Skip to comments.Bristol man who shot neighbor's dog charged with felony animal cruelty
Posted on 08/01/2012 6:29:04 PM PDT by AlmaKing
BRISTOL A 5-year-old dog is recovering from a gunshot wound above his right eye and a local man is being charged with felony animal cruelty after shooting the dog on its owner's lawn last week, police said.
Michael Nelson, 36, a resident of Pike's Point Road, has been charged with cruelty to animals, a Class B felony punishable by 3½ to 7 years in jail, and criminal mischief, a misdemeanor, for shooting named Australian shepherd mix named Tucker.
Tucker, who is owned by Michael and Lynne Furey, Pasadena, Md., and who were staying at their summer cottage several houses down from Nelson's home, is recovering from a gunshot wound above the right eye, the bullet left the skull through his right ear and then hit the dog's rear right toe, said Lynne Furey.
The dog is suffering from a neurological problem and has trouble keeping its balance, Furey said. The toe also had to be amputated.
Nelson, who was not reachable for comment, told police that he was acting in self-defense when he shot the dog on the Furey's lawn at about 3:30 p.m. Friday as the Fureys and several friends sat inside their home, according to Detective Sgt. Timothy Woodward.
He claimed it was self-defense, that the dog had come to his yard and wouldn't stop barking, so he chased the dog to the owner's home and pulled out his gun, and shot the dog in the head, Woodward said.
Nelson legally owned the gun, a 9 mm pistol, Woodward said. But police charged him with a felony after the investigation showed his actions were not warranted.
If his life had been threatened or even minimally in danger, it might have been justified, Woodworth said. If this was a 100-pound Rottweiler, you might be able to understand it. But this was a 50-55 pound dog. He could have taken any number of other actions.
The Fureys, who don't know Nelson, said they were sitting with friends at different sides of the house when they heard Tucker barking, and then heard a gunshot, Lynne Furey said.
My husband came from one side of the house and I came from the other, and we see this man with a gun and our dog is rolling around in a pool of blood, she said. Of course we thought he was dying.
Nelson looked at the Fureys and told them to call the police. He said, 'I just shot your dog,' she said. He said something like, 'he was coming for me so I shot him.'
The Fureys rushed Tucker to an animal hospital in Plymouth. It was recommended that the dog be taken to a Boston veterinary hospital, where his toe was amputated.
He is still having a neurological disorder as the result of the gunshot wound, but is expected to make a full recovery in the coming months, Lynne Furey said.
The couple is still shocked by the shooting, though. He followed my dog with a loaded gun to our private property and shot him, she said.
You’re defending the “right” of this effing no impulse control, dumb felon-to-be to invade someone’s private property and shoot their dog because their dog was barking??? Then you inject “mad” to justify putting the dog down??? I expect that this ahole will be convicted and will serve substantial time and as a felon will never again be able to own a firearm. Had this barking mad nutcase come onto my property and and threatened my life by shooting my dog, I would have justifiably put the SOB down on the spot.
and please, cut the prissy moralities.
This is the most ignorant post I’ve seen on FR all day.
Dogs are not mere property, they’re valued and love3d members of the family......and if this asshat had shot my dog, prison would have been the least of his worries.
I can remember as a kid that I had several dogs on my paper route that would come running out and try to bite me. I corrected the situation by wearing a good set of boots and a squirt gun filled with ammonia. A squirt to the face and a quick kick solved the problem. Most of the dogs would subsequently race towards me, but abruptly stop at their property line. Didn’t have to shoot a single dog or owner.
Just curious - Have you ever had a dog you loved?
Ping to a fellow JRT owner with strong opinions. :)
IMHO this guy was waaay out of bounds. Nobody shoots my dog on my property. Talk to the owners, call the cops, whatever. Sounds like a nut.
“The guy should have shot the dog when it was on his property.”
Maybe he didn’t because it never *was*.
You have the word of a lunatic who shoots dogs in their own yard.
“’I just shot your dog,’ she said. He said something like, ‘he was coming for me so I shot him.’
He was “coming for him” as he “chased the dog home”?
That makes no sense at all.
Sounds like BS, IMO.
People who make comments like that need to be on leashes -- very short leashes.
Well then why don't you do what the dogshooter did -- chase them back to MA and shoot them.
I would rather give the benefit of the doubt to a human rather than a dog.
I don’t care what the circumstances. Somebody shoots my dog and instant double-tap. Their relatives can tell me later why my dog was shot.
Of course you would.
Obviously, this nutcase is your kind of guy.
[one of the parties involved can lie and justify himself...the other party cannot speak or defend himself...how *convenient*]
“Dogs are not mere property, theyre valued and love3d members of the family......”
Perhaps your dog is a valued and loved member of your family, but to me your dog is your property that must be kept in leashes unless it is not barking mad.
I have absolutely no problem with dogs, but their owners must treat them as their property keep them in check. Dogs are not like spoiled children that run around. I am certainly not advocating shooting at spoiled youths(i.e. true family members) that shout at you in front of your lawn. However, there are stories out there where irritated homeowners shooting at those punks.
He’s lucky it wasn’t one of my dogs, on my property. I’d have dropped him like a bad habit.
This remark is bizarre. You speak of "irrational" and potentially vicious creature and then state that they flee and continue to do so. That sounds predictable to me, if not rational.
Here's an analogy to the situation: if a bad guy comes in your house and you shoot him, no problem. But if he's on the other side of the threshold and you shoot him in the back, you go to jail.
He shot the dog on his neighbor's property. He can provide no evidence that it threatened him, has no witnesses to verify his claims, discharged a firearm in the proximity of other houses, and intended to destroy a neighbors pet.
By NH law when it is subjecting a dog to unwarranted and unnecessary cruelty, it is more than a fine.
“[one of the parties involved can lie and justify himself...the other party cannot speak or defend himself...how *convenient*]”
What is with this anthropomorphizing a dog? That dog, even when not shot at, is NOT going to speak for itself. Dogs are dogs. Deal with it. It will never be human. In this situation, the whole thing is merely about damaged property.
I am not disagreeing with you that the guy was excessive. I am merely trying to bring a bit of rationality into the conversation, which is practically marinated with irrational emotion and PETA-esque obsession with anthropomorphization.
“This remark is bizarre. You speak of “irrational” and potentially vicious creature and then state that they flee and continue to do so. That sounds predictable to me, if not rational.”
On the contrary, the dog was barking mad. From the description of the account from the guy, the dog was completely bat shit crazy. When dogs bark, especially 60 pounders, it is a scary sight and sound. The guy was a legal gun owner with no felony in the past. Now the guy exercises his right and it will be branded a hardened criminal? For shooting a barking big dog?
“Here’s an analogy to the situation: if a bad guy comes in your house and you shoot him, no problem. But if he’s on the other side of the threshold and you shoot him in the back, you go to jail.”
The only difference is that the dog is NOT a “guy”. It is a damn dog.
“...He can provide no evidence that it threatened him, has no witnesses to verify his claims, discharged a firearm in the proximity of other houses, and intended to destroy a neighbors pet.”
That is for the court to decide, but a felony for damaging a potentially dangerous and out of control property?
It is akin to your neighbor’s car rolling off their drive way about to run over your kid, then you shoot its tires out to stop it. Then the guy shooting gets charged with felony? How is that fair?
I would not give the benefit of the doubt to a criminal who *trespassed* on my property to shoot my dog.
I would give the benefit of the doubt to a *neighbor* who called me from his property to report he saw my dog in his yard.
Do you truly not grasp the difference??
Actually, you posting from *emotion* and trying to defend the shooter’s *trespass* onto the owner’s private property.
We get it. You’re scared of dogs. You don’t understand dogs. You think charging dogs flee back to their owner’s yards as a “sneaky” way of intending to come back to bite you.
The one in the wrong is the neighbor. In some parts of this country, if he was seen trespassing with a gun, he would have been shot *before* he shot the dog.
Think about that should you be tempted to “copycat” his trespass yourself.
A *barking* dog is not a “scary” sight to rational adults, whether male or female. A barking dog is a barking dog.
Those who are frightened of *barking* dogs are typically criminal-minded—barking dogs give away their location, and even their intentions.
You need to get some help for your fear.
A “mad” dog will not be *barking*. You have failed to do your homework and it shows.
The legal gun owner has a felony *now*. He should have thought with his brain as opposed to his marble-sized pair.
I suggest you properly educate yourself about dogs and possibly, seek professional help for your cynophobia.
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.