[bbluebird]

The cop who wrote the summons probably only did it because the dog's [irresponsible] owner was wailing like a banshee over the dead dog and the cop didn't want the owner's anger directed at him. The guy with the mallet protected his property, his animals, from a potential threat that was not supposed to be in his yard.
>>
You don't get it. Despite the law, people feel that their dogs are members of the family. AND, it's the court judge who put the charge on the vet after he was originally released without charges. Beyond that, if the guy was so interested in protecting his yard and had chickens and rabbits there, why didn't he fence his yard? After all, anything that attracts interest can be considered "an attractive nuisance" (a legal term). If your kid wanders in the vet's yard should he have permssion to beat your boy with a stick? No? Why not?

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

why didn't he fence his yard?

I've heard the above logic so many times. A man has a dog that roams on the land of other people. The dog kills livestock or damages the property of another. By your logic, each and EVERY individual harmed by that dog should build a fence (so many believe this). Why shouldn't the OWNER OF THE DOG be required to confine his animal on his land?

You must own a fencing company.