Latest Headlines
- Escambia School Board Buys 36 Acres For $3.9 Million For New Beulah School
- Century Spending Over $3.3 Million On Five Sewage Lift Stations
- Man Gets 50 Years In Prison For 2022 Murder At Cantonment Gas Station
- Pedestrian Checking Trailer Tire Struck By Car In Two Vehicle Crash Near Century
- State Funding $240 Million Beulah I-10 Interchange
- Failed Urban Development Centery YouthFirst Program Finally Repays Unsecured Loan From Century
- Escambia Public School Hosting Job Fair On July 29
- Woman Arrested In Kentucky For Fatal 2023 Escambia County Hit And Run
- ‘Operation Southern Slow Down; Targets Speeding In Five States
- Atmore Man, Century Woman Arrested During Suspicious Vehicle Investigation
Man Found Not Guilty Of Shooting Neighbor’s Dog ‘Barack’
July 6, 2011
A Cantonment man has been found not guilty in connection with shooting and killing his neighbor’s dog after it killed his goats.
Vincent Jerome Clay, 42, was charged with a weapons offense for using a firearm during a felony and animal cruelty after Clay’s neighbor on Calloway Street told Escambia County Sheriff’s deputies that Clay shot and killed a Rottweiler name Barak.
Clay claimed that the dog had killed his goats. The dog’s owner, Lula Mae Wilson, said she paid him $100 for the goats. Wilson tethered the dog in her yard, but it escaped. That’s when, according to the police report, Clay shot the dog with his shotgun. Deputies found the dog dead under his house along with freshly splattered blood.
The weapons charge was dropped against Clay, while a jury found him not guilty on the animal cruelty charge.
Comments
28 Responses to “Man Found Not Guilty Of Shooting Neighbor’s Dog ‘Barack’”
I think that when the state loses a court case, they should have to pay a person back for the money he spent on a lawyer and any other expenses. What do you think America? They go around making cases to generate themselves money and are making tons of it off the people in America. Escambia county makes over a million dollars a month just on dui cases alone….
Thanks for the information, juror on this case . It makes even more sense with what you explained. (I’m not sure I’d have faulted him either way, but certainly people shouldn’t be found guilty just because someone said so without proof.)
David for good juries
To whomever it may concern:
Any time you sit on a jury you are told that in order to find a person guiltyit must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Well in this case there was none.In my opinion the ECSO dropped the ball on this one. As a jury we were not presented with evidence to find Mr Clay guilty. A quick run down was
1) The weapon supposedly used was not recovered on Mr Clay’s property but a
neighbors
2) The dog was not under mr Clay’s house but under another neighbors home.
3) The weapon was never finger printed
4) The dog was never removed to see what type of weapon it had been shot with.
5) The wittness testimonies varied from the dog breaking his chain to never being tied up
With the evidence we were presented we had to find him not guilty. Whether he did it or not is a question only he can answer. And by the way the Shotgun Shell recovered from the gun that was supposedly used was a #8 bird shot not buckshot. The child was 9 yrs old and did not actually see the shot fired. He came around the corner of the fence from behind Mr. Clay as the dog was running through the property after he heard a shot. And the problem today is not with the juries as asked by Abt, the problem is the state is not able to trie a case because of lack of evidence. If I was to sit on this jury a hundred times I would find Mr. Clay not guilty a hundred times.
nine times outta ten,,. the dog has been in close proximity,,,,either for food scraps that people throw off their porch or fling into the yard, or even trash… . if the animals characteristics is to hunt ,, kill ,pursue ,,, then the dog will do so,.. if the owner chooses to have that type of dog,,,then there should be no limit to the penalties for this dog. ,, if you go and get a lassie , then that type of dog probably would’nt chase and kill another animal upon instinct. , however keeping youre pet, animal , dog ,, ,,, properly confined, would show respect for other neighbors,, joggers,, walkers ,, and passersby. .. if a dog gets shot for the act of killing , maiming another owners livestock,,,,,,,,, then that is what the owner has the right to do,..
Let me clarify my earlier comment.. I would never shoot a dog for merely being on my property.. I would make every effort to run him off, or if possible, contact his owner.. If he was not violent, I would simply let him leave on his own.. As I stated in my earlier comment, I would not use deadly force unless the animal attacked me or my pets and there was no other way to stop him.. That being said, I love animals, and I would feel really bad if I had to kill a dog, even if it was justified..
Here is a thought for owners of dangerous pets. If a person is attacked by your pet, and your home owners insurance has to pay. They will drop you and no other insurer will want your risk. If you have a mortgage, your finance company will call your mortgage in, for lack of coverage. These animals are not worth the financial hardship they could cause. Fence your yard, post warnings!
I don’t know about all of this, but I do know that I had to shoot a dog in Atmore, years ago, because he broke his chain, entered my yard, and was in the process of killing my dog, which was on a tether. After I asked the family to stop the dog, they refused, and I shot the animal, killing him. The law was called, and, upon arrival, told the offending party that he could press charges against me for killing his dog. He declined, and, after much research, I found that the officer was completely in the wrong. I am actually allowed, by law, to kill any animal on my property showing a threat to life or property. Well, imagine that…
REGARDING:
“Or did the dog kill the goats yet another time?
“Wilson tethered the dog in her yard, but it escaped. That’s when, according to the police report, Clay shot the dog with his shotgun.”
Which certainly reads like the dog got in his yard again since its body was found under his house. It doesn’t tell if he had other animals or children who might be threatened by a known animal killer. STUMPKNOCKER claims one of the children of the owner was with the dog at the time. (“MR CLAY SAW THE DOG ROAMING AROUND 2 WEEKS LATER AND TOOK UPON HIMSELF TO SHOOT THE DOG IN FRONT OF THE 10 YEAR OLD CHILD WHO OWNS THE DOG”) Makes you wonder if that kid released the dog.
David trusting juries to be cautious
SW: it looks like he took the money, then killed the dog anyway. He shouldn’t be allowed to have it both ways. Or did the dog kill the goats yet another time?
The lack of a leash law north of Well Line Road does not mean you can allow your dogs (or other animals) be a nuisance to your neighbors or let them attack other animals. If care for your animal, keep them on your property, train them properly, and vaccinate them. If you don’t care for your animals then get rid of them. Find them a loving home. I have two dogs and when they are not in the house they are confined to our fenced in back yard. This is a touchy subject for me. My son was attacked by a neighbor three dogs last year at his bus stop. He had three bites on his legs. The bites did not require stitches but it was a frightening experience for my family. The owners had been asked to keep the dogs up during the time the students were going to the bus. His solution was to have my son teach his dogs a lesson by hitting them with a stick. Two of the dogs have been declared viscous, one was not. We are still battling this issue in our neighborhood. If I feel threatened by a dog, especially after a neighbor has been warned and knows what is required of them legally, you can be sure that I would take matters into my own hands and we have been told by law enforcement that we can do so. It is a shame when a dog owner puts their animal in this position. It is also a shame to have such a matter cost the taxpayers when it goes to court or having Animal Control waste their time dealing with the problem.
I have a pump up pellet gun for nuisance dogs. If they are just nosing through,well that’s fine. If they are in a pack nosing through,that ain’t fine. Their personalities change in groups. One pump for starters up to 5-6 for slow learners.
This Rottweiler had already proven itself to be a killer,eh? It’s the 12 gauge for him. Just let the dog disappear…Any dog that I feel can whip *me*, I take an extra amount of caution with.
And no, I don’t shoot children (or adults, in general).
That said, my neighbors all understand my position. If my dog (or cat) gets loose and comes on your property and that’s an issue, well, I won’t squawk with whatever decision you make aboyut dealing with it. Call me,call animal control,or use stronger measures, that’s your prerogative.
@Bjay,
You are correct; no threat, no kill-animal or person.
If a dog was simply being a nuisance, then I surely would try to talk to the owner, then to the animal control folks before resulting to more terminal modes. But to try to compare the shooting of people to the shooting of dogs was a bit of a stretch, I think. One is animal cruelty, the other is murder or manslaughter-except in south Florida or California.
@Stumpknocker,
Sorry, your argument holds no validity; the court case is final-any argument on behalf of the dog or it’s owner is moot. Just like in the Anthony or OJ case, right or wrong, the jury ruled. This accused man was found not guilty of the charges; didn’t say he was innocent, just not guilty as charged.
@ Lisa and Atmore G ~ In Escambia Co., FL it is ILLEGAL to tether (chain) your dog unless you are outside with him. If your dog is not in visual range while he’s chained, you’re breaking the law. Chronic tethering is cruel and inhumane…that’s why the law was passed
ANY DOG TETHERED IS A BAIT DOG.
TO SW ,COMPELLING EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL,I DONT THINK THAT REALLY MATTERS LOOK AT THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL DOES ANYONE REALLY BELEIVE THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE A HAND IN HER DAUGHTERS DEATH.ALL A DEFENCE ATT HAS TO DO IS THROW UP ENOUGH SMOKE TO CONFUSE A JURY AND A KILLER WALKS FREE KINDA LIKE OJ DID.I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO GO TO COURT A FEW TIMES,YOU WILL WALK OUT OF THERE KNOWING JUST HOW BROKE THE SYSTEM IS.
@SW- My analogy is far from flawed. A dog walking through a yard not doing anything wrong can be yelled at or even fire a shot into the air to get the dog to leave. I do agree that if the dog was attacking a person or even showing his teeth in a threatening manor at a person then fire away. The point to my analogy was that both cases are minnimal and shooting the tresspasser isnt the answer. My dogs are fenced in but most people in the north end dont know what that means. I am a responsible dog owner and this lady was trying. The article reads that she paid for the goats and she teathered the dog. She was trying! The best thing to do in that case is to go spend 30 bucks at lowes and buy an electric fence and put up. I would have done that before I shot the dog just for being on my property. Lets go over some solutions here:
1) Yell at dog
2) Throw rocks at dog
3) Fire a shot in the air
4) Call the animal shelter
5) put up a cheap electric fence around the property
6) walk out there and put a rope on the dog and walk him back to his yard and tie him up
Thats 6 things off the tip of my mind that should have been done before shooting a dog for being on my property. And I still say “If you shoot my dog, you better expect some return fire”
4)
for Bjay’s sake, I’ll clarify my point.
If a person comes into my yard and presents me with great bodily harm, then, yes, I’ll defend myself.
If an animal does it, I’ll do the same.
If a firearm is the most viable option, that is what I’ll use.
I don’t think children throwing rocks at a shed would be perceived as presenting a threat of bodily harm; unless you are in the shed and fear for your safety or your life.
Your analogy was terribly flawed. But you are right, the article didn’t mention whether the dog was killed in the act of something; however, the dog had attacked and killed goats, setting a precedence. Would it not be reasonable for the owner to kill the free running dog, possibly in the course of protecting people or property (i.e., livestock-which owners have a right to do)?
We don’t know what evidence was presented at the trial, but it must not have been compelling enough to convince the jury that a wrong had been done.
Good fences make good neighbors-to quote a famous author. People with animals who present threats (whether actual or perceived) should be good neighbors by building good fences, right?
I have had it happen. Neighbors dog killed my ducks and geese then went after angus calf that was a 4-H project. Sheriff’s dept told me I had the legal right to shoot the dog when it came onto my property. I tried animal control and they could not catch or trap the animal. So in the end we had to shoot the dog. Not something we enjoyed doing but it had to be done. There again you can blame the owner who could not even get his hands on the dog. My neighbor never even offered to pay for damage his dog did.
If the owner would have had the dog chained up or even in a fenced in area ,maybe her dog would still be alive.If she isnt able to keep her dog out of other’s yard maybe she should have given it away.aia don’t blame the man one bit.My dog is own a chain and if something happens to someone or something thats in my yard unwanted thats a different story.There is no telling how long this man was having to deal with the women and her dog so he handled it himself.
MR CLAY DID NOT SHOOT THE DOG WHILE DEFENDING HIS GOATS,THE GOATS WERE KILLED 2 WEEKS PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT AND HE WAS PAID FOR THEM(MEAT GOATS NOT PETS)SO MR CLAY SAW THE DOG ROAMING AROUND 2 WEEKS LATER AND TOOK UPON HIMSELF TO SHOOT THE DOG IN FRONT OF THE 10 YEAR OLD CHILD WHO OWNS THE DOG.THERE WERE ALOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE,I DONT THINK ANYONE WANTS SOMEONE FIRING A SHOTGUN WITH BUCKSHOT AROUND THEIR HOME OR FAMILIES JUST TO PAY BACK A DOG.IM SURE MR CLAYS GOATS WERE JUST AS IMPORTANT TO HIM AS THE CHILDS DOG WAS TO HIM BUT MR CLAY HANDLED THIS WRONG.HAD MR CLAY INJURED SOMEONE WHEN HE FIRED THE GUN FOR THIS SAME REASON WE WOULD BE SAYING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
to shoot a pet because he is in your yard is wrong. By what most of you think if your kid takes a shortcut through my yard and throws rocks at the windows on my shed then I have the right to shoot them right? The lady paid for the goats and then tethered the dog. The dog escaped. There are other things that could be done. Call the animal shelter. No where in the article does it say that the dog was in the act of killing anything. I warn everyone now, if you shoot one of my dogs you better expect some return fire!
Renegade feral beast, good riddance. That dog enjoyed killing those goats. I would suggest people not let their dogs roam at night, I have run over one this summer already, by accident, and I almost got hit, removing the remains, from the roadway. A fenced yard or teather will save a childs broken heart and someone’s front end.
I love my animals, and keep track of them.. They stay on my property.. If someone’s dog came onto my property and attacked my animals, I would defend my pets with whatever means at hand up to the point of killing the other dog if necessary.. I would hate to do this, but I agree with SW and Kay.. If you have a dog, especially a large breed, fence it or tether it on your own property, and you will have no worries..
Unfortunately the dog had to pay the price for the owner’s stupidity or
apathy. You would have thought she would have learned her lesson
when she had to pay the guy the first time. It was totally her responsibility
and I think she failed her dog and this town who will now foot this bill for
this trial.
I don’t agree with ever killing a dog, but in this case…..what else was
there to do. I do have a problem with him hiding what he did, but
then look at what happened to him and obviously he needed to pay
for an attorney. I guess If he needs the money back he should be
thinking about suing the owner of the poor dog for it. Maybe if this
thing hit her pocket book a few more times. She would think twice
at least before getting another dog that she has no intention of containing
properly.
I understand a Big Strong Fence for a Big Strong Dog is costly, but
that is something you need to understand when you decide to get an
animal.
Wow! Good job jury. I, too, will destroy any animal-dog, coyote, panther, bird, snake, etc.-that tries to kill-or does kill-my livestock or scare me or my family.
If you like your dog…keep it in your yard. If I wanted a dog, I’d buy one.
@Abt-you disagree with this jury’s finding? Please explain.
my question is why waist tax payers time and money on this the dog had a history of killing it was not finced in properly and got loose i would have done the same thing its not a case of animal cruelty its simple self preservation for ones property
What is it with the juries in Florida lately? The problem must be that it is simply not possible to find anyone with half a brain anymore.
Common sense, who knew ?
I tend to agree w/the jurys decision…i do love animals, but the unfortunate dog most likely would have repeated the goat mascacre once loose again…roaming dogs came onto my farm and killed my chickens and beloved cat….i completely understand how he felt….the owner of barack bears total responsibility for their dogs demise, in my opinion.