PLN 12

While scanning through the contents of the Denver Post blog, I happened across an interesting article titled “Boulder man kills mountain lion attacking puppy”.

The article explained how a man from Boulder, Colorado shot a mountain lion which appeared to have been attacking his dog. After the man heard the commotion outside his home, he instinctively ran outside, only to witness his pet dog engaged in fighting fiasco with a mountain lion. As the man produced loud noises, this, in turn, provoked the lion to advance towards him. Thankfully, the man carried a gun and utilized its power to kill the approaching beast. Colorado wildlife officials were considering whether the man will face charges in the shooting of the mountain lion which was attacking his dog. "We're investigating what will happen to the person who shot the lion," Churchill told the Daily Camera. "We do have laws that allow people to protect their safety and their livestock. But this is the tricky gray area of it being a dog."

How absurd, the whole commotion is such a misunderstanding, the man obviously owned the dog, so he had every right to shoot the animal which was attacking his property. Churchill explained how it would be difficult to determine the man’s position (guilty or innocent) due to the “gray area” to which a dog could be potentially classified under. I personally do not see the difference between a dog and livestock (aside from the fact that livestock can be protected by law). In the strictest sense, they are both property, the dog perhaps having more of an emotional value and the livestock having more of an economic value. If livestock are protected by law, why can't a dog be, they are both property? If a dog and livestock are both classified as property, the man than defiantly had the right to protect his possessions (which he has full control over if they are really his possessions; if this means protecting them, than so be it). The article also clearly stated that the lion approached the man. There are no misunderstandings here. Killing in self defense should raise no question especially seeing as it was stated by Churchill himself that “We do have laws that allow people to protect their safety”. The procedures this obviously innocent man undertook were evidently acceptable provided the evidence above.

Events similar to these occur on a daily basis. From my perspective, it would be a great deal more efficient if some sort of definite law was instated which would address this type of circumstance. Instead of this huge and unnecessary upheaval over an issue so insignificant, a defiant law could have prevented the whole fiasco and given the man and his family some peace and quiet.