Shooting to save your dog.................

[2dogs]

Not sure if this should be here or "General" so don't yell at me.

OK dog lover's (and anyone else):

Putting aside the variables that could be involved, and the how's or why's and likelihood of this situation occuring:

1. Would you be legally justified in shooting a BG to save your dog (I think I know, or can guess the answer here).

2. Would you be morally justified in doing so.

3. Given your answer to the above, would you?

 

[nemesis]

That may come down to property laws. As I understand it, you couldn't shoot a BG for abusing or attacking your dog but Texas does allow the use of deadly force to prevent damage to or loss of property.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Self defense does not extend to the protection of animals. You must articulate that the BG was a threat to you and that Rover/Fifi/Fluffy was intercepting BG when you shot him/her.

 

[El Tejon]

Deadly force? No, maybe in Sweden and California. Or maybe if you had like a helper monkey or guide dog you could make an argument (could be a case in some state on this).

Otherwise, as a general rule (each state has its own law) you may use reasonable force to defend your property, which includes your doggie.

 

[Drjones]

Hmmm...I sense a huge debate brewing over whether or not animals are "property" and the like...

Anyhow,

1. Legally justified? *shrug*

2. Morally? HELL FRICKIN' YES!!!

3. Would I? Of course.

 

[AZTOY]

Hmmm...I sense a huge debate brewing over whether or not animals are "property" and the like

Well in AZ if a wild dog is "running" your livestock. You can shoot the dog .So in AZ animals are property and you can protect it.

I had to killed a wild dog that was going after my horses.

 

[Beren]

Morally or legally justified? Absolutely not. Animal life is never equal in value to that of humans.

 

[2dogs]

Drjones

You may be right, you may be wrong- but you got real addytood

 

[PlayTheAces]

Well, I did pop a cat once who reached down from a wall and clawed my dog's nose. That was one surprised cat.

 

[38Mike]

"Sounds good to us"

Rover and Heidi

 

[Drjones]

Hmmm...I sense a huge debate brewing over whether or not animals are "property" and the like...

I knew I shoulda clarified...

Some people will say that an animal is equal in value to a TV or car; it is just another posession, and not worth shooting a human over.

I disagree. I care very highly about animals, and I think that anyone who values criminal life over animal is the one with issues.

Furthermore, there was an interesting thread on TFL about shooting someone over property.

I happen to think that it is morally justifiable to shoot someone over property. If you don't like that, don't steal, and you won't have a problem!

 

[JeepDriver]

If I'm ever in the position of having to draw a weapon on someone that is hurting my dog it's because their in my living room.

My Lab is 5 1/2 years old and is my only child. My wife worries more about the dog then me sometimes. I don't know if I could keep myself from shooting someone hurting my dog.

Legal, I don't know
Moral, To Me Yes

 

[Drjones]

Oh, and if I happened across some situation with some sicko hurting or torturing an animal intentionally, I think it perfectly morally correct to send more than a few bullets their way.

The laws should be changed to reflect that.

Again, I think its simple; if you don't want to catch bullets over something like that, don't do it.

Jeffrey Dahmer got his start torturing squirrels in his backyard. He later progressed to murder 17 people, butcher them, keep various parts of theirs in the freezer (IIRC, he had a penchant for keeping penises) and ate them as well.

People who torture animals have major issues. They might very well be beyond help, too.

 

[Soap]

Would this arguement hold up in court: that since the BG was using deadly force on your dog that you feared they would use deadly force on you when they finished with the dog?

 

[Soap]

Drjones- First off I love dogs. But I'm also a hunter. So if the laws were changed to allow deadly force on people who harm animals, would this include hunters? I'm not trying to start an arguement, just that animal protection laws are a slippery slope.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Dan, whose property is the animal you're hunting? Is it private property, and done so with the owner's consent, or is it the property of the govt, and done so with their consent?

 

[Beren]

My family has owned cats and dogs my entire life. I loved them all, and wished I could've found the scumball who served intentionally to hit one of my cats.

That said, I stand by my earlier statement: protection of animal life in no way justifies the taking of human life. I don't quite classify pets as property, but even if I did, I couldn't justify shooting someone over my TV set either.

I /do/ see a justification to use reasonable force to prevent undue harm to someone's pet or property. If they are inside your home, I wouldn't blame you for having a firearm drawn and held ready. If they fail to comply with verbal instructions, shoot to stop. (Center of mass controlled pairs, evaluate, adjust as needed.)

If I came across someone torturing an animal, I would instruct them to stop. If they ran or otherwise failed to obey, I would proceed with calling the police, provide first aid for the animal if possible, etc.

Only if the person posed a grave threat of injury to me or another person would I use lethal force in defense. I hate to say it, but I view the "shoot the guy who is hurting my dog" mentality as one that borders on the barbaric. *** makes you judge, jury, and executioner? Lethal force is ONLY justifiable if the person employing it or another person (read person, not animal) is in immediate risk of grave physical harm.

It's a slippery slope that justifies the tactics of every enviroweenie on the planet. It's okay to spike trees to prevent them from being chopped down - they are LIVING THINGS without any other means of defense! It's okay to gun down that hunter before he shoots the deer!

Just witnessed a guy shooting your dog, on your property? I view it as reasonable to order him to drop the gun, and to shoot him if he fails to comply.

What if the the guy who shot your dog was acting in self-defense? If your dog gets loose and runs at a little girl, do you expect daddy to trust in its good intentions? Hell no! If it's more than a small dog, it is as good as hamburger.

 

[Drjones]

Daniel: Well clearly not, since (and this is a big assumption on my part) hunters aren't out to HURT animals; they just want to kill them.

Now, before you start calling me a hypocrite, read on:

In my post above, I was speaking more to cruel and unusual acts and torture. I did not intend to imply hunting in this.

Now, if a hunter KNOWINGLY shoots an animal (doesn't kill it) and leaves it for dead, or leaves it crippled, that is different. That is not hunting; that is torturing animals. Like those idiots that set steel traps and never check them, leaving wounded animals to chew their own legs off....sick....

Basically, if you set out to hunt an animal for food, and do so, that is perfectly fine. Hunting for "sport" is NOT fine, and in my little fantasy world, I would like to see people who hunt "just for the fun of it" catch a few bullets themselves. ESPECIALLY those who hunt rare and exotic animals.

But I digress...

Basically, hunting for food purposes is fine. Hunting for any other is not, IMHO.

 

[Soap]

GG- Good point. But what I got from Drjones' example is that deadly force could be justified in a case where a person tortures animals, even if they belong to that person.

 

[Drjones]

But what I got from Drjones' example is that deadly force could be justified in a case where a person tortures animals, even if they belong to that person.

Yes, because again: I do not consider animals to be mere "property" or posessions for people to do as they wish with them.

If I caught someone torturing ANY animal, I don't care if they gave birth to it themselves, they should catch bullets.

 

[Soap]

Drjones- I'm just playing devil's advocate so bear with me here.

hunters aren't out to HURT animals; they just want to kill them.

This is a VERY fine line. It could be plausibly argued that killing the animal actually hurts it.

Now, if a hunter KNOWINGLY shoots an animal (doesn't kill it) and leaves it for dead, or leaves it crippled, that is different. That is not hunting; that is torturing animals.

Let's use this example: I shoot a deer on my property and wound it. It runs onto property that is owned by say a private corporation. They do not grant me passage onto their land. Did I torture the animal and can deadly force be justified?

Hunting for "sport" is NOT fine, and in my little fantasy world, I would like to see people who hunt "just for the fun of it" catch a few bullets themselves. ESPECIALLY those who hunt rare and exotic animals.

What if I catch fish for sport? Do I deserve a hook in the mount and being dragged around by it?

If I caught someone torturing ANY animal, I don't care if they gave birth to it themselves, they should catch bullets.

The definitions of "torture", "hurt", and "sport" would be difficult to put in black and white to make it law. Ever see a chicken farm? There is more animal cruelty in a pack of Tenderbest chicken breasts than there is in hunting a kudu.

 

[Drjones]

Drjones- I'm just playing devil's advocate so bear with me here.

No prob! Happy to oblige! Interesting debate here!

This is a VERY fine line. It could be plausibly argued that killing the animal actually hurts it.

Well, I suppose, but does a bullet to the head really hurt? (Assuming it kills instantly, of course...) If an animal dies instantly from a wound, does it really hurt? I suppose for a fraction of a second, but no one is alive to tell us!

Let's use this example: I shoot a deer on my property and wound it. It runs onto property that is owned by say a private corporation. They do not grant me passage onto their land. Did I torture the animal and can deadly force be justified?

Well, IMO, no, because the cruel intent wasn't there. You weren't INTENDING to cause it harm or pain.

What if I catch fish for sport? Do I deserve a hook in the mount and being dragged around by it?

Hmmm...I dunno if perhaps its because fish aren't so high up on the "awwww" scale or not, but I don't feel that way about fish. I've heard they are dumber than the water they are swimming in, so I'm not sure the level of "rights" they are due...

The definitions of "torture", "hurt", and "sport" would be difficult to put in black and white to make it law. Ever see a chicken farm? There is more animal cruelty in a pack of Tenderbest chicken breasts than there is in hunting a kudu.

I agree. Perhaps if there was a law, it should be very narrow and specific. I'm talking about intentional acts of cruelty to animals. In the above situation, again, the intent to be cruel to the chickens isn't there.

Like you see someone cutting the leg off of a dog. Heck, somewhere I read a story about a guy who buried some kittens up to their heads and ran over them with his lawn mower.


THAT deserves many, many bullets, in my mind.

We could debate "what ifs" all night, but I think you know what I'm talking about; wanton, cruel torture of animals.

After spending too much time at the Michael Moore forums, I'm feeling the need to thank you for the polite debate!

 

[Mike Irwin]

Yes.

My dogs aren't just my property, they're my friends.

 

[Soap]

Drjones-

Well, I suppose, but does a bullet to the head really hurt? (Assuming it kills instantly, of course...) If an animal dies instantly from a wound, does it really hurt? I suppose for a fraction of a second, but no one is alive to tell us!

and

Well, IMO, no, because the cruel intent wasn't there. You weren't INTENDING to cause it harm or pain.

Okay, so let's assume that I get a ruling of not guilty. But by being in court in the first place, I would have incurred monetary and psychological costs. So these new laws would have had an adverse effect on my peaceable existence.

Hmmm...I dunno if perhaps its because fish aren't so high up on the "awwww" scale or not, but I don't feel that way about fish. I've heard they are dumber than the water they are swimming in, so I'm not sure the level of "rights" they are due...

So we're only saving the cute animals or the ones with high intelligence? Suppose I have a cute animal that is dumber than a fish, can I "torture" it?

We could debate "what ifs" all night, but I think you know what I'm talking about; wanton, cruel torture of animals.

I see exactly what you are talking about. But you're also talking about changing laws to protect animals. I'm just saying that those laws would have to be VERY specific and include extremely detailed descriptions and definitions. The forging of such laws would be nearly impossible and they would most likely lead to a high number of cases where people subjectively believed that someone was "torturing" animals. I've met people that think that wearing leather is torture...

 

[Soap]

To answer the original question:

1) Probably wouldn't hold up in a court.

2) Yes.

3) Most likely.