Posted on 04/13/2006 5:18:04 AM PDT by AmericanMade1776
A Foxborough man was arrested and charged Wednesday after shooting his neighbor's Siberian husky dog, Kato.
NewsCenter 5's Gail Huff reported that the incident has divided many residents in the community, who are debating whether the incident is a case of animal cruelty or self-defense.
The dog was given to Beverly Wigmore by her children 11 years ago.
"My mother used to walk him every morning. He kept my mother young. My mother's in good shape for 67," her son, William Wigmore, said.
Wigmore runs a home day-care center and Kato was part of the backyard family, but neighbors remember the dog sometimes escaping the fence and wandering through other yards.
Wednesday, Kato wandered to East Street where Frederick Grossmith, 48, lives. He said Kato and his own dog started fighting and, he told police, when he tried to break them up, Kato bit him. He then got his gun and shot Kato in the head.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Massachutsets is one weird state.
L
It's never a good idea to try to get in between two dogs that are going at it. There's a strong likelihood you'll get bit. And if you do, it's hardly the dog's fault.
A broom handle or pepper spray generally work well to break up a dog fight.
Yep. Remind me not to ever live there.
Ya, that's just plain nuts.
Instead the dog owners that didn't secure their dog should be paying his medical and vet bills. And if they wanted to press it, pain and suffering.
Well, ya know the GUN is EVIL, as is the OWNER of an evil firearm.
How dare he not rely on the STATE to defend him.
Yes...and I thought they had leash laws in Massachusetts, why wasn't the owner of the dog ticketed.
Kato? Like the house guest in the Simpson case? The Simpson Akita was named Kato, too.
This is exactly what Liberalism gets you. The DOG has more value than the Human, the DOG is the offended by virtue of the invented fact that the gun is the evil thing. Let me guess, the Dog was pregnant too thereby making him guilty of multiple murder of dogs which are more valuable than humans.
If YOU, Massachusetts, allow this man to lose his CONSTITUTIONAL right to his firearm and his RIGHT to self preservation and the RIGHT of protection of his private property ON HIS PRIVATE land then we are ALL losers.
well done, well done
The dog is on someone else's private property attacking the property owner's dog.
That's hardly the property owner's fault.
The fault lies with the stray dog and the stray dog's owner.
I dont believe this.(I really do I just dont want to)What has happened to the right of a person to enjoy and protect private property.Do dogs in Mass. have more rights than people.Can you not protect your own dog on your own property.??Perhaps I am missing something...
He was arraigned in Wrentham District Court Wednesday and the judge ordered him to stay away from Kato's family.
I presume they mean Kato's owners? Or this:
Police confiscated all his weapons.
What a strange planet this Massachusetts must be.
Please provide a quote where I blamed the property owner.
Sorry, my dogs are like family. I would probably kill another dog that got after mine -- especially one that had repeatedly been a problem in the area. I would not use the broom you mentioned to shoo it away. FWIW, I find that fireplace irons work much better and are generally more reaily available than pepper spray (don't have any of the useless stuff in the country) and a broom (tucked away in the pantry and the shed)
The two animal-related charges carry a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and a $2,500 fine.
But Dale Wigmore and his 38-year-old brother, Bill, said they expect Grossmith probably won't go to jail if convicted.
`` I hope he's embarrassed,'' Dale Wigmore said, adding that he knows Grossmith.
He said Grossmith knew his dog because it has been on his property before.
`` The dog was really nice,'' Bill Wigmore said.
He said his mother would baby sit for him, and the children loved the dog.
Bill Wigmore said he has contacted a lawyer about a potential lawsuit against Grossmith.
`` I'm not against people who have guns. I know it's a constitutional right. But certain people should not have guns,'' he said.
Grossmith's lawyer defended his client's actions.
Attorney Keith Langer of Wrentham said Grossmith acted within his rights under state law regarding the protection of livestock and property.
Grossmith gave a written statement to police in which he said Kato fit the description of a dog that had been attacking his cattle.
Rowe said Grossmith also told him he was injured while trying to break up a fight between his own dog and Kato, but police said they found no other dog in the area.
Langer also said Grossmith's injuries were consisted with his client's statement to police.
When asked if Grossmith was surprised he was arrested, Langer said, `` I think anybody who believes they are acting in self defense would be surprised that they were being prosecuted like a criminal.''
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2006/04/13/city/city1.txt
Would he like it if "Certain people should not have dogs..." like those who place children and a large dog in the same back yard?
I fixed it for ya. :)
Grossmith `` took the time to load the rifle and shot him once in the head,'' Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Rowe told the court.
Grossmith, who was about 30 feet away when he fired the shot, said the dog died instantly, accord ing to a police report filed by police Detective Brian Gallagher.
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2006/04/13/city/city1.txt
LOL. So some rights are rights only certain people should have?
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.