laws about defending your dog

Lavid2002 said:
If someone's in my house stabbing my dog, there getting shot.

Your over thinking this :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Agreed,until I leave Texas anyway. In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property. My dog is property therefore I can protect my dog. I'm moving to PA soon and they do not have Castle Doctrine (yet). The real answer is, it depends on your state. Check your AR Law. I have called the Ark Attorney Generals office before to answer a firearms law question. They were very helpful.
 
Last edited:
BlayGlock said:
I'm moving to PA soon and they do not have Castle Doctrine (yet).
Click to expand...
Moving from Texas, you will have to adjust your mindset. Many other states do have castle doctrine laws. In fact, PA probably does, as well. But Texas is the only state that allows the use of deadly force to protect property. A castle doctrine law is not about property, it is about protecting yourself (and other people) within your home.

Unfortunately, new laws that relate to being allowed to defend yourself OUTSIDE of the home without first having to try to flee are often referred to, both by the media and by us, as "castle doctrine" laws. They are NOT castle doctrine laws. They are "no duty to retreat" laws, and should be regarded and referred to as such to avoid this type of confusion.

PA will probably expand it's self defense laws to remove the duty to retreat when outside of the home, but it is extremely unlikely that they'll ever get to allowing the use of lethal force to protect property. That doesn't mean their law isn't a castle doctrine law, and it won't mean that a new "no duty to retreat" law is defective.
 
In Indiana, the home-defense laws are quite friendly to the home-owner. If a criminal breaks into your home, they are legally assumed to have entered in order to do violence to the occupants of the property. So here, if you come upon someone that has broken into your home, you automatically have reasonable and articulable fear of the threat of death or serious bodily harm merely by his very presence in your home. I wouldn't shoot someone to protect my television, but I sure would threaten and subsequently follow through in order to protect my dog (who cost me about 10% as much as the TV). Price and Value are very different things.

Now, if this takes place somewhere else like my driveway or a public park, then that is an entirely different situation. But in my home, after he has illegally broken in, if the man attacks, charges, or does anything except follow my every instruction including leaving my dog alone under threat of fire, then I will fire. I'm a man of my word that cares far too much about the occupants of my home than the safety of the criminal breaking in to do damage to my family.

~LT
 
What about if you are taking a prone position with your megablaster?

Also watch the blood lust folks. Disdain for any human life is nice to chest pound about on some forums but not our style. I'm going to delete some of that.

Also, the defense of property in Texas is a touch more complicated. However, a person in your house with a knife isn't complicated. That's the important variable.

About the legal BS later - ok, it's nice to chest pound. However, the thousands of dollars needed for legal costs and the possible consequences of a bad shoot aren't BS.

Glenn
 
Aguila Blanca said:
PA will probably expand it's self defense laws to remove the duty to retreat when outside of the home, but it is extremely unlikely that they'll ever get to allowing the use of lethal force to protect property. That doesn't mean their law isn't a castle doctrine law, and it won't mean that a new "no duty to retreat" law is defective.
Click to expand...

I gave been following this with interest. They seem to have a lot of momentum with removing the duty to retreat clause. From what I can tell, they really do have a castle doctrine in the strict sense of the term. I am actually in PA atm house hunting. Tomorrow I am going by the Sherrif's office and hopefully pick up a law booklet along with my CHL application. I will report back with meaningful findings.

Even when I get to PA, my mindset will not be "adjusted". I would never shoot someone over a TV or even an automobile. I will shoot a man in my house if he has a knife, attacking my dog or not, unless he is running away or surrendering and going prone on the floor spread-eagle.
 
The current PA proposal does NOT provide for immunity from civil suit in the event of a self-defense shooting that is deemed "good." It's a major flaw in the proposed law, and I have not been able to get people to understand that allowing the law to be passed this way is actually a BAD THING, because legislators don't like to go back the next year and change what they just passed. So taking the "incremental" approach of saying "Well, this year we'll get the no-duty-to-retreat and NEXT year we'll get civil immunity" is only being foolish. It won't happen.
 
He's in your house with a knife, that's all that matters. You defend yourself and your family. That's what you go to the inquest with, not the dog.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
The current PA proposal does NOT provide for immunity from civil suit in the event of a self-defense shooting that is deemed "good." It's a major flaw in the proposed law, and I have not been able to get people to understand that allowing the law to be passed this way is actually a BAD THING, because legislators don't like to go back the next year and change what they just passed. So taking the "incremental" approach of saying "Well, this year we'll get the no-duty-to-retreat and NEXT year we'll get civil immunity" is only being foolish. It won't happen.
Click to expand...

Orly? That does indeed suck.
 
27
§ 8340.2. Civil immunity for use of force.
28
(a) General rule.--An actor who uses force:
29
(1) in self-protection as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 505
30
(relating to use of force in self-protection);
20110HB0040PN1038
- 12 -

1
(2) in the protection of other persons as provided in 18
2
Pa.C.S. § 506 (relating to use of force for the protection of
3
other persons);
4
(3) for the protection of property as provided in 18
5
Pa.C.S. § 507 (relating to use of force for the protection of
6
property);
7
(4) in law enforcement as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 508
8
(relating to use of force in law enforcement); or
9
(5) consistent with the actor's special responsibility
10
for care, discipline or safety of others as provided in 18
11
Pa.C.S. § 509 (relating to use of force by persons with
12
special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of
13
others)
14
is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil
15
liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which
16
were caused by the acts or omissions of the actor as a result of
17
the use of force.
18
(b) Attorney fees and costs.--If the actor who satisfies the
19
requirements of subsection (a) prevails in a civil action
20
initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the actor,
21
the court shall award reasonable expenses to the actor.
22
Reasonable expenses shall include, but not be limited to,
23
attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation
24
for loss of income.
25
(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
26
"perpetrator" shall mean a person against whom an actor is
27
justified in using force as provided by 18 Pa.C.S. § 505, 506,


That is text from HB40 which just passed the house. The way I read that is that although they may actually take you to court for civil liability, if you win they have to pay all associated court fees? It does not actually prevent such a case from being brought in the first case?

Also there is another one of these bills that passed the PA state senate but I have not read it.
 
I had to reformat that before I could read it:

(1) in self-protection as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 505 30 (relating to use of force in self-protection);

(2) in the protection of other persons as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 506 (relating to use of force for the protection of other persons);

(3) for the protection of property as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 507 (relating to use of force for the protection of property);

(4) in law enforcement as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 508 (relating to use of force in law enforcement); or

(5) consistent with the actor's special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 509 (relating to use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others) is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which were caused by the acts or omissions of the actor as a result of the use of force.

(b) Attorney fees and costs.--If the actor who satisfies the requirements of subsection (a) prevails in a civil action initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the actor, the court shall award reasonable expenses to the actor. Reasonable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation for loss of income.

(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "perpetrator" shall mean a person against whom an actor is justified in using force as provided by 18 Pa.C.S. § 505, 506,
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that. I wasn't aware this was being considered this year, let alone having been passed. As you note, this won't protect you from being sued, but it does protect you from liability if you prove your case.

But ... it's a lousy law in two ways. First, if you have already been tested by the criminal system, and possibly even been before a grand jury, to determine that you should not be charged criminally, why should the perp (or his heirs) be allowed to drag you into court again with a civil suit? The law in other states blocks such suits entirely, which is the way it should be.

Secondly, this law says that if you prevail, the other party will pay for your costs. Those costs may be several to many thousands of dollars, probably in the tens of thousands of dollars. It is unlikely that a career criminal or his family will have that kind of money, so this is a law that has no teeth. Saying the perp will pay your costs won't make it happen, so you can (and will) be out-of-pocket the cost of your defense in a civil suit. A "real" civil immunity law is designed to make this unnecessary. In Florida, for example, a perp simply cannot sue you ... period ... if it has been ruled a "good shoot." That's the way it SHOULD be.

Moreover, reading this law closely, it makes me wonder if it applies to a shooting. It seems more like this law applies to cases in which a perpetrator is injured while in custody and sues, alleging that his injuries were caused by the use of excessive force while he was in custody. Do you have the legislative history and discussion on this law? Are you sure it applies the way you think it does, to self-defense shootings?
 
This thread offers some thought and reflection as to how to handle a situation that I had given no previous thought to. As mentioned, we in Florida have the Castle Doctrine. With that being said, I reason it as follows:

1. Some maniac is in my house wielding a knife.

2. My dog is being threatened. For some of you, a dog is a dog is a dog. For others, like myself, my beloved dog is part of the family.

3. I am defending a family member. I have to assume that if I have to do it, there was not a LEO to oversee the situation. Therefore, I am either alone with the dog or possibly my wife is at home with me. She feels the same about the dog as I do.

4. My statement: "He was coming at me with the knife. I defended myself." No body living at my house is going to refute my statement.
 
Sorry about the formatting, I am typing and posting from an iPhone. I took that text straight from the PA website:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2009&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=40

I do not have the legislative history, however, reading the definitions at the first of the bill it does appear to be applicable to self defense shooting. I am not a lawyer however. I agree that you should have civil immunity period, and thank you for your insights.

I have seen certain organizations selling insurance in the case that you need to defend yourself with a firearm that they will defend you. I need to look up the details, moving to PA it may be a very good thing to have considering the poor civil immunity protections offered by this bill,
 
If somebody breaks into my house and pulls a knife, he's toast, dog or no dog ... the dog isn't the issue, the knife is ... he's brandishing a deadly weapon after breaking into your house ... adios ...
 
IMHO, the dog is not even part of the equation. An intruder who pulls a knife on you is legitimate grounds for self-defense. Shoot him.
I am in Arkansas also and know the laws are not clear cut in matters like this. Sadly. :( The scenario that would follow depends on the attitude of the law enforcement officer, Sheriff or Chief, prosecutor and judge.
I was once arrested for killing a dog that killed three of my valuable, registered purebred cattle. In court the judge dismissed charges saying I had a right to defend my property. A bleeding heart judge could have put me in prison for a year.
 
This past week 3 armed intruders broke into a guys home 20 minutes from me and shot his dog with a .22. He returned fire with a shotgun killing one, wounding one.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/13/police-homeowner-shoots-intruder-to-death-in-east-islip/

Once inside the home, the suspect armed with a .22 caliber rifle shot the family’s pit bull. A man who lives in the home, grabbed a shotgun and returned fire, police said.
Click to expand...

Last I heard, no charges filed against homeowner/tenant.

We have no Castle Doctrine here, all our bad-guys have lawyers. We can not use deadly force unless a threat to our safety is perceived.
Someone injurers/kills your dog, hes a threat.
 
Well I'll see it this way, if he has the audacity to pull a knife in an attempt to stab your dog to death..what makes you think you're not next on his list. Mean while he's already on your S list..for entering your house, trying to rob you, and now trying to kill your dog and probablu you? I'm not on the dogs side here I'm on mine, and a good humans life. If he's willing to do that...I'd say, "justifiable homicide in an act of self defense". Because wouldn't you fear for your own life if he's in your home, forced entry stabbing your dog? Come on now.
 
Bored now. He's in your house waving a knife. What if he is using the knife to stab your turtle and get your gold fish out of the tank?

The beloved dog is irrelevant. You could act in most states against an obviously armed intruder. Nice that you loved your dog. But that's not the point.

PS - just thinking about it - if the shoot was in anyway ambiguous - mentioning you shot him for Fido or Fluffy could be counter productive.

I love what if's. Say he is the lost neighborhood visitor, old, drunk, kid - whatever who wandered into your house or yard. Fierce Fluffy chomps on him. Carrying a knife - as many do - the lost person starts to defend himself.

You blast him. Then, the DA says that did you identify him or challenge? You say: NO, he was killin' my DAWG!! I luv that DAWG!

Or are you better saying: I saw an armed intruder and I was in fear of my life and that of my family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top