WAYMANSVILLE, Ind. — The shooting death of a dog in southwestern Bartholomew County is under investigation by authorities.
Richard M. May, 61, of Waymansville, shot 2-year-old Caesar Friday with a .22-caliber gun after Caesar wandered onto his property in the 15000 block of South Indiana 58, according to Bartholomew County Sheriff’s Department and the dog’s owner.
After the shooting, May and Caesar’s owner, Joshua M. Jackson, got into an argument and sheriff’s deputies were called.
May told deputies that the dog had been running loose for nearly a year and that he believed animal control officers had responded several times and cited the dog owner. However, the dog continued to run loose, he said.
He told deputies he saw the dog urinate on his grill and several items in their garage on previous occasions.
May could not be reached Tuesday.
Caesar is part Australian shepherd, black labrador and rottweiler and weighs about 65 lbs., Jackson said.
He said Tuesday that animal control issued him two warnings in February about his dog running loose.
To address the problem, he installed an invisible fence. After several months, he said his dogs stayed in the yard and no longer needed the fence.
However, Jackson said animal control issued him violations on Nov. 5 and Nov. 8 because his dogs were running loose again.
He planned to re-install the fence Saturday but found that Caesar had been shot.
Jackson has posted a large sign in his yard on South Indiana 58 that reads, "The neighbor to my north shot and killed my dog for peeing on his property."
Deputies have sent a report to Bartholomew County prosecutor’s office for review.
No one has been arrested or charged in the incident.
Prosecutor Bill Nash is requesting a special prosecutor for the case.
In court documents, he states that "the apparent target of the investigation is both the husband of a Child Protective Services caseworker who frequently testifies on behalf of the state in criminal cases and the brother-in-law of a full-time employee" of the prosecutor’s office.
Nash wrote in the documents that he has reason to believe both the caseworker and prosecutor’s office employee would likely be witnesses in any criminal proceedings that might arise from the investigation.