Bad: woman aims at dog but hits neighbor

[PaulJ]

Police: Shot Fired At Dog Hits Neighbor - Jacksonville News Story - WJXT Jacksonville

always consider what is behind your target... even though most of use would probably have done just what that woman did...? it is a bit of a freak accident with a ricochet bullet hitting a woman in a trailer next door.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[concealed]

Unfortunate incident. Hopefully she is not CCL. That would be a black eye we do not need.

[HotGuns]

Tough call.
A dog attacking your kid is gonna put you in the freak out mode and you probably just want it to stop right now.

Thats a bad deal for all involved.

[rolyat63]

I wonder how far away she was from the dog. If the child was still in the grasp of the dog .AND. she was far away enough to miss the dog completely could have been much worse if the child was still close.

Hope the lady that was shot recovers without problems and others learn from her mistake.

[Mxyzptlk]

Unfortunate incident. Hopefully she is not CCL. That would be a black eye we do not need.

Doesn't matter, really. She sounds like a LAGOC (law abiding gun owner-carrier). So, it reflects on all of us.

Dogs are often hard to hit with a gun. Gotta know what you're doing if you shoot at one. Just blasting away is kinda easy to do but hard to do effectively. And, safely, as this incident shows.

Since dogs cause a lot of emotional reaction, a gun, for the average non-trained LAGOC is probably not a good tool to use to stop a dog threat.

This is a pretty easy call for me: Just another LAGOC operating out of her range of competency. Some poor innocent woman ends up getting shot in the back.

The bullet went through the wall of a nearby mobile home and stuck a woman in the back as she was holding her 18-month-old child.

Thank God, the child wasn't hit/killed.

[Rcher]

Thank God, the child wasn't hit/killed.

Either one of them! She fired a gun at a dog while the dog was attacking her child? Whats wrong with this picture?

In the moment of duress and in fear of your life or another's, tunnel vision sets in and all else is oblivious. I'm sure the shooter never even thought about "what's beyond".

As gun owners, we all have a huge responsibility and it only takes a split second to find out what it is.

[kazzaerexys]

The neighbor was hit by a ricochet. Now, granted that might still be negligence, but I would generally consider the ground a safe backstop, and if firing at the dog was legally justifiable, I would say it is just bad luck for the neighbor. If anything, the dog owner might be liable for side-effects from a legitimate self-defense shot fired at the uncontrolled dog. Look at it this way---if she was shooting at an armed mugger and the bullet went through and through, hitting an innocent behind, it is still a legally justifiable shooting, and the mugger is legally responsible for the consequences. (Yes, the shooter might be morally culpable, but that is a different issue.)

On the other hand, if the kid was still wrapped up with the dog when she fired, then some sort of charge for endangering the child could be appropriate. And if she tries to defend herself by claiming it was just a warning shot, then I would say she is responsible for the injury to the neighbor.

Anyway, not enough info from the story to judge, but I am not immediately convinced that what the woman did was legally wrong.

[concealed]

but I would generally consider the ground a safe backstop

That cannot always be assumed. Though it is probably safe, it cannot be guaranteed. It is for this reason that the VALEAC standard for police department accreditation is "no warning shots fired".

[archer51]

Tough one to call. Bad that her shot ricocheted and hit an innocent person, but given the circumstance (protecting her child), a ricochet was the last thing on her mind.

One thing about this has me wondering. Did anyone else note, nothing is mentioned about her child being treated for dog bites. Was the child actually attacked, or was there a dog barking at the kid and she over reacted?

[PaulJ]

Outside of a range, in particular in an urban environment, it is very hard to find a safe backstop. I would consider the ground as "safe enough" in a defensive shooting (but not for target practice).

After thinking it over a bit, I don't think the woman was negligent, if she had a valid reason to shoot. The real question to me is if the dog was actually still attacking the kid, or if the kid was out of harms way. As others have pointed out, it would have been irresponsible to shoot with the kid close to the dog.

[kazzaerexys]

That cannot always be assumed. Though it is probably safe, it cannot be guaranteed. It is for this reason that the VALEAC standard for police department accreditation is "no warning shots fired".

That's why I said 'generally', but what I meant by that is this: if I were to shoot in legitimate self-defense, I would consider it a good shot to take if I were shooting downward and knew that the round would hit the ground before it had a chance to hit another person.

I believe I also agreed with you that shooting in that situation as a warning shot would remove any legal protection from the ramifications of the shot that I otherwise think the woman ought to have.

[gg12]

A ballbat or axe handle or toy sword would have easily taken care of the dog and never have hurt the neighbor woman in this situation. Hard for me to believe a woman would have a gun in the house but not some sort of club, especially since she has at least one kid

Of course, having a nonbiased reporter write the story would also help, seems like he left out alot (how old was the shooter's child? how injured was the dog victim? what surface did the bullet richochet off of...asphault, concrete, dirt? etc).

Sad story all the way around.

[Mxyzptlk]

... but I would generally consider the ground a safe backstop, and if firing at the dog was legally justifiable, I would say it is just bad luck for the neighbor. ...

J-U-S-T B-A-D L-U-C-K F-O-R T-H-E N-E-I-G-H-B-O-R????


That's not exactly a great argument to use when arguing with legislators, Brady Bunch or LE who bring up the probability that more guns on the street and in people's hands will mean more innocent people shot.

I hope the shooter has some insurance and/or wealth that can be used to cover the medical expenses of the shootee. And a goodly amount, too, for mental anquish and suffering. I mean, my God, the woman is in her home holding a baby and she gets shot in the back! I wouldn't want to be the one to tell her: "Just bad luck, lady."


Oh yes, we don't really know what the round ricocheted from. Why are some people assuming it was ground (dirt)? It could have been some other surface, like concrete or asphalt. Shooting a round at an acute angel on asphalt or concrete is hardly safe.

[deadeye72]

A ballbat or axe handle or toy sword would have easily taken care of the dog and never have hurt the neighbor woman in this situation. Hard for me to believe a woman would have a gun in the house but not some sort of club, especially since she has at least one kid

Of course, having a nonbiased reporter write the story would also help, seems like he left out alot (how old was the shooter's child? how injured was the dog victim? what surface did the bullet richochet off of...asphault, concrete, dirt? etc).

Sad story all the way around.

Ball bat or axe handle maybe, but you go out there with a toy sword and you are probably going to lose an arm. Dog comes at my kids gets lead. Any other option, I would have to go inside for. My gun is always on my hip, so that is what I will use. I try to always keep myself positioned in a way that if it became necessary to protect my children from a dog, I would be firing in a direction that would not create any problems if I miss or there is a ricochet.

[stormbringerr]

how badly was the kid hurt that was attacked? they need to find the dogs owner and let them share some of this also.