What is your view on Dogs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When you shoot someone, it's using deadly force. Shooting someone in the leg can kill them just as quickly as a shot through the lung if the femoral artery is hit. If you shoot a person for harming one of your pets (in the absence of further justification) you will likely go to jail.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I would shoot them through the leg. I said I would send them away limping.

I can think of at least a half dozen ways to do that without shooting them through the leg.
 
Family or not, watch any western with a dog. They usually get shot. The vengeful cowboy comes back, "He shot my dog!". Regarding police dogs, I had always heard it was the same as a police officer.
 
I don't have a dog, but I feel the same way towards my two cats that most of you feel toward your dog(s). My family thinks of them as family, and I am very attached to them.

If someone were to harm them, I certainly wouldn't shoot them (unless they were coming after me or a family member next), but I'd give them a nice punch to send a message across ;).
 
I didn't say I would shoot them through the leg. I said I would send them away limping.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top