laws about defending your dog

Glenn E. Meyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mah mama taught us to always tell the truth.

"But Occifer, I HAD to shoot him. He was a-hurtin' FLUFFY!"
 
Someone breaking in to your house, knife or not, is enough reason to point your firearm at him (I did not say pull the trigger, just cover him) If the intruder's reaction to being covered is to flee, let him go. If he will drop, hold him for police. If the covered intruder responds with something that would make you think he was going to be a continued danger to you (That is he pulls a weapon or advances) (or your dog) you can proceed and eliminate the danger.

In practice, I would bet the kind of intruder that would break in would either flee or drop if he saw a firearm. In which case, hold him if you can until the police can take him away.
 
What if you point your gun at him, he turns to flee but your dog attacks him and is biting him...do you call the dog off or go ahead and shoot him because he is in your home with a knife? Perhaps let the dog cover him while I call my attorney and ask what to do?

Seriously, could the owner be charged for the dog continuing to attack the attempting to flee felon? Dogs will be dogs...:D
 
Someone breaking in to your house, knife or not, is enough reason to point your firearm at him (I did not say pull the trigger, just cover him) If the intruder's reaction to being covered is to flee, let him go.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's exactly what I was told at the CCW training. (once he's actually inside your house, at least). It was stressed that if the burglar continues to advance on you - even if he's unarmed - it is fair to assume that you are in danger - because the deadly weapon he has access to is the one your are holding in your hand. If you let him get up close, he has an opportunity to wrestle it away from you.
Seriously, could the owner be charged for the dog continuing to attack the attempting to flee felon? Dogs will be dogs...
Click to expand...
Please tell me that I'm not legally responsible if my dog bites his behind on his way our the door. My dog listens very, very well...but a BG running out the house might just be too tempting for her. Besides, I doubt I'd be thinking about controlling an animal when I'm suddenly pointing my gun at an intruder...all my attention would be on his movements alone.
 
Last edited:
Folks, esp. new members - we do not tolerate excessive blood lust, glorifying shooting someone or stating you will disregard the law.

If one posts such - repeatedly - you will lose membership and posts deleted.

For those responding to such - thank you for corrective comments. But sometimes they get deleted to avoid the first post living on as a parasite. One can report them.

Firearms usage implies not a love of violence or disregard of the law - esp. here.

GEM
 
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.
Click to expand...

Most of the laws in other states are the same as this.

If the shooter prevails, the loser pays.

It is VERY hard to have laws prohibiting the filing of lawsuits stand up, almost impossible.

The 'loser pays' is just as effective.

Denying access to the judicial system for a tort is NOT a good idea, and has a LOT of bad repercussions.
 
Denying access for a tort is not necessarily a bad thing; depends on how it's done.

As I understand it in FL and GA, for instance, the BG is blocked from filing if the shooting was found to be justified SD. In which case, the BG is eligible for criminal (usually felony) charges for the action which justified the shooting.

I have zero problem with barring criminals from filing suits in cases where their damages were incurred as a direct result of their own criminal activity. Actually, I'm all for it.
 
brickeyee said:
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.
Click to expand...
Most of the laws in other states are the same as this.

If the shooter prevails, the loser pays.

It is VERY hard to have laws prohibiting the filing of lawsuits stand up, almost impossible.

The 'loser pays' is just as effective.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but "loser pays" is not at all effective. YOU will be the defendant here. You may already have gone through an expensive criminal case before a jury decided that you were legally justified in shooting a bad guy. Now the bad guy (or his family) come back at you with a civil suit, and it may cost you thousands of dollars (which you don't have) to defend yourself all over again. You win, so the court tells the BG (or his family) to pay your bills.

And, of course, they have no assets ... so what good is a law saying that they'll pay if they lose? The reality is that they WON'T pay, regardless of what the law requires.

Look at Florida's law. It's written the way such laws should be written.
 
Now, if you really want people to be able to launch such torts, then make a provision: Loser pays, but if loser is unable to pay, the State pays.

Since that won't happen, I prefer laws that ban torts by criminals with regard to the bad results from their crimes.
 
Sorry, but "loser pays" is not at all effective. YOU will be the defendant here.
Click to expand...

Loser refers to the prevailing party in the suit.

You might need to review Florida's law.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
Click to expand...

Laws that prohibit the filing of suites are easy to strike down, one of the reasons they are not usually worth the paper they are printed on.
 
Brickeyee, we get that part. What you do not seem to get is that the award is a civil judgement against the plaintiff, who probably cannot pay the judgement. That leaves the defendant on the financial hook to his defense attorneys, despite the judgement.
 
Brickeyee, we get that part. What you do not seem to get is that the award is a civil judgement against the plaintiff, who probably cannot pay the judgement. That leaves the defendant on the financial hook to his defense attorneys, despite the judgement.
Click to expand...

As I understand it in FL and GA, for instance, the BG is blocked from filing if the shooting was found to be justified SD.
Click to expand...

It would seem some do not "get that part.
The law in Florida does NOT prohibit filing except by the state.

No attorney is going to file the suit since they can be sanctioned, and will have no way to get paid.

It works very well and gets around the denial of die process inherent in prohibiting the filing of a suit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top