Can I sue neighbors/sheriff's dept?

[CdwJava]

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.

We don't know that they did not take a report. We only know that the deputy did not speak to the OP's husband at the hospital. That doesn't mean he did not take a report of some kind. It may not have been thorough, but the husband's situation was not really an element of any crime that occurred. He could have interviewed the neighbor that did the shooting, might come back for the vet at a later time, and could easily interview anyone at some later time if needed. Bottom line is this is at best a misdemeanor, and if the dog was out of control and off the property, arguably not even that.

And, I am STILL curious how a downward shot at the dog resulted in a bullet whizzing past the head of a man standing up???? Perhaps, the husband's reaction was to the gunshot and a psychosomatic response to the gunfire as opposed to any round actually whizzing past?

 

[Gail in Georgia]

"And, I am STILL curious how a downward shot at the dog resulted in a bullet whizzing past the head of a man standing up???? Perhaps, the husband's reaction was to the gunshot and a psychosomatic response to the gunfire as opposed to any round actually whizzing past?"

Working in a VA Medical Center with veterans with PTSD, that was my first thought. Some of what the OP posted doesn't make a lot of sense.
Gail

 

[Three]

We don't know that they did not take a report. We only know that the deputy did not speak to the OP's husband at the hospital. That doesn't mean he did not take a report of some kind. It may not have been thorough, but the husband's situation was not really an element of any crime that occurred. He could have interviewed the neighbor that did the shooting, might come back for the vet at a later time, and could easily interview anyone at some later time if needed. Bottom line is this is at best a misdemeanor, and if the dog was out of control and off the property, arguably not even that.

And, I am STILL curious how a downward shot at the dog resulted in a bullet whizzing past the head of a man standing up???? Perhaps, the husband's reaction was to the gunshot and a psychosomatic response to the gunfire as opposed to any round actually whizzing past?

Thanks for answering my questions.

Yes, I was wondering about a PTSD reaction, also, which is why I thought finding the bullet might shed light. Another commenter suggested that the right combination of downhill slopes (from the shooter to the dog, and then a steeper grade from the dog to the husband) could cause that result. Another possibility might be that two shots were fired (if, perhaps, the shooter missed, or thought he missed, with the first one). There is nothing in the OP to support either of those two theories, but examining the landscape and accounting for the bullet(s) would help.

Someone else pointed out that this detail might not matter if there is a crime merely in firing guns in the general direction of people in the first place. It might matter more if it becomes a civil matter rather than criminal. There might also be evidence to support how much of a threat the dog was to the shooter: if the dog's wound proves that the dog was shot "in the back" as it was facing away from the shooter...the location of the dog's blood which the OP could photograph, etc.

As someone else pointed out, and you seem to agree with, it is probably not okay for someone to shoot a dog simply because it is "loose" if it is not posing a threat.

We also don't know what kind of a dog it is. There might be a difference between an "old, fat" Doberman and an "old, fat" beagle. But most reasonable people don't go shooting guns near houses merely because the neighbor's dog wanders into the road or sniffs around their mailbox. Complain, yes. Shoot, no.

And as an aside for whatever it's worth - and I do understand we're in a terrible economy - I wish those folks who rant in a knee-jerk fashion about paying taxes would recognize the consequences. I sometimes get the impression that some assume, possibly without enough thought, that services will continue at a high level no matter what, just because they've always been there.

 

[quincy]

Thanks for answering my questions.

Yes, I was wondering about a PTSD reaction, also, which is why I thought finding the bullet might shed light. Another commenter suggested that the right combination of downhill slopes (from the shooter to the dog, and then a steeper grade from the dog to the husband) could cause that result. Another possibility might be that two shots were fired (if, perhaps, the shooter missed, or thought he missed, with the first one). There is nothing in the OP to support either of those two theories, but examining the landscape and accounting for the bullet(s) would help.

Someone else pointed out that this detail might not matter if there is a crime merely in firing guns in the general direction of people in the first place. It might matter more if it becomes a civil matter rather than criminal. There might also be evidence to support how much of a threat the dog was to the shooter: if the dog's wound proves that the dog was shot "in the back" as it was facing away from the shooter...the location of the dog's blood which the OP could photograph, etc.

As someone else pointed out, and you seem to agree with, it is probably not okay for someone to shoot a dog simply because it is "loose" if it is not posing a threat.

We also don't know what kind of a dog it is. There might be a difference between an "old, fat" Doberman and an "old, fat" beagle. But most reasonable people don't go shooting guns near houses merely because the neighbor's dog wanders into the road or sniffs around their mailbox. Complain, yes. Shoot, no.

And as an aside for whatever it's worth - and I do understand we're in a terrible economy - I wish those folks who rant in a knee-jerk fashion about paying taxes would recognize the consequences. I sometimes get the impression that some assume, possibly without enough thought, that services will continue at a high level no matter what, just because they've always been there.

It sounds like you want to be a crime scene investigator, Three.

No law enforcement agency, regardless of their resources, is going to take measurements, investigate the trajectory of the shot, examine the dog's wounds or blood splatter to determine where he was standing when he was shot, look for a stray bullet or two, take crime scene photos. . . . . . .a dog was shot.

And, as sad as the shooting of a dog is, in most states (including Colorado) dogs are still for the most part considered property. The dog's injuries would be considered property damage.

There are animal cruelty laws in place in all states and that is something that can be considered, and possible charges could come from the neighbor's discharge of the firearm, and there is some chance vet bills can be recovered but, seriously, a dog was shot. This is not a CSI episode.

 

[Ladyback1]

Regardless of whether the officer completed a "report" or not, there should still be a record of the incident.

Having worked as a 911 dispatcher, here's how our system worked: a call came into the center, and that generated a CFS (call for service). An officer was dispatched. The officer would relay information he/she wanted placed in the CFS, and/or would provide us w/ the disposition of the call (unfounded, ticket, arrest, etc.) and ask for the call to be left open so that he/she could enter comments upon return to the station.
The officer could request that a "DR" number be assigned, which indicated he/she would be writing up a more detailed report.

Most modern dispatch centers have some sort of similar system in place. (I realize that there are still very small departments that do not have an actual 911 dispatch center). And the OP can request a copy of the CFS.

 

[Three]

It sounds like you want to be a crime scene investigator, Three.

No law enforcement agency, regardless of their resources, is going to take measurements, investigate the trajectory of the shot, examine the dog's wounds or blood splatter to determine where he was standing when he was shot, look for a stray bullet or two, take crime scene photos. . . . . . .a dog was shot.

And, as sad as the shooting of a dog is, in most states (including Colorado) dogs are still for the most part considered property. The dog's injuries would be considered property damage.

There are animal cruelty laws in place in all states and that is something that can be considered, and possible charges could come from the neighbor's discharge of the firearm, and there is some chance vet bills can be recovered but, seriously, a dog was shot. This is not a CSI episode.

I'd be perfectly happy if the neighbor paid the vet bills and was cited for illegal discharge of a weapon (in a residential area, towards people, whatnot).

The other stuff is mostly just to determine the level of threat from the dog, in case it makes a difference. As people have thought this through here, it appears that most of the detail is probably unnecessary, as I've acknowledged.

But yes, I do tend to burrow too far, that is true .

 

[quincy]

. . .
But yes, I do tend to burrow too far, that is true. . .

There is a touch of justalayman in you, I sense (and I mean that in a very nice way).

 

[CdwJava]

Thanks for answering my questions.

Yes, I was wondering about a PTSD reaction, also, which is why I thought finding the bullet might shed light.

Finding a single bullet is not going to be easy, and given the nature of the call, CSI is not going to respond to look for it.

Another commenter suggested that the right combination of downhill slopes (from the shooter to the dog, and then a steeper grade from the dog to the husband) could cause that result. Another possibility might be that two shots were fired (if, perhaps, the shooter missed, or thought he missed, with the first one). There is nothing in the OP to support either of those two theories, but examining the landscape and accounting for the bullet(s) would help.

There's any number of possibilities, but unless neighbors across the street from each other are built on a significant enough slope, we're not likely to get a round fired at a dog whizzing past a head. I've investigated shootings in all manner of terrain, and it would be an unusual confluence of circumstances, slopes and angles to make that possible without a ricochet or skip.

Someone else pointed out that this detail might not matter if there is a crime merely in firing guns in the general direction of people in the first place.

It is almost certainly a crime to discharge a firearm in a reckless manner, and if the direction the round was fired had homes or people, it becomes far more incumbent upon the shooter to show immediate harm or death to try and overcome the dangerous discharge.

It might matter more if it becomes a civil matter rather than criminal.

This is much more a civil matter than criminal already. Given that the OP did not believe a report was taken, she and her husband may have to sue the neighbor for the damage to their dog.

There might also be evidence to support how much of a threat the dog was to the shooter: if the dog's wound proves that the dog was shot "in the back" as it was facing away from the shooter...the location of the dog's blood which the OP could photograph, etc.

Unless the angle was clearly from the back as the dog was retreating, a shot in the back would not be conclusive. And the cost of that analysis would not be something the plaintiff could likely claim in a lawsuit.

And, if the shooter were not the perceived victim of the dog attack - perhaps another family member or pet was - then the shot to the back would make little difference unless, again, the dog was retreating from all potential harm..

As someone else pointed out, and you seem to agree with, it is probably not okay for someone to shoot a dog simply because it is "loose" if it is not posing a threat.

Correct.

We also don't know what kind of a dog it is. There might be a difference between an "old, fat" Doberman and an "old, fat" beagle.

Could be. But, I wouldn't want to be bit by either ... I have nightmares of rabies shots from when I was a youth in the '70s!

And as an aside for whatever it's worth - and I do understand we're in a terrible economy - I wish those folks who rant in a knee-jerk fashion about paying taxes would recognize the consequences. I sometimes get the impression that some assume, possibly without enough thought, that services will continue at a high level no matter what, just because they've always been there.

Good point.

Services are cut when the money dries up. The first things to go are the non-priority programs that are preventative in nature, but not vital to the overall operation of the organization, and then low priority calls for service like thefts and misdemeanors. In CA there are many agencies that do not take property crimes reports, and those that they do receive no follow-up and little in the way of forensics (such as fingerprints). The DOJ will no longer even test for the presence of drugs in cases involving drug influence cases because they are down to less than half of their forensics staff over the last three years. It's a mess and likely to get worse.

 

[Three]

There is a touch of justalayman in you, I sense (and I mean that in a very nice way).

Ha ha! Well obviously I am brand new here and so I don't know justalayman, but I'll have to pay attention