Dear Editor,

I can’t say who was right or wrong since I was not there (“Sheriff: Dog shooting was justified,” Dec. 28). I hope most people forming their opinion will think this through.

Although, after reading both sides of this story, it seems to me based on officer David Moses’ statement that if in fact that he did say he “could not keep coming back all night,” that was the reason he shot the dog. Based on that, this officer would have been way out of line, saying he was inconvenienced by coming out to deal with the issue. Of course, that statement could have been taken out of context or not meant as it sounded.

From the other side, I can understand Margaret Franks’ fear, if in fact she was worried about the children and not just blowing something out of proportion. Although, as I understand, the dog had not been aggressive toward any people, based on this article.

So, let’s sum it up: The dog killed a duck, chased a cat and fought with other dogs. This is what dogs do—people too, sometimes.

However, the dog’s owners should be held accountable for proper training and controlling their dog, which appears to be the case since the dog was going to the Humane Society the next day.

I would think anyone involved—the neighbors, police officer, etc.—could have had better control of their actions. If killing a dog for being an inconvenience rather than being aggressive toward people is allowed, I have to wonder where our society will go next.

With that being said, I fully appreciate everything all of our law enforcement officers do for the people they protect and serve, and the risks they take each and every day, but at the same time, maybe we all need to think things through a little better before we act or make statements.

I would further like to offer my condolences for the dog’s owners. As with most pet owners, our pets are like our children. We love and care for them very much.

Brian A. Gwin, Jemison