Anybody knows?
- Thread starter LASur5r
- Start date
D.W. Drang
New member
Do you want legal cites and precedence? Then I can't help you...
OTOH, I think you could be justified in shooting the dog, depending on whether you can establish that, for example, it was a snarling, slavering junkyard-type mongrel vs. a tail-wagging shih-tzu...
Shooting the owner instead of the dog is probably going to get you sent up the river. In fact, I'd bet on it.
OTOH, I think you could be justified in shooting the dog, depending on whether you can establish that, for example, it was a snarling, slavering junkyard-type mongrel vs. a tail-wagging shih-tzu...
Shooting the owner instead of the dog is probably going to get you sent up the river. In fact, I'd bet on it.
Inspector Callahan
New member
Er, what about taking care of the dog? It would be awfully hard to convince a jury that you were "in fear for your life" because a dog was running at you, so you decided to blow the owner away. Besides, you'd have to wear all those bandages to court.
D.W. Drang
New member
Or did you mean "shoot the owner AFTER you deal with the dog...?"
I guess it would depend on what the owner was doing... "Just" shooting him would probably stand up in court as well as shooting someone who "just" said "I'm gonna kill you" without any threatening movements--this is not an uncommon expression, for example, in response to a really bad pun...
Although the owner commanded the dog to attack, he is not the immediate threat. The dog is. I believe that shooting the dog would be justified if the dog came to you and you actually thought that the dog was a threat. But it would be good to have a witness that the owner commanded the dog to attack.
Funny thing. This exact scenario happened to my father-in-law just after his heart bypass surgery. A police officer who lived in the neighborhood kept a rotweiller (-sp) trained to attack pedestrians who walked in front of the house. He would sit on his front porch, drink beer, and watch the commotion. Kind of a sick freak, if you ask me.
Anyway, my father-in-law was out walking, as per instructions from the surgeon, when the rot charged him. He drew a .45 officers' model from his hip, and laid the puppy out. All this to the sounds of applause from the surrounding neighbors and children, as well as the sounds of the cop squealing like a baby!
Unfortunately, you would not be justified in shooting the owner. The owner poses no threat to you. He was, however, justified in shooting the dog. But, if you want to strike out against the owner for being a jerk, you should simply allow the dog to bite you once before killing it. You can then sue in criminal, and tort civil court for attempted manslaughter, gross criminal negligence, assault with deadly force (deadly weapon?), not to mention several hundred thousand dollars in pain and suffering.
Fearing a chest cavity rupture, my father-in-law did not allow the dog to reach him. Moreover, he felt so bad about having to shoot the thing that he offered to cover the vet bills. Go figure.
Anyway, my father-in-law was out walking, as per instructions from the surgeon, when the rot charged him. He drew a .45 officers' model from his hip, and laid the puppy out. All this to the sounds of applause from the surrounding neighbors and children, as well as the sounds of the cop squealing like a baby!
Unfortunately, you would not be justified in shooting the owner. The owner poses no threat to you. He was, however, justified in shooting the dog. But, if you want to strike out against the owner for being a jerk, you should simply allow the dog to bite you once before killing it. You can then sue in criminal, and tort civil court for attempted manslaughter, gross criminal negligence, assault with deadly force (deadly weapon?), not to mention several hundred thousand dollars in pain and suffering.
Fearing a chest cavity rupture, my father-in-law did not allow the dog to reach him. Moreover, he felt so bad about having to shoot the thing that he offered to cover the vet bills. Go figure.
This is kind of off the subject. but my grandmother served on a jury a few years ago where a man and his 2 or 3 year old son were going into a coffee shop. Out side a lady left her dog out front. This was one of those big husky type dogs. The bog bit the little boy. The dog really did alot of damage to the boys face and head. This wasnt just a little bite on the arm. The man took his son to the hospital, and went back to the coffee shop. He found where the lady lived and went over to her house and beat the dog to death with a baseball bat. In court he was found not guilty, under the law, this took place in Huntington Beach, CA. He was justified since the dog hurt another person. He would have been found guilty if the dog had, say, chewed up his shoes.
spacemanspiff
New member
last winter i was walking home when i heard something behind me. i turn around to see a pit bull running full speed for me. not barking, not growling, just running silent. being the cowardly animal, it turned as soon as i faced him, but circled around, just long enough for me to pull my pepper spray out. when he was 5 feet away i sprayed him. the bastard sneezed the spray off, and came back for more. i emptied the rest of the can in his face and ran before he could sneeze that one off too.
i'm all for killing vicious animals that threaten me or any other person. but until i get my ccw, i will rely on pepper spray and knives to protect myself.
i'm all for killing vicious animals that threaten me or any other person. but until i get my ccw, i will rely on pepper spray and knives to protect myself.