, there is no crime that has been committed on your part. You dont think they are going to investigate to make sure you didnt know the guy, had an argument, and you shot him in cold blood? DOH!

You investigate to see if a crime was committed. That "come back" was the worst one in this "butter cutter tire stuck in the mud" thread.

Actually, that is considered a crime.......the plea would be self-defense, though.

Read it again.....

This case or any case related.... good luck finding the guilty party or someone who WITNESSED the shooting..... NEVER happen... thats why this argument is ridiculous.....

What's funny is the dog shooters were wanting "serious" trespassing charges for the owners if their hunting dog trespasses. We as fellow sportsmen should not "ask" for each other to be treated like criminals for a minor offense.
But, you get what you ask for sometimes.

Wrong. You will be charged if there is a crime. If there is evidence enough to the INVESTIGATOR that there was a break in, then there was no crime committed. If there isn't enough evidence of the break in, then the shooter would be charged, THEN his plea would be self defense.

The argument has been the legality of the shooting of dogs. Andy seems adamant that it is legal even though it is not.

So, you are saying that as long as they don't break-in, you don't have the Right to Defend yourself in your own home?

This nit-picking is childish.

It is very clear that it IS legal in certain circumstances. Trespassing is not one of those circumstances. If you can prove it is threatening or harming anything or anyone, then it is. Running a deer is a stretch for harm, but to each his own. Let the people who want to shoot them have to defend themselves in a court if it ever goes there. If you dont condone shooting them, then let them walk. This is about like religion, you ARE NOT going to get anywhere in changing anybody's mind.

If you claim they broke in, and thats why you shot them, then there better be evidence of it. Yes, your nit picking is VERY childish. Re-read my original post. It is VERY clear, and 100% fact. I CAN ASSURE YOU!