Charges likely to be filed in Two Rivers horse shooting
Originally published Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 12:09 a.m.
Updated Friday, November 28, 2008 at 12:20 p.m.
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — A Two Rivers woman is being charged with fourth-degree weapons misconduct on suspicion of shooting her neighbor’s horses, District Attorney Mike Gray said Wednesday.
Jamie Rogers, 47, faces as much as a year in jail if convicted. Rogers said she plans to dispute the charge, which is a misdemeanor.
The incident last month left a 4-year-old American Quarter Horse named Phoenix dead. His stable mate, a 5-year-old mare named Sierra, suffered graze wounds.
The animals, owned by Heather Rogers, apparently got loose and entered Jamie Rogers’ property early on Oct. 20, according to authorities.
The women are feuding neighbors. They are not related, and both own horses.
Jamie Rogers has said she fired her pistol to scare away the horses because they had previously attacked her horses.
Heather Rogers knew something was amiss after hearing her dog yard erupt into barking. She went outside to investigate, heard gunshots from the direction of Jamie Rogers’ property and saw the horses running toward her, she said.
Heather Rogers said Jamie Rogers then called her, shouting and complaining about the loose horses.
After seeing no wounds, Rogers returned the horses to their corral and went back to bed.
The next morning, Rogers saw that Phoenix was dead and Sierra was wounded.
Gray said that Jamie Rogers is being charged for allegedly discharging a firearm with reckless disregard to the risk of damaging property or injuring a person.
“This lady needs not to be out there shooting her weapon off toward a public causeway at an angle in which a kid or an adult could be hit,” the district attorney said.
Jamie Rogers said the previous attack on her horses by Heather Rogers’ horses caused bloody injuries.
“I would never intentionally shoot anybody’s horse.” she said. “I was trying to get them out of my yard. I was absolutely protecting my horses.”
Heather Rogers, who is president of the Two Rivers Dog Mushers Association, said she wants justice for her dead horse. Rogers had purchased both horses in July for $6,000.
“I’ve been heartsick, you know?” she said. “I’m just to the point where I can talk about it without breaking down.”
The horse Sierra is doing better. Heather Rogers had stabled the horse elsewhere after the shooting and plans to bring the animal home in the next week.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
It's too bad the Borough Animal Control Division decided to abdicate their authority by turning the case over to AST. The borough's inadequately enforced animal cruelty code is much more stringent than the State's and I personally believe a charge of animal cruelty under Title 6 of the Borough code would have been a more appropriate charge.
That being noted, I'm quite pleased to see that the troopers were able to develop probable cause and the DA is willing to prosecute the case. At least now the defendant's choice of a judge or jury will have an opportunity to determine whether or not Ms. J. Roger's behavior was legal.
Thanks DNM for following up on the story. I'm sure I'm not the only Two Rivers resident interested in learning the eventual outcome.
Ironic.
How is this different than shooting bears or wolves that are attacking your pets/livestock. If the horses that were shot had a history of attacking Jamie's horses, then the shotting is perfectly justified (at least in so much as the recent wolf and bear shottings).
Billy- I can only ask 'come on', the nature of a horse and the nature of a bear or wolf are completely different. I would be more likely to believe (openly an assumption with no supporting fact other than probability) that the damage that had occured the first time to her horses causing her to feel a need to protect them was due to the fact they might not have been able to defend themself. In other words, what if her horses where in a confined area and they just got too close and everyone started thrashing around causing their own damage? That is not an attack (like a bear or wolf) and is far more likely, and I personally do not feel that is worth killing an animal over. Neither does the shooter, that is why she stated that she would never have shot the horses, she only wanted them off her property. She obviously does not know how to handle a weapon otherwise she would have shot over their head, like she stated, and it would have actually gone over their head. Lift that barrel girl.
the bloods and crips should take lessons of shooting from this horse shooter,she shoots to scare and hits both targets with her pistol.and i bet at least the second one was on the run.
Livestock and other kept domestic animals can and do escape from time to time. To my knowledge, most Livestock ( cows, sheep an Horses) are not Prey Driven animals. Since when have horses been found to engage in predation?
Many other methods of driving off horses, cows and sheep work VS shooting at them. What if the owner of the accused "killer horses" and her famiy had been in pursiut? This could have had a very differnt outcome. It is tragic enough that ANY LOSS of life occured.
We do have the right to protect our property, but according to what has been in print thus far..This was a bit of extreme action. Many facts are unknown to us, the readers. What is known, is a firearm was discharged in a reckless manner according to the DNM sources resulting in damage to anothers property and loss of life(albeit a horse's and not a human's). We can throw in "What If's" and "Could Of happened" all day long.
Owning Animals and/or Firearms both require attention to detail, respect, and responsibilty for our actions.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
Why is the US government allowing the mass killing of thousands of wild horses in the lower 48. We complain about a few wolves, while they are killing off herds of wild horses because of property issues. Alaska's wolf kills are nothing compared to the slaughter of the wild horses of the west by the Federal government.
Hey News Miner (Amanda) Is Jamie's last name really Rogers like the victim? How about Cox? Maybe you ought to check your facts before you print.
So glad to hear the battles of the neighborhood continue....blah, blah, blah. If it's not the horses it's the neighbors dogs or cats or rabbits or ferrets or pigeons or KIDS or Dads (@ beer) doing target practice. Why do we all live out here anyway? I have a 3 strike system......1st time I notify the owner. 2nd time I notify again and offer suggestions (tie the animal up or fix the chain, fence, cage, pen, whatever. #3.do you need some help carrying out #2 ? I'll be right over! #4...oops, I'm done..you can now deal with whatever branch of the law is applicable. These problems can strike anywhere (even me) and I take full responsibility for any damages, injuries, vet bills, re-homing, etc. Hopefully nothing escalates past option #2 or 3, but....... Accidents happen, but not again and again and again. Just remember that whatever happens to your neighbor could be happening to you. The object is not to get even with but to resolve the problem. I'm sorry the horse died and the other was injured but both the humans are equally responsible. P.S. Someone could give J.Rogers a gift certificate to one of Joe Nava's firearms safety courses. C'mon you guys..you're neighbors.
good morning mooseman,i think if the wannabe gangsters would hold there guns properly instead of sideways they would be more effective at killing each other.[just a guess]The DA should contact a horse whisperer to get the real story.
If the deceased animal had been a human, the neighbor would have been at least charged with "manslaughter", i presume. But, because it is a horse (animals are considered property in Alaska), is that why animal cruelty charges were not pursued? There is a lot that noone will ever really know because the trooper didn't visit the site until 4 or 5 days after the incident and there had been a significant snow fall to cover up lots of the evidence. Animal Control apparently wasn't allowed to do an on-site investigation, which really baffles me. They are trained in animal cases and happen to know a bit more about animal behavior. Don't think the contract veterinarian for the Borough was called into the investigation either.
There are lots of questions about how this investigation was handled and the authorities don't want to discuss it because it is an open case. Animal cases take the back burner to domestic squabbles and DUI's, of course. But, there sits some highly trained and well-paid Animal Control Officers on the Borough payroll. Why are we paying for their training and postions if they are not able to perform their job. I don't know who orchestrated this investigation, but perhaps we,the public, should request that Animal Contol and the troopers work together on animal cases, as they have in the past.
Is Jaime Cox that screechy woman that calls into Problem Corner every day?
Raven, as I have said on these blogs many times before, the way our state law is written, charging with cruelty to animals requires knowing that you were trying to cause prolonged suffering, as demonstrated below:
(a) A person commits the crime of cruelty to animals if the person
(1) knowingly inflicts severe physical pain or prolonged suffering on an animal;
Jamie Cox has said that she did not intend to shoot the horse, much less cause it prolonged suffering, and no amount of on scene evidence could have proven otherwise. It is often a case of what the law really is, vs. what the public thinks the law is or should be.
How do you get a horse out of your yard? Simple, you yell, "Boo". Any idiot totting a gun to scare a horse away needs to have their gun taken away. I don't want neighbors, who are gun crazy.
In answer to Wendee's question, Jamie Rogers is correct.
I agree with dove,I dont want neighbors that are crazy.Why not treat horse killers like horse theives.hang that crazy b....
She goes by both, Cox in the multitude of court fiings but Rogers for most everything else or at time Jamie Rogers-Cox
WHOAAAA! Somebody better get out there to mediate. FAST! It's said: "Fences (sturdy ones esp) make good neighbors." I sure won't comment on what I'd do, except THANK GOD I'm not in this!
dove its apparent you've never owned horses before, a simple boo may get you trampled. horses will fight and its not something you want to be in the middle of, the simple fact in this matter is that the horses owner was negligent horses don't just get out. This womens horses had a history of running away and injuring her neighbors livestock.
justatrooper If this women had shot a bear she would face no charges, and why were there no charges filed against the horses owner? It seems its time to riegn in the troopers, and let the DA know this is unacceptable.
OH, and BTW, any one who doesn't consider horses dangerous creatures (or dogs for that matter) need to stop and think for a second or two. Horses are powerful creatures, and are just as prone to a condition called rage as a dog is, and more temperamental to say the least. Maybe more temperamental than moose. They definitely are subject to likes and dislikes that's for sure. Sorry animal lovers (I'm crazy about them but...)no dang horse in existance is worth a person's year in prison, even if shot deliberately. (try telling the owner that sure wouldn't be easy, could be dangerous) About the most that should be done, is replacement of the cost of the animal...this is a civil, not criminal issue. I know that feuding neighbors need to be both put on warning by their community. FENCES FAIRBANKS! Half your problems are due to the lack of them!
i agree with roofman. horses are large, and can be very scary and intimidating while running, thrashing and fighting! boo doesnt even scare off my neighbors cats, dogs, or teenagers, and horses are at least as smart as them!!
query:
if you were in your yard and a horse fight erupted near you, would you yell 'boo' ?
rotflmao
Hey alaskansheilah, (are you Aussie?). I tried! And I live out here, but no one is paying attention. My best guess is they're all ticked off about something else but this is where they have a voice. Maybe things will cool off after the holidays ?? Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Regardless, I and my critters are ready. Whatever....
Before I move on to the rest of the news. I want to mention to everyone here......HAPPY THANKSGIVING! You'll never know how much I've appreciated the true goodness and kindness that has been extended to me, mine and others from you in Fairbanks over the years. You are trully the Golden Heart of Alaska, (if not the universe). May GOD abundantly bless you all today and always.
nope, no aussie....US American/longtime Alaskan hybrid...just the convenient play on words, Hilda. Were you ever a cook at the Pioneers' Home? If so, you're still one of my heroes.
Jamie might beat the weapons misconduct charges in this case if she has a good attorney. If she can successfully argue that she was acting to defend life and property Alaska Administrative Code may well protect her actions.
Lets assume a trooper is justified in using his weapon. The Trooper shoots at a suicidal person who has a gun but misses (many times- this really happened in Fairbanks). But one or more of the rounds fired by the Trooper hits a bystander or a nearby car, home, whatever. The Trooper would not face weapons misconduct charges because he was justified in discharging his weapon.
If Jamie can make a good DLP case, then she should prevail. Most gun owners should be watching this case closely. What the DA comes close to saying here is that if you discharge a firearm on your own property, while defending your own property- then you could face weapons charges. That is wrong.
If a crack head breaks into your home and you shoot him, but one round misses and hits your neighbor's house, is the DA going to charge you with a weapons crime?
5 AAC 92.410. Taking game in defense of life or property
(a) Nothing in 5 AAC prohibits a person from taking game in defense of life or property if
(1) the necessity for the taking is not brought about by harassment or provocation of the animal, or by an unreasonable invasion of the animal's habitat;
(2) the necessity for the taking is not brought about by the improper disposal of garbage or a similar attractive nuisance; and
(3) all other practicable means to protect life and property are exhausted before the game is taken.
(b) Game taken in defense of life or property is the property of the state. A person taking such game shall immediately salvage the meat or, in the case of a black bear, wolf, wolverine, or coyote, shall salvage the hide and shall immediately surrender the salvaged meat or hide to the department. In the case of a brown bear, the hide and skull must be immediately delivered to the department. A surrendered hide and skull of a bear must be completely removed from the carcass. A surrendered bear hide must include attached claws. A person taking game under this section shall notify the department of the taking immediately, and within 15 days after the taking shall submit to the department a completed questionnaire concerning the circumstances of the taking.
(c) As used in this section, "property" means
(1) a dwelling, permanent or temporary;
(2) an aircraft, boat, automobile, or other conveyance;
(3) a domesticated animal;
(4) other property of substantial value necessary for the livelihood or survival of the owner.
save everyone time and money,corral the women and let them fight it out.
If you are only trying to scare it, why use actual bullets, surely firing blanks would achieve the desired effect.
Roofman, the reason I presume the DA did not file charges against the horses owner is that there is that there is no crime in this state that I am aware of that allows an animal owner to be held criminally responsible for what their animals may have done. Even if a dog gets out and bites a child, the owner has not committed a crime. Another example of what the public thinks the law is vs. what the law really says. And I'm not sure what you mean by time to reign in the troopers. In this case, the troopers did not file charges against anyone, the DA did. What is it you think the troopers did wrong?
Tonto12, regarding your quoting of chapter five of the AAC, that clearly applies to game, and domestic horses would not apply to the definition of "game" so the regulation cited becomes irrelevant.
Jaime Rogers is LUCKY she did not hit a human, then she might be facing up to 5 years, oooooo.
If yer wanna just "scare something off" with a gun, GET BLANKS.
(guns shoot copper/lead bullets at high rates of speed, even if you just want to "make noise"- bullets are LETHAL.)
Ms. Rogers said she was "protecting" her own horses, from what? were the "invading" horses SHOOTING at her or her animals? no.
Either she is guilty of shooting blindly into the open or guilty of shooting another persons animals over a hillbilly style fued.
Reckless and/or just plain stupid.
"If you are only trying to scare it, why use actual bullets, surely firing blanks would achieve the desired effect."
because maybe the gun was intended for THE PROTECTION of property or life, and perhaps she would have expected that to mean against an armed intruder, and MAYBE, just maybe, having blanks loaded in your bedside gun would have been STUPID (or deadly)?
MAYBE i missed the point, are home defense weapons actually meant to provide defense?
The root of the problem is the horse owner failed to keep her horses on her property. I see no problem with the shooting of the horses. If the owner hadn't been negligent in her care of the horses, this wouldn't have happened.
Fine the horse owner for negligence, the cost of the bullets to shoot her loose horses and make her get rid of the remained horse(s) now that she has demostrated her total inability to properly care for them.
I know about horses. So do these women. The normal solution would be to simply take a pale of oats, gotten control of the animals, tied them up - and then called the troopers. No mess, no fuss, nobody gets hurt.
She made a very bad judgement decision brining a firearm - and a worse decision when discharging it. Horses are easy to scare - a stick and garbage pail lid would do the trick.
The issue here is not about property rights or defense of your person and property. The woman used lethal force in a situation where it was not yet justified by the action of the horses. Unless she has proof these horses had killed or seriously injured her animals and family in the past - she is going to have a terrible time justifying her actions in court.
Justatrooper. The issue of what is game is not as clear as you assume. The AAC chapter/section does not define what 'game' is. But the dictionary does:
"11. wild animals, including birds and fishes, such as are hunted for food or taken for sport or profit."
Horses are, or can be, wild animals. The USA has tens of thousands of wild horses. Horses are routinely hunted in the USA.
In this case, the horses were domestic horses. That is true. But horses have been released in Alaska to breed and roam in the wild. Are those horses game? Or are they domestic animals? Should one be able to make that distinction in the middle of the night when defending one's property? Since the law has not defined precisely what 'game' is, then the matter is open to interpretation. And in a criminal case, as you well know, the benefit always goes to the defendant. It is the State's responsibility to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The State has created reasonable doubt by not defining precisely what 'game' is.
i do know that heather rogers paid to have a veterinarian necropsy the dead horse...bullet entered the butt and traveled horizontally through the abdomen and into the lung area. That means the shooter was aiming pretty well horizontally, it would seem.
There is precedent in cases of shooting animals. The guy up in Goldstream finally was convicted of animal cruelty for shooting a dog. The person and the community had to really rally in order for this to happen. Seems that government agencies would just as soon the public, for whom they serve, would ignore this case. Not sure that the Two Rivers community is going to let that happen.
Thank goodness the DNM chose to run this on the front page.
Most people keep bullets and guns seperate, especailly if they have small children around. Anyhow, Ms. Rogers admitted that she didnt mean to kill the horse, just scare it. Honestly, if someone points a gun at me, I wouldnt wonder if it was loaded. Id wonder if they were going to pull the trigger.
Hey, you guys! I do have "stuff" to do today because I said I would, and I always keep my word, so I will be gone for awhile. However, yep to AkSheila, I am (or was) a cook and I do volunteer work when I can. Probably not the gal you're thinking of, but that's ok. I'm in there. Looking at the overall picture of this little speck of today's news (I'm trying to be positive here) how much have we all learned today about how our neighbors (hopefully friends) really feel? And if they can say it here, why can't they say it face to face? Think that one over....then go down the road, knock on your neighbors door and introduce yourself. We might have something in common after all (hope, hope).....
Defense of Life and property is one of our countries' longest standing ideals. No one should ever be charged for shooting an animal on thier own property.
Thats one of the main reasons for the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. That and some of our founding fathers were preparing for a day when they may have to oppose tyranny from the US government. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, because everyone hunted in the 18th century. It was protecting your rights to defend your life, property and liberty.
If you doubt my statements and convictions read the original documents of America.
When I got my first horse around 15 years ago, I was worried about him getting loose. My neighbor said "oh he WILL get out". Horses are escape artist, both of these women should know that. I have never met a horse owner that has not had a loose horse at least once...But at least my horses aren't killers ;)
More of the story:
http://ruffstartkennel.blogspot.com/2008...
Jaime Rogers/Cox/whatever is just as guilty by the "she should have kept her horses contained" argument- if her horses were "bloodied" by one of the now dead horses then obviously she didn't have them "properly contained" either, as a proper corral would have kept the other horses out and her own animals nice and safe, no problem.
Once again, the invading horses didn't have a gun and she COULD have at least shot into the ground, if she "wasn't sure" that she hit them or not then obviously they were not close enough to be "threatening".
Were the "invaders" actually causing harm to her horses at the time she shot them? no.
She was AFRAID that they "might hurt them", maybe, could have, etc...
It is not legal to shoot a moose for "eating your garden", why should it be legal to shoot a horse for something it may or may not do?
(by the "protecting" property argument, Jaime Rogers could have legally been shot too, right? on and on and on.....)
Didn't I hear or maybe it was in the first article that Jamie's horses at one time had been on Heather's property, inciting Heather's horses? Seems to me I heard or read that maybe the horses were out following Jamie's horses. Now I could be wrong, been known to happen but everyone is saying that Jamie had the right but you know if her horses had ever been over to Heather's property and didn't get shot...than what right did Jamie have to shoot at them? She also knew whose horses they were, this wasn't about protection of life and property, this was "I'll get that b***c" and bang. Don't think for a second it wasn't. One more thing, if the bullet entered the horse's butt and traveled horizontal, wouldn't that mean that it was shot from the rear? Maybe leaving the property?
tonto- are you serious? where do I get a permit to hunt "Alaskan Horse"?
What is their habitat and range here? wow......
While not preditory animals, horses are herd animals with a pack mentality similar to wolves and with a similar need to assert dominance (Read: They fight each other)
Oh, and Horses attempting to fornicate with other horses is a long standing cause to shoot a horse. The value of a horse includes any mating ability it has, and people since the dawn of horse breeding have killed horses for trying to mount up on a genetically superior mare.
This same theory can be extended to purebred animals of all species. Say you have a German Shepherd who you breed to make police dogs. Now your neighbors mutt gets into your yard and tries to mate with your purebred dog. THIS IS DAMAGE TO YOUR PROPERTY. If you don't shoot that dog, he's gonna ruin a whole breeding cycle for you, costing you thousands of dollars.
For the record, I would have sat there with a rifle, lined up a good shot, and the horse would have never made it out of my yard. I would have shot with intent, and without needless warning shots. Jamie clearly didn't want to kill animals from the report she filed.
whoever said that jamie rogers horses weren't 'in danger' or 'being bloodied' at the time of the shooting? the horses could very well have been being attacked (again?) at the time she decided to take more action than some of you deem 'necessary'.
but again who was there?
not you
not me
not heather
not anyone, except jamie, and heathers horses, jamies horse, and jamies pony.
if only one was mr ed????
happy thanksgiving. go eat some turkey, or at least tofurkey, or whatever
lets take a day off, i'll start, bye!!
It appears from the previous article and postings by both sides that there are two sides to this story. Although I do not in anyway condone discharging a firearm in the dark at an unknown target, I would like the follow up following the court actions with the whole story before I condemn either party. It sounds to me like BOTH of the involved parties had a hand in this most unfortunate incident. I do agree with the weapons misconduct charge regardless of what else comes about as someone could have been killed by the reckless action of a distraught individual firing repeatedly into the dark!
animalmom you have a great thanksgiving too. Don't forget to bring me my plate of food.
The shooters horses were NOT being "attacked" when she shot them "animalmom", she never said that. (they are horses, not wolves)
(neither are they "show" animals or thoroughbred racing horses)
Jaime Rogers knew damn well what she was doing- "showing up" Heather.
I'll bet she felt real good about herself afterwards......
......I hope she likes jail.
----------
NO WONDER why so many people see Alaskans as buck-toothed hill-billies, it's because of shamelessly stupid things like this happening.
LostAlasakan:
"Range: Today, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of the U.S. Department of the Interior manages herds of mustangs and donkeys in several western states including Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. There are smaller populations of feral horses in Alaska, Missouri, Nebraska and some on a few Outer Banks islands of North Carolina. Some wild horse herds are managed and protected by the U.S. Forest Service."
http://eduscapes.com/nature/mustang/inde...
Good Point TONTO...
" Most gun owners should be watching this case closely. What the DA comes close to saying here is that if you discharge a firearm on your own property, while defending your own property- then you could face weapons charges. "
!! Very Good Point !!
Wonder where the Lone Ranger is hangin out?
Or Roy Rogers too.
BullsEye: I hope you are on the jury in this case.
Thanks.
tonto-
I know about the horses in the states.
I'm asking where in ALASKA do we have wild horses running around all winter in arctic temperatures?
btw: the horses that are wild in the states are descended from horses brought by the conquistadors, meaning they are not "indigenous".
The prehistoric breed that WAS indigenous long ago went extinct.
This is a very unfortunate case. It is proper for it to be pursued by the Troopers because (1) in a case of feuding neighbors with one shooting guns, borough animal control officers do not carry firearms. The thrust of Title 6's cruelty provisions are aimed at protecting animals who are being neglected or abused--not to investigate and apprehend shooters. (2) if this is willful destruction of the horses, then stiffer penalties are available under state law where the shooter faces a year imprisonment than under the borough code where the term of imprisonment is no more than 90 days. Moreover the sentencing judge would have authority to restrain this person from having weapons 3) if this case goes to trial and the shooter is indigent, she will qualify for a public defender. Had the borough brought the case, in addition to investigative staff and the legal fees for someone to prosecute this through trial and potentially through appeals, they would have to contract with another attorney to defend the shooter (if she qualified for defense at government expense). The borough does not have its own indigent defense panel.
LostAlaskan99712
The horses injured Jamie's horse and pony before. Heather has admitted that. Now with a history of attempting to assert dominance by attacking, these horses are clearly a threat to Jamie's property.
Irregardless of why, I'm sure Jamie has said to Heather at least once in the past "Keep your (possible explitive) horses out of my yard." It's Heather's duty as an animal owner to keep her free willed property contained safely. Her failure led to the death of her horse.
It will be a travesty of justice charging someone with weapons misconduct for firing a gun in thier own property. I may feel a little differant if the property was in the middle of Downtown, but only that you should wait to shoot something responsibly, without serious risk of injury to another human. But anywhere where trees outnumber people, it's pretty safe to shoot a gun, as your more likely to hit a tree than anything else.
LostAlaskan:
Alaska has many climatic zones, beyond just the arctic zone. Allow me to introduce you to the climatic zones of Alaska:
Climatic zones of Alaska fall into five major zones. (1) a maritime Zone which includes southeastern Alaska, the south coast, and southwestern islands; (2) a maritime continental zone which includes the western portions of Bristol Bay and west-central zones. In this zone the summer temperatures are moderated by the open waters of the Bering Sea, but winter temperatures are more continental in nature due to the presence of sea ice during the coldest months of the year; (3) a transition zone between the maritime and continental zones in the southern portion of the Copper River zone, the Cook Inlet zone, and the northern extremes of the south coast zone; (4) a continental zone make up of the remainders of the Copper River and west-central divisions, and the interior basin; and (5) an artic zone, shown on the map as the arctic drainage division.
Everyone needs to read the original article from Oct.26. Good catch on the last name too. Her name isn't Rogers, it's Cox.
Jamie's horses are loose all the time. As far as protecting her horses, why were they loose and at Heathers in the middle of the night? She supposedly trained her horses, but she shoots Heathers instead of just getting a stick or a lunge whip to break them up? I don't buy it for a minute that she didn't mean to shoot them.
All I have to do at my house when there are "discussions" is yell "What is going on?" and it stops no matter what horses are involved. Horses aren't predatory, they don't stomp people or even other animals without some sort of provocation.
A year and a half in jail isn't nearly long enough for this completely cruel and stupid act.
I read the article.
That was my impetus to make a account to comment with actually.
As a firm believer in the second amendment and it's right to defense, I'm here to point out the ancient American tradition of gun use. If the gun was discharged at Heather's horses on Jamie's property (and there has been no contest of that fact) then it's a textbook case of defense of life and property, and nobody should go to jail for that.
To say otherwise is to spit on 200 years of American tradition, and all the Americans who have died defending our rights and traditions.
While I personally spit on the last century of American government, (starting with Prohibition) and voice strongly my opinion that Alaska should now be its own country, I honor and respect the founding ideals of the United States.
Tonto12, the state does define what "game" is and in this case, the horses clearly do not fit. A.S. 16.05.940 says:
(19) "game" means any species of bird, reptile, and mammal, including a feral domestic animal, found or introduced in the state, except domestic birds and mammals; and game may be classified by regulation as big game, small game, fur bearers or other categories considered essential for carrying out the intention and purposes of AS 16.05 - AS 16.40;
Therefore using the defense of taking game in defense of life or property under title five does not apply.
Wow, like there isn't enough fear going around.
Now, were supposed to be afraid of horses.
---------
Heres a question for the gun clingers-
Do horses usually, or ever, KILL each other over territorial disputes?
----------
Everybody wants to condemn heather for not fencing in her horses.
But it's ok for Jaime to NOT have had hers corralled?
(thats called a "double standard")
BahbtheLibrarian,animalmom will bring your plate over by 5pm.Ps how do you like your horse?
Its a matter of legalities as to what you can do on your land.
And people have been grievously wounded and killed by rampaging horses, yes.
I'll provide some links found by searching 'horse rampage' on google.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn...
http://www.faniq.com/blog/Horse-Goes-On-...
im glad supertrooper is getting things strait for us i feel much safer.but a horse is a horse of course.
Hey people ,
Do any of you own horses, I DO I have 12 of them on my farm in MO.
I was raised with horses on a working ranch.
I don't know how people up here think but I'll tell you in the midwest if a horse is out it will usually be corral'd and the owner contacted, I've dealt with situation many times myself.Farm animals are always getting out that's the nature of the beast and owners as well as most neighbors know this,I've had horses escape on a daily basis until I could find the holes in the fence or the place were their jumping it.IF the owners were fueding then she should have caught them and called the troopers.
The only reasonable time shooting a loose horse would be tolerated by any ranch hand is if it were a stud, I would like to see the woman who shot the horse punished but as well the owner. IN the state of MO. and KS. If your domestic livestock escapes from it's enclosure the owner is responsible for catching it and for any damage that was done. And the owner of an animal that is allowed over and over again to run free is charged with animal cruelty.(because you cannot guarantee it's safety).
Now with that being said if one of these horses was a stud them i must agree she has every right to shoot it ,A loose stud is a danger to all in the area, that's why most states require a 10 foot fence to enclose a stud horse.And most people will protect there family and livestock from a loose stud any way they have to.
And just to one other point I welcome all of you to look at the BLM requirements for the fence you most build to adopt a wild horse ( It has to be 10 Tall, regardless if it's a stud or not).Maybe every body should quit expecting a four foot fence to keep livestock in.
If you people are going to hang the shooter you better stand back and look at the owner again. I think they both share equal guilt in this action.I know this won't be a popular view on this because of all the animal rights people but let's use a little common sense people...
Justatrooper: Thanks for proving my point. This is why you guys get so many DA declines. You think the law means one thing, or you misinterpret the law. Read you own posting:
"game" means any species of bird, reptile, and mammal, including a feral domestic animal, found or introduced in the state..."
A horse is a mammal. It is also a feral domestic animal in Alaska. Therefore this is a justified DLP shooting.
I like my horse medium rare thank you.
Clearly, not many of you have owned livestock. Livestock may be somewhat domesticated by our definition, but I assure you, to each other they show no great deference. While the shooting of someones pet, whether it be dog, cat or horse is really a bummer all the way around; It is incumbent upon the owners of said animals to keep them within their specified boundaries. The only one to blame for this situation, is the person who allowed their animal to stray into "unfriendly" territory. If you love and care for your animals, keep them safe and where they belong. This takes effort on the owners part. When they fail in their obligation, they deserve to lose their animals. This should be a learning lesson for the lazy animal owner. Instead, you perverts of justice want to hang a homeowner for protecting her valuable livestock.
Oh, I like my horse medium rare!
I'm glad to see the state doing something about the reckless shooting.As for the fenceing heather is useing Eletric fenceing.So it is good fencing.
As for the other person they never did answer what kind of fence they are using.Also it seems that this is a matter of disregarding life.If your going to use a gun for anything you need to be aware of whats in the line of fire.
It's nice to know that the state at least see's the danger of allowing this crazy shooter to be free.Now this is a case where i could see the goverment taking away the right to bear arms.
Tonto12, the very next portion of the sentence, which you left out, says "except for domestic birds or mammals". Heather's horses were domestic, not feral. They were not wild, living on their own. They were owned and cared for by Heather, as I read it.
tonto, the horse that got shot was not wild or feral, there are no wild horses in or around Fairbanks, you're the only one using that as an excuse to shoot a persons animal, just to "get back at them".
----------
BahbtheLibertarian- nobody is saying that "nobody has EVER been killed by horses".
btw, Jamie Rogers never said she (herself) was in any danger.
I asked how often horses kill one another over "territorial disputes"
(her whole "excuse" for shooting in the "general direction" of her neighbors animals in the first place right?- they MIGHT have posed a threat to her own?)
You "just happened" to overlook that part huh?
----------
So do I have the right to shoot Jamie Rogers-Cox the next time I see her driving around?
She just had a DUI this last June, as well as citations for speeding and disregarding stop signs (real safe driver huh?).
So, should I be afraid for my children's, friends and families, as well as my animals lives because she may or may not be able to stop because she is speeding or might decide to run another stop sign, what if she is driving drunk again? ("threatening" the life of EVERYBODY on the road)
the "DLP" laws can be spun all kinda ways......
From Here: http://www.extension.org/pages/Basics_of...
(It is mentioned also in this and other articles that domestic horses immediatly begin 'herd mentality' around other equines)
Social Structure
A herd of wild horses consists of one or two stallions, a group of mares, and their foals. The leader of the herd is usually an older mare (the “alpha mare”), even though one stallion owns the herd. She maintains her dominant role even though she may be physically weaker than the others. The older mare has had more experiences, more close encounters, and survived more threats than any other horse in the herd. The requirement of the lead horse is not strength or size; if this were so, then humans could never dominate a horse. Dominance is established not only through aggression but also through attitudes that let the other horses know she expects to be obeyed.
The stallion’s job is to be the herd’s guardian and protector, while maintaining reproductive viability. The stallion’s harem usually consists of 2 to 21 horses, with up to 8 of those being mares and the rest their offspring. When the colts are old enough to be on their own they will form a bachelor herd. The fillies will either remain in their natural herd or more commonly disperse into other herds or form a new herd with a bachelor stallion. As soon as a stallion becomes too old to maintain his status as herd owner he is replaced by a younger stallion from a bachelor herd. The average time for a stallion to remain leader is about 2 years, but some can last more than 10 years.
Horses are most vulnerable when they are eating or drinking. So, when a horse is being submissive, it will simulate eating by lowering its head, chewing, and licking its lips (similar to snapping mentioned above). Dominance occurs when a horse forces the other to move against its will. One horse will move its body in the direction of or in contact with the other forcing it to move. Fighting usually occurs when the dominant horse is challenged by the other horse not moving, or responding aggressively.
So while to an untrained eye, two horses banging into each other may be concidered accidental, horses do this as an attempt to assert dominance and would be concidered a hostile act.
Hey BahbtheLib..
Shut up!
If you don't PERSONALLY have experience w/ horses or have been previously disposed to their dispositions you really are blathering.
Horses are ANIMALS!
They get out. They break fences. (even the best ones can boast a Huodini artist). They run, trample and scare.
They are also considered domesticated.
Which, in a nut shell means, humans inter-act w/ them on a frequent basis.
You on the other hand, are feeding a fire that
DOES NOT need to be fed!
Stay out of it!
Citing webs and telling stories you found, does nothing to clear the air.
Read the story. Ask questions.
But citing webs and writing documentaries is irrelevant to this.
BTW- I do have / have had horses, and I know both women,(who doesn't know them in Two Rivers?) (Known one for years), and own fire arms.
I thank God her aim was good (sorry for your loss Heather) but I know the other has a "dead on eye" w/ guns and it COULD have gone through the house to the family. OR a passer by. Or to Heather herself.
Those tempers are a nasty thing!
AND neither of those two women have "untrained eyes" in this case.
Peace
PS
And her name IS Rogers as she is re-married.
Peace
If you'll refer back to the original news article, which had more detail about the event, Heather Rogers horses were following Jamie Rogers horses to J Roger's property. That leads one to suspect that the horses were incited to escape their own corral by Jamie Roger's loose horses.
The horses weren't trashing anyone's garden and certainly weren't stomping a kid, nor even an adult. I've not read or heard an allegation that they were taking a dump on anyone's car. Any danger to Jamie Roger's horses was a result of her horses being loose in the first place - a clear violation of the Borough's leash law.
Jamie Cox's behavior is not considered cruelty to animal under State law, but probably is under the Borough Code of Ordinances.
The point at which you the right to do "something" about it depends on the "something" you do and the risk to your life or property. If the something involves lethal force, the term "reasonable defense of life and property" comes into play, and reasonable mean whatever the defendant's choice of judge or jury decides it means.
There are indeed always two sides to the story, and it's rare that both sides are fully explained in a news article. That is precisely why I'm pleased to see this case brought up before the defendant's choice of a judge or jury, who will hear both sides of the story and make a decision based on the facts.
Regarding your right to discharge a firearm on your own property - well hell, I'm a shooter, I have a firing lane on my own property and I use it regularly. Our right to discharge a firearm on our own property ends when the bullet reaches our property line. In this particular case any rounds fired on Ms. Jamie Rogers property either hits it's intended target (would that be considered "intentional"?) or it crosses the property line in the direction of a trail that is heavily used by both motorized and non-motorized users at all times of the day or night, or leaves in the direction of a neighbor's occupied home. Either way, it's pretty darned reckless.
Sounds like a civil matter to me. I would not have shot the horses, just a cruel gesture. The horses are not responsible for the owner, the owner is responsible for the horses. Jamie for hers, Heather for hers. Sounds like they do not like each other and the horses paid the price
Lost Alaska;
So what has any of that have to do with shooting horses
Justatrooper, LostAlaskan:
For the record, on two occasions I have helped folks catch horses that got away- once was on my property. My bias is towards saving an animal if at all possible. It is not the animal's fault that their owner is irresponsible.
Having said that, in this instance we have to look at what the law says, or doesn't say.
Let's use a hypothetical- a dog enters your property and attacks you or a family member, either man or animal. You shoot the dog to defend your property/family.
Are you compliant with Alaska law? Yes. Why? Because Alaska law groups feral domestic animals into a category. In a DLP position, one likely has no idea if the aggressive animal is feral or domestic.
There are feral horses, dogs, cats, rats, and who knows what else...
How would one know if the attacking animal is feral or domestic? Especially in a high stress situation at 2:00AM? And frankly, who would really care if the animal was feral or domestic?
In this Two Rivers situation, it appears the horse was accidentally killed in an DLP effort.
If Jamie gets a good attorney, and a competent jury, she will be acquitted.
And for what its worth, Justatrooper, keep blogging here. I consider troopers to be the good guys.
after reading al these blogs and being insvestigatory for better than 35 years as a investigator i now can see this case will be throwed out of court plus its a waist of states money and because is now a civil case the statetrooper or the d.a office will not have any control over it and the judge will probley dismissed the case judge will dismissed the case on the grounds they both wrong and she does have a right to protect her own land against the large animal laws and being trespassed upon by controlable animal its was wrong take it this far but she should have taken care of her horses if she paid $ 6000.00 for these horses most cowboys i know took care of these high dollars animals they are both wrong as i see it
It's kind of stupid to shoot the horse. Why not just hold onto it and charge a ransom? Think people in the old days would have been a little smarter. Think money, not revenge!
I dont understand. I understood that Jamies horses were IN Heathers yard in the FIRST place ok? Owning horses for many many years now and still own one.. horses DO get out on occasion. They often like to run to their nearest horse buddys home which could be anywhere from nearby to a couple miles away with no problem in minutes.
Horses are herd animals. Horses will entice, argue over fences with a lot of kicking, squealing and biting over fences.. which usually results in fences being pushed over , broken down etc... which then allows the fenced animals to escape into the open ..they are not dumb.
What I heard was Jamies horses were OUT on the loose more often than not and OTHER PEOPLE knew it ..it was common sight.
Ok .. now let me compute this... Heathers horses were not out like Jamies are(were) however... when Jamies horses came over in the middle of the night .... caused Heathers horses to get excited (that is horse nature) to the point that they broke out....which probably ensued a equine fight to the point of Jamies horses galloping off Heathers property with Heathers horses (now loose because of Jamies horses) hot on their tails (again horse NATURE) and ends up chasing Jamies horses back to their home (Jamie Rogers) where Jamie says she was trying to PROTECT HER horses from Heathers... says she didnt want to HURT them...where HER guns ammunition ENTERS Heathers Horses rear end which means Jamie was behind Heathers horse AIMING I might point out STRAIGHT AT HEATHERS HORSE for goodness sake!!! That doesnt prove to me that she was merely trying to scare them away.. you have to AIM to hit a horse at that level...No one can tell me she didnt mean to hurt Heathers horses WHICH by the way once again from what I understand were chasing JAMIES horses BACK HOME!!! Give me a break people!!! Sheesh!! Something is wrong with the picture here.
If Heathers horses were in Jamies yard in the physical presence of Jamies own horses..WHY were Jamies horses OUT? answer me that one huh?
shaking my head here..... as a horse owner I am seeing a bigger picture here that a lot of people are missing. Who is seeing the same thing I am?
tonto12-
Give it up, you sound like a wanna-be lawyer.
Your ideas are very far-fetched ("feral" horses in two rivers? cmon).
Jaime Rogers/Cox/whatever is just as guilty as she should have had HER horses corralled as well, isn't that why you say Heather was at fault?
NEITHER of them had their horses properly contained.
btw, no horses were being "attacked @ 2:00A.M." they were just "on her property", once again, JAIME ROGERS NEVER SAID HER HORSES WERE BEING ATTACKED AT THE TIME SHE SHOT THEM, they were just....there.
----------
"santame"-
Do you have a hard time comprehending English?
Jaime Rogers excuse for shooting Heather Rogers horses was that she believed that they may or may not somehow cause harm to her horses.
Jaime Rogers has had citations for speeding and running stop signs and has also been arrested for driving under the influence and refusing a breathalyser (just this last June) so-
I'm asking if I can shoot her on sight because of the same reason she shot Heather Rogers horse- she may pose a very real "threat" to me or my family when we are driving down the road, how do I know she is not drunk again, or, speeding to fast to stop in time? (if she stops at all)
There is NO COMPARISON between a horse and a bear or a dog. Horses are herbivores, and in general to not attack humans. They do "fight" with each other, but whether this can be considered a life or death attack is highly debateable. When one fires a gun, there is a possibiltiy of killing something and the shooter was willing to take that risk. Whether it was "intentional" may never be truley deciphered. It could not be called self defense, and seems to be more of a personal issue of taking the law into one's own hands. The right to bear arms does not translate into the right to shoot at will anything on ones property.
A pellet gun would have scard them off. Firing a deadly weapon means death is a reasonable possibility, which the shooter was obviosly not opposed to. It is too bad the horses bore the brunt of what was problem between people. The law can be taken to extemes, as in the person who feels shooting an animal that is caught "illegally" mating with another is highly justified. Should the animal be shot because it MAY illegall mate with another, as a pre-emtive strike? Common sense also should factor in.
There was recently a young boy shot down south while trick or treating, because the inhabitant of the house thought he was being robbed. Is that justfied? Just "protecting property?" A reasonabe jury of peers should be able to determine whether the act of the shooter in this horse death was justified. Provided gun rights paranoia does not become the main issue.
Wow.... do these people not have each others phone numbers? In Two Rivers???? I mean for crying out loud.... call the woman - tell her her horses are out...and inform her you are concearned about your own because of it. Be irrate if you need to - cuss her out, throw a freakin fit, threaten to kick her *ss - whatever - but don't just start shooting!
I have had some neighborly battles - so yeah, I know how hard it is to be civil to someone when you really don't want to, esspecially at 2am - but dang, we are grown humans people - act that way! No one is perfect - no animal is either - but if we just sit around waiting for a chance to shoot those we do not like..... there would be none of us left!
This story reminds me of the movie Needfull Things - based on a Stephen King Book...... unreal!
"btw, no horses were being "attacked @ 2:00A.M." they were just "on her property", once again, JAIME ROGERS NEVER SAID HER HORSES WERE BEING ATTACKED AT THE TIME SHE SHOT THEM, they were just....there."
Just because jaime rogers never said to the DNM that her horses were being attacked doesn't mean they weren't, if anyone has noticed, heather is the only one that submitted 'information' to the newsminer article.
so far all i have found that came from jamie's 'mouth' is "she plans to dispute the charges".
these people all seem to know heathers side, and i mean more than anyone could possibly gather from these 2 articles...
heather must be worried to have everyone subjected to hearing her 'truth' before they hear jamie's 'truth'.
hmmm, i want the real truth. i follow this closely, and i am sick of hearing heather rogers vigilantes acting like lawyers at a trial, and people that want to defend jamie rogers acting like stereo-typical gun-toting crazies!
by the way, what repercussions do you think this forum could bring to a trial of this case, if somebody had, say, been saving ALL the pages comments, from both articles? i have seen these 'stories' change several times... in a written forum.
"The animals, owned by Heather Rogers, apparently got loose and entered Jamie Rogers’ property early on Oct. 20, according to AUTHORITIES."
"JAMIE ROGERS HAS SAID she fired her pistol to scare away the horses because they had PREVIOUSLY attacked her horses."
"JAMIE ROGERS SAID the previous attack on her horses by Heather Rogers’ horses caused bloody injuries.
“I would never intentionally shoot anybody’s horse.” SHE(JAMIE ROGERS)SAID. “I was trying to get them out of my yard."-
-From the article written above.
Alot of folks on here keep referring to animal cruelty laws and the borough's animal cruelty statutes. There is no relevance between animal cruelty and her charges. She is not charged with any animal cruelty charges. Her charges are recklessly discharming a firearm. That's why the borough animal control turned it over to the AST. So there is no point arguing animal cruelty laws in Alaska. I think there is alot to argue about when it comes to penalties for recklessly discharging a firearm and the state's lack of a fence out law. If the state followed suit with most of the western US, and crafted a fence out statute, then cases like this would be easy, cut and dry. Alaska has too many roaming creatures, both domestic and wild, to not have a fence out law. Having a fence out law would protect the domestics, but would have no change to the wild ones. It wouldn't need to change a bit! It is just a shame that a neighbor to neighbor feud turned to this. Gun play! Over a neighbor squabble that has been going for for how long...anyone know for sure how long these two idiots have been going at it without growing up and solving their issues? This is the kinda stuff good parents teach their kids NOT to do...get into a squabble with your neighbor and not resolving it. The real crime here is these two letting this neighbor squabble turn into gun play. No doubt she needs to go to jail for the gun charge, but both of them should be taken out back of the wood shed and taught to solve their problems right away...not to let them linger, and then fester, and then boil ever with a gun! That's all we need, another idiot neighbor squabble, and one of them HAS A GUN!
As a former Borough Animal Control Veterinarian/Manager, i can provide some background and insight into this issue...
1. Animal Control used to have an agreement with the troopers...if there was an issue involving animals, the troopers would refer it to animal control. If animal control felt they needed trooper assist (dangerous, etc), they'd get trooper assist. It worked well. This evolved after I had heard of a couple of dogs getting shot at point blank range out in Two Rivers during the Boundary Fire timeframe. Troopers were called out and the owners were handed a business card with the case file # on it. We found out about it and recovered the dogs' bodies...still attached to their chains nearly 48 hours after their deaths. Troopers weren't interested in such evidence and said the bullets were likely somewhere in the dirt. A bullet was recovered from one dog's brain, after it was seen with via radiograph. I removed the bullet, and took it over to the troopers along with a bunch of photos. Nothing more was ever done as far as i know.
2. Nearly always, there are more than 2 sides to a story. Quite likely, both sides are not telling the whole story, but quite likely, one party is more guilty than the other. Unfortunately, the animals are the ones to suffer.
3. This horse incident was reported to the troopers and then to Animal Control on Monday morning. Finally, on Friday, a trooper arrived at the scene. After a major snowfall. The delay for some authority to arrive on the scene is inexcusable. The Animal Control Officers have extensive training in animal incident investigations and evidence collection. There is a contract veterinarian who is supposed to investigate animal issues. Someone told Animal Control to stay off the case and let the troopers handle it. That response is what we, as the public, should be outraged about. The troopers didn't know what to look for. Plus, the trooper admitted to Heather that he didn't know anything about horses. Not his fault.
4. The Goldstream guy actually shot 2 dogs in separate incidents a few years ago. Animal Control responded to the first non-fatal incident. The dog's human finally used her own resources and a private attorney to prosecute him. As i recall, the DA prosecuted him for the fatal shooting.
After seeing no wounds, Rogers returned the horses to their corral and went back to bed.
The next morning, Rogers saw that Phoenix was dead and Sierra was wounded.
-from the article above
hey so why did the horse have to die? if heather didn't just go back to sleep, the horse would possibly be alive. he needed a vet, so call one. maybe you would just have a vet bill to sue over, huh? not a dead animal that makes you 'heartsick to think about'...
ps- how many rounds were fired? did any of them hit anything off of jamie's property, regardless of aim?
i honestly would like to know.
she did for the insurance money.
because horses are very large and bullet holes are very small, duh.
Besides heather was probably sleeping at the time, it WAS 2:00A.M. and she probably did not think that Jamie would actually shoot her horses, guess she was wrong.
Was Jamie INTOXICATED at the time?(two in the morning?, I'll bet she was sober as a judge huh?) of course she would never admit it.
"how many rounds were fired? did any of them hit anything off of jamie's property, regardless of aim?
i honestly would like to know."
well, two of them at least obviously hit the horses.
I think there is some social retardation going on here within this Roger Feud, mix that with firearms and you've got real trouble! They both seem to lack basic consideration and compromise for each other.
I would have thought horse lovers would behave better. Jamie Rogers' apparent disregard for ballistic trajectories and her choice to use a firearm to intimidate seems irresponsible and immature, she should forfeit the right to own firearms at least until she has taken a firearm safety course. If you can't come to a compromise with your neighbor then use the legal channels first.
IF Jamie R. had hit an innocent PERSON...
...you people would have NOTHING to say.
"I was trying to scare horses away" is not an excuse.
How did the horses get loose? Where was the shooter at the time the horses were shot? Why was the phone call made to the neighbor? If the shooter's horses grazed freely, why is she complaining about the neighbors horses? How did the feud start?
WHY didnt the shooter call the neighbor b-4 shooting the pistol. I also think that a bunch of horse S...,regarding what i just read from ravenvet42.The animal control should have much more involvment and is much more qualified then State Troopers.Cant animal control issue tickets for animal cruelty and neglect?
"how many rounds were fired? did any of them hit anything off of jamie's property, regardless of aim? i honestly would like to know."-me
"well, two of them at least obviously hit the horses."-LostAlaskan (good name)
and if the horses were on the property, like it is seeming they were (nobody yet has claimed jamie went to heathers to shoot them? or anywhere for that matter.)
i was asking if anything OFF of the property (like land/trees/cars/barns/houses/other) was hit by a bullet? and again how many rounds were fired anyway
"because horses are very large and bullet holes are very small, duh."
I'm sorry but I must comment that bullet holes are not that small, and they tend to do this thing called "bleeding" which is VERY noticeable, especially at eye-level, which is right about where a horses butt would be if you were "checking for wounds" after having gotten loose.
"After seeing no wounds, Rogers returned the horses to their corral and went back to bed." - from the article above
Again I say- "After seeing no wounds"- This clearly states Rogers "checked for wouProper safety was a failure on both sides of the fence.nds" BEFORE returning them to there corral. Now I don't know about you, but I would notice if my horse's butt was bleeding, or even if there was just a little hole there, because it would have been MY horse and I would have loved it and seen it EVERYDAY since I bought it.
But, this still really boils back down to failure to keep your animals contained and safe, and this was failed on both sides.
my point exactly. if heather actually checked the horse like she claimed, could she have REALLY overlooked a hole that bled enough between 2am and whenever, eventually leading to the horses death?
Jamie, I hope that this will all get sorted out without legalities. ALL gun owners should watch out as this is a very slippery slope. If I want to defend my property or possessions, there should be no charges even considered if I shoot on MY PROPERTY!! I think this should be a non issue, and Jamie, I am outside for a couple of weeks, but if there is anything I can do to help you when I get back, please ask...take care.
Yukonjohn- I have one word.... DITTO!!!!!!
Oh, and by the way, people are talking about "domestic" animals. I dont know if it is still the case, but in Ft. Yukon all during the 90s, if a dog was running loose, even if it was collared and dragging a chain, it was shot and thrown in the dump!! ALL LOOSE DOGS, no questions asked. I would almost bet that this is still the policy carried out by the Ft. Yukon police dept. It is for public safety and totally understandable to me, but if animals are rummaging around on someone else's property, it should go without saying that the property owner has the right to stop them....to include shooting them.
if / when there is a trial, i hope everyone with cute little screen names can contain themselves... and those with any 'actual information' can bear to say their piece in court. slander/libel aside, i think that this should truly come to light in court, if it gets that far, contrary to the negative glow of the posting here, in general.
i know there is a general public opinion posted here, except when it gets really personal (i.e. you know the guy). but there is so many questions, both asked and unasked, 'answered' and 'unanswered' by the DNM.
i just want to know why we take for the God-given truth what the paper says, for an act that we have know only what the paper prints... who writes that? were they there? what do they take out of context, in positive, or negative light?
Quoting - The animal control should have much more involvment and is much more qualified then State Troopers.Cant animal control issue tickets for animal cruelty and neglect? - end quote
Thank you, mooseman. That's been my point all along.
To be fair, I can certainly understand why an unarmed animal control officer would be hesitant to confront an obviously volatile and obviously armed suspect, but it truly is a simple matter to contact AST and request an armed escort.
Maybe it was just one of those Bureau of Indian Affairs things. Back when George Armstrong Custer was in charge of BIA he left for Little Big Horn and said "Don't do anything until I get back." Of course, he still hasn't returned and BIA is still faithfully fulfilling his order.
I know that the FNSB Shelter Manager was not available at the time (I tried sending him an Email and received an out of office response). The Emergency Operations Director position was open as the former director recently resigned and a new one not yet hired. I finally did get an answer from an assistant to the mayor who wrote along the lines of "the case was referred to the troopers and we can't comment on an ongoing investigation blah blah blah." I later learned (from a knowledgeable frequent poster in this forum) that the troopers were NOT requested until days after I received that Email.
The Borough botched the call and it has fallen upon AST and the DA to patch up a messy situation that should be have been easily resolved with a timely and competent investigation and the issuance of a simple citation for the applicable borough violation rather than a State misdemeanor.
Meanwhile, rather than taking responsibility for an issue that clearly falled under the jurisdiction of the Borough, it would appear the mayor's staff and subordinates decided to stonewall those who inquired about it, in hopes the issue would somehow magically disappear.
Shelter Manager Matt Ruger has stated that the primary mission of the Animal Control Division is a public safety mission, that they are only adequately funded and staffed to the level needed to achieve that mission. When animals are running around loose in spite of the borough's ordinance, the public's safety is being threatened. When bullets are flying around the public's safety is being threatened to an even greater extent. In this case the animal control divisions "public safety mission" was NOT accomplished and frankly, I'm sore about it.
The public expects a reasonably timely and reasonably competent response when we call animal control. I can't count the number of people who have told me they won't even bother calling AC because "they won't do anything about it anyway." This case provides pretty good evidence that those folks are correct, AC WON'T do anything about it.
"i just want to know why we take for the God-given truth what the paper says, for an act that we have know only what the paper prints... who writes that? were they there? what do they take out of context, in positive, or negative light?"
-Ditto again, this time to AnimalMom!!! :-) Glad to see there are still people with open minds out there, if only there were more of us!
Hard to tell what is going on!
It sounds to me like there are other long standing neighborhood disputes in addition to the "horse" troubles.
List time I heard Alaska is "open rage" and to close your rage you fence our own property to keep animals [horses/cattle] out.
If this is the case, then "shooter" Rogers would need to prove the horses had breeched her fence which was well maintained.
Also, for all we know the "fence" could be in common to the two neighbors!
Trial by "press" is often a miscarriage of justice.
I would like to say just this ... about the bullet entering the now deceased horse and why Heather didnt notice it. Im not saying whether she did or didnt take the time to look.. I wasnt there. however this much I can say... I have seen dogs with bullet wounds that you could NOT see for the fur.. VERY little IF any discharge coming from the wound. Now keeping in mind I didnt see the wound or the horse.. so I don't know really what Heathers horse looked like in the wounded area (the deceased one) so I cannot really judge this situation in this case. But I just wanted to have you all consider a couple things.
It was dark out.. it was early morning....... Heather was tired from being woke up.. Im sure she was quite awake by the time the horses got back to their corral. Horses have a winter coat now... a large horse and a smaller caliber gun has smaller ammo that makes a small entry would in many cases...entering the skin upon contact and then often closing up behind it leaving very little sign. In a large horse like Heathers.. there is a very good chance that in the dark and with the coat and with the heightened situation she honestly didnt SEE the wound at the time.
Why do I know this? because I have known of dogs in this situation in the past. It IS possible ...so please don't be so quick to judge Heather for NOT checking. You weren't there at that time so NO ONE can possibly Judge her as NOT checking her horse over.
Just wanted you all to think about that.
Animalmom-
Shooting into the dark and NOT KNOWING what you hit is WRONG.
It doesn't matter if she shot twice or twenty times, it doesn't matter how you want to "spin it", she was IRRESPONSIBLE and got BUSTED.
Jaimie is QUOTED as saying she would "NEVER intentionally shoot a horse" meaning: she didn't know WHERE she was shooting anyway, her words not mine.
But what you seem to keep wanting to prove here is that it is ok to just fling lead at super-sonic speeds, in the dark, over a threat that may or may not be real.
Heathers horses had apparently injured Jamies in the past, ok soooo, why didn't she shoot them then?
Were Jamies horses "bloodied" or injured in any way this time? no.
Were any of Jamies horses killed last time? NO.
----------
As much as people want to live like it's the 1800's in Two Rivers...
...I'm sorry to say that the laws STILL apply like anywhere else.
The bottom line is that Jamie Rogers broke the law, hence this article.
Does anyone know about the circumstances of the wounding of J. Rogers horse, where, on whose property, were H. Rogers horses free then? Also, what kind of stable/corral does H. Rogers have, that allowed for her horses to escape?
Apparently there are laws reguarding cruelty to animals on the books that state $10.000.00 fine and 1 year in jail.
in my opinion it doest matter what Heathers corral looks like, she isnt the one with horses loose more often than not. Horses get loose on occassion. I am a horse owner. It doesnt matter how well your corral is constructed they will sometimes find a way, sometimes its human error, ie accidently not latching the gate well enough upon leaving the corral but though you did. I've had that happen on occassion. In fact I dont know of one horse owner in my town that hasnt had their horses escape at least once a year! We all laugh about it, we all run out and gather them up and return them to their relieved owners, its part of the horse community ode "Help One another in time of need as we would like it to be done to us"
A person cannot be 'responsible' with accidental escapes, it happens to ALL horse owners unless you got them behind IRON BARS and electric fencing as well, but I suppose a really determined horse could get out of one of those too, but that is unrealistic for all horse owners to have.
The real problem stems from the Shooters horses being Loose more often than not causing other peoples horses to get all excited and want to break out as well. Its horse nature. I have had that happen here as well .
But if someone allows THEIR horses to ROAM at will and KNOWS they do, I don't understand what RIGHTS she had to do what she did. Even if Heathers horses WERE in her yard. I am positive Heather wouldnt have done that in HER yard, I am sure because of the kind of heart she has for animals that she would have done something to get those horses back home if she could or at least chase them away.
It is kind of hard to care too much for owners that you KNOW lets their horses roam at free will, you KNOW they won't keep them contained, its the HORSES we feel sorry for, we would prefer they be in a home where people CARE about keeping them home and cared for.
If it wasnt Heathers horses going after Jamies horses it could have been bears in the summer and wolves in the winter or being hit by someones vehicle, they were a danger to other people simply if they had run out in front of a snowmachine or a car? A good owner keeps their animals confined and in THEIR own yard at all times if possible. But it sounds to me that Jamie had no qualms about letting her horses roam to graze. That would be nice if we could all do that, but I know my horses could potentially die in some form being loose or injured by such instances I mentioned above and I know that IM putting people in danger of being injured hitting a horse in such instances, why would I take that chance?
Heathers horses got loose? why ? from what I understand Jamies horses were in HER yard in the first place, and even if they were not? Horses get loose, you don't shoot someone elses horses when your OWN is known to wander at will a LOT, that is my concern.
I would love for this to go to court so we could all find out the facts....horse can be very mean to other horses, especially when you have geldings that think they are stallions. I've seen horses kick, bite, attack, throw, and try to kill other horses. I love horses but they are not a passive type of animal when the herd instincts kick in. They will do whatever is necessary to show their domination if they feel the need, just like two dogs going at it. I hope the FNSB Animal Control starts paying attention to people's complaints so this doesn't continue to happen.
just one more nut bag who shouldn't own a gun.
glad this one stopped and everyone is just biding time
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.