Can I sue neighbors/sheriff's dept?

[justalayman]

Yes, that's probably true, we're probably over-complicating things.

The only catch MIGHT be if it's necessary to prove that the bullet actually DID go past the husband's head. I don't doubt that it did, but I'm not a court of law. Attorneys for the other side might try to cast doubt, perhaps saying that a vet suffering from PTSD could hear gunfire and think a bullet was whizzing closer to him than it actually was.

Not defending such an argument - I agree with you that the main issue should be firing guns in the direction of people at all. But even if the argument were made, the only proof required might be to show where the bullet ended up after going past the husband's head. Hopefully it lodged someplace where it can be easily found.

the proximity will not alter any underlying charges on the shooter which appear to not be a possibility anyway. Hell, simply pointing a gun in the general direction of people is usually a crime. Even if there were charges, it would be upon the state to prosecute and provide any evidence or proof. The OP would have nothing to do with that.

 

[Three]

the proximity will not alter any underlying charges on the shooter which appear to not be a possibility anyway. Hell, simply pointing a gun in the general direction of people is usually a crime. Even if there were charges, it would be upon the state to prosecute and provide any evidence or proof. The OP would have nothing to do with that.

Yeah, I agree...I hope the law enforcement there gets off their duffs.

If that (unbelievably) should fail, though, is there any possibility that a claim could be filed against the shooter's homeowner's insurance? For all I know, that's ridiculous; am just speculating.

An earlier point - can a person INSIST that the police (sheriff's dept., whatever) look into something? Can they really just say NO, right at the very beginning, and that's that???

[Edited to add] Well, as has been mentioned before - if law enforcement (again, unbelievably) declines to get involved, the shooter could still be sued as a civil matter. And in that event, would the evidence and proof be the OP's problem?

 

[justalayman]

If that (unbelievably) should fail, though, is there any possibility that a claim could be filed against the shooter's homeowner's insurance? For all I know, that's ridiculous; am just speculating.

it is up to the homeowner to provide information for the OP to file such a claim if they so choose. I cannot say whether a homeowners policy would typically cover something like this or not.

what the police do though is irrelevant to the civil claims the OP has.

An earlier point - can a person INSIST that the police (sheriff's dept., whatever) look into something? Can they really just say NO, right at the very beginning, and that's that???

a person can insist. The police can refuse. It can go on like that until either the person stops, the cop leaves, or the cop arrests the person for disorderly conduct

 

[Three]

a person can insist. The police can refuse. It can go on like that until either the person stops, the cop leaves, or the cop arrests the person for disorderly conduct

For heaven's sake.

what the police do though is irrelevant to the civil claims the OP has.

I edited my last post to ask about this and our posts crossed...if this becomes a civil matter, would the evidence and proof then become the OP's problem? (Making the bullet, trajectory, etc. something they have to document and worry about?)

 

[justalayman]

For heaven's sake.



I edited my last post to ask about this and our posts crossed...if this becomes a civil matter, would the evidence and proof then become the OP's problem? (Making the bullet, trajectory, etc. something they have to document and worry about?)

the only thing the OP has a claim for is the dog injuries. I do not believe the cause of the injury is in dispute.

 

[Three]

the only thing the OP has a claim for is the dog injuries. I do not believe the cause of the injury is in dispute.

Not the husband's medical bills, which resulted from the shooting?

 

[quincy]

the only thing the OP has a claim for is the dog injuries. I do not believe the cause of the injury is in dispute.

It might be hard for wheatbug to even recover vet expenses, if the dog had left the owner's property and was not under the immediate control of the owner.

There could be, with what might be a legal stretch, a misdemeanor charge filed against the neighbor for animal cruelty, if the shooting of the dog can be viewed as "needless." If the neighbor is convicted of the charge, he would face anger management classes and fines, possibly jail time.

But it will depend on all facts, many of which seem a bit muddled here (especially the facts surrounding the shooting itself).

It is unlikely that any of the husband's medical bills would be covered.

 

[Three]

But it will depend on all facts, many of which seem a bit muddled here (especially the facts surrounding the shooting itself).

If the bullet was found lodged in the OP's porch or something, showing that peoples' lives really were in danger, I would hope that would unmuddle things a bit.

It amazes me that the police, as far as we know, didn't even go look.

 

[quincy]

If the bullet was found lodged in the OP's porch or something, showing that peoples' lives really were in danger, I would hope that would unmuddle things a bit.

It amazes me that the police, as far as we know, didn't even go look.

Well, facts matter and we have only a few of them provided by the dog owner. I imagine the neighbor and the sheriff could provide a few facts from their perspective that might differ from what we know now.

I guess we could - and probably should - wait to see if wheatbug (who interestingly, according to her forum profile, is also a disabled vet, just like her husband) comes back with some clarification or more details. Speculating does little good.

Whether s/he does or not, I think it would be smart for wheatbug to consult with an attorney in Colorado for a personal review of the incident. That is the best way for wheatbug to get an idea of what legal options may realistically be available to pursue against the neighbor (or, possibly, the sheriff).

 

[justalayman]

quincy;3209156]It might be hard for wheatbug to even recover vet expenses, if the dog had left the owner's property and was not under the immediate control of the owner.

oh for sure. I never got a response to my question about the dog being on the OP's property but OP did make it sound like dog had returned to OP's property. If so and the dog was no threat, there is no justification to shoot and then the vet bills would be recoverable.

You don't get to chase a dog down that is not threatening you and shoot it and if the dog was actually returning home, that is what it sounds like.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Colorado

... Our dog got out of our yard ... we heard/saw a gunshot from across the road where our closest neighbors live ... the dog had to have been in the road, NOT the neighbors open yard. And she had to have been coming HOME ... from the speed at which she appeared in our driveway, there's no way she could have been all the way over at the neighbors house ...
1. I feel my neighbor shouldn't have shot my dog, but since I don't know FOR SURE if she was in the road, I can't say. I'm sure a warning shot would have been just as effective ...

It appears that the dog was not in the owner's yard but wheatbug apparently does not know if the dog was in the neighbor's yard or in the road when shot, or whether for sure the dog was heading home.

I am curious about the "speed at which she appeared in our driveway" comment as, I would assume, the dog would be going pretty darn slow if shot.

Definitely more facts are needed - to determine if there is a chance vet expenses can be recovered or if there is any other legal action wheatbug's family can pursue against the neighbor, or whether any criminal charges are warranted.

 

[justalayman]

quincy;3209181]It appears that the dog was not in the owner's yard but wheatbug apparently does not know if the dog was in the neighbor's yard or in the road when shot, or whether for sure the dog was heading home.

I

am curious about the "speed at which she appeared in our driveway" comment as, I would assume, the dog would be going pretty darn slow if shot.

But she is old and fat and from the speed at which she appeared in our driveway, there's no way she could have been all the way over at the neighbors house.

the dog doesn't move real fast because it's an old fat dog. It showed up in the OP's drive too soon after the shot it for it to have been at the neighbors house but had to have been in the road heading towards the OP's house.

It might have moved slower because it was shot but that would mean the dog was even closer to the OP's house when shot.

 

[quincy]

I


the dog doesn't move real fast because it's an old fat dog. It showed up in the OP's drive too soon after the shot it for it to have been at the neighbors house but had to have been in the road heading towards the OP's house.

It might have moved slower because it was shot but that would mean the dog was even closer to the OP's house when shot.

Makes sense.

Not much else in the post does, though.

 

[TigerD]

I


the dog doesn't move real fast because it's an old fat dog. It showed up in the OP's drive too soon after the shot it for it to have been at the neighbors house but had to have been in the road heading towards the OP's house.

It might have moved slower because it was shot but that would mean the dog was even closer to the OP's house when shot.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious:

It doesn't matter how old and fat a dog or person are -- when shot in the a.. they all run to beat hell.

DC

 

[CdwJava]

I've never asked an authority) that when something happens that might have the potential for trouble, the first thing you should do is file a police report, just so something is on the record in a timely manner.

The mysterious "they" say a lot of things. Calling the police is one thing. This does not guarantee that a report can or will be generated. Even if one IS generated, there is also no legal requirement that a complete and thorough investigation be done.

I see a potential misdemeanor for the unsafe discharge of a firearm, and maybe property damage (the dog) or animal cruelty ... assuming the shooter cannot properly articulate a fear for their safety or the safety of others.

The law rarely requires an officer to make a report or investigate.

But now it sounds as if police departments can refuse to take or file reports, maybe even in a situation like this? I don't understand.

It's a matter of resources. The police cannot afford to write out and investigate incidents for which there is either no crime, or no real likelihood of prosecution. There are many agencies in my state that will not take property crime reports because of staffing cuts. Others, such as mine, will take the report, but the DA is so short-staffed that they won't file on them.

So, agencies take those reports they can deal with and those that it is worth the expenditure of resources to pursue.

That being said, I would have written something up on the matter - and it's possible that the officer did. It might be he just didn't get your husband's statement.