Scenario - Hot Dog

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cant we talk about something with a little more immidiate worth? Such as, responses, movements, fields of view, etc. What this section needs is a simple program where we can set up "blueprint" drawings of buildings or any area really, mark them up, post them and discuss courses of action and actually implement them in training. I don't know just a suggestion, something like that would be quite useful, especially for LEO.
Click to expand...

I agree its turned into quasi zombie killing scenarios.

I get your point though. I used to be a firefighter, and we would set up scenarios on fire attack and search and rescue. Same for this forum.
The software would be killer pardon the pun.
 
Having grown up and lived with dogs my entire life, I like the average dog more than i do the average person.

I love dogs, and to me, somone who would stoop so low as to tie one to a tree and set them on fire is undeserving of life. If i see somone doing it, and I'm armed, they will eat lead.
 
Good morning - this has actually happened. There was a dude doing such. There was no gun slinger intervention though. What does it do with guns?

It is a scenario about how you would act as legit as any. The TX Penal code allows use of deadly force against arson. Now is it worth it on the practical level or the moral level? The burn ban is irrelevant - it is starting a fire that counts.

People who do that to a dog aren't really upstanding citizens and probably a greater threat for horror than the Stop and Rob guy.

BTW - there was a guy going to do this to his ex awhile ago and was stopped by an armed citizen. Good witness then?

Is there a dividing line about property vs. such an attack on a person? I would opine that I would stop the ex - burner and probably the dog guy.

Property I don't care about.
 
HMM! Cruelty to an animal! Arson! Both are CRIMES! In your scenario, you have verbally tried to stop the idiot from committing those crimes, but that was met with a harsh, aggressive verbal response from the idiot. If you DID shoot the idiot, and could articulate your reason for doing so well enough, it might be looked upon as being justifiable! Of course, you'd need to "enhance" your story a bit, by saying that you "feared" that the act of arson during the dry season could lead to a massive, out-of-control blaze that would possibly kill PEOPLE! The poor dog wouldn't be the main concern, even though most folks would understand your concern.

SHOOT the idiot, SAVE the dog (and the dry forest)! Adopt the dog, and re-name it "Lucky"!
 
Is it just me or does anyone else here see that shooting this guy could easily end up with you being in prison? I mean, I understand the sentiment but holy crap, explaining that seems rather fraught with peril to me.
 
I see prison as being on the menu. I'd step in if it were a human being tied up etc., but a dog? How would I explain that to a DA? The arson angle? No. That's reaching and not a clear imminent threat requiring lethal force.

What would the precedent be if you shot him and were able to vindicate yourself through lawyerish doublespeak? That lethal force is justified when someone hurts an animal? PETA-Pals rolling their dice with hunters?

No thanks. This scenario has lose/lose written all over it.
 
I am unsure how TX stands on the property term. But here in PA animals including dogs are considered property with a value not deemed worth leathal force. That was part of the law that was hard to understand. It was if they tried to put a value on life. If its the hope dimond fire away but if its a purse watch him run. Kinda odd... But back on topic, if I was alone I would call 911 and give them as much information as possible and keep them on speaker phone on my hip. position myself with my jeep inbetween him and I. Then I would grab my fire extinguisher and bring that with me to hose the pooch if necessary. I would inform him camly that the police have been called and are on the way. If he is dumb enough to try to light the pooch I would put the dog out while he struggled himself with his own fire problems. And if I still had some juice left in the PW I would put him out. But I would make sure I had a forearm pinned under my kneecap to gain complience and after he was out I would finsh the gift package and have him all but cuffed (CDT Training). All the while I would continue to tell the operater on my phone what had happened. Sooner or later I should have back up. But to back it up a bit lets say by some act of God he didn't catch on fire (Unlikely) and it was just the dog. Then he would receive a nice dose of OC and the scenario would unfold again as stated. This is one of those great situations were OC is a great back up tool.
 
Last edited:
OK, he has told you to mind your own business. He "appears" to be about to commit a crime. Arson, cruelty to animals, etc. I'm sure that under Texas law you probably could shoot him. I'd be curious to know how it would look legally though if this happened next...

You advance menacingly toward pyro boy. He fears for his life and draws down on you! Whether you were coming at him unarmed, armed with other, or armed with a firearm, is he now legally able to shoot you? Never mind who gets shot here or who's story is believed. Is he now legally able to defend himself against you?
 
I'd get Christopher Walken to do a Dead Zone scan of the dog and see if burning the dog prevented a child being mauled. If so, burn doggie burn!

Maybe the guy is a vigilante who snatches up the kind of dog people post here about, and kills them with the only weapon available to him?

If you're so concerned about dogs, adopt as many as you can support from the local animal shelter, where thousands are killed everyday around the country.

Seriously, who gives a rats ass about what the man is doing? It's not my business, and not your business either. The moment you interefere, you make it your business, and you might regret it later.
 
Yes, it is my business. I wouldn't allow a man to beat a woman, child or dog if I had a say in the matter. I will and have intervened - no apologies, no regrets.
Yes, I've paid for it, but it was worth the price of admission.
Never could abide by a bully.

Biker
 
Gee whiz, this one is easy :) pull gun get guy to halt, take can of gas and put in gas tank of car, untie rover, tie up guy, coat guy with some meat product and let rover have his dinner. :) then use dog to get chicks....like in "A boy and his dog".

Years ago I saw 2 guys stomping a cat to death, they were jumping up and down on his head. I yelled at them stopped the bike and got off, they rushed to their car and sped off. I call cops, tell story, they dont care. I take cats collar and tags find house on rag, tell folks what happened to cat, they call cops and are told to go to the humain soc and fill out a report. I left.

Another time we was hunting, a guy hit his dog and threw it outta the truck breaking its leg, the bone tore threw the skin, guy couldnt put dog down so I did it. Killed lots of stray dogs and cats, folks seem to think they can drop em off way out in the country where I live and they will revert to wild or sumpting. Guesss what city folk? We shoot them, they chase cattle, they get shot.
 
Legal justification for deadly force? It's not just the dog.


PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.



Wildland Arson
The offense of Wildland Arson is defined in the Texas Penal Code, Section 28.02 as follows:
Sec. 28.02. ARSON. (a) A person commits an offense if the person starts a fire, regardless
of whether the fire continues after ignition, or causes an explosion with intent to destroy or damage:
(1) any vegetation, fence, or structure on open-space land; or
(2) any building, habitation, or vehicle:
(A) knowing that it is within the limits of an incorporated city or town;
(B) knowing that it is insured against damage or destruction;
(C) knowing that it is subject to a mortgage or other security interest;
(D) knowing that it is located on property belonging to another;
(E) knowing that it has located within it property belonging to another; or
(F) when the person is reckless about whether the burning or explosion will
endanger the life of some individual or the safety of the property of another.
(b) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) that the fire or explosion was a part of
the controlled burning of open-space land.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2)(A) that prior to starting the fire or causing
the explosion, the actor obtained a permit or other written authorization granted in accordance with
a city ordinance, if any, regulating fires and explosions.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a
felony of the first degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that:
(1) bodily injury or death was suffered by any person by reason of the commission of the
offense; or
(2) the property intended to be damaged or destroyed by the actor was a habitation or a
place of assembly or worship.
 
Explaining it would be the tricky part. I suppose if you were lucky you could just walk away from that (the legal issues that is).
 
It doesn't seem like a firearms issue to me. Personally, I'd pepper spray the SOB and beat him within a half-inch of his life with my billie club (I love dogs). I think using a firearm without a direct threat to my life might be a legal hell, and I know that you can't go around clubbing BG's either, but it just seems a judge/jury would deal a lot better with the fact that Rover reminded me of my chilhood dog, so I just couldn't stop whackin' the ba*t*rd.
 
Beating him with a club is a lethal force usage. Won't help you in court if your actions are seen as unreasonable. Stay with the spray.

However, remember the dog is incidental to the arson. That's my trick in the beginning of the scenario.

Thus, your defense is the prevention of arson which is quite clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top