Large Dog at the door!

[JohnKSa]

Perhaps you can show us exactly which post accuses him of planning to shoot through the door

The responses prior to my posting that were extremely heated, the only thing I could figure was that people were responding to the idea that he was going to shoot the dog for simply barking at him through the door.

But if you want to see a post that said he WAS implying that he would shoot through the door, here it is. I posted that: "There wasn't so much as the implication that he even considered the idea of shooting it through the door." and got this response:

Yes there was

I guess at this point, I should ask you to explain why you responded this way if you believed my statement was correct.

As for the rest of your objections:

If someone is attacked by your dog on your doorstep because you fail to restrain it you are liable for the person's injuries and the person is certainly within his rights to use whatever force is necessary to defend himself. Taht applies even if the person accidentally got the wrong address. The only exception would be if your property was posted clearly and the access to your front doorstep is restricted to the point that the person would obviously have to trespass in order to get there. That was certainly not the case in this situation.

It is perfectly acceptable for my dog to react to that unexpected stranger at the door the same perfectly acceptable way this dog reacted to an unexpected stranger at the door

This is a perfect example of a strawman fallacy. The original post was clear to me an others as being a question about the hypothetical situation in which the dog escaped. Subsequent posts made that even more clear. You have created a correct argument but it is addressing your strawman, not the situation as it is being discussed.

It is your responsibility to insure that you are at the correct address, it's really not that hard

This is still arguing based on the false impressions that:

1. It's ok for a dog to attack someone because they knock on the wrong door.

2. That the OP was worried about the dog barking as opposed to what would happen if it came through the door.

Maybe I missed some uncivil posts on this thread while I was gone, but I thought the references to that particular breed were very relevant to this thread. We had special training on my job regarding that breed,

The bottom line is that there are people here who simply can NOT respond rationally to comments, either positive or negative about dog breeds. Fortunately, this is not a dog breed forum so it's simplest to circumvent the predictable circus by deleting/editing the off topic remarks.

He approached the front door where a Yellow lab was barking, he then drew his sidearm and shot three times.

That would be a topic for another thread since it's already been establish that this thread is not about shooting a barking dog through a door.

I see a concerted effort here on the part of some to maintain a righteous indignation. The problem is that the assumptions on which that indignation is founded are false. The OP has already stated categorically that the issue wasn't a barking dog, but rather what would have happened if that dog had escaped and attacked.

 

[joab]

The responses prior to my posting that were extremely heated, the only thing I could figure was that people were responding to the idea that he was going to shoot the dog for simply barking at him through the door.

You are the one that deleted them, I would have supposed that you would have read them first.
And you figured wrong, the OP introduced the concept of shooting through the door, or not doing so

But if you want to see a post that said he WAS implying that he would shoot through the door, here it is. I posted that: "There wasn't so much as the implication that he even considered the idea of shooting it through the door." and got this response:

The implication was that he would have shot on the property, I stand corrected

I guess at this point, I should ask you to explain why you responded this way if you believed my statement was correct.

You cannot deny that the very strong implication was made that he would shoot the dog while still on the dog's property, where he was not supposed to be, if he had been armed

If someone is attacked by your dog on your doorstep because you fail to restrain it you are liable for the person's injuries and the person is certainly within his rights to use whatever force is necessary to defend himself. Taht applies even if the person accidentally got the wrong address. The only exception would be if your property was posted clearly and the access to your front doorstep is restricted to the point that the person would obviously have to trespass in order to get there. That was certainly not the case in this situation.

In all fairness you asked about my house, and you would have to be trespassing to get to my door
I never addressed the legal issue of shooting the dog
If you go back and read I made implication, if you will, that the threat should be considered the same as if the owner had come out with a ball bat,
My whole contention is what I see as blaming the dog for his mistake and for doing what it is supposed to do
If you don't want to be in that circumstance in the future it would be wise to make sure that you are at the correct address, that's your responsibility not the dog's

This is a perfect example of a strawman fallacy. The original post was clear to me an others as being a question about the hypothetical situation in which the dog escaped. Subsequent posts made that even more clear. You have created a correct argument but it is addressing your strawman, not the situation as it is being discussed.

My argument has been based on the baseless theory that a dog that barks is going to attack
I also gave what is some of the best advice given here yet
Back away from the door and don't give the dog reason to see you as a threat, and make sure you re where you are supposed to be
If the dog does attack treat it as a threat but don't look for reasons to see it as a threat

This is still arguing based on the false impressions that:

1. It's ok for a dog to attack someone because they knock on the wrong door.

2. That the OP was worried about the dog barking as opposed to what would happen if it came through the door.

Bull
Where have I said that it is OK for the dog to attack
I can show you where I compared it to the owner attacking
The entire premise of the thread is based on the dog barking not on the dog attacking
In short a mean doggy barked at him for encroaching and now he wants to see just how far the dog has to go before he can shoot it
We have seen this same argument here so many times it is getting tiresome
There was one awhile back where two dogs attacked a member's wife by "charging her and rolling over onto their backs
The poster assured us that his wife knew all there was to know about dogs, but couldn't explain exactly how she didn't recognize this classic submissive behavior
The number of posts suggesting that he arm himself and walk down the street to provoke another "attack" so that he could legally shoot these two marauding hounds was absolutely disgusting and indicative of a growing class of people that want to be involved in a defensive shooting so bad that they discount the lives of animals. After all the media tells us that they are a growing danger and we must believe anything the media tells us that we want to believe
How's that for inference

Maybe I missed some uncivil posts on this thread while I was gone, but I thought the references to that particular breed were very relevant to this thread. We had special training on my job regarding that breed,

Nothing pertinent to the discussion in any way was deleted

 

[JohnKSa]

Perhaps you could point out just where this implication was implied any more strongly than the implication that he would shoot the animal on the owners property including through the door if the latch had not been secure or if there had only been a screen there

What?

 

[PT111]

I think that there are some on this board that need to take some of the money and time they spend on tactical training classes and ammuntion and use it for reading comprehension classes.

 

[joab]

Hit submit by mistake still in the process of editing

 

[joab]

I think that there are some on this board that need to take some of the money and time they spend on tactical training classes and ammuntion and use it for reading comprehension classes

coming from the guy that wrote this comment?

I flipped ham back wit a paddle and he came back trying to get in.

And you spelled ammunition wrong

 

[Mal H]

This is so NOT a handgun thread, that I need to move it somewhere. The Legal forum might be best ... hold on ...

 

[DougO83]

Umm...no...

If someone is attacked by your dog on your doorstep because you fail to restrain it you are liable for the person's injuries and the person is certainly within his rights to use whatever force is necessary to defend himself.

You are on MY property without MY permission and MY dog bites you defending HIS home and I am liable??? I don't think so. I do not know where you live, but that is certainly not the case in my end of the Lone Star State. I cannot quote state law, but I have seen personal experience to the contrary. Also, you will have one heck of a time explaining to me, the pet owner, why you shot my dog in front of my hosue or on my property. Good luck not going to jail for that...

 

[buck460XVR]

Altho, I love watching how such innocent questions can turn grown, intelligent(?) men into ranting/raving idiots,

...............I rest my case.

 

[kristop64089]

That would be a topic for another thread since it's already been establish that this thread is not about shooting a barking dog through a door.

I should have been more descriptive in my post. The dog was on the front porch. The "cop" simply percieved a threat that was not there.

I live in a rural area, and this happened in a hiccup town. Just swept under the rug.

I guess the point I am trying to make is, Threats are a precieved(sp?)notion.
What I see as threatining you may not.

It may very well be that the dog will attack. But, in a close quarters situation(which is where he is) Un-aware of his surroundings, drawing down on a dog that is attacking, is not a good Idea.

But, since "Buck the Bombchucker" thinks we are all IDIOTS. I'll shut up for now.

 

[rantingredneck]

You are on MY property without MY permission and MY dog bites you defending HIS home and I am liable??? I don't think so. I do not know where you live, but that is certainly not the case in my end of the Lone Star State. I cannot quote state law, but I have seen personal experience to the contrary. Also, you will have one heck of a time explaining to me, the pet owner, why you shot my dog in front of my hosue or on my property. Good luck not going to jail for that...

Referring back to the OP, this situation in question was the case of a municipally authorized plumbing inspector who is on the shared front porch of a duplex knocking on the wrong door because they aren't clearly marked. If that was your property and your dog burst through the door and chewed him up or killed him good luck not being responsible for the medical bills and or a big settlement, regardless of where you live.

If your property is fenced, has "No Tresspassing" signs, "beware of dog" signs or other such you may be covered in a case like this, but given the OP's circumstances I think the owner of the dog would have been found liable in court for any injuries and had he defended himself using lethal force against the dog I can't see him going to jail or being held accountable in any way.

I would hate to live in a country where knocking on the wrong door in the furtherance of your duties as a civil employee warrants being chewed up by a dog and it be seen as justifiable.

 

[JohnKSa]

I cannot quote state law

The statutes are online.

Unless the person is trespassing they should not be attacked by one of your animals. If they are, it's your fault.

Unless your front yard is posted and fenced, someone on your front doorstep is not trespassing. Whether you invited them or not. Even if they got the wrong house.

 

[kristop64089]

I know the OP "pulled his dog out of the fight " (pun intended)somtime ago.

I don't see his as question of when, buts should I?...

I am not one who would stand to be eaten. But, I also would use a different way/method other than gun. That is where I take issue.

If my dog is attacking you, and I don't see you as a threat, I will end it by all means necessary. But, You as a guest/visitor pulling a gun on my property on discharging, could end very badly. You could have just been bitten. But now you are dead.

I live in the sticks. People don't just show up. My dog is a guard dog. Thats the way he was trained. We have had many visitors, none were bit. I really think those who are willing to pull a firearm and discharge on private property are jaded(IMO).


Take this out of the city, where you have strangers by your house all day, and put yourself in my shoes, where my closest neighbor is 1/2mile away.

Think how crappy a city would be if everybody shot a dog that they thought was attacking them.(remember your not actually being attacked till the dog is on ya)

 

[DougO83]

rantingredneck

If you would so kindly re-read my post before posting. I was responding specifically to JohnKSa's post,not the OP, hence the quotes from his post...

 

[rantingredneck]

Think how crappy a city would be if everybody shot a dog that they thought was attacking them.(remember your not actually being attacked till the dog is on ya)

I see your point in your post. I also see the emotional attachment people have for their animals and don't want to see them get hurt or killed. I get that.

From my personal experience, though I can tell you that by the time the dog is on ya, you are already tactically screwed to put it bluntly. If you are unarmed you are facing an animal that has an evolutionary advantage against you in the form of claws and teeth plus an instinct to go for the throat. Fighting it out unarmed is not the strategy I would personally recommend.

I was lucky. I've had a lot of training in unarmed combat and had had a lot of that training by that age when I was attacked (19 by the way). Not everyone would have had the same outcome in the situation I was in. I'm not saying I'm Superman or anything, I know for a fact I'm not, but I can handle myself pretty well unarmed as well as armed.

Based on those experiences I can tell you that I won't wait for a dog to get a grip on me like that dog did that day again. I see teeth coming, I know it's time to defend myself, by any means necessary.

 

[DougO83]

??

I am lost. In the OP, the poster was at the wrong address (uninvited) how is that not trespassing? It is common knowledge in America that someone's doorstep is not a public thoroughfare. If you are on my deck and I did not ask you there, you are trespassing. Whether the law says you are or not, if you shoot my dog for defending his territory, expect a hail of gunfire from at least 3 dog-loving gun owners from inside...You cannot explain your way out of discharging your firearm on my property to kil my pet to anybody, police, attorney, judge, whoever...

 

[JohnKSa]

I live in the sticks.

That's hardly the same thing as living in the city in a duplex that shares a front porch, is it?

So why would you apply your mindset based on your situation to the OPs situation when they're clearly not comparable.

 

[rantingredneck]

rantingredneck

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you would so kindly re-read my post before posting. I was responding specifically to JohnKSa's post,not the OP, hence the quotes from his post...

That's all fine and well and I understand that. But also understand (by rereading my post) that I was trying to tie this back to the situation that was specifically described in the OP. The original poster has taken alot of flack from a lot folks in this thread and I don't personally see any reason for it.

 

[JohnKSa]

In the OP, the poster was at the wrong address (uninvited) how is that not trespassing?

1. The OP was at the right house and on the right front porch, the residence was a DUPLEX with two doors on the same front porch. He knocked on the wrong door. But that doesn't make any difference. Unless access to your doorstep is somehow restricted (i.e. it's inside a fenced and posted enclosure) people are entitled to expect to be able to ring your doorbell without being attacked by your dog. Even if they meant to ring someone else's doorbell.

2. If you don't know what trespassing is then why are you even still responding to this thread?

3. You will go to jail if you kill someone for defending themselves against your dog unless they entered a fenced enclosure or released your dog from a fenced enclosure--i.e. unless your animal was restrained in some fashion.

 

[rantingredneck]

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously
designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at
the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint
marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks
are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight
inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark
is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet
from the ground; and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily
visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or
(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other
than forest land; or
(E) the visible presence on the property of a
crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the
process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time
of entry.
(3) "Shelter center" has the meaning assigned by
Section 51.002, Human Resources Code.
(4) "Forest land" means land on which the trees are
potentially valuable for timber products.
(5) "Agricultural land" has the meaning assigned by
Section 75.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(6) "Superfund site" means a facility that:
(A) is on the National Priorities List
established under Section 105 of the federal Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42
U.S.C. Section 9605); or
(B) is listed on the state registry established
under Section 361.181, Health and Safety Code.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor at the time of the offense was a fire fighter or emergency
medical services personnel, as that term is defined by Section
773.003, Health and Safety Code, acting in the lawful discharge of
an official duty under exigent circumstances.
(d) An offense under Subsection (e) is a Class C misdemeanor
unless it is committed in a habitation or unless the actor carries a
deadly weapon on or about the actor's person during the commission
of the offense, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor. An
offense under Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that
the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if:
(1) the offense is committed:
(A) in a habitation or a shelter center; or
(B) on a Superfund site; or
(2) the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about his
person during the commission of the offense.
(e) A person commits an offense if without express consent
or if without authorization provided by any law, whether in writing
or other form, the person:
(1) enters or remains on agricultural land of another;
(2) is on the agricultural land and within 100 feet of
the boundary of the land when apprehended; and
(3) had notice that the entry was forbidden or
received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was
forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was
carrying.

Here is the Texas Tresspass law (section 30.05) which is strikingly similar to NC's law which I'm familar with (I researched it when I had a pool put in and decided to post my property as a liability defense if someone's kid jumped the fence and drowned.)

Pay particular attention to the bolding (my addition). Notice is required either written or oral before the person is tresspassing. Meaning either you've got signs or you have to tell them, "You're tresspassing" and must leave and then they have to refuse to leave to be guilty.

Just an FYI.