Trial of the accused, Greeley, who was charged with killing Roche’s dog. Greeley admitted to having killed the dog but argued that the killing was justified, as the dog had chased and jumped on Greeley’s son, causing him to need four stitches in his head. Greeley attended at Roche’s home and was greeted at the door by Roche and the dog. Greeley claimed that when Roche opened the door the dog lunged at him and he was required to subdue the dog. He started strangling the dog until it stopped struggling. Rather than stopping the strangling, Greeley continued until the dog was clearly dead. Greeley presented evidence that indicated that the dog had, on numerous previous occasions, chased other individuals in the neighbourhood, including the child who was injured. The accused plead non-guilty.
Held: Greeley was convicted. It was clear that Greeley initially had the right to use force against the dog to prevent it from continuing to attack him when he met Roche at the front door. However, having immobilized the dog on the floor and the dog having ceased to struggle, Greeley should have stopped his application of force. Continuing to strangle the dog was not a reasonable or justifiable course of action. Although Roche had been negligent in allowing his aggressive dog to roam and neighbourhood, Greeley’s action in killing the dog in the manner that he did was an excessive use of force and not reasonable or legally justifiable.