Facts don't support case for suit over dog's death

Dog owner Joe Petit, in his latest lawsuit against Hal Phipps, the neighbor who shot and killed Petit's dog Ludwig, seems to rely on hyperbole and the equating of animal life with human life as his argument. According to Illinois law, dogs and other animals are property - Mr. Petit is a dog-owner, not a dog-dad, bumper sticker slogans not withstanding - and thus do not have human rights such as freedom and justice.

Further, calling the shooting of Ludwig an "execution" is nonsense. Only people can be executed, although some silly people in Medieval times held "animal trials" and sentenced some animals to death by execution. Finally, asserting torture of Ludwig does not seem supported by the facts.

Mr. Petit, as the owner of Ludwig, had a duty of care for his dog, including the proper control and restraint of Ludwig. Given the fact that Mr. Petit was cited after his dog bit Mr. Phipps, this indicates that Mr. Petit failed in that duty.

What really happened the day that Ludwig was shot? I don't know. Was the killing of Ludwig justified or not? I don't know. I do know that the authorities did not bring criminal charges against Mr. Phipps. I know that Mr. Petit is still upset about the death of Ludwig, seeks retribution and is using inflammatory language to stoke the anger and sympathies of many people who own and love dogs.

I am sorry that Mr. Petit's beloved Ludwig was killed. I hope that he can engage in therapy to alleviate the mental stresses he states that he is experiencing. I also hope that he can channel his affection for dogs in a positive way and can receive some comfort in the company of his new dog, Justice.

Kim Freitag

Elgin