Originally Posted by Doug M.

As far as I can tell from the article linked in the OP, that is not a judicial decision or anything to do with a court. It was simply the issuance of a citation to each of the dolts involved. Warning shots are so rarely a good idea that it makes me scream internally every time I see a reference to them. If the shooter had pulled his head out of his sphincter and realized he needed to shoot the attacking dogs, he would have wasted ammo that he really needed, and outbound bullets are addressed "to whom they may concern" - you are responsible for them. Stupid.

The Roanoke case appears to have been a matter of a shooting that was not justified. Dogs on your property, 200 feet away without a much better of a specific threat to livestock or people are not in need of shooting. That would have been a felony here. That said, the day I need to use force on someone or some dog or whatever, it will be used. I live in a courtroom and know the law, and I am not scared of BS threats of litigation by people who have no idea what they are doing. A vigorous drubbing with CR11B sanctions and Bar complaint will be applied with ruthless aggression if they can even find a lawyer dumb enough.