Originally Posted by The Bear:
..........
For one thing there is no mention of evidence or witnesses that the dog was the same dog that had been worrying sheep, or that it was the same dog that had killed the ram.

I pointed that out in posting # 5. Do pay attention Bear!

It's a small village. It's probably the only rotty in the area, or at any rate, the only one that's out of control. I stated that there had been complaints about this particular animal before.

Originally Posted by :
Then there is no mention of evidence that the dog that allegedly attacked the farmer was the same dog that was allegedly shot.

Well seeing the alleged dog was in the same alleged garden as the one the alleged farmer was allegedly attacked in I reckon that's pretty conclusive proof.

Originally Posted by :
The ONLY evidence motioned is that allegedly given by a doctor who allegedly treated the wound and all that he could do would be comment on the nature and probable cause of any wound.

So a busy working farmer who milks about 270 cows three times a day goes around making up stories about out of control dogs in order to ....... in order to what exactly?

Now I don't know about the doctor's experience, but I will allege that the average doctor after five years of theoretical training and two years practical training as a houseman can probably tell the difference between a dog bite and say a hamster bite!

Furthermore if a patient turns up in casualty asking for a tetanus jab because they state that they have been bitten by a dog I would reckon the average doctor would probably believe them. Especialy if the wound looked like a dog bite.

Originally Posted by :
Given that the bench have a Justices Clerk it is inconceivable that he or she would have not pointed this out to the Bench.

If I’m wrong then a link to a story in a paper will prove it and I will slink back tail twixt legs, but as things stand, sorry, I’m not sold.

So what? It sounds as if the apparently sensible magistrate chose to believe the farmer and the casualty doctors report. He was probably glad to see the back of the rotweiller. I stated this was a rural area, did I not? If this incident had happened in the middle of Chiswick and the magistrate was a PC eco-femmi-nazi then I'm sure the result would have been very different.

I have no idea if the story was reported in the local papers or not. Google away to your hearts content. I'll be glad if you do find reference to it.

I stand by my posting. 100%.
[Rep]

Although I have no doubt it may well be something that was passed to you I'm sorry, but I'm still not sold.

I may be totally wrong, but it all sound just too much of one of those apocryphal stories that emerge from time to time.

If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong, and will crawl at to a appropriate degree, but until proven to be wrong I don’t believe a word of it.

It just doesn’t stack.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
Er, no. The police can't (and don't) just go round arresting people at will.

If there's clear evidence of a crime being committed and there is a suspect (which in this case there were) then if there's enough evidence to proceed to court then it is only right that the case is brought before the court.

The police can not, and must not, choose when to enforce the law and when not to. It is for the court to find the person guilty or not guilty, not the police.

They are choosing when they decide to hand it to the CPS and the courts. They always have a choice to make.
[Rep]

It was related to me in good faith, I took it in good faith, and I believe the farmer.

I have discussed it with a couple of friends, and they have agreed that the son was lucky to get the result he did. I too expressed my surprise to the farmer at the time.

I have also googled all the local papers I can find in his area, and can find no mention of 'shot rotweiller', 'dog shooting', 'dangerous dog', 'dog shooting charges', and various combinations of. Perhaps the reporter wasn't in court that day, or for that case, or a more spectacular incident elsewhere in the area knocked it off the newspaper pages.
[Rep]

So here’s why I think it’s an apocryphal story.

In the first place like all such stories it’s based on a fact, in this case that a dog or dogs worrying sheep may be instantly destroyed by the owner of the sheep or his agent.

That’s the law.

So the scene was set.

Here’s where it goes off the rails.

In the first place there is no PROOF that the dog was the same dog that allegedly attacked the farmer. That it was of a breed that was unusual in the village proves nothing, and certainly nothing in law.

Next his visit to hospital. There is no way short of DNA analysis that the dog that cause an injury could be positively identified as a Rottweiler let alone THE Rottweiler.

Now The Deed where the son is supposed to have shot the dog. That is where the whole thing gets exposed.

Irrespective of the dog being or not being the dog that attacked the man the law is very clear on firearms and the son would most definitely have been charged with having a loaded firearm in a public place which is an offence in its own right under Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968.

He would also have been charged under Section 161 of the Highways Act 1980 (England & Wales) which makes it an offence to discharge a firearm within 50 feet from the centre of a public highway, road, bridle path, or footpath.

The Police and the CPS are red hot whenever firearms are involved since the issue is not only the case in hand but also sending a message to the world at large what is unacceptable behaviour and that it will not be tolerated.

Because of the charges made the case could not have been dealt with in a magistrates court and would have had to go before a higher court with the magistrate sending the case up, he would not have had any option and his Clerk of the Justices would have made that very clear before the case was even called.

So nice story, if you like the alleged outcome which I absolutely do NOT, but certainly at least in my opinion an Urban Legend.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
He would also have been charged under Section 161 of the Highways Act 1980 (England & Wales) which makes it an offence to discharge a firearm within 50 feet from the centre of a public highway, road, bridle path, or footpath.

Not been invited out shooting in Norfolk then ?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
Not been invited out shooting in Norfolk then ?

Norfolk doesn’t count.

Up here a shot gun is seen as a form of communications.

“An Ely Grand Prix No.7 with its 1 1/16 ounce load is worth a thousand words!”
[Rep]

1. It was a Friend Of A Friend. I smell a rat.
2. That dog should have been killed by the police. It's not his right to go round killing dogs on a whim.
[Rep]

The local news reporter went up to see the Farmers son on the intention of writing a story.After taking down all the details. When he had finnished he scribbled the headline, English farmer shoots dog, "no " says the farmers son "Im not English"
"oh OK then how about British Farmer kills Devil Dog"
"No you dont understand " says the farmers son " Im adopted,I come from Pakistan"

"Thats great leave it to me" says the reporter

The following day in the paper there is a big headline




**** ******* MURDERS FAMILY PET
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Zak64:







So a busy working farmer who milks about 270 cows three times a day



.

Sorry for being picky, but who milks Cows THREE times a day? I've always understood Cows were milked early in the morning and late in the afternoon!
Getting back to thread,if the story is true then it gladdens my heart, real justice at last!
[Rep]