Judicial Indiscretion; Dogs running wild

Human, and by extension their pets, sometimes come into conflict with wildlife. Recently coyote attacks have been in the news quite a bit. That, however is not what today’s living with wildlife post is about. It does however tie in directly with another post having to do with hierarchy in the law.

Most states have laws about domestic canines worrying cattle or wildlife. In most situations, lethal force is authorized. I have always been fortunate in that the few times that I’ve seen things like this hazing of some sort convinced the dog (s) to find another amusement to satisfy their instincts. That certainly is not always the case though. I have a friend that left E.M.S. and became a Sheriffs Deputy in Weld County. While on patrol he came across a dog that was attempting to chew on a claf that was being born. He tried to frighten it away with his lights and siren, then with a warning shot. All to no avail. He ended up shooting the dog. That’s a legal shoot folks.

So then where am I going with this? Well, it seems that Ron Wedow witnessed a dog attacking a doe after having just killed the doe’s fawn. This was in unincorporated Douglas County, Colorado. Both the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department and the Colorado Division of Wildlife responded and determined that the shoot was indeed legal. It is in fact authorized by state law. Some time later though, County Animal Control came along. They decided, as a matter of policy, to charge Mister Wedow. Now he has mounting legal fees, for doing his civic duty.

This is clearly Judicial indiscretion on the part of the Douglas County District Attorney’s office. They need to flat drop the charges and even reimburse Ron Wedow for his legal expenses.

Read about this miscarriage of justice HERE.

H/T to Charlie Meyers of The Denver Post.

Tags: , , , ,

3 Responses to “Judicial Indiscretion; Dogs running wild”

  1. Cole20 » Posts about Wordpress dor education as of 22 June 2009 Says:

    […] Keep WordPress Running Smoothly by Karen Jackie & Dana Rockel The issue mailed at the end Judicial Indiscretion; Dogs running wild – patricksperry.wordpress.com 06/21/2009 Human, and by extension their pets, sometimes come […]

  2. dagamore Says:

    I wonder if he has ground to sue for wrongful persecution since, before charges were pressed the CAC was informed that what happened was with in the law.

  3. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Wrongful prosecution is pretty tough to prove. Not because it’s in any way uncommon, but because the Lawyers have made it so very difficult to prove within the laws that apply.

    Don’t get me wrong. There are good and decent prosecutors out there. I have actually known one. One out of..?

    Most are more concerned with getting the “Honorable” title or something like that, or simply getting money. When questioned, as in called out and held accountable, most often as a last resort, they claim government immunity in that they were just doing their job. In other words, a Nuremberg defense. I believe that they should be treated in the same way that the Nazi leaders were at Nuremberg when they pull that stunt.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: