Posted on 04/02/2024 7:05:25 AM PDT by Red Badger
I don’t think anyone is disputing that he shot the dog. I think the question is whether or not he was justified in doing so. I haven’t seen what I consider credible evidence that he was.
~~~~~
That’s NOT how American law (or right vs wrong) works. You can’t charge the delivery man (or anyone else) with a crime without showing that he broke a law. You can’t do that here, and he stands innocent by right of self defense until you can.
I don’t think anyone is disputing that he shot the dog. I think the question is whether or not he was justified in doing so. I haven’t seen what I consider credible evidence that he was.
~~~~~
That’s NOT how American law (or right vs wrong) works. You can’t charge the delivery man (or anyone else) with a crime without showing that he broke a law. You can’t do that here, and he stands innocent by right of self defense until you can.
I said let's be serious. What you have put forth is a false equivalence. It is not the reality of the situation. The dog was no threat to that mans' life.
The idea that "Such feeble people should not be doing such a job." is absolute arrogance.
No it isn't. You said "I have witnessed people dying from a dog merely jumping on them." You are clearly exaggerating for effect, because the person in question is not someone who could even be knocked over by a dog, let alone killed from being knocked over. You are being unserious. Maybe such people as you mention exist, but they are not delivering food while packing a pistol.
I have witnessed two fully able strong men die instantly, falling from a standing position on the ground where they were standing.
If you say you have seen such a thing, then I will believe you, but this has to be some sort of extreme fluke, and is not something that could happen in ordinary circumstances.
I suppose if a man fell backwards and hit the back of his head on a stone or other hard object, it could happen, but barring that, such a thing seems impossible.
In any case, I don't think the man feared a dog knocking him down, but did instead fear a dog might bite him.
You know of many cases in which some sort of beagle mix ripped a man's leg off? :)
My wife has several Chihuahuas that can strip the flesh off of a man's bones in under three minutes. Or at least they act like they can.
If you are arguing that many women exhibit a form of mental illness, you will get no argument from me.
That is silly.
Yes, the dog represented a trip hazard. Need to shoot it.
Silly. Just silly.
No children were involved in this incident so far as I know, but I would be more afraid of a man who shoots a dog for no good reason than I would be of a mid sized dog.
Not furbaby, a dog-.
I think some of the women that use this term may not have children of their own, and their pets are the closest thing they can have.
Is it legal to shoot dogs *FOR NO PROVEN REASON* in North Carolina? I doubt it.
Seems like he needs to *PROVE* why he shot the dog. *HE* needs to prove the dog was attacking him. Not just sitting there, not just laying there, but *ATTACKING* him.
So far I think it's just his word, and so far as i'm concerned, that's not proof.
any dog can hurt you with their teeth.
an ankle biter or a poodle or a pittie.
I am waiting to hear the entire story- my 1st thought was “is this guy a Muslim?”
I also kinda agree that her dog was not secured, and she was expecting an online order of some sort, so that was not a smart move on her part.
anyhow, something always shakes out to add a whole new dimension to any story.
He stands guilty by virtue of the fact that company policy prohibits their delivery persons from carrying firearms........
And considering the facts that there were no bite marks nor torn pants, it's strictly his personal testimony that has no evidence of his claim.
Try supporting his claim when hopefully Angie sues the pants off of Instacart..........
I am thinking there is something odd about him, and "Muslim" was one of my first thoughts too.
I also kinda agree that her dog was not secured, and she was expecting an online order of some sort, so that was not a smart move on her part.
I have been told that she lives in a semi rural area, and it may be that it is normal for people to allow their dogs outside the house. I live in the country, and many of my neighbors leave their dogs outside to roam wherever they want. It's normal in the country.
anyhow, something always shakes out to add a whole new dimension to any story.
I think there is more to this story. Maybe we will find out more as time goes on.
~~~~~
He stands guilty by virtue of the fact that company policy prohibits their delivery persons from carrying firearms........
~~~~~
Yes, the company has the right to discipline their employee, but not because of anything he did to the dog. None of that has anything to do with legal guilt.
~~~~~
And considering the facts that there were no bite marks nor torn pants, it’s strictly his personal testimony that has no evidence of his claim.
~~~~~
Morality and the law do not require victims to submit to having the cr@p beaten out of them before they have a right to defend themselves from eminent credible threat.
Was the delivery man being threatened by the dog? AGAIN, prove that he wasn’t. Otherwise he stands innocent.
Add to that, a tree could have fallen on him too.......
None of that happened did it, so your argument is a failed one.
I do since there is no evidence substantiating his claim that it was in self defense. Such evidence would be bite marks or at least torn pants. Neither of which happened.
As for shooting the delivery driver, I'm sure the poster was merely exhibiting his frustration at the stupidity surrounding the support of the delivery driver.
Especially considering that the driver was in violation of company policy against carrying firearms......
That in itself will warrant a legitimate lawsuit against Instacart.....
Yes, that particular mental illness does seem to be more prominent among women ...
All it takes is one puncture wound to hit an artery.
Looks like a German Shepherd, which can be among the most dangerous dogs out there.
The issue, per usual, is the owner rather than the dog.
If you’ve got a potentially lethal dog charging at you, at what point can you defend yourself?
Prove that he was other than his heresay, otherwise he stands guilty.
But that's now irrelevant. Prove that he wasn't in violation of company edict that prohibits their employees from carrying firearms.........
As an employee and representative of Instacart, they are ultimately responsible for the actions of their employees when on the job.
...and sued accordingly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.