| Author | Post |
|---|
insane.kangaroo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | Homer, Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 857 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 4th, 2009 07:04 pm |
|
http://www.wibw.com/localnews/headlines/38936052.html
A shooting in a small southeast Kansas town leaves two pets dead, and the man behind the gun is the city's mayor.
Don Call, the mayor of McCune, Kansas says he was protecting his city. But now he could face criminal charges of animal cruelty.
Mayor Call had been dealing with many complaints over the last six months about a couple of dogs. While the dog attacks never became violent, Call says their aggressive actions intimidated many residents.
The mayor says he had warned the owner to get rid of the dogs or else he would do it himself. And the mayor was not all bark.
After receiving a complaint Sunday, that the dogs had jumped through a screen to chase some children, Call loaded up his rifle and drove to the property. Once he spotted the dogs, he fired several times from his car.
Local law enforcement says the mayor should not have pulled the trigger, but should have picked up the phone. The only 911 call made was from a witness to the shooting.
The response of the community appears to be mixed, with some offering their support to their mayor, and others who say he overreacted with an inhumane act.
The Crawford County Sheriff says an affidavit of arrest was sent to the county attorney office who will decide whether to issue a warrant for the arrest of Mayor Call.
|
insane.kangaroo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | Homer, Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 857 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 4th, 2009 07:05 pm |
|
I think the mayor is just awesome btw. I'd have done the same thing. When animal control or the designated animal control officer at the PD doesn't want to do his/her job, then you should take the job upon yourself to "do the right thing."
|
Walleye
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 4th, 2009 09:24 pm |
|
The mayor did the right thing. The police are upset he didn't set a good example for the sheeple - he went out there and eliminated a couple of dangerous animals after warning the owners. I'd have done the same thing.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 4th, 2009 11:34 pm |
|
Gotta differ with y'all on this one.
The story doesn't really give us enough information. Were the children still in danger when he arrived? Did the dogs attack him in his temporary role as an animal warden trying to capture the dogs? Etc. etc.
Unless he had a right-now-danger reason for shooting the dogs, I'd say he should have waited.
Depending on what really happened--whole story--this might even be a case of government destroying someone's pet/personal property without due process of law.
Last edited on Wed Feb 4th, 2009 11:35 pm by Citizen
|
insane.kangaroo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | Homer, Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 857 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 4th, 2009 11:55 pm |
|
In Alaska and I know Pennsylvania you can shoot domestic and wild animals which are a nuisance unless provoked first by said person. Even if the situation was not "right now", doesn't mean he wasn't right. Even if it were after he was in the right.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 12:15 am |
|
insane.kangaroo wrote: In Alaska and I know Pennsylvania you can shoot domestic and wild animals which are a nuisance unless provoked first by said person. Even if the situation was not "right now", doesn't mean he wasn't right. Even if it were after he was in the right.
I understand.
Whether he was right can be difficult to find out after the fact. I'm more inclined towards restraining government. If the government wants to destroy someone's property or pet absent right-now necessity, let them follow due process.
Its one thing for the childrens' custodian to shoot a right-now pet threat. Its something else for government to shoot one that isn't.
|
insane.kangaroo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | Homer, Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 857 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 12:28 am |
|
I see the mayor acting more as a person and not as a government entity. If someone were the local person everyone went to for chatter and complaining, they shot the dog, you'd feel different just because the person wasn't in a government position?
You need to get a grasp on things, some acts are not vigilante.
|
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 12:30 am |
|
Citizen wrote: Unless he had a right-now-danger reason for shooting the dogs, I'd say he should have waited.
Depending on what really happened--whole story--this might even be a case of government destroying someone's pet/personal property without due process of law.
Waited for what? Is trespassing a "right-now-danger" reason when the dogs have previously displayed an aggressive pattern of behavior?
If he shot the dogs while they were on their own property then I agree, he should have waited... for them to trespass again  .
I'm curious as to what the charges might be.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 12:49 am |
|
insane.kangaroo wrote: I see the mayor acting more as a person and not as a government entity. If someone were the local person everyone went to for chatter and complaining, they shot the dog, you'd feel different just because the person wasn't in a government position?
You need to get a grasp on things, some acts are not vigilante.
What is there to get a grasp on? The story is short on details. Something I pointed out in my first post. The first thing I pointed out in my first post.
Telling me to get a grasp on things only serves to anger me. So, let me stoop a little bit and reply in kind. Escalate actually. Because I am usually very, very careful to avoid such, I claim some small right to occasionally indulge.
So? What? Are you an idiot? Weren't you following the goddam post? A little trouble following logic and unstated premises there? Oh, you're a brilliant one. THE GODDAM MAYOR IS QUOTED AS SAYING HE WAS PROTECTING HIS CITY. Oh, yeah. "I see the mayor acting as a private person and not a government entity." That must have slipped in there somewhere after you told me I needed to get a grasp on things.
Everybody else (generalizations are OK when you're making an angry post) is taking sides with the shooter with little detail to go on from the story. So, I'm the one with a loose grasp. Hey, guess what dip$hit, at least I figured out there wasn't enough to go on. I won't mention (but I will) that the story is actually a bit suspicious as to what little facts it provides because it says, "while the dog attacks never became violent..." Excuse me? An attack wasn't violent? OK. Skepticism applies from here on. At least for me anyway.
Actually, I suspect you're just a little defensive because I differed with you. Well, grow up and get over it. Its leading you to make assumptions and dumb comments.
So, why don't you try to impress me by being able to state your case without the personal criticism.
Rant off.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 01:02 am |
|
diesel556 wrote: Citizen wrote: Unless he had a right-now-danger reason for shooting the dogs, I'd say he should have waited.
Depending on what really happened--whole story--this might even be a case of government destroying someone's pet/personal property without due process of law.
Waited for what? Is trespassing a "right-now-danger" reason when the dogs have previously displayed an aggressive pattern of behavior?
Could be, but not necessarily. Problem is, we don't know what they were doing at the time he shot them. Were they still aggressive? Could he have waited for animal control to arrive. Would the dogs wander into another yard and actually bite someone or maul a kid? Could he wait there, armed, until animal control or anybody else with non-lethal means came? Like their owners, for example?
We just don't know.
If the dogs were all that aggressive, were there formal letters, declarations, what-have-you sent to the owners? If not, why not? If they were all that dangerous, why weren't they seized and destroyed before this?
We just don't know.
What is this previous "aggressive behavior?" Somehow despite "many complaints over the last six months" nobody ever actually got bit. So, what were the complaints? People got growled at? Doing what? Shooing the dogs?
We just don't know.
So, with insufficient information, why do we have members jumping to the mayor's defense? When we have information he destroyed someone's pets/personal property?
Last edited on Thu Feb 5th, 2009 01:04 am by Citizen
|
insane.kangaroo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | Homer, Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 857 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 01:06 am |
|
well there are stories on it all over the web, here is one from AP
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hviTiIy0B6O0Y6ASyOKvqLxYLulwD9652K0G0
Also, the dogs were chasing kids, which is reason enough to shoot them. I know canine pack behavior very well, when they're chasing kids.. they're not doing it for the fun of it.
Though hey, I can't expect everyone to know about canine behavior outside of the Fwuffy-Woo stereotype which PETArds push on everyone. ^_^
If you read the story, it states "small town"... in a small town people know people and care about their fellow neighbor. The owner was warned and didn't take heed. The Mayor was doing nothing more than protecting his city/family/pack since the hired town law enforcement were doing nothing about the problem.
He could have easily asked a neighbor or someone not in a political office to shoot the dogs. Shooting the dogs himself creates nothing but a political mess, he himself was doing nothing wrong, unless you count protecting your fellow citizens a crime.
What separates family and pack? Are you going to tell me protecting a family has to be by blood? I don't think so. Especially in small towns, you will really feel a connection between people, even if you don't know them really well.
Personally, I think in a very pack-like structure. If the mayor didn't shoot the dog then the police probably would've and you'd still have a negative view of the story. Most animal control units don't carry firearms, but many are starting to since there has been a becoming danger in larger cities to even where teenagers have wielded a gun with the intent to shoot an animal control officer.
|
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 01:14 am |
|
Citizen wrote: So, with insufficient information, why do we have members jumping to the mayor's defense? When we have information he destroyed someone's pets/personal property?
Good points.
I personally don't believe that biting is necessary for their behavior to be considered aggressive. If they were chasing children who did not want to be chased, then I'm sure the children were terrified and fearing for their own safety (I know that we can't be sure that this was the case here). In fact, would trespassing be enough cause in and of itself put down an animal?
My question at this point, is who normally acts in the capacity of animal control in a very small Kansas town? Is it the county sheriff, the mayor, or some other official?
Last edited on Thu Feb 5th, 2009 01:15 am by diesel556
|
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 01:23 am |
|
Here we go:
"Under a city law, dogs running at large are subject to impoundment, and no dogs can be "disposed of until after a minimum of three full business days of custody.""
Good cite insane.kangaroo. We don't need to guess if what he did was right any longer  .
ETA: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hviTiIy0B6O0Y6ASyOKvqLxYLulwD9652K0G0 Last edited on Thu Feb 5th, 2009 01:23 am by diesel556
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 939 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 04:10 pm |
|
And how do you get them in custody if the police won't arrest them?
I think this is payback for the police shooting that maryland mayers dogs......
Those politico's stick together.
His biggest problem might be fireing from the car, an obvious roadway that bans
discharge of weapons.
Now for the big question..... How was the shot grouping?
|
McCune, KS Resident2
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 5th, 2009 11:44 pm |
|
| I live in this town and have for several years. Here's the rest of the story--according to the Sheriff's Report. The Mayor shot a minimum of 7 times from the window of his van. He used a 9mm rifle. Apparently he missed a few times because there are bullet holes in the privacy fence and the house. And, here's the biggest problem of all...the animals were chained up. According to local reports, he has been in trouble with the law before for bar fights and public drunkenness. Not sure how he became Mayor, but I know that he wasn't elected and he has only been Mayor a few months. It is a bad deal no matter how you look at it. He got charged with two felonies and a misdemeanor. By the way, the City does own a tranquilizer gun. This sort of garbage makes responsible gun and dog owners look bad.
|
bradco
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 98 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 6th, 2009 03:05 pm |
|
| with only the story here I think it is a bad shoot, I am 1st an animal lover second It says that the dogs were never violent, being aggressive without violence is not reason to shoot sorry, and in the open from a car, he could have hit something like a human and then waht. this does not make a good self defense case in any way. just my 2 cents on the view as I said without the whole story
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 939 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 6th, 2009 03:23 pm |
|
Chained up game, might also want to drop a dime to the game warden. they
don't even like it when you have a fenced in range.
Idiots getting elected, sadly this appears to be the norm, not the exception.
We just got rid of the most worthless mayor this year, the new one is talking about
2-3 years just to find out what she did so it can be fixed. There appears to be
over 1400 secret laws passed, and they need to be found to be rectified.
The only thing she did right was she wouldn't spend a dime on anything
as near as I could tell, unless you count her perks.
Even cut the mayors pay by half before leaving office.
|
Walleye
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Feb 7th, 2009 02:33 am |
|
McCune, KS Resident2 wrote: I live in this town and have for several years. Here's the rest of the story--according to the Sheriff's Report. The Mayor shot a minimum of 7 times from the window of his van. He used a 9mm rifle. Apparently he missed a few times because there are bullet holes in the privacy fence and the house. And, here's the biggest problem of all...the animals were chained up. According to local reports, he has been in trouble with the law before for bar fights and public drunkenness. Not sure how he became Mayor, but I know that he wasn't elected and he has only been Mayor a few months. It is a bad deal no matter how you look at it. He got charged with two felonies and a misdemeanor. By the way, the City does own a tranquilizer gun. This sort of garbage makes responsible gun and dog owners look bad.
I retract my previous post of support then. The story given by the media painted a very different picture than this.
|
McCune, KS Resident2
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 7th, 2009 03:20 am |
|
Check out: http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-mayor-shoots-dogs-story-2309,0,7787445.story
This is a pretty accurate story except for the testimony from "Gomez" a known heroin-head.
|
Current time is 12:48 pm | |
|
