Five dogs killed in Logan County

Two Logan county men want animal cruelty charges filed against the man who shot their five hunting dogs. Full Story
Lindsay

Beggs, OK

#126 Jun 1, 2008
Peta wrote:
Has anyone called Peta
Maybe Pamela Anderson will come down and lead a Protest.
Yep, I'm sure PeTA would love a chance to lead the charge against hunting with hounds. I don't think getting PeTA involved in this case will have the desired effect whatsoever.
tim kennedy

United States

#127 Jun 2, 2008
citizens of this county should be outraged that charges are not being brought against this person.. he should be required to pay for the hounds as well as face charges for his actions with a weapon on public land.
Stroud

Colonial Heights, VA

#128 Jun 2, 2008
Ok--to the person defending the shooter--you said there were children at the lake. Those dogs were not going after the children--not even the man's cows and he had a GUN AT THE LAKE WHERE CHILDREN WERE PLAYING!!!!If he had a problem with other dogs chasing his animals he should have taken the legal steps to have it stopped--NOT taken a gun and beer on public land and shoot the dogs. What if he had missed and shot a child? He pointed the gun at one of the dog owners--wasn't that a BIG NO_NO? 1.Shooting dogs without reason 2.Shooting on public land 3.Shooting around children playing and 4.Pointing a loaded gun at a person---what does it take to arrest this man?
Mark from MA

Gloucester, MA

#129 Jun 2, 2008
I cannot believe that authorities down there are letting this Luckinbill guy get away w slaughtering those inncocent dogs just because they came near his land. What a shock to have somone like that loose in your state.
Bud

Tulsa, OK

#130 Jun 3, 2008
Peta wrote:
Has anyone called Peta
Maybe Pamela Anderson will come down and lead a Protest.
Don't anyone bring that biggit of a company to this stat!
good ole boy

Broken Arrow, OK

#131 Jun 3, 2008
i wonder about tinkerbell,is he the dog killer or is he mentally retared?there is somethingwrong with anyone who holds up fora man who shoots dogs needlessly.if they were mydogs he would pay with cattle.and it would be a high price.
good ole boy

Broken Arrow, OK

#132 Jun 3, 2008
pilgrim wrote:
That man needs his butt kicked and then made to reimburse the hunting dog owners. what an idoit and doesn't the justice system down there have any balls.
if you find a justice system round here,please try t record it.i have heard rumers of it
but its hard to fnd.
rich4011

Midlothian, TX

#133 Jun 4, 2008
I recieved an answer from the governor's office. He said it was a local problem. Everyone I wrote to up the said basically the same thing.
Emeraldrose

AOL

#134 Jun 18, 2008
sad to say oklahoma doesnt know the meaning of law their version is he is rich he contributes to the da's campaign no wonder the da wont prosecute!!! think there are many ladders we can climb we just havent hit the right one yet. i still believe there is always someone higher in rank we just need to keep going up the ladder.
rich4011 wrote:
I recieved an answer from the governor's office. He said it was a local problem. Everyone I wrote to up the said basically the same thing.
Emeraldrose

AOL

#135 Jun 18, 2008
and btw it isnt just dogs he points guns at he shot at a woman that was sent out to put a notice on his door but the local law didnt do anything because they said it was her word against his doesnt matter that her husband was there and witnessed it can we say corrupt in a big way??!!!
Update june 21 2008

AOL

#136 Jun 21, 2008
Now I understand Mr Luckingbill just killed another neighbors dogs and got into a armed confrontation with this neighbor. Just a matter of time before he kills someone.

Since: May 08

Fort Worth, TX

#137 Jun 26, 2008
Would you please give a little more info on this. There's got to be a way to get this Luckinbill prosecuted. Got to stay on top of all this and obtain the proof.

Since: Feb 07

Guthrie, Ok.

#138 Jun 27, 2008
I received this media release from Robert Hudson of Oklahoma's Dist. Attny. Council:
MEDIA RELEASE
District Attorney, Rob Hudson, announced today that no charges for animal cruelty will be filed against Rodney Luckinbill relating to Luckinbill’s shooting of 5 dogs on April 22, 2008. Hudson said “the State of Oklahoma would be unable to meet the burden of proof required by law to obtain a conviction”. Hudson stated that after carefully reviewing the facts contained in the police reports, personally visiting the scene, researching the laws relating to animal cruelty, farmers/ranchers right to protect their livestock and cases relating to assertions of self defense, it is my opinion that there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Luckinbill was guilty of animal abuse. Moreover, a jury would be instructed by the Judge on the affirmative defense of “self defense”.
The following is both an explanation of my analysis as well as a position statement pertaining to this very emotionally charged incident:
We have in the past, and will continue to in the future, file cases of animal cruelty against defendants in cases where we can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt;
Here are some facts which came to light in the investigation and of which the public may be unaware. These significantly affect the prosecutability of a criminal case:
A). The Officer at the scene said he observed approximately 10 to15 dogs (the media has only heard of and reported about 5 which were killed);
B). Approximately 3 or 4 of those dogs were Pitt Bulls, or a mix thereof, which gives credibility to Luckinbill’s call to police, before he shot any dog, that his cattle were being chased by a pack of Pitt Bulls;
C). The dogs were released from a trailer by the dog owners less than 100 feet from Luckinbill’s barbed wire fence line where his cattle graze;
D). One of the dog owners was armed with a pistol which was on his waist;
E). A veterinarian who inspected the cattle after the incident would testify that the injuries and wounds to Luckinbill’s cattle were consistent with an attack by a group (pack) of dogs. He would further state that some of the wounds were likely bite marks and some were likely received from being chased through trees and a wooded area;
F). Luckinbill would present evidence and testify that 8 calves had been previously killed by dog attacks.
G). The dog owners admit they have taken their dogs to this area “quite often”.
The Oklahoma Law (Title 4 Section 41) provides that it is lawful to kill dogs that chase livestock, therefore Luckinbill would have that statutory defense relating to the first 2 dogs he shot. There were no eyewitnesses to controvert his statement that he observed the dogs chasing his cattle. In actuality, his statement is corroborated by the 911 call when he requested the police to come out before he had shot any dog;
Luckinbill claims that when he got out of his truck where the other 3 dogs were shot, that they “approached him in an aggressive manner.”“Luckinbill stated he believed his life was in danger and shot all three dogs with a 12 gauge shotgun.” This claim is uncontroverted since no one else witnessed this. Luckinbill’s assertion gives rise to the legal defense of Self-Defense which would justify him defending himself by killing those dogs. Further facts which corroborate Luckinbill’s claim of self-defense:

Since: Feb 07

Guthrie, Ok.

#139 Jun 27, 2008
Part 2:
- there is physical evidence (veterinary exam and report) that the cattle had indeed been attacked which would arguably justify his fear of the dogs coming at him;
- it is common knowledge that dogs which hunt or run in a group or pack are very dangerous;
- these 3 dogs were killed within 2, 5 and 6 feet, respectively, from the door of Luckinbill’s truck evidencing the dogs came up to Luckinbill at his truck.
I realize Luckinbill’s statements are self-serving, but they are no less or more self serving than the owners of the dogs who state that their dogs were not chasing Luckinbill’s cattle. Remember that the owners of the dogs admit their dogs had veered off for approximately 15 minutes and they had lost visual contact with them.
I am not opposed to hunting. I am a hunter. Also, I am not opposed to hunting raccoons and hogs/pigs. It is lawful to do so subject to certain rules and restrictions. However, Oklahoma Law also provides that a person whose occupation and livelihood are derived from being an animal husbandriman which includes raising, caring for, nurturing and protecting his livestock , is authorized to kill a dog or dogs that chases or injures or kills his livestock. When these 2 issues collide (raising livestock versus hunting with a group or pack of dogs), the law sides with the livestock owner.
I grew up on a farm and I know both farmers and hunters alike. If this incident, i.e. the chasing of cattle by a pack of dogs, happened to any farmer I know, that farmer would have done the same thing. We cannot prosecute every farmer that kills a dog(s) that chases his cattle. On the other hand, I’m not insensitive to dogs or dog owners (I am a multiple dog owner myself) and I realize that Luckinbill was obviously upset, mad and possibly enraged, but it appears to me that many people who are upset with Luckinbill for killing 5 dogs who chased his cattle are on the wrong side of the issue. Luckinbill was protecting his defenseless cattle from dogs that kill other innocent animals. I have never hunted pigs, but encourage you to ask someone who has. Ask them what roles the Blue Tic’s and the Pit Bulls play in tracking down their prey.
Lest it be concluded that I’m condoning Luckinbill’s actions, I realize it is possible his actions went too far. Nevertheless, his actions did not go so far as being “criminal” under the facts and circumstances I have carefully reviewed. If his actions were excessive (the shooting of the 3 dogs which he claims came at him in an aggressive manner), such can be litigated by the parties through civil court for monetary damages. The burden of proof in a civil case is “by a preponderance of the evidence”, which means “more likely than not” as opposed to the criminal law’s burden of proving a person guilty of each and every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
As to the allegations that Luckinbill pointed his gun at Mr. Bowen, it is troublesome that Mr. Bowen did not mention this to the officer at the scene. That allegation was made by Mr. Bowen in a later interview. Clearly, the evidence is that Luckinbill had a shotgun, but Mr. Bowen also had a handgun. The one thing that can be concluded as true and accurate is that this was very intense meeting between Mr. Bowen, who had just lost five dogs which he loved and cherished, and Luckinbill, who was also upset about his cattle. Again, when taking all the facts and circumstances into account, there is insufficient proof to meet the State’s Burden of Proof that Luckinbill feloniously pointed a gun at Mr. Bowen.
As to having guns in the City Limits, both Luckinbill and Bowen may be in violation of the law, but those are violations of municipal ordinances, for which the jurisdiction lies with the Municipal Court.

Since: Feb 07

Guthrie, Ok.

#140 Jun 27, 2008
Part 3:

[COMMENT] The criminal statute relating to animal cruelty is a difficult one to use in many fact scenarios because it contains no “misdemeanor” provision. Animal cruelty is always a felony as the law is now written in Oklahoma. This is odd when compared to the domestic abuse statute which provides that if a person beats his/her significant other, such is a misdemeanor for the first offense. This doesn’t seem fundamentally right in that an animal is afforded more protection than a human being? Is that the way it should be? I advocate a change in the law for a misdemeanor provision for the first offense with a felony option for the more severe cases which involve torture or inhumane treatment. If this were done, it is likely that more animal cruelty cases would be filed. DA’s, as they should be, are reluctant to file any charge which they don’t believe have sufficient facts to sustain the high and heavy burden of “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”, especially felonies.(This comment does not pertain to the fact scenario in this case for the reasons explained hereinbelow, but does warrant inclusion since the topic of enforcing laws relating to animal abuse will clearly be a hot topic as this case is discussed among citizens) ;
The bottom line is that there is insufficient evidence to prevail in the prosecution of this case and I believe to prosecute a case that cannot be won becomes an act of persecution. I encourage everyone to remember that the Constitution requires a prosecutor to prove a defendant committed a crime BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent, not the other way around.
I ask you to consider that I was elected as your District Attorney to make decisions based upon the law, to protect the citizens from criminals, to exercise sound discretion in the use of the power to charge a person with a crime. These decisions MUST be made from analyzing a case from a legal standpoint instead of from an emotional standpoint.

Since: Feb 07

Guthrie, Ok.

#141 Jun 27, 2008
Well Hell!

It is out of order but, Part 2:

- there is physical evidence (veterinary exam and report) that the cattle had indeed been attacked which would arguably justify his fear of the dogs coming at him;

- it is common knowledge that dogs which hunt or run in a group or pack are very dangerous;

- these 3 dogs were killed within 2, 5 and 6 feet, respectively, from the door of Luckinbill’s truck evidencing the dogs came up to Luckinbill at his truck.

I realize Luckinbill’s statements are self-serving, but they are no less or more self serving than the owners of the dogs who state that their dogs were not chasing Luckinbill’s cattle. Remember that the owners of the dogs admit their dogs had veered off for approximately 15 minutes and they had lost visual contact with them.

I am not opposed to hunting. I am a hunter. Also, I am not opposed to hunting raccoons and hogs/pigs. It is lawful to do so subject to certain rules and restrictions. However, Oklahoma Law also provides that a person whose occupation and livelihood are derived from being an animal husbandriman which includes raising, caring for, nurturing and protecting his livestock , is authorized to kill a dog or dogs that chases or injures or kills his livestock. When these 2 issues collide (raising livestock versus hunting with a group or pack of dogs), the law sides with the livestock owner.

I grew up on a farm and I know both farmers and hunters alike. If this incident, i.e. the chasing of cattle by a pack of dogs, happened to any farmer I know, that farmer would have done the same thing. We cannot prosecute every farmer that kills a dog(s) that chases his cattle. On the other hand, I’m not insensitive to dogs or dog owners (I am a multiple dog owner myself) and I realize that Luckinbill was obviously upset, mad and possibly enraged, but it appears to me that many people who are upset with Luckinbill for killing 5 dogs who chased his cattle are on the wrong side of the issue. Luckinbill was protecting his defenseless cattle from dogs that kill other innocent animals. I have never hunted pigs, but encourage you to ask someone who has. Ask them what roles the Blue Tic’s and the Pit Bulls play in tracking down their prey.

Lest it be concluded that I’m condoning Luckinbill’s actions, I realize it is possible his actions went too far. Nevertheless, his actions did not go so far as being “criminal” under the facts and circumstances I have carefully reviewed. If his actions were excessive (the shooting of the 3 dogs which he claims came at him in an aggressive manner), such can be litigated by the parties through civil court for monetary damages. The burden of proof in a civil case is “by a preponderance of the evidence”, which means “more likely than not” as opposed to the criminal law’s burden of proving a person guilty of each and every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

As to the allegations that Luckinbill pointed his gun at Mr. Bowen, it is troublesome that Mr. Bowen did not mention this to the officer at the scene. That allegation was made by Mr. Bowen in a later interview. Clearly, the evidence is that Luckinbill had a shotgun, but Mr. Bowen also had a handgun. The one thing that can be concluded as true and accurate is that this was very intense meeting between Mr. Bowen, who had just lost five dogs which he loved and cherished, and Luckinbill, who was also upset about his cattle. Again, when taking all the facts and circumstances into account, there is insufficient proof to meet the State’s Burden of Proof that Luckinbill feloniously pointed a gun at Mr. Bowen.

As to having guns in the City Limits, both Luckinbill and Bowen may be in violation of the law, but those are violations of municipal ordinances, for which the jurisdiction lies with the Municipal Court.
Tania

Pictou, Canada

#142 Feb 3, 2009
This is disgusting how could some people do this to dogs. No heart at all sickening.
bill wilhelm

Sidcup, UK

#143 Feb 24, 2009
dombie from amarillo tx wrote:
A law is a law...but they are ment to be broken i dont agree with the shooting of the dogs there could have been a diffrent way to handle the hole situation...fire a shot in the air if he thought that the dogs were attacking his cattle...the hole thing just sounds a little fishy to me, the two on property ok whatever but the ones off his property i say charge him....that wasnt fair.
It's not the law it's behind them that pushes them its happening even now
Big Dawg

United States

#144 Feb 25, 2009
bill wilhelm wrote:
<quoted text> It's not the law it's behind them that pushes them its happening even now
Huh??????????
Jasmine

United States

#145 Mar 7, 2009
You guys dont need to be posting **** unless you know the man i know him alot better then you think the story is that he was mindin his bussness checkin on his cattle like his normal routine and the dogs ran up and were terizing his baby calf and a baby cow is like a child and you know if a ****ing dog came up and starting chewwing on your child you would shoot the dog. and the QT bbottle was empty and dry it had been drinkin a long time ago

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guthrie Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Plumb Genius (May '13) Jan 21 Jake 16
Philadelpia church of God in the area. (Sep '11) Jan 20 BBC 42
Philadelphia Church of God, just wise in their ... Jan 14 Tederick 1
Dance Away the Pounds (Jan '09) Jan 9 April 19
Brutal Abuse: Poodle set on fire Jan 5 Sam 2
bill Tully Jan 3 just wondering 1
These are the times of the Israelites!!!. Dec '14 dGo aDnmed loHy r... 1
Guthrie Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Guthrie People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:01 pm PST

Bleacher Report 2:01PM
Should Jerry Now Be Considered a Top-Quality GM?
NFL 6:28 AM
Witten: It's 'silly' to think Murray is easily replaceable
NBC Sports 7:10 AM
Jason Witten: Every back couldn't do what DeMarco Murray did this season
Bleacher Report 9:39 AM
Murray Will Command Up to $10M Per Year
NBC Sports 9:48 AM
Tony Romo: I have to be better