Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Dangerous owners Part I

I have discussed dangerous dogs, but what about the owners?  Who would turn these monsters loose amongst us?  They know the breed history, they know the controversy, in most cases they even know first hand what their mauler is capable of (killing cats, chasing the mail carrier, etc…).  They torment us regularly with useless, noxious noise.  They cover our land with feces.  What is up with these people?  
Due to the “dog loophole” that explicitly or implicitly allows dog owners to create mayhem, dog ownership has become little more than legally backed thuggery.  As per my “Assault is legal” post, you CAN assault others, destroy property, and create unlimited noise pollution with your dog. 

There was a shooting death near me a couple of months ago.  A dog owner killed a neighbor who had complained about his dog.  Here is the cast of characters and the particulars:

-          Paul Miller.  Dog owner.  Dog had been noted to bark loudly and frequently.
-          Dana Mulhall.  Neighbor to dog owner with uselessly barking dog.  Had complained to Miller about the barking dog multiple times.
-          Properties between the two was divided by a fence.
-          Miller shot Mulhall dead after Mulhall had shouted over the fence to “shut your F—king dog up”.  I’m not sure if those were the exact words used, but that was the spirit of the conversation anyway.
-          Mulhall never crossed the fence line.
-          Miller retreated into his home, retrieved his gun, went back outside and shot Mulhall FIVE times, including TWICE in the back.
-          Miller then called 911 and announced that he “shot his F—king ass” with what was noted as a “cavalier attitude” by the 911 operator.
-          Miller is now in jail awaiting trial for 2nd degree murder.
-          Miller’s attorneys are claiming self defense under Florida’s “stand your ground” laws.
-          More information on the case:  http://flaglerlive.com/36943/paul-miller-bond-hearing/   and http://flaglerlive.com/35712/mulhall-shooting-murder/

First, let me get this out of the way.  I am a gun owner, self defense activist, 2nd amendment supporter, NRA member and a general supporter of “stand your ground”.  Without that, we are legally obligated to surrender to violent criminals.  Who does that benefit?

With that said, I am sick and tired of misanthropes such as Miller claiming “self defense” when his “self” was not threatened in any way.   Mulhall did NOT cross the property line, did NOT brandish any weapons, and was SHOT IN THE BACK.  Miller was SAFE IN HIS HOME when he decided to KILL Mulhall.  There is NO legitimate self defense scenario that involves shooting your “aggressor” IN THE BACK.  FURTHER, Miller had been provoking Mulhall with the noxious noise of his uselessly barking dog.  As, I noted in “Stop the torture”, barking dog noise IS torture method used by the military and law enforcement.   Miller had been torturing Mulhall!

Yes, Mulhall was angry.  I was, too, when I had explosively loud noises projected into my home by the malicious dog owner across the street.  I could not work or sleep.  Who would not be angry?

So why did Miller shoot Mulhall dead, including at least 2 shots in the back as Mulhall was trying to flee?  I believe that Mulhall had made the deadly mistake of challenging Miller’s status as dog owner.   How dare Mulhall complain about the explosively loud noises projected into his home?  Didn’t Mulhall know that Miller OWNED him and could do whatever he wanted to him with his dog?  Miller clearly expected Mulhall to be a compliant victim.  Miller clearly believed that ANYONE who dared complain about his dog deserved to DIE.   Miller believed he was empowered (entitled) to kill anyone who dared complain about his dog.  I disagree with authorities that this was a murder:  This was an EXECUTION.  This was PRE MEDITATED and CAREFULLY EXECUTED.  Literally!

I tell you, I have seen this rage first hand.  Unlike Mulhall, I pursued the malicious dog owner across the street through authorities, and the dog owner in question flew into a foaming at the mouth, apoplectic, towering RAGE at me for DARING to suggest that they should not turn their dog loose in my yard to crap.  Again, I challenged their status as dog owner…. How dare I suggest they keep their dog quiet and not crap in my yard?  I must be the anti-Christ!   Of course, authorities did absolutely nothing in my case (as they do in most cases).  This did not stop my neighbor from ruthlessly slandering me throughout the community and screaming and cursing at me in my own front yard!!!

Miller deserves to burn, and he will.  Dog owners take note:  Your legal protection does NOT extend beyond offenses committed with your dog.   You EXECUTE someone with a gun, claim spurious “self defense” you WILL go down.  Count on it!


  1. i was shocked to see that the shooter is an old man and the dog is some little yappy thing and not a "power" breed. what a bizarre sense of entitlement people have about their fucking dogs (and cats).

    i have experienced every nuisance animal complaint imaginable. it's ridiculous.

  2. There is an excellent explanation behind dog owner insanity here:


  3. Flagler Beach has a "scoop" law and its noteworthy that Miller would not pick up his dog's crap, even after having been reminded of this by neighbors. Those neighbors are probably lucky they didn't get shot for doing so.

  4. Here is a quote from one of the other neighbors on Miller and his dogs:

    "To the best of my recollection, that Paul Miller bought the house less than 2 years ago and his barking dogs have been bothering people ever since. One man and his son went out very late, after midnight, one night to find out where the incessant barking was coming from and it was coming from Miller’s house. The next day, they tried to talk to Miller about it and he was extremely rude, told them that his dog wasn’t barking and to get the F— off his property, in those words. Just about every other word out of his mouth was F— or some curse word or other vulgar expression. He was a miserable, dysfunctional, antisocial old fool and I hope he spends the rest of his dog-loving life in prison!"

  5. sam vakim is a psychopath. i wouldn't discount everything that he wrote about pets but i am leery of him.

  6. Sam Vaknin is certainly an unusual man, however it was pleasing to see in Dawn's comment above (May 16) that she does not reject everything he says. Nor do I, Dawn.

    What Sam says here
    makes total sense to me and I agree with his incisive summary.

  7. I could liken any criticism of a persons pet or its behavior as being like vandalism or defamation in the eyes of the pet owner.

    It is about time that laws were changed in a very massive overhaul designed to protect people first and pets second. We all know this though. I would like to have a study done to, are agressive pet owners people that have or currently smoke weed? It is common for weed smokers present or past to have bipolar issues and other mental health issues.

    I say this as it is noticed that ilicit drug use is on the increase and the mental health systems are straining.

    Just a thought.

  8. The Miller case looks like a good premeditated case for murder rather than manslaughter based upon the incident itself. The fact he fired 5 shots shows more than a defense posture, anything over two shots show aggressive behavior with a lot of anger. I do hope the put him away for his remaining years.

  9. Re that Vaknin article. You can just as well fill in 'children' or 'car' everywhere he writes 'pet'.

    I mean, we're all familiar with parents storming into the classroom and beating the crap out of a teacher who gave little Johnny a well-deserved F, and the whole road rage thing. Ever got caught keying someone's car?

    The problem is nothing to do with animals as such, everything to do with a specifically human quality: Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    I do completely agree that all kinds of people have dogs who shouldn't, that there are way too many dogs nowadays, and that dog owners need to feel privileged rather than entitled. But I don't like this general slandering of animals and people who like them. Just wanted to say that.

  10. Sweetie Pie,

    RE: The Vaknin article. Note that I don't necessarily agree with or endorse Vaknin's POV. HOWEVER, I feel that POV is useful in the sense that it acts as a counter-weight to the extreme position we find ourselves in. Without corresponding extremes, there can be no moderate POV. Unfortunately, it seems that ANYONE who wants to restrict the actions of dogs or their owners in even the most commonsense or marginal way is labelled a "hater" or a "fascist".

    Why do you think that so many Narcissists choose Pit Bulls and other power breeds as pets? Why do they even choose to be pet owners in the first place? Precisely because they KNOW they can do anything TO or WITH that animal and there is next to nothing anyone can do about it. The legal system is tilted wildly in their favor (in most places) and they take full advantage of that. Power corrupts. They obtain the dogs for no reason other than to project intimidation and exert control over others. They wake the entire block at 3am with absolute relish. They kill the cat next door with delight. The thought of a 10 year old in the hospital with dog bite wounds makes them happy.

    With that said, I would say that a disproportionate amount of dog owners have some sort of parasitic personality disorder (anti-social, paranoid, NPD, etc...). It is not a majority, but its a larger minority than you find in the general population.

    I'm working on another article with the subject "what goes around comes around", the gist being that so-called "responsible" dog owners need to get off their butts and take the lead in ameliorating these problems, and not just the spectacular problems caused by pit bulls. Sure, you might not want to have to earn and maintain a license to keep a dog, buying liability insurance is no fun, but if this situation gets much worse the backlash is going to be awful for the good AND the bad alike.

    Consider that the "dog-hater" is made, not born. While the problems related to dogs and their owners in society is escalating at a high rate, I also observe that the resentment is building at an even higher rate. I have family members, co-workers, neighbors, people in my volunteer group, people I meet on the street, etc... who are completely fed up with the endless barking, dog poop everywhere, loose dogs all over their property, people using their dogs as weapons, etc... etc... ad nauseum. AND, this is without any prompting from me. Again, the longer the problem continues and the worse it gets, the worse it is going to BE for dog lovers going forward.

  11. Okay, I get what you're saying. I just thought the article was sick (which isn't the same as extreme) on several levels. The idea that empathy and attachment with/to other living creatures can only be for Narc supply is something only a sociopathic Narc could (projecting) come up with. Let's not forget that a human child is, for its first two or three years, also just a little non-verbal animal -- it still has to go through the brain growth and other processes that will 'humanize' it (for better or worse). The article also reminded me too much of the old male psychologist declarations about women. You know, a woman who didn't want to shut up, stuff her brains and talents, and obey a man, clean his house while bearing his children, was neurotic (mentally ill!) and needed treatment. Vaknin follows this tradition by reducing what I think is a fairly recent economic, sociological and mass-psychology phenomenon to a projection of his own male, infantile, egocentric psychology onto (in this case) any and all pet owners. I bet if he got a dog, he'd be one of the worst of the type you're (rightly) battling here on this blog.

    Anyways... You're clearly correct in the points you make above about the new, large minority of borderline-to-totally mentally ill dog owners, not all of whom own killer-type dogs; and that present laws and ordinances aren't any longer adequate to deal with this new dog-owning population.

    This group is a real problem, including for non-anti-social dog owners, who indeed urgently need to start making themselves heard. I'll be looking forward to your Goes-Around-Comes-Around post.

    [FYI: I do pay my dog taxes, and I carry a million dollars liability coverage (despite not having any pit bulls). It's not prohibitively expensive, never mind what a certain type of 'poor persecuted me' dog owner says.]

  12. RE: Vaknin. There is an element in the dog owning population that asserts that anyone who does NOT have a dog is somehow mentally defective. To them, anyone who would choose another pet or be pet free is a target for derision. I have encountered many of these individuals and its annoying to have to defend my lifestyle decision to not own a dog. In any case, that begs that someone like Vaknin is going to come along and assert the polar opposite: That owning a dog is ITSELF an indicator of mental illness. Again, I don't agree with either POV.