Felon arrested for shooting his dog with his mother's gun to save his daughter's life

[Aimless]

Most bizarre thing I've read this week next to Lewk's ramblings:

A father of a 4-year-old girl was arrested after killing a dog that had attacked his daughter. The little girl was left with serious injuries but her father came to her rescue.

His actions landed him in a lot of trouble, but he says it was worth it to save his daughter.

Chris Ford says he did what he had to do. It was a “spur-of-the-moment” decision and he felt he had no choice when the family dog began mauling his daughter.

But because of his own criminal history, the State said he no longer had the right to defend himself against a human or non-human aggressor. Simply possessing a gun as a felon – even though he used it heroically – has landed him in jail, facing new felony charges and years in prison.

Right now, 4-year-old Zaynah Ford remains in the hospital. She will survive though thanks to her father’s brave actions, that disregarded his own well-being and freedom to save her life.

Why the family pit-bull named Tobin attacked Zaynah is unknown. It happened only moments after she had gotten out of the swimming pool at her grandmother’s home on Saturday.

Chris heard what happened and came running to help when he heard his daughter screaming.

“My baby is bleeding, I can’t even see her face, I don’t know where all the blood is coming from, I just see a big hole in her head… I pulled him off my daughter; I threw him, as soon as I threw him I grabbed my daughter and ran inside,” Chris Ford recalled.

When he returned with a firearm, that’s when the State says he broke the law.

“I shot down; I shot my own dog four times because he attacked my daughter,” Ford added.

You see, Chris wasn’t breaking the law before. He didn’t actually own a weapon of any sort. But he grabbed his mother’s rifle which she legally owned. He ran over and shot Tobin four times after calling 9-1-1.

“I stood back about right here, and at that point I fired down, and you could see the bullet hole, fired down there, fired down there, fired down there, and fire down there,” he explained.

Chris had never been convicted of a violent crime, but that didn’t stop him from being prevented from not only owning a firearm, but even touching one. Now he’s facing one felony charge for that along with one for endangerment and even an animal cruelty charge to add insult to injury.

He said he had no other choice.

“I felt that it was my responsibility at that point because if he was a killer dog, he was still part of my family,” Ford continued.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/0...-dad-arrested/

Any bets on the outcome?

[RandBlade]

He ought to be acquitted. Sounds like an equivalent to exigent circumstances and I'd hope a jury would agree.

[Khendraja'aro]

With judgments like these, judges and lawyers render themselves superfluous. Any kind of moron can pass a judgment like "You're not to touch a gun under any circumstances" and you also don't need more than two working brain cells to enforce such a judgment.

[Flixy]

Doesn't saving lives in general excuse breaking pretty much any law?

[Loki]

No way will a jury convict.

[Timbuk2]

Doesn't saving lives in general excuse breaking pretty much any law?

Maybe, but that's not what happened here, at least the way the article is reporting it.

He didn't shoot the dog to save his daughter's life. He'd already saved her from the dog and carried her indoors. He returned with a gun at that point, and shot the dog. According to the article, that is the point that he broke the law.

[RandBlade]

It's generally taken as given that once a dog attacks a human (especially a child) they need to be put down as otherwise the dog will keep attacking. In fact I thought in most places it was a legal requirement to put down any dog that has attacked a human so the animal cruelty charge just makes it clear the whole thing is a mockery.

I'd view it as part of the same act as saving the child's life, not a separate act. Unless there is more to the story not reported I can't see a jury convicting.

[Flixy]

Maybe, but that's not what happened here, at least the way the article is reporting it.

He didn't shoot the dog to save his daughter's life. He'd already saved her from the dog and carried her indoors. He returned with a gun at that point, and shot the dog. According to the article, that is the point that he broke the law.

I noticed that as well, but it doesn't say whether the dog was still aggressive to him.

[Loki]

It doesn't really matter if it was aggressive to him. It was dangerous and could have snapped at any point. People put down their pets all the time. This incident doesn't seem particularly cruel or unreasonable.

[RandBlade]

Once a dog has snapped putting it down is the humane thing to do. Equivocation over that just makes the argument petty.

[Ominous Gamer]

The courts are viewing 2 different actions here. 1) saving his daughter 2) possessing a gun illegally.

He got arrested for 2). When this goes to court event 1) likely won't be allowed to be admitted as a defense or even be spoken of during trial. The gun wasn't required to rescue his daughter or deal with the dog after the fact, so this guy is pretty much SOL. Several poor decisions came to a head with this story; only person I feel bad for is the daughter.

The news from this could get this guy a strong/connected lawyer who will pick this up pro bono for the publicity, who might be able to get him some sort of deal, but this felon is going to pay some sort of price.

[Lewkowski]

Judge instructions to what a person can or cannot say pisses me off. If you are a charged with a crime you should have every right to say *WHATEVER* you want. That works both ways of course since I also think prosecutors should be able to present any evidence they want. If its shaky or irrelevant that is up to the Defense to show that.

[LittleFuzzy]

That sounds like a great idea, Lewk. Let's allow prosecutors to just say literally anything they want, regardless of truth. We can just rely on the public defenders to engage in the logical impossibility of proving a negative to every single lie the DA can sling and expect the juries to be able to pick the truth out. Letting prosecutors present anything they want at all won't have any effect on the burden of proof, no sir.

[Lewkowski]

That sounds like a great idea, Lewk. Let's allow prosecutors to just say literally anything they want, regardless of truth. We can just rely on the public defenders to engage in the logical impossibility of proving a negative to every single lie the DA can sling and expect the juries to be able to pick the truth out. Letting prosecutors present anything they want at all won't have any effect on the burden of proof, no sir.

Not sure what universe you're in but prosecutors always tell the story they are trying to prove. They present it is as fact. "He did murder this person." When often times they don't have full proof (circumstantial, no other suspects).

In any event I'm not talking about going up there and telling lies - I'm talking about going up there and giving the full picture of ALL the facts and letting the jury decide what is relevant and what isn't relevant.

[LittleFuzzy]

There isn't a difference between questionable and invalid evidence and lies, Lewk. You're talking about letting them treat things which aren't facts as facts. That's lying. They are deliberately painting a picture such that it incriminates the accused regardless of whether it objectively does so or not, distorting and manipulating the material to make them appear guilty. The procedural rules you object to are there to protect all involved from slipping into outright lying. And you want to remove anything doing so under the pretense that you're trying to champion "honesty." It's crap.

[RandBlade]

While clearly there should be boundaries as to what is admissible I fail to see any logic as to why saving his daughter won't be admittable as evidence. It is both factually accurate and part of the event. I fail to see why the defence should be outlawed from providing the full circumstances of the events in question.

[Ominous Gamer]

While clearly there should be boundaries as to what is admissible I fail to see any logic as to why saving his daughter won't be admittable as evidence. It is both factually accurate and part of the event. I fail to see why the defence should be outlawed from providing the full circumstances of the events in question.

Because the dog attacking his daughter has zero to do with him using a firearm. I could possibly see a case if the gun was out during the attack and he grabbed it to defend his family, but (according to the article) thats not what happened. He saved his daughter, went and found the gun, then used it.

http://fox59.com/2015/06/16/phoenix-...-his-daughter/

according to that, the dog was hiding in his kennel when the guy murdered it. Curious what his felony was for, cause when you go through life acting like you're a hammer everything looks like a nail. Kinda the reason why we have laws like this.

[Loki]

One could reasonably claim that one isn't thinking straight after such an event. Like I said, no way a jury convicts.

[RandBlade]

He used the firearm in reaction to the dog attacking his daughter. The dog would not have been put down had it not attacked her, it is cause and effect. Taking one out of context of the other is dishonest.

Also calling putting down a dog that's attacked a human "murder" is pathetically disingenuous.

[Ominous Gamer]

If the dog was being put down the shooter wouldn't have been charged with animal cruelty.

Simply put he over reacted, and the reaction was late enough to be a concern. We have all kinds of laws that protect and punish humans in the same manner.

[RandBlade]

If he wasn't guilty he would be charged? What kind of fucked up logic is that?

What you've just said is that anyone ever charged of a crime is guilty. Why even bother with civil liberties or trials?

[Ominous Gamer]

No, what I'm saying is that people put animals down all the time without charges. They do it professionally, humanely, or when its actually needed.

What this guy did does not qualify for any of that. This guy killed an animal, the courts are going to decide if he should be punished for that, or if circumstance permitted his extreme reaction. But the fact stands that he killed an animal that was not a current threat. Circumstance will come into play for that charge, but the multiple weapon related charges likely won't discuss the attack, or even that it was a pitbull that he fired on.

[Ominous Gamer]

One could reasonably claim that one isn't thinking straight after such an event. Like I said, no way a jury convicts.

A black man with a felony record, with a dog that had a history of aggression. He would be lucky for such a result.

[Loki]

A black man with a felony record, with a dog that had a history of aggression. He would be lucky for such a result.

"Won't someone think of the children" overrides all. And people care more about children than about rabid dogs.

[LittleFuzzy]

If the dog was being put down the shooter wouldn't have been charged with animal cruelty.

Simply put he over reacted, and the reaction was late enough to be a concern. We have all kinds of laws that protect and punish humans in the same manner.

Except in Arizona killing an animal is actually a felony, OG, not a misdemeanor which is what he's been charged with. Except when it's a dog that has attacked a person in which case it is an explicit exception in the statute and is not a crime at all. He's not being charged with animal cruelty for killing it really, he's being charged with animal cruelty for either A) some other action related to the animal, or B) typical DA overprosecution in the expectation of plea-bargaining. I'm betting the latter since he's being charged both with animal cruelty AND with "felony assault by a vicious animal at large," i.e. for the dog attacking his kid to begin with.

[Loki]

I take it the dog was an illegal breed?

[LittleFuzzy]

The first article identified it as a pit bull. According to this site, Arizona and its municipalities do not have any legislation targeting them.

[Loki]

So how's he to blame for the animal's behavior?

[LittleFuzzy]

I don't think you're grasping the essence of the concept of prosecutorial overkill in the US.

[Loki]

Overreach is not the same as making shit up. In this case, the prosecutor seems to be doing the latter.

Then again, I don't get why there was even an arrest. If everyone was smart, they'd just say the dog was shot. No one would use the animal cruelty angle to prosecute anyone in the family. Even when the father said he did it, one would think that cops would exercise discretion.