Posted on 04/02/2024 7:05:25 AM PDT by Red Badger
Famous “Law and Order” and “Charlotte” actress, Angie Harmon, said an Instacart delivery man shot and killed her dog.
Harmon wrote a lengthy post to her Instagram account Monday detailing the horror that allegedly happened at her front door. “This Easter weekend a man delivering groceries for Instacart shot & killed our precious Oliver,” she wrote. “He got out of his car, delivered the food & THEN shot our dog.” The actress posted a video and photographs of her small dog as she paid tribute to her beloved family pet.
Harmon went on to share more details with her 584,000 Instagram followers.
“Our ring camera was charging in the house, which he saw & then knew he wasn’t being recorded,” she said.
The actress explained that police were involved in the matter, but much to her dismay, they weren’t able to give her the closure she needed.
“The police let him go b/c he claimed ‘self defense’. He did not have a scratch or bite on him nor were his pants torn,” Harmon wrote.
The star said she was not expecting this particular person to be at her doorstep in the first place.
“He was shopping under a woman’s identity named Merle… the pic is on my story,” she said.
She followed up with some more disturbing information.
“He shot our dog with my daughters & myself at home & just kept saying, ‘yeah, I shot your dog. Yeah I did.’ We are completely traumatized & beyond devastated at the loss of our beloved boy & family member. #RIP OLLIE 🐶🐾🕊️🌈” she wrote.
Harmon turned off the comments on her social media account.
There was no further information provided.
“Would a reasonable man just shoot a dog that had not actually attacked him?”
ROTFLMAO!!!
If it’s the POLICE answering this question then the answer is YES!!!
It’s always YES.
“Cops are like a box of chocolates; they’ll kill your dog!”
That file still doesn’t work for me. I can’t open it with Paint even.
I disagree. It's obvious.
*YOU* have no evidence that the dog represented any sort of serious threat to the man.
*YOU* come up with evidence to prove it did.
I hear a gunshot in my front yard, I would be running toward it with my own gun, and upon seeing an armed man, I might very well shoot him.
My experience is the opposite. Police often go out of their way to side with the wealthy and famous. The wealthy and famous often are careful to generously contribute to things like local police charities.
The fact the police in this case are willing to take the side of a delivery driver against a wealthy and famous resident is telling.
This is not a domestic case. The driver is not related to Angie Harmon.
*YOU* have no evidence that the dog represented any sort of serious threat to the man.
*YOU* come up with evidence to prove it did.
~~~~~
AGAIN. The delivery man doesn’t have to prove anything. The onus to prove something is on the perspective prosecution. The delivery man is innocent until proven guilty.
I will not dispute that she seems to be part of the problem, but I don't think she was all of the problem. I think a guy carrying a gun and using it to shoot a mid sized dog under these circumstances may also very well be part of the problem.
His actions seem disproportionate to the threat he allegedly faced.
I think you read more into this than it deserves. Cops don't want to look like they are catering to the wealthy. You put them on the spot and nothing in the way of celebrity will stop them from treating you like a regular citizen.
Lots of videos on youtube showing cops refusing to give special treatment.
This is not a domestic case. The driver is not related to Angie Harmon.
Relations have nothing to do with it. A domestic disturbance is what this is. A disturbance at a domicile. Sometimes it involves neighbors. In this case it involved a delivery guy who is likely fired, possibly going to get sued, and maybe even charged with a crime.
I'm not arguing with the delivery man, i'm arguing with *YOU*.
You want to make claims, *YOU* prove them. *YOU* have no evidence the dog was aggressive.
So you condemn a man who shot a dog in reported self-defense, but you'd likely go ahead and shoot a man who posed no threat to YOU?
Hypocrisy abounds.
If shooting a dog is to be condemned, as you are, and shooting a person is your option, you have some real issues to deal with.
It's a DOG, not a person.
I don’t remember exactly how that was handled then...ca 1961-1962. There were about 30 -40 letter carriers in that post office and dog bites/attempts were fairly regular. I’m sure there was some kind of system.
You appear to be stretching. Domestic cases have everything to do with relationships, almost nothing to do with locations. Burglaries, home invasions, arson all can happen at residences, and not be anything domestic. Happening at a domicile is not the definition of a domestic case. This case did not even happen in the domicile, and may not have happened on private property, although such is not immediately clear. The driver might have been on private property when it happened.
Charlotte NC
If he's standing there with a pistol in his hand like a crazy man after just having shot my dog for no discernible good reason, then yes, I would likely consider him dangerous and use the exact same thing he claimed when he shot my dog.
"I thought he was going to attack me! He already shot my dog you know."
So would you use a different standard on the man from what he used on the dog? I see a man standing there with a gun as a far greater threat to me then I would that mid sized dog. That man can easily kill me.
If shooting a dog is to be condemned, as you are, and shooting a person is your option, you have some real issues to deal with.
It's a DOG, not a person.
It's the same d@mn argument *YOU* think justifies shooting the dog. If the claim "it might attack me" is good enough to kill, I fail to see why it doesn't work the same regardless of the nature of the threat.
The dog can only bite. The man can kill me.
The point is that the police don't want this type of hassle, and they will avoid it if they can.
Thanks for your reply.
Not in any way carrying water for the dog shooter.
Yes we have had dogs get out accidentally and were very glad they were found or returned without being hit by a car or shot.
I posted because I felt very bad for the dog and the owners dealing with this tragedy.
Perhaps nothing could be done to prevent the bad combination of a dog being out loose and apparently, a mistaken address visitor, armed and willing to shoot said loose dog,
Tragedy all around.
I dont think I could would ever shoot a dig unless it was attacking me or menacing others who couldnt escape or defend themselves.
Read my posts again. My only claim was that you are wrong to proclaim the delivery man’s guilt.
But thanks for proving that vicious dog ownership is about ego surrogacy.
and again, an abortion hi- jacker. go find an abortion thread.
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.