This morning's Northwest Herald carries an article about rural Huntley resident Mark Zielinski, who shot and killed a neighbor's golden retriever, which he claimed was killing his chickens.
The dog apparently escaped its yard by crossing an invisible fence on November 4. Zielinski killed the dog because wounding it would have been inhumane, according to the paper.
Also according to the paper, "Lt. John Miller of the McHenry County Sheriff’s Office said there were no charges filed because Zielinski was defending his property. Miller said Zielinski had a valid FOID card and legally owned the gun."
Lt. Miller should check a little further for "Felony Abuse of an Animal" laws. It wasn't all that long ago that a rural Harvard resident defended his LIFE by killing a neighbor's guard dog that had roamed onto his property and charged HIM. Surely, Illinois law cannot allow a person to protect his chickens and not his life!
Zielenski ought to be facing felony charges today and should expect to be found guilty, if he is unlucky enough to get the same jury that the Harvard man did. He become a convicted felon and lose his FOID card.
The Northwest Herald is protective today of the reputation of the four dead chickens; it doesn't allow comments to today's article.
Did McHenry County Sheriff's Department initially make a bad decision in this case, which can be rectified by charging Zielinski today? Or did it make a HUGE mistake several years ago when it charged the Harvard man? (The answer is Yes to the latter question!)
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
5 comments:
Once again... If you check the law, I believe you'll find that Illinois law permits a person to kill a animal that is attacking his stock. That's the law as it existed in the 70's. One of those wonderful laws that Illinois has on the books that allows you to kill a dog to protect your chickens or sheep but not your child. I have news for you, if your dog comes on my property and attacks my children, that dog will not be leaving. You/We may not agree with the law as it stands but that's the law. Like it or change it. Hmmmm, isn't that exactly your position on traffic laws? That it doesn't matter if they make any sense or are applicable today?? Regardless you must obey them or Gus will hold you up to ridicule?
Darth, check the law. While the dog who attacks your children may not be "leaving", you yourself may not be leaving as a free man. You might just find yourself a guest in the Nygren Palace and a convicted felon. And you might part with $100,000 along the way, too.
I won't disagree that you (or I) would risk that to save our children.
But for a chicken? Or even four of them?
I fully understand that the law doesn't offer protection - other than compensation AFTER the fact - for dog attacks on humans. Who said "the law is an ass?"
Regardless, you're off base in insisting that the gentleman from yesterday be charged.
Unlike you, I can find and cite the law:
(510 ILCS 5/18) (from Ch. 8, par. 368)
Sec. 18. Any owner seeing his or her livestock, poultry, or equidae being injured, wounded, or killed by a dog, not accompanied by or not under the supervision of its owner, may kill such dog.
(Source: P.A. 93‑548, eff. 8‑19‑03.)
(510 ILCS 5/18.1) (from Ch. 8, par. 368.1)
Sec. 18.1. The owner or keeper of a dog is liable to a person for all damages caused by the dog pursuing, chasing, worrying, wounding, injuring, or killing any sheep, goats, cattle, horses, mules, poultry, ratites, or swine belonging to that person.
(Source: P.A. 88‑600, eff. 9‑1‑94.)
I wish you'd post those statutes on Huntley Neighbors...
Whitemore2, there's nothing preventing you from simply cutting and pasting the statute wherever you want. You can also search it out to confirm that it's a real statute and not something that I "think" should be in place
Go for it!
Post a Comment