Argument over dog feces spurs gun arrest in Los Osos

June 17, 2014
Christopher Patrick Dierks

Christopher Patrick Dierks

San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s deputies arrested a Los Osos resident Monday for firing a shotgun into the ground after arguing with a passerby over dog feces.

Shortly before 7:30 a.m., a man was walking with his girlfriend in the 1100 block of Santa Ynez Avenue in Los Osos, according to a sheriff’s office release. The man noticed a sign outside a house warning not to leave dog feces in the garbage container. He then looked inside the garbage container, which prompted the owner of the house to come outside.

A verbal argument ensued, and the owner, Christopher Patrick Dierks, returned inside the house. Dierks, 67, then came back out with a 12 gauge shotgun and fired a single shot into the ground about 10 feet away from the couple

Deputies arrested Dierks for assault with a deadly weapon and also charged him with negligent discharge of a firearm and brandishing a firearm. They booked him in San Luis Obispo County Jail on $50,000 bail.

No injuries occurred as a result of the dispute.


A case in Texas, an old guy got tired of the upstairs neighbors dog crap falling through the balcony. After repeated complaints, old guy walked up an murdered mom and dad.


With all the recent news on CCN about dog poop and Mayors, I started thinking to myself: “Hmm, I wonder if Mr. Dierks’ trash can was visible from the street?” Which in SLO is a crime, unless you are the Mayor.

Old Salt

Mayor Caught Tossing Dog Poop on Neighbor’s Lawn Resigns…


A critical fact has been left out.

What was in the trash can?


It doesn’t matter what was in the trash can. You can’t use a shotgun to settle an argument. Why not place the can where no one can reach it?


My Dad told me around 1965 or so; “you fire a gun in only two ways, in practice at a legal range, or in defense of a life. If you use it in defense, you shoot to kill.”


You’re dad was a simpleton wasn’t he? Lots of situation where you could shoot someone without killing them. For example, if they had a knife and wouldn’t put it down, a bullet whizzing by their knee or hitting their knee might get he job done.


You watch too many movies. Sure, just shoot the knife out of their hand why don’t you? Do you know how many rounds the police (who are trained in this) fire for every time they hit a suspect? Do you know how many rounds are fired in wartime for ever soldier hit? Do a little research before you speak. A warning shot just might give someone the split second they need to put that knife into your stomach. Look in a mirror and you will see the “simpleton”.

Kevin Rice

“You’re” grammar might be suspect of being that of a simpleton.

Oh, and on the knife thing… no. No. and NO. Please research the 21-foot rule. And you don’t shoot at someone simply for not putting a weapon down. They must post an imminent threat that cannot be avoided.


Wow, I am so honored to meet someone who has never mistyped something in there whole life! You are amazing!


I also was not aware that we were discussing someone with a knife attacking from more than 21 feet. Do you ask politely for them to wait while you measure?


POST or Poise? An interesting choice of wording. However, I do agree with the 21 foot rule.

miles archer

Sad that someone would go for a gun first as a solution to a simple argument/dispute.

This country doesn’t have a GUN problem…we have a problem with the IDIOTS that possess them. I don’t care what his intent was (scare them off)! Imagine if he had suddenly lost his balance or footing when he pulled the trigger…this came too close (10 feet!) to a potential case of involuntary manslaughter.


Kevin Rice

You completely gloss-over the fact that brandishing alone is a very serious offense. Intentional discharge is beyond the pale.

Jorge Estrada

For many “open carry” would be considered to be a form of brandishing a fire arm yet perfectly legal in other parts of our country. As for the discharge of a fire arm, it is never right unless for a legal training opportunity, to protect your life or the the life of a loved one.

Kevin Rice

Those “many” would be factually and legally incorrect. Brandishing requires both intent and a context of a confrontation. Further, that a “weapon [be] exhibited in a rude, angry and threatening manner.” (People v. Norton (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d Supp. 14, 26.)


You can tell that one

was written by a democrat, let’s not be rude or angry everyone!

Jorge Estrada

Sorry to hear the bad news on Chris. I remember him from 40 years ago, a hard working person who took no handouts. He probably just didn’t want to argue and wanted to scare them off. I’m sure he took great aim to avoid colateral damage but still not legal. I hope he will apologize and save the taxpayers for his error.


Whenvever I see a sign not to leave feces in a garbage container at a stranger’s house, I always look inside the garbage can to ensure that people have complied.

Odd behavior fro all. I think the fog must affect brain function.


Whenvever I see a sign not to leave feces in a garbage container at a stranger’s house, I always look inside the garbage can to ensure that people have complied.

Odd behavior fro all. I think the fog must affect brain function.




Boy, the people of Los Osos are sure passionate about their poo…….