of course, the pit nutters are in an uproar about it. in the first incident, the nutter claimed that the shooter had his phone number so he should have called him up. and in the second incident, we get the same old tired excuse “She never displayed the slightest bit of aggression.” Pettay told GwdToday. “She got along great with dogs, cats, adults, children, bugs, you name it” blah, blah, blah.
SHERIFF TONY DAVIS weighed in.
The Greenwood County Sheriff Office told GwdToday that there is no ordinance that allows for the killing of a dog by an individual, although the owner or keeper of a dog must ensure that their dog is restrained at all times when not on their premises. “We do not condone the shooting of a dog by a citizen.” said Sheriff Tony Davis. “If you are in a situation where you feel threatened by any animal, move to a place of safety and call law enforcement.”
this ignorant hillbilly sheriff can condone and condemn all he wants, the shooters committed no crime and they had no duty to retreat. does SHERIFF TONY DAVIS not understand the state law or is he refusing to acknowledge it as the ultimate authority in these matters?
§ 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business
(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:
(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.
(B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:
(1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or
(2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or
(3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.
(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
(E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.
PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT
The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.
H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.
IS KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW NO LONGER A
REQUIREMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT?
If Sheriff Davis feels that these citizens have broken the law by protecting themselves, their families, pets, and livestock, he is free to bring charges. These charges will be thrown out of court. The laws are clear.
“move to a place of safety and call law enforcement.”
He did move to a place of safety - behind the trigger.
I suppose the nutters would have been happy if this person was a hostage in his own house, giving up freedom and security while animal control is busy not responding, allowing the animal to reappear and maul another day. (Which would be typical.) Good for this citizen - within the law and problem solved!
Wouldn't you love to be the attorney representing a future mauling victim in this area, someone who COULD HAVE legally used force to provide for their own safety, but didn't because of this Sheriff's statement? (Ka-Ching!)
Remember, when seconds count, help is just minutes away. It is always better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
i believe in the three s's , shoot , shovel and shut-up. why expose yourself to spineless law-enforcement after doing their job for them. not to mention nutter-scum who are never going to see that they were in the wrong , not you.
I'm currently living abroad, but moving back to the USA in a few months, partly because I'm not allowed to carry any Pit Bull protection where I live right now. (Guns, tasers, knives, pepper spray, etc.--all illegal). There are more pit bulls in the USA, but at least I'm allowed to defend myself. My plan was to get a taser to use in defending me and my dogs from pit bulls, but I almost think deadly force would be preferable. If I taser an attacking dog, the dog (and it's owner) will live to attack me or another person again. If I use deadly force, I only have to deal with the owner...
Is Sheriff Tony Davis aiding and abetting dog fighters and dog fighter breeders, who insist that they have the right to kill people and their animals with their fighting dogs?
It is pretty clear that when a sheriff is representing the interests of dog fighters, citizens must take care of themselves and not involve any such individuals or their staff.
In other words, what snarky said.
Davis needs to also be held accountable for any future injuries or deaths.
Animal control usually doesn't respond and even if they do, it is too late when a pit bull is involved.
"Cover Girl, an American Staffordshire/Boxer mix, was adopted from the Greenwood Humane Society by Al and Jennifer Gilchrist. According to Karen Pettay, Executive Director of the Greenwood Humane Society, when Cover Girl was picked up by County Animal Control in February 2011 she weighed only 36 pounds and had been neglected."
Karen Pettay of Greenwood Humane Society appears to be another pimper of fighting dogs. Did she ask herself why this dog had been abandoned before she foisted it off onto a family with young kids soon after it was picked up?
Hint Karen. They are fighting breeds, they have characteristics and behaviors of fighting breeds, and more than likely the dog bit someone or menaced someone and they dumped it. It's not a family pet, and anyone with even the slightest experience with and knowledge of canines wouldn't do such an insanely stupid thing.
She couldn't wait to shill off this dog, a dog she knew nothing about in the brief time Greenwood Humane Society had it, onto some idiot, ignorant housewife that was too stupid to even figure out that her situation was a bad fit for a fighting breed.
What kind of humane society adopts out pits found as strays in a dog fighter state, with no known background, to families with kids? Pettay is setting up a human death. She doesn't have the ability to responsibly handle her job. She is sending these dogs out to certain failure, and that is bad for all involved, including the dog.
I read this article carefully to see how the dogs escaped. Did they have good fences. Couldn't find out about the 1st dog. But Jennifer Gilchrist states in a comment that her "Sweet Baby Cover Girl" broke her runner and --"actually went inside our house and back out through a SCREEN WINDOW."
In one incidence, a man was confronted by the pit after leaving his father's home. He got the shotgun and returned to his dad's. He might've been concerned that the dogs had gotten to his dad, maybe the dad didn't have a phone or didn't answer. On the way to his dad's, the pit bull charged and got shot. He did nothing wrong. Of course, the usual suspects will moan.
One of the nutters was a female Gilchrist, why does that name sound familiar? I believe there is a gilchrist female vet who pimps pits.
Sharon, a taser only gives 2 shots at most, has a limited range, and isn't guaranteed to stick in the shit bull or even be effective on it. Get a gun if you can.
I want one of these
good memory dubv.
dr. julie gilchrist, part of the CDC conspiracy to hide the pit bull danger.
gun or knife. i can't recommend pepper spray or stun batons or tasers for gripping dogs.
wow, the comments at the link are truly hard to read. we need a new classification for this level of stupidity and gullibility.
to live without a sense of security in your neighbourhood or on your property or in your own home is a sad state of affairs . to be scared to protect yourself for fear of being blamed yourself is again a situation that shouldnt be . sometimes i think some people are way too nice for the modern world and what it has become .
no one was charged right?
the pit nutters were charged. one of them has over $1000 in fines. i assume the prosecutors have a better grasp law than the sheriff and the shooters will not be charged. but that's not the point here. this fucktard sheriff is making statements that could hinder people protecting themselves in the future. plus the chorus of intellectually bankrupt pit nutters on line are calling for retaliation against the shooters in the form of civil suits and violence. i am glad you are back pit nutter. why don't sashay on over there and educate your people. i'd really like to see pit bull owners educate their own on this level for a change.
I don't know how to sashay. Looks like justice will be served. That sheriff is bonkers. If a crazed mutant came after me and I couldn't stop it; I'd shoot it. What the hell is wrong with that guy?
hes a pit nutter
im thinking it could be P.P.D.
PITTERINE PERSONALITY DISORDER.
theres a lot of it going around these days.
Post a Comment