An Unjustified Killing

On Feb. 5, 2024, a Border Collie who had been loved for eight years by several families on Old Knight Road was killed by Hayden Charles Shirley of Oneonta, Alabama. The shooting took place in the Pine Mountain community in Remlap, Blount County, Alabama.

Shirley’s claim that he “knowingly had to shoot someone’s pet dog to protect his chickens” is an outright lie. He intentionally killed this dog without cause — and then falsified evidence to justify his action.

False Testimony

This is Hayden Shirley’s account of what happened:

Shirley's Feb. 9, 1:06pm account, shown as a screenshot of Hayden Shirley's Facebook comment. Highlighted segment reads as follows: Yes, he killed a chicken and was attacking my chickens when I shot him. Yes, he was near the road in the wooded area of my yard where a majority of my flock were at the time they were seeking cover in desperation. He dropped the chicken on the edge of the road soon after i shot him near the overgrown crape myrtles.

This account cannot possibly be true for the following reasons:

1. A Long-Dead Chicken

This is Shirley’s photo of the chicken he claimed the dog had just killed:

Screenshot of Hayden Shirley's Facebook comments. First comment is photograph of a dried-out chicken body laying on asphalt. Second Hayden Shirley comment shown in the screenshot is text as follows: As that you aren't letting it go, here is the dead chicken Jojo killed. I'll let you decide what killed it since me seeing Jojo chase it when it was alive and after coming outside my house with a gun the chicken was in his mouth as he was running.

However, Shirley’s photo showed a bird that has clearly been dead for some time:

A larger view of the photo Hayden Shirley posted in the screenshot shown previously. Chicken body can be clearly seen to have been decomposing for some time. There is no red flesh, no blood, the eye is missing, the tongue is dried and darkened, etc. — Note the dried, darkened tongue and wound areas, missing eye, the flattened head, and the absence of fresh blood or red/pink meat.

Three side-by-side photos of recently killed chickens which were posted on internet chicken photos. In every case there are large areas of bright pink and bright red flesh. — Compare Shirley’s long-dead chicken to these photos of recently killed chickens. *(Source: internet chicken forums.)*

Not only does Shirley’s photographed chicken appear to have been dead for some time, but multiple witnesses reported seeing that dead chicken on Homestead Lane on Feb. 2. Yet Shirley claimed that he — three days later — “personally saw” the dog kill this chicken in his backyard.

2. An Impossible Map

Shirley also lied about the location of the dead chicken. In Shirley’s account,

“He dropped the chicken near the edge of the road soon after i shot him near the overgrown crape myrtles. He struggled to walk for about 10 seconds after being shot the first time, and came to rest in the exact spot you found him. I shot him a second time to quicken his passing.” Feb. 9 at 1:06 p.m.

We know this is a lie because we determined where the photo was actually taken. By matching the pattern of the gravel in Shirley’s photo, we were able to identify the exact location in the road:

On the left, Hayden Shirley's photo (as seen above) of the long-dead chicken on the asphalt road. On the right, a photo of asphalt road in which the gravel pattern exactly matches that of Shirley's photo. There is a darker spot where the chicken's head was laying in Hayden Shirley's photo. — Shirley’s image (left); exact location in road (right, and below).

Photo of asphalt road with pieces of white tape outlining the section of gravel that exactly matches the section of gravel in Hayden Shirley's long-dead chicken photo. — Tape on the road marking the gravel pattern shown in photo.

Hayden Shirley's photo overlaid with the photo of the exact spot on the road, Homestead Lane, Remlap, Alabama. The overlay alternates between the photos so that it can be clearly seen that Shirley's photo of the chicken was taken in this exact spot on the road. — Shirley’s photo overlaid with our photo of the exact spot on Homestead Lane.

Here we point to the identified location, with houses in the background to show context. Shirley’s property is not visible in this photo.

Photo of a man's arm/hand indicating the location on the road. In the background is a dried grass front yard and a cream colored house one-storey house with a reddish roof. — Identified location on the asphalt, on Homestead Lane near Tyler Road. The house on the right is 40 Homestead Lane, Remlap. *Note that Google misplaces this address: the property is actually at the corner of Homestead and Tyler, as can be verified by searching for 40 Homestead Lane at Blount County Parcel Viewer.*

Having determined where the photo was taken and surmising that the chicken had been run over by a car, we searched for additional evidence. Sure enough, on the side of the road we found many feathers which matched the dead chicken’s plumage:

Two rows of feathers lined up on a white background. The feather coloring is primarily dark gray with tan or russet shades and black at the edges. — Feathers we collected from the grass next to the identified location on the asphalt. *Compare to the plumage of the chicken in Shirley’s photo.*

The identified location on the asphalt is shown at the top of this map. It is nowhere near Shirley’s property, and nowhere near the spot where Shirley claimed the dog dropped the chicken.

Map image which shows Homestead Lane, the shooter's property, the location of the dog's body, the location of the chicken in Hayden Shirley's photo according to Shirley's claims, and the actual location of the chicken in the photo, which is three houses away from the claimed location.

If the dog had actually killed a chicken, any reasonable person would have photographed the chicken as proof, or would have placed the chicken by the dog’s body, or would have shown the chicken to the owner when he picked up the dog’s body.

Instead, Shirley showed a photo of a chicken that was long-dead and that was located nowhere near the supposed incident.

3. Gunshot Gaffes

Yet another problem for Shirley is his shiftiness about how many times he shot the dog.

Screenshot of Facebook comments. First comment is a reply to Hayden Shirley stating: Yes, the dog's body was on your property. But you could have moved the dog to your property. WHERE DID YOU SHOOT THE DOG? You have repeatedly dodged the question. Only those who are hiding something are evasive. / Next comment is Hayden Shirley's reply: in the head (without punctuation). Next comment to Hayden Shirley states: You are evading again. Let me rephrase: Where was the dog when you shot him. If your wife's account of the events is true, how did the dead chicken get to the road? Where on the road did you photograph that chicken? Be honest! Fourth comment is Hayden Shirley's reply: You tell me since you were there.

The exchange above is from Feb. 9 at 10:29 a.m. Here and previously, Shirley had spoken of only one gunshot. But then Shirley’s story changed. One gunshot became two:

“He struggled to walk for about 10 seconds after being shot the first time, and came to rest in the exact spot you found him. I shot him a second time to quicken his passing.” Feb. 9 at 1:07 p.m.

However, there was only one gunshot wound. Five witnesses saw both sides of the dog’s body. The only gunshot was through the dog’s neck. There were neither wounds nor blood anywhere else on the dog’s body.

Shirley claimed that “the chicken was in his mouth as he was running” away from Shirley’s property. We believe that the shift to two gunshots was an attempt to explain why the chicken was photographed in the road rather than near the dog (even while Shirley continued to lie about the location of the dead chicken).

An additional issue with Shirley’s gunshot narrative is that the dog’s body was laying with the entry wound face-down and the exit wound face-up. If Shirley’s account were true, then we would have found the dog’s body with the entry wound facing up. By Shirley’s account, he was somehow able to shoot the dog from underneath — in other words, from the ground up.

Twisted Ideas

Shirley’s justification for shooting the dog was skewed from the beginning. His comments indicate that he acted to:

a) avenge an attack on his chickens, and
b) lethally enforce his condemnation of unfenced dogs.

1. Avenging Chickens

Two weeks before he killed the dog, Shirley had posted about an attack on his free-roaming chickens:

Shirley did not witness the event. He posted a photograph of an apparent paw print and stated “It is clearly a large dog” that attacked the chickens.

Two weeks later, Shirley killed a Border Collie — a medium-sized dog — and blamed him for the prior event:

Screenshot of Hayden Charles Shirley Facebook post with text: Whoever owns this dog, your dog killed yet another one of my chickens. Your dog is currently laying in my yard, and you are free to pickup it's body. / Below the text is a picture of a (live) Border Collie laying down in grass. The dog is facing the camera with his head up.

To be clear, Shirley — by his own admission — did not know which dog killed his chickens on Jan. 22. Now, suddenly, it was definitely the dog he just shot:

“your dog killed yet another one of my chickens.” Feb. 5 at 3:20 p.m.
“I’m upset about my dead chickens, especially the last one I witnessed being killed by Jojo.” Feb. 6 at 8:19 p.m.
“I didn’t go seek Jojo out. Jojo willingly came onto my property and killed my chickens.” Feb. 6 at 8:19 p.m.
“Here is the dead chicken Jojo killed.” Feb. 6 at 8:21 p.m.
“The facts of the situation are Jojo was on my property, Jojo killed my chickens on my property, and I permanently removed the problem of Jojo being on my property killing my chickens.” Feb. 6 at 9:14 p.m.
“The feathers are still in the backyard where I personally saw Jojo kill the chicken.” Feb. 7 at 8:20 p.m.
“I witnessed my chicken being killed by Jojo, and I witnessed how I killed Jojo to stop the attack on my chickens” Feb. 9 at 9:42 a.m.
“Yes, he killed a chicken and was attacking my chickens when I shot him.” Feb. 9 at 1:06 p.m.

The only attack that Shirley said he “personally saw” was of the (actually long-dead) chicken shown in his photo. This means that Shirley blamed and killed this dog even despite zero evidence this dog had ever harmed a single chicken.

2. Lethal Enforcement

In his comments following the shooting, Shirley repeatedly espoused his belief that dogs should be fenced. There was no such law here: At the time of the shooting, neither confinement nor leashing was required. (Ala. Code § 3-1-5 was adopted in August 2024.)

Nonetheless, Shirley decided to enforce his own belief on others. Hayden Charles Shirley acted as judge, jury, and executioner:

“Jojo suffered the consequences of his owner failing to keep him off my property.” Feb. 6 at 8:19 p.m.
“He should have been fixed up in a fence.” Feb. 7 at 10:09 a.m.
“Jojo was his owner’s responsibility to maintain.” Feb. 6 at 8:19 p.m.
“Everyone can agree Jojo should never been on my property in the first place.” Feb. 7 at 9:42 p.m.

Shirley condemned the dog and owner, Shirley sentenced the dog to death, and Shirley carried out the execution.

Shirley moved to this community just over a year ago and has now taken it upon himself to lethally enforce his own idea of justice, in blatant disregard of the law.

Another Killing

On Feb. 23, another dog was found shot to death. Boomer, a 120 lb. Bully mix who lived 100 yards from Shirley’s property, had been missing since Jan. 30. A family member located the dog’s body 40 yards from Shirley’s back door, he said.

Facebook screenshot of a post by Hayden Shirley's neighbor to the west. Date on the post is February 1 at 10:03 AM. Post states at the top, Update: located but not a good ending. / Below that (the original post before the update): Reward $$$ for return of Boomer or information leading to him (NO QUESTIONS ASKED). I have been dreading writing this but I have to start reaching out in hopes of finding my gentle giant Boomer. (crying emoji). Anyone that has met him knows he is the bestest boy and we are heartbroken without him. He went missing yesterday and from his daily routine, it appears early morning. He has never been gone like this before and we have searched everywhere imaginable multiple times. Boomer is a bully mix around 120lbs full of love and happiness. Please help us find our baby. [broken heart emoji] / Below the text are four photos of a white dog standing in grass and laying on a wooden deck, on grass, and on grass covered with leaves. In the bottom two photos the dog is smiling at the person taking the photo.

According to Boomer’s owner, Shirley denied shooting Boomer — but that would mean that someone else shot Boomer from the direction of Shirley’s house.

Boomer was likely the first dog shot by Shirley to avenge the Jan. 22 attack on his chickens. This means that Shirley shot both a large dog and a medium dog to avenge the attack for which he believed, according to his own statement about the paw prints, a single large dog was responsible. How many dogs does Shirley believe he is entitled to shoot for the same incident? Based on paw prints alone, the answer should be zero.

Does Shirley get to decide that all dogs in the neighborhood must be fenced, chained, or kept indoors for their own safety — while his chickens are allowed to roam free?

Roaming Chickens

This map shows confirmed locations where Shirley’s ”free range” Wyandotte chickens have been found:

Map of a much larger area which includes Tyler Road, Homestead Lane, and Old Knight Rd, Remlap, Alabama. The map includes a small area outlined in red to indicate Shirley's property, areas several times as large to indicate the two killed dogs' properties, and stars on both of the dogs' properties and also scattered on other areas of the map indicating locations where Shirley's chickens have been found. — Shirley’s property is outlined in red, the two dogs’ properties in blue, and the five scattered chicken feet mark locations where Shirley’s chickens have been found. *Click for a larger image.*

As they travel into neighborhood dogs’ yards, these chickens leave a scent trail which dogs instinctively follow. Any dog within a wide radius could follow the scent — or the actual chicken — from the dog’s own property back to Shirley’s property, where he believes he is entitled to shoot any dog for "being a normal dog," in his own words.

Shirley has created conditions that leave no dog safe wherever his chickens roam. His chickens should not be allowed to roam if he’s going to shoot dogs for following them home. Should people start shooting his chickens when they roam into their yards to help keep their dogs safe? When does this stop?

Aftermath

Shirley’s shooting has polarized the community:

Screenshot showing four Facebook comments by four different residents general area residents in response to the shooting. First comment says: Maybe the owner did not know his dog was harming your chicken. maybe they did not see your post. Sorry you had to kill such a beautiful animal. / Second comment: Just target practice for you!!! / Third comment: Have you posted about this dog before killing your chickens? / Fourth comment: I wouldn't post about it. Take it to the back forty and dump it off.

At one pole are those sickened by Shirley’s action and astonished by his false assertion that he has the legal “right” to kill any dog that might or might not chase his chickens — especially without first talking to the dog’s owner, as expressed in Ruth’s and Kathy’s comments above.

Many residents voiced the ethic that even if a dog kills a chicken, the loss of a chicken can neither economically nor morally justify a human’s killing of a pet. Shirley claimed that he “had to shoot,” but if Shirley could pull out his gun, he could certainly have instead pulled out his phone to shoot a photo or video. Had Shirley simply taken a photo of the dog with a chicken in his mouth, he would have been entitled under Alabama law to full reimbursement by the dog’s owner. Shirley himself commented about reimbursement, such as in his preposterous and tone-deaf statement “I’m doing the owner a favour by not seeking financial compensation.” The truth of the matter was that Shirley could not produce such a photo because the chicken never was in the dog’s mouth.

At the other pole are those who supported the shooter’s action, as seen in Dana’s comment above. Several people expressed their (inaccurate) belief that it is their right to kill any dog on their property. Anthony and others viewed Shirley’s acknowledgement of the shooting as his only error: these commenters advocating “SSS,” an acronym for “shoot, shovel, and shut up.” By literally burying the evidence (in an additional criminal act, a violation of § 13A-10-129), this illegal and morally vacant path leaves families in ongoing pain at the unexplained absence of their pets. Residents of Homestead Lane and bordering Tyler Road properties were, even prior to Shirley’s act, disturbed by the “disappearing” of their dogs — a fear which Shirley’s act has only fueled.

Shirley’s shooting has effectively removed the freedom and peace of others in the community. A neighbor shared a fear of her dogs slipping out of a 6 ft. fence: “it just scares the hell out of me that if someone had seen them and assumed the worse they would have been shot,” she wrote:

Comment from a Pine Mountain resident stating: We just put in a 6' fence because we do have one that likes to walk herself. They accidentally got out a few weeks ago. They are harmless but it just scares the hell out of me that if someone had seen them and assumed the worse that they would have been shot. Luckily my sweet neighbors helped me get them back in quickly (I have health issues and it would have been difficult on my own). Luckily I have good and sweet neighbors.

The result is that law-abiding, conscientious dog owners are forced to take extreme measures to protect their dogs from a gunman who pretends to have a “right” to kill any dog that walks by. Are we all to live in fear? Is the mere presence of chickens a license to kill any animal that nears one’s property? Legally, definitely not: Alabama’s animal cruelty statutes criminalize such behavior.

The dog that Shirley killed was an adored eight-year resident of Old Knight Road. Jojo was a beloved companion to his owners, and equally loved by multiple neighbors and friends who had come to know him over the years.

Facebook screenshot of comment: this was the best dog. he would've never hurt a fly... we have cats and a little dog and jojo would play with them. he was the sweetest dog and we loved when he came to see us. to whoever killed this sweet boy you have hurt a lot of people.

Facebook screenshot of comment: there were several other humane options to take care of any problem you may have had other than killing the dog. I have always had dogs and chickens as well and he never bothered any of my animals. He was always gentle and just meandered through. He never even barked at my dogs, and mine will bark at anything, and always came to my husband and I for a pet and a dog treat. He was a welcome visitor to my home.

Shirley’s claim that he “knowingly had to shoot someone’s pet dog to protect his chickens” is an outright lie. He intentionally killed this dog without cause — thereby committing Aggravated Cruelty to Animals § 13A-11-14.1 — and then fabricated evidence to justify his action.

Screenshot of Facebook comment: Poor Jojo he wouldn't have hurt a thing. He was to old to chase chickens around anyways. Time will tell that Jojo was innocent [broken heart emoji]

Alabama Law

Hayden Shirley has been charged with Cruelty to Animals:

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS§ 13A-11-14
(a) A person commits the crime of cruelty to animals if, except as otherwise authorized by law, he or she recklessly or with criminal negligence: […] (3) Kills or injures without good cause any animal belonging to another.

AGGRAVATED CRUELTY TO ANIMALS § 13A-11-14.1
(a) A person commits the crime of aggravated cruelty to animals if the person intentionally or knowingly violates Section 13A-11-14, and the act of cruelty or neglect involved the infliction of torture to the animal. (b) The word torture as used in this section shall mean […] or by causing the death of the animal.

Intentionally killing an animal while knowing he did not have good cause should qualify Shirley’s act as Aggravated Cruelty to Animals, the Class C felony. If Shirley had good cause, he would not have needed to fabricate evidence to show cause. However, Shirley was charged with the lessor misdemeanor charge.