UPDATE: Not Guilty verdict in dog ‘warning shot’ case

Evergreen State gun rights activists may cheer today’s outcome of a self-defense shooting case involving a dog attack that this column discussed here.

Retired Cincinnati, Ohio police Lt. Harry Thomas was found “not guilty” by Carmel, Indiana City Court Judge Brian Poindexter following a three-hour bench trial that, in the Pacific Northwest, probably would never have happened because no charges would have been filed. It is legal here to defend one’s self with whatever force necessary from an attack that, in the mind of any reasonable person, could result in grave bodily harm or death. If somebody’s dangerous mutt is fatally injured as a result, that’s the dog’s tough luck for making a fatal error in the victim selection process. Of course, a report will be taken, and there may even be an investigation, but it would be hard to imagine charges against somebody who shot a dog that sank its teeth into one of their extremities.

Thomas is the ex-cop who fired a single round into the ground on his own property, within inches of his own leg last October when a neighbor’s vicious dog put a jaw lock on his lower limb, after having menaced a neighbor who was walking her small dog across the street from Thomas’ house. His legal adventure began when a responding police officer wrote a report that resulted in a charge against him; a case that got attention on three different gun rights forums, here, here and here. We wrote about his dilemma the other day, noting that today was his trial date.

Self-defense shootings against dog attacks in Washington State is rare because people generally aren’t armed with a .45-caliber Smith & Wesson Model 1950 double-action revolver when such an attack happens, as was Thomas when this incident went down, which he subsequently described on a gun rights forum here. According to Thomas’ account of the trial, the prosecutor tried repeatedly to trip him into admitting that he didn’t have to fire the shot, but Thomas, who had appeared at numerous trials as a witness during his law enforcement career, offered an affirmative defense; that is, he testified as his own expert witness, explaining how firing as he did was the only safe thing to do.

The judge even acknowledged – against prosecution arguments – that under Indiana law and local ordinance, firing in self-defense does not necessarily require shooting someone or some animal fatally. There is no prohibition against “warning shots,” even though firing one is frowned upon by police agencies, a fact that Thomas confirmed under cross examination.

Dog attacks are not unheard of around the Pacific Northwest. We discussed a couple of nasty ones the other day in our initial coverage, here and here.

Thomas told this column that the verdict sets something of a precedent, that one needn’t kill when firing in self-defense.

“We now have a precedent that you are not required to shoot-to-kill,” he said happily.

During his police career, Thomas never had to kill anyone, and one suspects he sleeps well at night as a result.

Thomas had a couple of very good witnesses who testified about the dog that attacked Thomas, and the dog’s mate. The owner of those dogs has since moved farther into the country, apparently in part to keep his animals away from people.

The retired cop from the Flatlands may not realize it, but his actions may offer some guidance to citizens of the West, and no doubt there will be more discussion about this subject.

PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE by clicking on the link above

And Don’t forget to visit:

Hunting-Washington.com

GunnersLair.com

TheHighRoad.org

Northwest Firearms.com

GunRightsMedia.com