Gazette: GOP Candidate Beat, Shot Neighbors’ Dogs

The Billings Gazette is reporting today that Republican Roger Webb was convicted of beating and shooting his neighbors’s pets Katie and Alli, both black labs.

Webb claims he was defending himself against dogs after he said they acted aggressively toward him.  However, court documents show that after Webb encountered the dogs, he went in his house and grabbed a .357.  Then he came back out of his house and shot the dogs in the back as they were running away, according to an autopsy.

Webb is running against Wanda Grinde, a retired Billings teacher long involved in organizations that help young people, such as Little League, 4-H, and PTA, and the Heights Neighborhood Task Force in Billings.

Webb sounds like somebody we don’t need in the legislature.


72 Comments on "Gazette: GOP Candidate Beat, Shot Neighbors’ Dogs"

  1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 16, 2012 7:22 AM at 7:22 AM |

    Also, do we REALLY want a Racicrotch underling in this position? Mini Mark is NOT a good fit to represent we the PEOPLE of Montana! Plus, I think the guy’s just too cheesey! Too corporate. Too venal.

  2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 16, 2012 7:32 AM at 7:32 AM |

    Viva El Retardo! Mitt, who is SO admired by Hispanics, that they gave him a name of honor. Since El Cid was already taken, they named Mittens El Dud! Close enough!


    Poor widdle Mittens the mojado……mojado PUTA!

  3. Horrible. This guy is clearly dangerous and violent. I certainly wouldn’t want to live next to him. People like this don’t belong in positions of authority.

  4. Ingemar Johansson | October 16, 2012 9:05 AM at 9:05 AM |

    If they were wolves he’d have it locked up.

  5. This jackwipe should be strung up in the public square. Any man who hates dogs is a danger to the human pack.

  6. Killing your neighbors pets is an act of extreme aggression against the neighbors, not just the animals. Is a threat of the cruelest kind.

  7. Stick a fork in him. This guy is done.

  8. Being involved with publishing “sealed” court records is not something to cheer. What if it were sealed records regarding a rape victim or a child? I hope this is investigated and appropriated dealt with. This sort of political vigilantism is not acceptable. BTW, why no mention that this matter was dismissed per order of Judge Knisely in 1998.

    • One more question, why didn’t CG give attribution to Montana Street Fighter for first running the same hit piece AND posting the same sealed documents???????

    • Just as courts can seal records, they can also unseal them. They can ask for them to be sealed for a limited time, and that time can be changed or amended. Love the conspiracy angle on here though. In Montana, most records are generally considered public.

    • You’re coming out in defense of the dog killer? Let me clue you in: he’s not the victim. These dogs, this family, their kids–these are the one’s who were wronged.

  9. Which do you think is a more credible source, the billings gazette or a blog. I’m going with the gazette.

  10. really Craig…there are fenceposts out there with more on the ball than you. Kudos to cowgirl and streetfighter for this blog. BTW there is nothing in the documents to indicate that they were sealed or protected either by the court or the attorneys. Finally, if you can actually read, read the documents and you will find that the charges were not dismissed.

  11. I’m quite content to know that is a vast ocean of people who are smarter than me. Thank God!

    As to the matter being dismissed, look again at the bottom of page one.


    As to the documents being sealed, prove the Gazette wrong before embarrassing yourself further. IMHO an Alford Plea was entered, along with sealing the documents, a deferred sentence followed by a dismal was keep the costs down. Going to trial would have been far more expensive.

    • One thing more RLS, if you are going to praise blogger political revelations here’s one more for you regarding Dem Pam Bucy:

      Unfortunately, Pam Bucy, the Democrat candidate for Attorney General, was so anxious to let the voters know about her campaign activities on Facebook that she forgot that sometimes too much information can bite you on the butt. In Pam’s case, her FB posts confirm that she committed fraud by claiming sick leave for hours she used for campaigning…

      • Craig,
        An “Alford” plea allows one to plead guilty without admitting to any facts in order to get a lighter or no sentence. He did plead an Alford! Second, the sentence was a fine of $ 400 and a 3 month deferred imposition of sentence. At the end of the 3 month period of time, the attorney filed for a dismissal of the potential jail time and that was granted. It does not mean that the charges were dismissed ( they were not ) or that he was not found guilty ( he was ) or that he did not pay any penalty ( he did ). If the records had been sealed, that would have been a part of the initial agreement and it was not.
        Regarding Pam Bucy; if she has, indeed, committed an illegal campaign act, it should be taken before the Commission on Political Practice. I am sure that Pam would sooner have their determination than yours.

        • Outstanding reply.

          Craig, your knee-jerk defense of any Republicant is getting wearisome, but in this case I find it to be obscene.

        • Again prove the Gazette wrong as they made the claim. “After three months, Knisely dismissed the charges and Webb’s court case was sealed to keep the documents from public view. From page one of the purloined documents: DISMISSED PER ORDER JUDGE KNISELY 3.14.99

          Then there is this:

          46-18-204. Dismissal after deferred imposition. Whenever the court has deferred the imposition of sentence and after termination of the time period during which imposition of sentence has been deferred or upon termination of the time remaining on a deferred sentence under 46-18-208, upon motion of the court, the defendant, or the defendant’s attorney, the court may allow the defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or may strike the verdict of guilty from the record and order that the charge or charges against the defendant be dismissed. A copy of the order of dismissal must be sent to the prosecutor and the department of justice, accompanied by a form prepared by the department of justice and containing identifying information about the defendant. After the charge is dismissed, all records and data relating to the charge are confidential criminal justice information, as defined in 44-5-103, and public access to the information may be obtained only by district court order upon good cause shown.

          • Craig is not a lawyer, nor does he play one on TV. Nor even on blog comments. He pled to the charges and was convicted. Just because Dog Killer claims that the charges were “sealed” doesn’t mean they were. Just because Dog Killer claims that he had is own private investigator “prove” that dead dogs had been agressive in the past (not sure how that would even work actually) doesn’t mean it happened.

            • No no, Dave. Craig has a point. The documents weren’t supposed to be revealed, so that makes everything alright. There aren’t really two dogs dead, a family grieving for it’s pets, and Webb is really full of the milk of human kindness. It is irresponsible for anyone to even discuss this, given that the documents were not ‘vetted’ for Republicant approval. In short, from the beginning, Craig is arguing that IOKIYAR. Go ahead. Shoot a dog or two. What really matters to Craig is that no one should know about it, if of course, you are a Republicant.

              • Rob, such BS. Here’s what I said:

                Being involved with publishing “sealed” court records is not something to cheer. What if it were sealed records regarding a rape victim or a child? I hope this is investigated and appropriated dealt with.

                Seems you think it’s ok so long as a political purpose is served. That’s where we differ, and NO ONE has the right to disclose such matters without going through the appropriate process.

              • Craig, Webb did not dispute the facts, he admitted that he would be found guilty if the case went to trial.

          • Craig, why are you trying to avoid the real issue here which is that the facts are not in dispute: This guy pistol whipped and shot a harmless black lab puppy. Apparently like most serial killers he harms defenseless animals for no apparent reason.

  12. In his affidavit, Webb said “I also believe that a jury might reasonably be convinced of my guilt if these charges went to trial.” He took the Alford plea, which allowed him to deny guilt while admitting he would have likely been found guilty, to “limit the possible penalties I face upon a possible conviction of the charges filed against me.”

    Alford pleas should be outlawed. And judges should not be parties to covering up the facts. The record never should have been sealed.

    And Dog Shooter Webb? I think he’s learning how hard it is to cover-up one’s past in the age of the World Wide Web.

  13. Obviously the documents aren’t sealed if they are public information. People have a right to know who they are voting for. My two cents.

  14. In addition to Montana’s largest newspaper, the Billings Gazette, the MT Street fighter and Intelligent Discontent blogs are also on this story. Check them out here!

  15. I could maybe see it being justified if they were pit bulls. But black labs? Seems pretty cowardly

    • Yeah, there’s something really off about this guy’s story. Makes me wonder if drugs and or alcohol/prescription meds were involved.

    • I have to disagree with you, Jack. Going into your house, getting a gun, and shooting dogs which aren’t attacking anyone in the back isn’t justified, no matter the breed. This was a willfully cruel act, and I’m surprised that only one other person in this entire commentary used that word.

      I don’t worry about this guy’s “aggression”. Bullies can be handled. Pathological sadists, on the other hand.

      • Well if they were loose aggressive pitbulls, they had already attacked once shortly beforein the same day and you have small children it might make you think twice. At least that was the comparative scenario (w/ pitbulls)in my mind although the facts of my hypothetical dont really match up to what this guy did. It seems like he claims they came after him earlier in the evening but that was some time before he actually took the shot and he seemed to be the only one ‘at risk’ not small kids. I just have a neighbor down the street who happens to have problems restraining their own viscious undisciplined pitbull and the thought has crossed my mind to take matters into my own hands before I wont lie. Like most normal non-psycho paths I have resisted the urge to pump said dogs full of lead though. I think its time to bring back the “ban the pitbulls” bill. While I agree this guy in Billings has issues I can’t stand people who don’t control their animals either.

        • It’s no mystery that I’m a dog guy. I agree with much of you write here. I cannot, do not and will not agree with breed specific legislation. That being writ …

          A dog can be seen as ‘aggressive’ by nature of it’s behavior (baring teeth, snarling vocalizations, …) but an “attack” is just that, an attack. No dog, from a Chihuahua to a Mastiff screws around when it means you harm. It attacks either to harm or to force submission. Sadly, Pitbulls have been bred for the former and their reputation is well known and deserved. People do need to train their dogs. However, other not-dog people need to quit being afraid. Labs don’t bite so good. That is their breeding.

          Just for the record, it’s been my experience that when ‘neighbors’ have problems with the dogs next door, it is frequently because the neighbor has instigated the fear that causes the aggressive behavior, especially with dogs that are not known for aggression, like Labs. For Webb to claim that he was ‘attacked’ when a smack on the dog sent it fleeing is a fricking lie. That he shot it in the back is just disgusting. I’ve no interest at all in a coward running to represent humans, and Webb is a coward.

        • No doubt the main problem with pitbulls are the caliber or people who tend to own them as opposed to the dogs themselves but I do believe because of their breeding they are inherently more dangerous than other dogs. As you say a pitbull simply has a far far higher capacity for harm than a lab or most other dogs. My own personal experience there is no instigation of fear of these animals in my neighborhood it is a matter of these people being completely incapable of controlling their dogs and keeping them confined. In an urban (by montana standards) neighborhood with small children there is no excuse for a pitbull to be on the loose….ever. Thats not even taking into account the animal’s history. But in contrast being afraid of a couple black labs to the point you would arm yourself is a joke. The only possible justification for that level of violence would be to protect a child in imminent danger. The affidavit of the prosecutor notes how he was asked four times by the cop before he even tried to cover his ass by claiming the lab “snarled and bared its teeth”.

  16. This shows me that this man regardless of his politics has no human decency. To beat a black lab to death, my God. What a scumbag. Regardless of political party I think most resonable people can agree there are just some people who do not belong in leadership and this is one of those that does not belong in leadership.

  17. Whose dogs would Jesus beat to death? This man says he’s running on “traditional family values” on his website.

  18. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 16, 2012 6:50 PM at 6:50 PM |

    Another Mooreon. EMBRACE your people, Libel Man! bhwhahahahaahahahahaa! Too funny.

  19. Is this fine fellow one of those who wants to be able to pack heat in legislative chambers? Full body armor, anyone?

  20. Reger Webb should drop out of the race. I don’t think convicted criminals should be elected to represent 20,000 people from Montana’s largest city. This is a man who had proven he can’t make clear rational decisions, why should he get to decide what’s right for the Heights?

  21. Speaking of scumbags, I can’t believe Derek Skees actually said this:

    Skees says Lindeen wrongly decided to prosecute Harris Himes, that conservative activist and pastor who is accused of taking a parishioner’s money in an investment scam.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 18, 2012 8:08 AM at 8:08 AM |

      HEY, look at it THIS way! You see, now that Pastor Hairass Slimes has been caught, he can do like ALL the Pubbie miscreant and criminals do and find G-O-D! It worked for shitbag chucky colson and ALL the nixonian shitbags! You see, getting caught is simply a step along the way to finding JAYSUS for the Pubbie mafia! For there’s no NEED to follow earthly laws when god’s law tells you what to do! And I GUESS that god tol’ Hairass to attempt to MURDER his pal and steal his money in Mejico!

      God truly does work in mysterious ways when Pubbies are concerned!

      Here is a litte reading material for Pastor Hairass “kill a homo” Slimes to meditate upon while in jail when he AIN’T busy “bonding” with his new roommate Bubba!

      Maybe Montana AIN’T the white homeland that Hairass THOUGHT it was gonna be for him when he moved his dumbass here!

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 18, 2012 8:21 AM at 8:21 AM |

        Oh wait, I forgot. He’s alREADY a Pastord! But some time quality time with Bubba will teach him a thing or two ’bout lovin’ his fellow man! Hairass will be a changed man when he comes outta the big house! bwhhahahahahahahaa!

        Buh BYE, Hairass! You done BROKE the tenth commandment, dipshit! Thou shalt NOT covert thy neighbors shit in MEJICO!….and then leave him for dead!

    • Nothing Skees does or says surprises me anymore. The man is a scumbag and should be tarred/feathered and run out of town.

  22. Not Your Grandpa's Republican Party | October 18, 2012 12:14 PM at 12:14 PM |

    I frequently read this blog, but have never felt compelled to post until now. . .

  23. Not Your Grandpa's Republican Party | October 18, 2012 12:45 PM at 12:45 PM |

    I find it very unfortunate that negative stereotypes regarding pitbulls still persist. Dogs of any breed are neither inherently good nor bad animals. They are what their owners and environment train them to be. Pitbulls have received a bad rep because SOME irresponsible and criminal owners trained their dogs be aggressive. Historically speaking, pitbulls have been recognized for their gentle nature, even temperament, and devotion to their owners. Life Magazine placed a picture of the pit bill on its cover in the 1950’s, accompanied by an article about the how breed makes a perfect family dog.

  24. Not Your Grandpa's Republican Party | October 18, 2012 12:53 PM at 12:53 PM |

    I myself own two pit bull terriers. Both were rescue dogs. They were not used for fighting but came from abusive and neglectful homes. They are wonderful pets. They are gentle, loyal, and well behaved. I have never witnessed aggressive behavior against a human being or another animal. I have photos of my dogs sharing their dog house with a stray cat. For someone to say that all pit bills are violent and should be banned is ignorant. That’s like me saying every firearm should be banned, including hunting weapons and home defense firearms, because all guns are used to commit murder. That argument is absurd. A gun is a tool – how it is used is determined by human hands – just like EVERY breed of dog.

    • That is a fallacious comparison. A more accurate comparison would be that pitbulls are like the automatic weapon or WMD of the dog world, and ownership should be restricted just as fully automatic weapons or WMDS are “banned” from everyday use or possession because they are inherently more dangerous than semi-automatic or single shot firearms. I hope your pitbulls never snap and attack someone in your household, the statistics show that half of all pitbull attacks/fatalities/maulings occur on their own owners and their families. Every one of which I’m sure thought their pitbulls were as harmless as yours.

      I think I would agree that an outright ban of pitbulls is probably too much, but these owners should at least be required to be licensed and carry insurance for the vast amount of harm their inherently dangerous and vicious animals can cause.

      • We’re completely off topic, but it’s certainly one of interest.

        Jack, you’ve already made the point that because of the breed’s reputation (or perhaps the cause of it) pitbull terriers are often owned by those who are prone to enabling or encouraging it’s poorest behavior. The point I was weakly making is that pitbulls may not be “inherently” vicious any more than other breeds, but they are more dangerous when they attack because of the breeding. I don’t think anyone has ever bled out from a Shih Tsu ‘mauling’, but pitbulls were bred for maximum damage in the least amount of time. In that respect, they are the WMDs of canines. That’s precisely what they were bred to be.

        My wife and I have two German Shepherd dogs. Damn wasn’t I surprised to find that German’s are almost as feared as pitbulls. I have seen and read calls for the banning of civilian ownership of these dangerous weapons of authority. ~sigh~ In events about as likely as being struck by lightening, *both* of those dogs are shelter adoptions. The older dog was given up at a year and half old when his owner went to rehab. He was unfixed at the time. The process of getting him was more grueling than most job interviews I’ve ever had, because it had to be established that we could handle this large and dangerous animal. He’s a Teddy bear; that’s even his name (changed from Spike when he was brought to the shelter). I’ve every confidence that he would kill to protect my wife or I, but he is in an environment that is suitable, loving and peaceful for him. But that’s the kind of control that tends to be afforded the acquisition of this popular breed.

        Pitbulls, on the hand, are a dime a dozen. You can get one anywhere, almost no questions asked. The Heart of the Valley shelter here in Bozeman (which is full of pit and pit crosses) will grill you to make certain you can handle the animal. The dipshit with the unfixed bitch and a passel of pups back on the alley won’t. Hell, he fancies himself a ‘breeder’, an entrepreneur. So, what I suggest is this. Let’s not regulate the ownership of the animal, but rather the transfer of it. The kind of people who should own dogs won’t be breeding them for 20 bucks a pup if the sale and transfer is illegal without regulation. The transfer of livestock is reasonably regulated, so why not dogs? These are living things that require a degree of responsibility and the state has every right to protect them in the same way they will protect a cow. (Of course the nature of the regulation would be different, but the philosophy should be the same.)

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 18, 2012 9:20 PM at 9:20 PM |

          I was going to write a post on Pitbulls, but pretty much what I was going to say is expressed in this article. That follows at the bottom.

          Yes, they were once a great breed of dog that rarely attacked human beings. And some still are. But unfortunately, the very traits that made them great dogs have been bred out of them. And one of the terrible traits that has remained is gameness.

          Gameness implies a lot, but for human/dog interacations, what it means in a nutshell is that in normal, natural canine behavior, once an animal submits in a fight, the dominant animal backs off and the fight is over. But with gameness, an animal continues on in spite of everything, pain, fatigue, etc., and the fact that the other animal has submitted. Again, this is NOT normal canine behavior.

          It used to be that if a fighting Pitbull attacked a human, it was put to sleep immediately, for the handlers had to be able to walk in and stop a fight without getting bit. That particular trait is long gone in many Pits since the breed became a favorite of drug dealers and slime balls. They bred for nothing but ferocity and gameness, and actually encouraged human attacks since the dogs were used to guard drugs, etc.

          Now, all bets are off with Pitbulls. I’m sure that there are still some great Pits out there, but one must be very careful to get a dog from a reputable breeder. If not, a provoked animal can seriously injure of kill the owners own loved ones.

          And it’s true. There are many other breeds responsible for most viciouse attacks. Dogs like Chows I think have the highest rate for unprovoked attacks on children, and wolf hybrid crosses are responsible for a lot of fatalities. And here in Montana, I think that Heelers have the highest percentage of bites.

          But on an interesting sidenote, one of the breeds with the highest incidence of bites on kids is Cocker Spaniels. Why? Well, once a dog becomes popular with the public, it is bred for numbers alone with little regard to breeding techniques. It happens with all popular breeds. The German Shepherd is another good example. Hence, parents get a cute, snuggly Cocker pup that some day rips their kids face off. Happens all the time.

          So, it’s really pretty vital to select the appropriate dog for your situation from a reputable dealer.

          Very good article on Pits.

          BTW, some of the nicest dogs I know are Pit crosses.

          p.s. Yes, for the record, I was a dog trainer at one time and have a lot of experience working with dogs. I’ve been out of it for a long time, but I still remember a lot. And I’m a dog lover. Like John Steinbeck, I’ve never been without a dog or two in my life. I don’t think that life would be worth a shit without dogs! Just my opinion.

  25. Not Your Grandpa's Republican Party | October 18, 2012 3:53 PM at 3:53 PM |

    Jack, every pitbull is not inherently dangerous or vicious. I have spent my entire life around dogs – mastiffs, German Shepherds, Great Danes, pitbull terriers, etc. I have been bit only once – by a miniature schnauzer. I would never go so far as to call all toy breeds “inherently dangerous and vicious.” It was was merely the wrong dog on the wrong day. I agree that some people are unfit for dog ownership, just as some people are unfit for parenthood. Would you propose a ban on children because some misbehave? And yes, I carry a $1mm umbrella policy, not because I worry about my pets but because I believe in personal responsibility.

    • NYG’sRP, Jack wasn’t calling for a ban on the breed. He was calling for a degree of state oversight in ownership.

      I have been attacked by a German Shepherd which I punched before it could bite me (it’s all in the reflexes), a Chihuahua, a blue healer and a pitbull cross. I know how much damage these dogs can inflict. Because I reflexively and stupidly try to break up dog fights, I’ve been bitten by two Pyrenees crosses, an Akita cross, a German Shepherd and a Lab. Those bites were inadvertent, but I reiterate: I know how much damage these dogs can inflict. Pitbulls take the cake. That doesn’t make them more vicious but it sure as hell establishes them as more dangerous.

      • One of those Pyenees crosses was our’s and you couldn’t ask for a more loving and gentle giant. That said, even though our Pyrenees easily outweighs most pits, a pit will tear you up far worse than our dog would if they really attacked you. When TaRuk (our dog) bit Rob, he was trying to break up a fight between Ruk and one of his German Shepards. Ruk bit him to get him to let go and didn’t even break skin. A pit would have torn Rob’s arm up.

        I have issues with pits but I also recognise that they are MY issues and quite irrational. I was attacked by a pit Rotty cross and now I have issues with any large brown or black dog. The thing is, I also know lots of people that have them and love them.

        I am with registration of transfering ownership. Quit blaming the breed and start blaming the assholes that make them monsters.

  26. Aw geeze, Gazette says he got hit with “animal cruelty” and “disorderly conduct.” Discharging a gun was dismissed, cruelty was 300, and DC was 100 bucks.
    The owner said she was waiting for her dogs to come back as they usually would, which means she wasn’t real serious about keeping her dogs under control and her neighbors happy.
    Whatever, these records shouldn’t have been leaked “anonymously” like this. If maybe the dog owner wanted to raise a stink now, that would have been “fair” but to root the records out and then splash them, that’s pure political skullduggery. Webb must be winning.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 19, 2012 9:29 PM at 9:29 PM |

      Skullduggery? To own up to one’s past? No matter how sordid? No matter how it reflects on the dude’s character? And then to whine when he gets outed?

      Only in Pubbie world!

      • The leaker should take a name. Sealed court records don’t just walk about on their own.
        I’m going to say that dog owners have responsibilities. Also, I’ve seen some mean Labs, with some Chessie blood in them as it so happens.
        I mean, Larry, what would you do if one of your Nam K9s had gone after an unauthorized target? Or even just went for a spontaneous run? At the least, you’d dang well make sure it doesn’t happen again.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 20, 2012 7:29 PM at 7:29 PM |

          I have no problems with shooting vicious dogs. And I have come dang close to shooting some myself. I will relate the details when I get a little more time. But I’m not convinced that these particular two dogs needed shooting. I’d have to see what the report says about them.

Comments are closed.