Woman fatally drags cocker spaniel with truck

On July 28, 2011, a horrified driver witnessed Cecilia Bojorquez’s cocker spaniel jump off the back of her pickup truck while she drove more than 50 mph down 45th Street in Lancaster, California. The dog was tied with a rope around its neck while being dragged behind the moving truck. Off-duty Animal Control Officer Derek Ames honked his horn and flashed his headlights but it wasn’t until two miles later that Bojorquez finally stopped.

According to Ames, the three-year-old brown cocker spaniel named Marley had severe injuries to her paws, legs, and belly. Bojorquez was eventually met by Lancaster sheriff’s deputies and arrested while Marley was taken to High Desert Animal Care Hospital in Palmdale. Marley’s injuries were so severe that she was “humanely euthanized.” According to Hospital Director Marcia Mayeda, this incident was one of the, “more agonizing animal cruelty and neglect cases in recent memory.”

Bojorquez plead guilty to felony animal cruelty charges and was sentenced to 3 years’ probation, 45 days community service, and $300 in fines and court costs. Authorities say Marley’s death could have been prevented if she was allowed to ride inside the truck. It is illegal in many states, including California, to transport a dog in an open-bed truck unless certain measures have been taken.

California Vehicle Code Section 23117: Carrying Animal in Motor Truck

No person driving a motor vehicle shall transport any animal in the back of the vehicle in a space intended for any load on the vehicle on a highway unless the space is enclosed or has side and tail racks to a height of at least 46 inches extending vertically from the floor, the vehicle has installed means of preventing the animal from being discharged, or the animal is cross tethered to the vehicle, or is protected by a secured container or cage, in a manner which will prevent the animal from being thrown, falling, or jumping from the vehicle.

Pit bull owner charged in cocker spaniel death

John T. Dunn of Streetsboro, Ohio faces multiple charges including two felonies for the July 15, 2011 dog attack on an elderly Rootstown, Ohio woman and her cocker spaniel. Dunn was charged with allowing his two pit bulls run free unleashed. He also failed to insure his pit bulls which are considered “vicious” under Ohio law.

Seventy-year-old Marie Hustead was bitten multiple times by Dunn’s pit bulls while trying to protect her cocker spaniel. Her wounded cocker spaniel had to be euthanized. Dunn agreed to the prosecutor’s request of surrendering the two pit bulls. Dunn was also ordered to pay care and upkeep costs for the dogs while at the dog pound.

Ohio’s Definition of Vicious Dog:

“Vicious dog” means a dog that, without provocation and subject to division (A)(4)(b) of this section, meets any of the following:

  • Has killed or caused serious injury to any person;
  • Has caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person, or has killed another dog.
  • Belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog. The ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima-facie evidence of the ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog.

This story is a follow up to: Pit bulls attack woman and kill cocker spaniel

Cocker thrown from car: Woman charged

I have been covering this story since March 19th.  Fifty-six year old Maximina Shelton has been charged with animal cruelty in the case of the cocker thrown from a moving car.  She and her husband tossed their cocker spaniel named Puddles from a 1985 green Buick LeSabre on March 18, 2011.  The vehicle had been identified thanks to witness description.  The Sheltons said they tossed Puddles from the car to get rid of her.  Puddles was renamed Bambi by the Shamrock Pet Foundation.  Bambi has kept her sweet disposition despite sustaining multiple fractures from the abuse done to her.  Sadly animal cruelty only carries a misdemeanor charge in Indiana.

Another dog shooting involving CCW holder

This case has a different circumstance than the previous incident. In the other case, the concealed weapons holder basically threatened to kill his neighbor’s pets then carried it out. In this case, the shooter’s dog was viciously attacked by a 100 pound mastiff. The mastiff latched onto the shooter’s greyhound’s neck and had drawn blood. The shooter had attempted to remove the mastiff by force with no avail. He commanded the owner to restrain her mastiff or he would shoot. I’m not sure what I would do if my pet’s life was threatened but drawing my concealed weapon would be a last resort. In this case, it appears the law was on the shooter’s side. Actually, it was a city ordinance that protected him:

Colorado Springs: Discharge of a weapon

It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of this section if a person discharges a firearm in an act of self-defense of the person, the person’s property or the person’s domestic animal.

This law is something entirely different that Colorado’s Concealed Handgun Permit. I would advise any CCW (carry concealed weapon) holder to check their local laws regarding this use. This was an unfortunate event for both pet owners involved–one lost her pet and the other was treated for severe wounds.

CCW Permit Holder Shoots Dogs

It happened in Miami, Florida.  George Doughty fired upon two loose dogs in his neighborhood; both belonging to his neighbor. One dog was fatally wounded while the pregnant Rottweiler survived.  Florida’s laws on concealed weapons are very clear.  You may only use a concealed weapon to protect yourself from “death or serious bodily harm.”  Was this the case or was this the result of a neighbor dispute?  Mr. Doughty said he fired on the two after they attacked him and his dog. The fact that Mr. Doughty had previously threatened to kill his neighbor’s dogs does not bode well either. Doughty made the threat after his own dog was attacked by the two.  Doughty said he would kill his neighbor’s dog’s if he saw them “walking around.”

As a CCW holder and dog owner myself, I don’t think Mr. Doughty acted in a prudent manner.  There’s only one purpose for using a concealed weapon and that is to protect your life.  There are many action’s Mr. Doughty could have taken instead:

  • Knowing that they had a history of running loose he could have avoided the area.
  • Ran away
  • Yelled at them or yelled for help

Also, assuming the dog’s were attacking him or his dog:

  • Used pepper spray
  • punched or kicked them

I see Mr. Doughty’s actions resulting as personal conflict with his neighbor.  I think he’ll have a tough time if his neighbor ever decides to take him to court.  Both my dog and I have been attacked numerous times out on walks and have always managed without the use of a firearm.  Just out of curiosity, what kind of injuries did Mr. Doughty sustain?  Was he treated at a emergency room?

Reference:

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services: Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense

Original story:

NBC Miami: Walking Rottweiler Opens Fire on Charging Dogs