# No criminal charges in shooting death of GSD



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

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.
> ...


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

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 (Jul 23, 2010)

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


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

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_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=4ZTGxXyK&src=cat


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Some humans are just 

Buddy needs justice.


----------



## novarobin (Oct 4, 2007)

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 (Oct 14, 2010)

Wow


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

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 (Oct 11, 2005)

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 (Feb 28, 2006)

AbbyK9 said:


> 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.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

If this is the couple I am thinking of, they DID contact the rescue. The woman didn't get back to them immediately. When she did, she said she couldn't take the dog right then. When she called back to say "Hey, I'll come pick the dog up in a day or so" (sorry, can't remember the time frame) she was told that the dog had already been put down.

Do I wish it was different? Yes. But, people WILL react to a bite from a dog out of anger. Then when your support system fails, that might have been the last straw. I think everyone in his life failed poor Buddy. But, that doesn't make what the owners did illegal.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> 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.


I don't think we know enough about what happened to say the dog needed to be put to sleep.

This is a new dog in a new environment. I would love to know about the situation(s) in which the dog bit the new owner. Did they corner him? Hug him? Lean over him? Was his bite a reaction out of fear or discomfort? Did he have any physical pain? I would like to know more about what preceded the bite.

Any dog can bite, but that doesn't mean the dog is "aggressive" and needs to be put to sleep. A dog that is in a new environment and uncomfortable might bite it he feels threatened. I don't know what kind of experience these people had with dogs. I don't know what preceded the bite.

I do know that their reaction to the bite was to shoot the dog. If anything, their reaction should have been to call the rescue - either to ask for advice or to ask them to take the dog back. (If they did call rescue, I don't know - the article said the rescue wasn't called. It's possible they did call and the rescue said, "Let us see if we can have one of the fosters take him, we'll call you back." and that just wasn't fast enough. I don't know.)

I do know they had other options besides shooting the dog. Scheduling euthanasia would have been one. Calling the rescue and arranging for them to take him back would have been another.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

Since I am very close to Middlefield, I kept up on this, here are a couple of previous articles when this first happened.
'THEY SHOT MY DOG' Rescue agency said adoption of Middlefield dog was not complete - The Middletown Press : Serving Middletown, CT

and here's another
Dog shooting prompts call for centralized laws - The Middletown Press : Serving Middletown, CT

This dog was let down on so many levels,,starting with the "rescue" who took him out of the Humane Society. Apparently there are alot of "iffy" things regarding her procedures, such as pulling dogs on death row, and putting them into homes without fully evaluating/vetting them. 

The guy that shot him, supposedly WAITED 48 hours AFTER the dog bit, to take him out back and shoot him( The dog 'could' have been turned over to animal control vs taking him out back and shooting him.. Very sad for Buddy.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Maybe, maybe not. Some places put the dog down if they are returned to a shelter, so he may not have had a prayer on that avenue. I do not know that though. 

I think the people wanted to send to dog back, this was not what they were expecting when the dog is biting them. But when the rescue was unable to take the dog then, they felt they were getting the run around, and did what they felt they needed to do. We really do not know how much other aggressive behavior was being exhibited. 

It is really sad for the dog, the the rescue should have let these people know it might take some time for the dog to become acclimated, whatever.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

I agree, everyone failed.

The rescue only had the dog for three nights/days from the time they pulled him from the shelter. That's an awfully short time to give a potential adopter any kind of idea what they might expect from the dog. The rescue foster hadn't really learned anything about the dog in that short of an amount of time.

It does seem like the rescue followed up with them the day he was adopted and the next day, however, and things seemed fine. Also looks like they offered to come get him after they were informed he had bitten the woman, but were not able to arrange picking him up the day they got the phone message (Wednesday) and offered to come get him the next day. (Isn't that quite reasonable? The next day?)

And then they went out and shot the dog AFTER the rescue said they would come pick him up the next day? That seems very unreasonable.

From the article - 



> The couple called Gordon [the person from the rescue] shortly thereafter. She received the message Wednesday, returned their call and said she would come and get the dog Thursday morning.
> 
> Late Wednesday, the man called and said there was no need for Gordon to pick up the dog. He had shot the dog in the head.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> The guy that shot him, supposedly WAITED 48 hours AFTER the dog bit, to take him out back and shoot him( The dog 'could' have been turned over to animal control vs taking him out back and shooting him.. Very sad for Buddy.


Where does it say that?

All the articles say that the dog bit the woman on Tuesday night, so they called the rescue that night. The person from the rescue did not get the message until Wednesday morning and said she could come get the dog Thursday morning. But Wednesday evening (less than 24 hours after the dog bit the woman), the man called her back and told her he'd shot the dog.

They'd only had the dog since Monday.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

I misunderstood from the article, I thought I read, after he bit the woman, they put him a crate, called rescue, she called back a day later and said she'd pick him up a day later (thurs), but they had shot him already..So they basically waited around 24 hours,,even so, WHY in heck IF they called AC, they didn't just have AC do it humanely..

I don't care if people 'wherever' go out back and shoot their dogs, it's still inhumane in my mind ..I don't know how anyone could look down the barrel of a gun into the eyes of a dog and shoot them..


----------



## Roxanneify (Oct 27, 2010)

selzer said:


> *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.
> 
> ...



I completely agree with you about how it COULD be more humane, but who said this guy knew what he was doing? Hopefully he hadn't been doing this before. It has so many different factors that would go into killing a dog to make sure it would be completely painless... If the guy had went to that extent to make sure it was, assuming he did, he could have just saved himself all that trouble with a single phone call that showed how bad the situation was. Humane or not, he could have stressed to the rescue how important he thought they take this dog back, and I believe they would have taken the animal back if they knew it was so bad he was going to kill the dog. He wasn't telling them everything, obviously, or they would have. Animal control should have been called. I'm sure if the rescue honestly could not take this dog back, they should have arranged something.

Just like everyone else, I think this is just an awful situation. Hopefully the rescue changes A LOT of things. I just wish the guy would be punished. There are too many different options out there instead of whipping out your gun and shooting a dog you only had for two days. :\


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

anyone who knows how to shoot a gun and/or does any hunting can shoot a dog humanely. There are animal shelters in KY that as recently as 2 years ago euthanized using a shotgun; I wouldn't be surprised to know that many still still do it. There really isn't "effort" to shooting an animal quickly and painlessly - it's actually a lot less mess and work than doing it half-assed.

I really don't see a reason for the guy to be punished. It isn't ILLEGAL to shoot your dog to euthanize it. There was no evidence that the dog was handled inhumanely.


----------



## Roxanneify (Oct 27, 2010)

I've been hunting since I was very young, and so has many people in my family. I've seen people who have used guns practically all their lives still not kill a dog or coyote with a single shot, or that single shot just leaving the animal to go run off and bleed out. Watch videos of coyotes being shot. It's the same. The scream, jump up, freak out, run off, die. And those are shots from people who have used guns all their lives. Even point black while the animal is in a cage, it's still hard. Sure, often times they will die immediately from one shot, but it is not every time. You would have to know what you're doing if you don't want any suffering involved.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

The autopsy said that the dog was shot once, back of the head. It's unlikely that the animal took a while to die. I couldn't even count the number of people I know who have shot their dogs/cats/goats/sheep/horses to euthanize them. Sure, there are sometimes misfires, but the same goes for going to the vet to euthanize. There was just a story recently where the guy brought home his dog's body to bury and the next morning she was walking around the garage.
Unless you are purposely trying to cause pain, there is no reason that a shotgun would be any more painful than the needle.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

I don't think (and didn't say) that shooting a dog is any more or less cruel than any other form of euthanasia, I am, however, saying that it was not the right thing to do in this case. 

If the woman who adopted the dog felt she couldn't handle him or that he was aggressive, he should have gone back to the rescue and the rescue should have decided whether he should have been put down or not. Especially considering these people only had the dog for 48 hours before he bit her. (There seems to be some question as to whether the adoption was final yet or not at the time this happened, too, from what I understand from some of the early articles.)

I think people here failed on a pretty big scale.

As to how humane shooting a dog and cat is - I am with Dainerra. I don't think it's more cruel. I don't think any method is fool proof. There have been reports of various methods failing. It certainly would not be my preferred method. It may be cheaper than taking a cat or dog to the vet to be put down, but it should be a last resort, not a first option. It is messy and heartwrenching and I don't think the last image anyone wants of their furry friend is one with part of its head blown away and blood running across its face. At least that wouldn't be my preference. 

(For the record, I *have* done that, when vet was not an option. And I would not do it again unless there was no other option.)


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

If you are shooting a dog, you will tie it to a tree, and shoot it. It will not yipe and run across the fields as a coyote might that you shoot from a distance.

People are different, raised differently, etc. They view guns differently, some view them as a tool, others view them as evil. Whatever. People who have grown up hunting or farming, and police officers with k9s are going to view this very differently then pet owners who have not these experiences. 

Do we want our last vision of a beloved pet and friend to be seeing their brains??? Certainly not. But what if the vet could not squeeze you in until this afternoon, and you last images of your suffering dog goes on for four to six hours after the initial call? 

If I could not get my dog to a vet in a timely manner when they are seriously suffering, I would hope that I had the stomach to do the right thing for my buddy, and face seeing an unpleasant moment to alleviate the suffering. 

This dog was not physically suffering. These people were not his best buddies for years and years. If the dog bit the woman badly, and they called the rescue to get the dog out of there, and then the dog bit the lady again, also badly, I do not know if they actually did the best thing. Most rescues do not want to deal with dogs with a bite history. Pounds will euthanized them. It sounds like they did not shoot him for revenge or to make him suffer. 

I would cut them a break, and put the failure in this case on the shelter/rescue as they either did not disclose pertinent information as to the dogs temperament, or they did not take enough time to evaluate the dog, and or they did not bother to explain to the new owners what to expect. 

People hear all the time, "go to a rescue" "puppies are a crap shoot" "with an adult dog you know what you are getting" "rescues can match people up with the dog" "rescue dogs know they are getting a second chance" etc etc etc. I send people to rescues. 

I really do not think it is fair to the adopters in this case to have KNOWN that they should be expecting this type of a response from a dog they got from a rescue. Not unless they have spent so many thousand hours blogging on the internet sites for information prior to the fact. We may expect people to do the research etc, but people do not even know that is a consideration. 

This is not meant to bash rescues because many of them do an awesome job fostering dogs, testing them, socializing them, and screening people. But there are some places that hide under a rescue umbrella, pull what they consider to be very placeable dogs, incurring very little expense, and selling them to the first people willing to meet the price. By claiming every last thing remotely concerned with their business they can stay out of the profit collumn.


----------

