No Charges For Indianapolis Man Who Fatally Shot Child’s Service Dog

Ad Blocker Detected

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

In a case that has garnered national attention, an Indianapolis man who fatally shot a child’s service dog will not face charges. The decision, made by the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, has sparked outrage among animal rights activists and advocates for people with disabilities.

According to reports, the incident occurred on July 29, 2020, when a nine-year-old girl’s service dog, a two-year-old Great Dane named Wrigley, entered the yard of a neighbor, Jeffrey Wells. Wells, who claimed he feared for his safety, allegedly shot the dog multiple times, killing it.

The girl’s family, who had used Wrigley to help their daughter manage her anxiety and PTSD, filed a police report and started a petition calling for charges to be filed against Wells.

In a statement released on August 19, the Prosecutor’s Office said that after reviewing the evidence, including witness statements and physical evidence from the scene, they had determined that Wells acted in self-defense and would not be charged.

The decision has been met with widespread criticism, with many arguing that shooting a dog that was trained to help a child amounted to a crime.

However, supporters of Wells say that he had every right to protect himself and his property. They argue that Wrigley was not properly restrained and that Wells had no way of knowing that the dog was a service animal.

The case raises important questions about the rights of service animals and their owners, as well as the responsibilities of pet owners and non-pet owners in the community.

On one hand, service animals are crucial for many people with disabilities, providing not only physical assistance but also emotional support. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), service animals are defined as dogs (and in some cases, miniature horses) that are trained to perform specific tasks or work for people with disabilities.

Service animals, unlike pets, are allowed to accompany their owners in public places such as restaurants, stores, and hotels. They also have legal protections under the law, and injuring or killing a service animal can result in serious consequences for the offender.

However, service animals are not always easily identifiable. They are not required to wear special vests or tags, and some owners choose to keep their animals’ status private for safety reasons.

This can create confusion and misunderstandings, particularly in situations where a service animal enters someone else’s property. While pet owners have a responsibility to keep their animals under control and on a leash, service animal owners also have a responsibility to ensure that their animals do not pose a threat to others.

In the case of Wrigley, it is unclear whether he was properly restrained or had wandered into Wells’ yard. However, even if the dog had been on a leash, it is possible that Wells may have still perceived him as a threat and acted in self-defense.

The Prosecutor’s Office cited Indiana’s Castle Doctrine, which allows residents to protect themselves with deadly force if they believe that someone is entering their home unlawfully and poses a threat of physical violence. While the law does not specifically address animals, some legal experts argue that it could be interpreted to apply to pets or service animals as well.

Regardless of the legal arguments, the case of Wrigley has highlighted the emotional connections that people have with their pets and service animals. For many, the death of a beloved animal is no less tragic than the death of a human family member.

This raises questions about how society values the lives of animals and the responsibilities that come with pet ownership. While pets provide companionship and emotional support, they also require care and attention, and pet owners have a responsibility to ensure that their animals are properly trained and cared for.

At the same time, non-pet owners also have a responsibility to be respectful of their neighbors’ animals and to recognize the emotional value that pets can have.

In the case of Wrigley, it is clear that his death has had a profound impact not only on his owner but on the community as a whole. As we continue to navigate the complex and sometimes conflicting rights of pet owners, service animal owners, and non-pet owners, it is important to remember that behind every animal is a person who loves and cares for them.