Neighbor Kills Woman, Bullet Meant For Dog

An Indiana woman was killed when she was shot by a neighbor.

The woman’s dog ran through the neighbor’s property, and the neighbor was trying to shoot the dog. Instead the bullet struck the dog’s owner who was chasing the dog. The woman was there visiting her grandmother’s house for the day.

The neighbor has been arrested on preliminary charges of voluntary manslaughter and reckless homicide.

Source: WLKY

(Thanks Pit Bull Lover)

15 Responses to “Neighbor Kills Woman, Bullet Meant For Dog”

  1. Robert Davis says:

    I came across this as well on WLKY’s website and i was so appalled at a person discharging a gun in a neighborhood in order to kill a dog running across their yard. How irresponsible! This person, imho, needs some psychotherapy while in jail… Very sad for this lady to be killed like that.

    Robert Davis

  2. Lynn says:

    Really pathetic. Only serves to strengthen my arguments against guns.

  3. Robert Davis says:

    Guns can be very dangerous in the wrong hands and unfortunately too many bad or incompetent people think with a gun instead of being rational. Guns can be a protector as well. When an intruder comes in your home if you can get to your gun you can kill the person instead of being raped, mugged, robbed and even killed. We had guns growing up and we were taught to respect them and use them apprioately. Of course, no sane person wants to kill anyone, but guns can help you from becoming a victim. Unfortunately, this lady was a victim of a person who used the wrong tool at the wrong time and for the wrong purpose.

  4. JonO says:

    When I first saw this headline I thought it was going to be another story about a deputy thinking it was open season on pets. I guess if the neighbor had been a cop the woman would have been charged with intefering with an officer.

  5. stargirl says:

    maybe the shooter had it in for the victim and used the dog as an excuse. in any event, she should be put away forever.

  6. Chuck U. Farley says:

    If this was the victim’s dog and it didn’t live in that neighborhood and wasn’t in that woman’s yard all the time whatever possessed her to try to shoot it?! I could understand someone shooting a dog that was repeatedly allowed to run loose and had proved itself to be dangerous and a real threat to the safety of people and other animals but this is insane. What did she do, look out the window and think, “Oh, there’s a strange dog in my yard, I’ve never seen it before so I better kill it.”?

    Sounds to me like the real danger here was Linda Lindauer, and not any dog.

  7. Velvet's Dad says:

    I agree with both Lynn and Robt. Davis. I think we’re a gun-happy country but recognize there are responsible gun owners too. What I can’t understand is–and maybe somebody can enlighten me–why is it we regulate automobile ownership and license drivers yet we can’t seem to limit gun ownership to those who demonstrate responsible ownership?
    An Indiana woman losing her life like this is senseless and insane. This woman could have been any of us.

  8. Furbabies says:

    Linda Lindauer deserves to be in prison. Who in the hell does she think she is? What gives her the right to shoot somebody’s dog? Obviously this wasn’t the dog she was after in the first place. She was out to shoot someone else’s pet. This poor woman (the one killed) was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Linda is a freaking nut case and hopefully the DA will throw the book at this loon.

  9. kathy says:

    Criminals will always have guns, Velvet’s Dad. Making it harder for responsible people to own them will never be a solution! Like Robert, I was taught as a child how to use and respect guns by my father, another Davis with roots in NC. One of of his rules was “Never point a gun at anything you don’t intend to eat.” “Unless it is going to kill you.” I truly believe the only solution, at the end of the day, is for mothers to stay home and raise their own kids rather than sending off to be raised by day-care workers who cannot possibly love them as much as their own parents—-if it’s not your kid, you just don’t care about a lot of things. And we’re working on the third generation of this, it will probably only get worse. I may be a little off topic here but not much, people who have not had the intense caring of their own mother don’t even care about themselves, much less “some animal.”

  10. Don Earl says:

    RE: “What I can’t understand is–and maybe somebody can enlighten me–why is it we regulate automobile ownership and license drivers yet we can’t seem to limit gun ownership to those who demonstrate responsible ownership?”

    Did you know that 44,000 people are killed in car accidents in the US each and every year? You could nuke a city the size of Seattle once a decade and do less damage.

    On any given day, I am in far more danger from the average car owner than I am from the average gun owner.

  11. Gindy says:

    Stupid argument Don “NRA” Earl. I have guns, LOTS of them, I was trained to use them and each one is licensed. My husband is a Marine Lt.Col. my daughter a future cop, also both trained to use them. We think ALL guns need to be registered, licensed and each and every gun owner needs to be trained to use them safely.
    You cannot leave it to gramps and daddums anymore.

  12. Velvet's Dad says:

    Sorry, Don Earl, your argument makes no sense. Let’s follow your “logic” for a moment. Suppose society didn’t regulate car ownership and license drivers? How many more deaths would be caused by drivers in any given year? Mind-boggling to think.
    I applaud Gindy for her comment and support her right to own guns because she and her family are responsible owners. With any right comes “responsibility.” So-called 2nd Amendment defenders need to keep something in mind. There is no such thing in a civilized society as an “unlimited right.” We limit the 1st Amendment if that speech endangers others, such as yelling “Fire!” in a crowed public place when there is no fire OR publicly advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
    Please get real about guns. Owning them is a privilege afforded to responsible owners. No different than driving a car. Both are potentially lethal.

  13. mittens says:

    most gun crime is committed by untrained criminals with unregsitered guns. registered guns in the hands of licensed gun owners are rarely involved in any criminal activity and rarely involved in the killing of humans. knives kill people too but any fool can buy a knife capable of taking someone’s life at the kmart.baseball bats are also freely available and don’t need to be registered. i can make a bomb right now with available items from the home depot.last time i checked batteries, wire and household chemicals dont require a permit to buy but they can be ‘ lethal’.

    this person is clearly either troubled or stupid and hardly representative of most legal gun owners.this crime is an oddity and statistically minute- hardly appropriate fodder for any logical arguments concerning gun ownership. most gun owners like myself have no problem registering our guns and being licensed so the implication often made by those against gun ownership that we resent this is unfounded . over regulating the reponsible regsitered law abiding gun owners is oppressive and does not save lives when the real problem is criminals who can kill and harm with any number of effective illegally obtained weapons. studies have shown a decrease in crime in areas where concealed carry permits have been extended to reponsible owners. we’re sick being compared to unlicensed, unregsitered criminals whom everyone who owns guns responsibly feels should be denied the RIGHT( not privilige. the founders were QUITE specific about our rights coming from god ie our creator and NOT the state therefore, velevet’s dad, they are ‘ inalienable’ ie not limited by the state. the first amendment has NOTHING to do with shouting about fire in a theatre. that’s a specious simplistic argument that ignores the content of the amendment and the rulings concerning it from the Supremes. it specically refers to the STATE specifically not being able to make laws against the free expression of speech, the press and peaceable assembly. the amendment is specifically refering to the state and religious or political speech of the citizens. treason is addressed and defined earlier in the constitution and is a seperate matter. the government has a right because it is of the people to preserve itself from threat. it’s the first sentence of the Preamble and echos through out the document.unlike the ability to drive cars, which of course there’s no mention of in the constitution , gun ownership is in the constitution as a hedge against tyranny. the revolution would have never been won if the public didnt have a right to arm itself and fight the british on their own terms with equal fire power. the founders, having created a country through an armed rebellion of citizens, recognized the importance of self defence by a free people as central to the preservation of political and personal freedoms. the supreme court is going to be ruling on it for the first time in over 70 years soon.)

    it’s not ’so called” the second amendment it IS the second amendment and thus it’s importance should be stressed- it’s number 2 of the rights given by god, not the state, to a free people. any of these rights are, however, taken away when someone HARMS another human- therefore we place people in jail and deprive them of all these rights when they violated those same rights of other persons- that’s the only limitation- when you threaten the rights of others the state can step in .

    youre not allowed to, in most states, discharge a firearm within so many feet of a dwelling. under no circunstances whatsoever should you aim any gun at a human unless you plan to specifically shoot them. the shooter violated everything those who are properly trained and are respectful of guns are brought up to do. if your going to pick up that gun and aim it at any living creature you damn well better have reason or it is criminal.

  14. Velvet's Dad says:

    Mittens, you should read more carefully. I said “so-called 2nd Amendment defenders” not so-called 2nd Amendment.
    And this is the first time I’ve ever heard that God has given you the right to bear arms. “God” I believe would be horrified at what humans have done with this earth. But that’s another issue.
    The subject of the 2nd Amendment is “A well-regulated militia” and the right is granted by the Federal Constitution for states to create separate militia. Also read the 10th Amendment. The Bill of Rights does not address solely individual rights.
    You are not convincing. Re-read what Gindy wrote. No one wants to take guns away from responsible owners. Truly responsible owners–including much of law enforcement–favor gun registration and licensing & training of those wishing to use firearms. There is nothing unreasonable about that. What is both unreasonable and irresponsible is the blatant, unchecked proliferation of guns in this country. No other civilized country has such gun-madness.

  15. Lynn says:

    Amen!


Close
E-mail It