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.
Maybe he was, I just haven't seen any proof that this dog represented such a threat that shooting it was a reasonable thing to do.
But thanks for proving that vicious dog ownership is about ego surrogacy.
I think what I showed is that some people make up their minds based on a dislike of a certain type of people, such as famous actresses, and I consider this to be a very different thing than looking at the facts without bias.
I don't care who Angie Harmon is, I would look at this case the same way if this wasn't some sort of famous person.
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.