Idiot. If I ever see him, he'll get an earful. Shame on this piece of trash.

But Christina, these are the kind of people that OWN PITBULLS, NOT...Time to rail this guy out of the city, I don't talk to scum. Are you listening, city hall???

Hell is too good for this p.o.s. I'd curse him but with that face it looks like someone beat me to it.

Yeah!!! What right does he have protecting his dog from a German Sheppard!?
He should have let his dog get killed!!

just because a dog runs up to someone doesn't mean that they are going to attack. My German shepherd is vocal and barks at people passing by for attention. I tell someone people that he is just trying to say hi and wants to be petted. He is 130lbs and if he really wants you, he would drag me off my feet. To me this is murder since the dog didn't attack the man,child and or dog.. Small dog are just as aggressive as big dogs.

Well Steve.... I have read into this. First of all... the man claims his dog was attacked.
"Miller claims that while on a walk with his daughter and her dog, Maya, the family dog of Jean and Bob Danicki, attacked his daughter’s dog, a Pomeranian, before turning on him outside of the Danickis’ residence"
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2013/03/15/news/doc51429d88c1057836951215.txt

The dog that died was NOT collared. It had an invisible fence but if it's not wearing the invisible collar - it's not restrained.

"Maya had an invisible fence outlining the property. While Maya wasn’t wearing her electronic collar at the time of the stabbing... "
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2013/03/13/news/doc513ffb513bd73911704543.txt

So it's possible that the German Sheppard/Chow DID attack the little Pomeranian. And if it did attack... is Miller still wrong to defend his dog??

All the witnesses seemed to know this dog and I even believe them that this dog was friendly to everyone that knew it. But it's also very obvious, and even quoted, that no one (especially the Sheppard/Chow ) knew Miller and visa versa.

Five years ago I lost my Cocker Spaniel when an unrestrained Pitt Bull came charging at it... grabbed it... and in two shakes... killed it. The owner was given a fine. :( So I can appreciate the fact that this guy was able to defend his dog.

@Sam- Thats my point, there was no attack. Neither the small dog, the child or He had any damage done to them. And he had a 7" knife, thought 4" is the legal limit. How is it the dog got stabbed on his portion of the property, not sidewalk or tree lawn? I also know Sheppards and chows, and if he really wanted to attack, that joker would not have had the time to get his knife out of his pocket and opened before carnage would have reighned down on them, which it never did. I am sorry about your dog though. Barking on one's own property does not make an attack, otherwise there would be many more dogs killed, just because. He had other options, he just chose the wrong one.

@ Steve....
Unless you were witness.- neither one of us can say that there was no attack. Were you there? I certainly wasn't.

One party says the dog attacked.
One party says the dog did not attack.

What I'm saying is that.. it may have happened. The Chow COULD have gone outside it's boundary. There was nothing to restrain it.
If Miller was actually on their property and stabbed their dog, why isn't he also charged with criminal trespass?

If nothing else, let's see what happens in court before we "rail this guy out of the city,".

@ Candi,

I've never said that Maya deserved to die. Never once.

Have you read the articles I've linked? There are interesting facts there. Haven't you wondered why these stories are one sided? Or why the stories have different versions?

What I have said is that the owner of the Pomeranian (a 6-10lb dog) deserved to be protected from a 60-80lb Chow/Sheppard mix.

How do you confuse any of that with the my mental health??

Here are some facts that I'll reinterate -

Mr. Miller claims the Chow attacked his Pomeranian.
The Danicki's were not supervising their dog nor was their dog wearing it's shock collar. That is a fact as stated by the Daniciki's themselves.

So Mr. Miller's dog COULD (meaning, it is possible) have been under attack.

If that is the case, than Mr. Miller did well to protect his dog. That his dog was not injured is not proof that the Chow was non-aggressive.

Or are you saying that you would have been happy knowing his dog was killed by the Chow? What if HE were mauled? Would Mr. Miller THEN be justified in defending himself??

Could the Chow attack a smaller dog? Yes, they ARE notorious for attacking smaller dogs.
All I'm saying is.. be objective.

By the way... according to the online newspapers, Mr Miller's visitation has been reinstated. (Para 14)
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2013/03/29/news/doc51550b27d7eba806601896.txt?viewmode=fullstory