I didn't say I would shoot them through the leg. I said I would send them away limping.
You said you "wouldn't shoot
to kill" but that you would "send them away limping". The most reasonable interpretation of that would be that you wouldn't shoot
to kill but you would shoot to cause them to limp.
It's important to say exactly what you mean when dealing with important topics like this one.
That said, even assuming that wasn't what you meant and the wording of your comment was misleading, doing something to a person sufficient to cause them injury (punching, hitting, kicking) would likely be illegal with only an attack on a pet as justification.
It would CERTAINLY be illegal if it were done after the fact as retaliation or punishment. I am not aware of any justification in the law that would allow one citizen to do injury to another in retaliation for, or to punish them for committing a crime. There are situations where it is legal for a citizen to do injury to another to PREVENT that second person from committing, or carrying a crime through to completion, but once the crime has been committed,
that justification no longer exists.
I hope that this thread has been educational because it appears that many of the people who have responded to it are not aware of how the law applies to the situation under discussion. A number of responses amount to admissions that those posting would be willing to commit a felony crime to protect a pet or to retaliate against/punish the person who had injured a pet. It's easy to appreciate the emotion involved in this topic, but emotion doesn't change how the law reads.
I'm going to close this thread because nothing further is to be gained by allowing more posters to fall into the same trap.