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

[Drjones]

Well Daniel, you raise many good points in your reply to me above. I really can't argue.

I am the last person who would ask for MORE laws about anything, however the current laws should be changed to allow more leeway in such situations.

I guess it would really have to go on a case-by-case basis...

Anyhow, seeing as how you agree with me in responding to the inital post, we'll just leave it at that!

 

[444]

. Legally justified? I don't know, but I doubt it.
2. Morally? In my mind, yes.
3. Would I? No. However, if it were legal and there were no legal consequences, I could easily justify it in my own mind.
Note that I am talking about my pet dog. Not wild animals.


"protection of animal life in no way justifies the taking of human life"

This is interesting. Consider the fact that many dogs are perfectly willing to risk their lives to protect ours. And I dare say that most of us would be able to live with that. For example; a child is playing outside. Some nut decides to try to hurt the child and that person is seriouly hurt of killed by the child's dog. Or you are lying in bed when someone breaks into your home. Before you can sort the situation out, the person is killed by your family dog who was protecting you and guarding his territory. Yet, if we return the favor by protecting the dog, we can't justify that.

 

[Drjones]

"protection of animal life in no way justifies the taking of human life"

This is interesting. Consider the fact that many dogs are perfectly willing to risk their lives to protect ours. And I dare say that most of us would be able to live with that. For example; a child is playing outside. Some nut decides to try to hurt the child and that person is seriouly hurt of killed by the child's dog. Or you are lying in bed when someone breaks into your home. Before you can sort the situation out, the person is killed by your family dog who was protecting you and guarding his territory. Yet, if we return the favor by protecting the dog, we can't justify that.

Interesting indeed....they are good enough to save our lives, but not good enough for us to save theirs...

 

[TheLastBoyScout]

(1) Would I be legally justified in shooting JUST TO SAVE MY DOG? probably not.
(2) Would the sick ------ get shot anyway? bet your @$$ he will. (3) The justification would run something like this: I saw a man turn towards me, covered in my animal's blood, I ordered him to freeze, and I WAS IN FEAR FOR MY LIFE when he continued towards me, so I shot him.

 

[duncan]

NEVER can you lawfully take a human life for that of an animal - beloved or not.

I love all of my dogs but the law is clear. As a licensed practicing attorney in Ohio and Washington, former prosecutor, you would be violating the law.

You cannot even use deadly force to protect property if it's just the property you are protecting. and unforetuneatley the dog would qualify as property.

Sorry Mike. But dogs have no Constitutional rights - animal rights yes but the Founders left them out in the barn in the cold.

Now I said nothing of using equalivent force to defend your dog. But deadly force would be hard to defend.

Now if another dog was viciously attacking your dog and your dog did not have a chance and you would risk serious harm by breaking the animals up, deadly force may be warranted on the attacking dog. Or if a dog is attacking livestock, in many states, it can be shot.

Morally justified in taking a human to save a dog? No. Human life, even that of a criminal is still worth more than my animal's. Sorry to say. People change and even criminals go straight. May not be able to replace my dog but I know that a dead man leaves one heck of a hole in that son's family tree. No dad. No husband. No uncle.

Not worth it.

 

[Drjones]

Duncan: See my post two above yours.

Also: Is it better to respect the law, or to respect what is right? (Thoreau)

 

[Beren]

Interesting indeed....they are good enough to save our lives, but not good enough for us to save theirs..

So you would only kill a human to protect an animal capable of saving your life? What if you owned a poodle?

How about a pet goldfish, and I was about to swallow it - would you shoot me, cut open my stomach, and put the goldfish back in its bowl?

Where do you draw the line? Why is a dog equal to a human's life, when a goldfish is not?

 

[Drjones]

So you would only kill a human to protect an animal capable of saving your life? What if you owned a poodle?

What if said poodle alerted you to an intruder in your home, giving you time to arm yourself and deal with him? Isn't that helping to save your hide?

How about a pet goldfish, and I was about to swallow it - would you shoot me, cut open my stomach, and put the goldfish back in its bowl?

See my post above regarding fish. I dunno 'bout them... *shrug*

 

[Cal4D4]

If I have taken the animal into my family, that animal is expected to fulfill it's functions and me mine. Any serious attack on the family would be considered as no less than a prelude to or part of a further attack on the other members. Self defense is a right. If "Fluffy" is out gutting sheep, "Fluffy" is on her own. If "Fluffy" takes the first hit from an interloper, intentions are clear and it's time to get with it. Loyalty and rule of claw and fang predates and preempts all. No moral conflicts.

 

[duncan]

On the side I teach philosophy and ethics.

Most of our dogs can and will defend our property and our lives.

They usually give us unconditional love.

But when it comes down to it, Fido is just a dog. He has a 6-12 year life span. When fido dies, several family members and a couple of community folks miss him.

But just consider the ripples to a family if you actually shot a man for a dog.

Again, we have the choice. in these situations, we usually don't have a choice. Fido is the first line of defense. he willfully gives his life. And so do many fine K9 dogs. To save the life of their human handler. It's not really hard to train into them.

But we as human have to consider the consequences. If the burglar kills your dog in front of your bedroom and you confront him and he is armed, then you may have an argument of a serous threat to life, he killed the dog, you're next. Then it could be legally and morally justified.

But if you find the dog shot or dead and the burglar is leaving your property, a citizen arrest is warranted. beleive me, many hardcore criminals despise anyone who is cruel to animals.

That bad guy will get what he deserves in prison. many states actively prosecute. Call the Human Society and you have a good case to lock that fellow up for a good year or two if not more. may qualify as a felon if he was trespassing, broke into your house, and threatened you with a weapon. It can add up.

Now if the bad guy is not near or in your house, you may have the duty to retreat, even if he killed your dog. Because not everybody owns dogs and loves animals. You have to show that you acted reasonably when concluding that he was a serious threat and you had to shoot him. Near the fenceline, back of the yard, not going to cut it.

if you dog lunged at him and burst through the screen door on a farm property, you 'd know he was up to no good and perhaps deadly force would be warranted.

Again, if the lives of any of your human family members are seriously threatened and the bad guy has killed your dog, you have the right of self defense. Just make sure your shooting is to protect your family - not just the dog.


It all depends. Just be sure. There is no undo in a shooting scenario.and even if you are justified, you can still lose your house in paying for criminal defense attorneys if your insurance policy has no such self defense coverage.

It's really a lot to consider.

And I hope I never have to choose.

 

[Stetson_CO]

Where do you draw the line? Why is a dog equal to a human's life, when a goldfish is not?

Oh, I'd say when a goldfish can jump out of the bowl and protect you, or when you can flush your dog when it dies.

I don't care if it is legal or not, try to kill my dog and I will shoot you...If my dog is attacking you for no reason or attacking a small child, I will kill it myself.

When having a pet, you also accept the responsibility for it.

c):{
"Ive met more dogs that I like, than men"

 

[444]

Beren:

"Where do you draw the line?"
I drew the line in my post: "Note that I am talking about my pet dog."

The reason I draw the line there might be because the only pet I have is a dog. I have grown quite attached to my dog, and him to me. I see my dog as intelligent, brave, loving etc. I have said this before on other threads of this nature, but I see in my dog what I wish I could see in most humans. Most of the faults that humans possess are not reflected in dogs. Their love for you is uncondional. I can't say that about anyone else in the world other than perhaps my parents. And to me, that deserves a return of that love in kind. I realize that I am old fashioned, but I think there is a lot to the golden rule. On the other hand, just because someone is human doesn't mean a thing to me.

 

[Mike Irwin]

The deceased individual came at me screaming threats against my life.

My faithful pet leapt in to protect me, allowing me to draw my firearms and protect myself.

I was in fear for my life.

 

[Preacherman]

Duncan, you make good points, and from the viewpoint of moral philosophy and rational thinking I would be forced to agree with you. However, this is much more an emotional issue than a rational one. For most of us, our pets are more like children than animals. If we see one of them threatened with injury, or actually being attacked, I think our instinctive reaction would be to treat the situation as an attack on one of our children, and take steps accordingly. If someone attacked my pet(s), I doubt if I would even stop to think about it - I'd act (or react), and then worry about it later. And, despite being a pastor and all that, I really don't think I'd lose much sleep over it...

 

[444]

"Fido is just a dog."
If I exhibited the behavior of a dog and someone said that about me, I would be honored. As I said, the traits exhibited by my dog are what I consider to be the best traits exhibited by the best humans.

"I know that a dead man leaves one heck of a hole in that son's family tree. No dad. No husband. No uncle. "
That is the way I feel about my dog. If he was gone, there would be one heck of a hole in my life.

 

[Drjones]

But when it comes down to it, Fido is just a dog. He has a 6-12 year life span.

That is where you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Regarding age, then you don't think a child under 12 dying matters? (I'm not really implying that; just for arguments' sake, you know...)

But just consider the ripples to a family if you actually shot a man for a dog.

Replace "dog" with "your life" "your property" etc. I doubt his family would really care if you shot him to save your own hide.

Too bad, so sad. He PUT himself in that situation BY HIS CHOICE.

As I think I've said several times in this thread already; if you don't want to risk getting shot for doing something, don't do it!

 

[duncan]

Ask any attorney.

In this scenario, you'd have to hire Johnnie Cochran for your defense.

Love my dogs but dang, I'm not willing to lose my house for him or her.

While we talk of emotion, remember, history has a cold hand. Juries look back at these sitautions with all of the knowledge in front of them. It is the flaw in the process.

People will be very quick to judge you.

And that is my fear.

Okay, Fido is dead. he is not coming back.

Are you willing to flush your house, your marriage, you kids' college savings, your personal savings, your 401K, everything you got - for a dog? It could run you $60K to $80K?

I'm not - a wife and three sons at home. They ARE my world. All else can go to pot. Human family first.

 

[duncan]

What if the bad guy was a guy that just got served divorce papers after catching his wife in bed with another man.Recently laid off and his stock portfolio tanked.

He went on a heavy drinking binge.

And now he's made some very bad choices. Broke into your house. stumbled over your dog in the hallway, broke Fido's neck.

Does he deserve to die?

Or what he is fleeing from your house - Fido dead? Willing to shoot a man in your house who is retreating/leaving? If you do, you'd get manslaughter. Bad guy now not so bad - and now you the defender are now the aggressor.

Does Fido have a soul? A chance at heaven? A chance for redemption? Take a look at the "Shawshank Redemption" and then let's talk. Humans can change their ways. Our dogs only have alittle latitute and it's mainly behavioral training. Humans have souls. Can you take a soul is the latent relevant question.

For me, no - unless I have to.

While I could not comprehend violence against animals, he'd have to clearly pose a serious threat to our safety.

Not a simple solution. But a good debate

 

[Drjones]

What if the bad guy was a guy that just got served divorce papers after catching his wife in bed with another man.Recently laid off and his stock portfolio tanked.

He went on a heavy drinking binge.

And now he's made some very bad choices. Broke into your house. stumbled over your dog in the hallway, broke Fido's neck.

You are right; he sure did make some bad choices! Breaking into anothers' home is the worst. He'll be lucky to leave alive!

Honestly, your thinking is along the lines of the antis: "What if someone gets drunk, gets mad, and uses their gun to start randomly shooting people! That would be horrible, therefore, we should ban guns!"

Really, that is awful what happened to our hypothetical guy, but no matter how drunk or angry (or both) I've ever gotten, I have never had the urge to commit a crime, let alone break into a home!

There is NO justification for breaking and entering. Period.

That said, I'm unclear: did he intentionally break Fido's neck, or accidentally do it? If it was an accident, then no, he shouldn't be shot just for that. (Though he might get shot regardless of the dog for breaking and entering... )

Again, please read my previous posts! Most of what you ask has already been covered.

No intent (accident) = Lesser crime

Intent = Worse crime

 

[Mark Benningfield]

Man, this is a JUICY one!!

Hello all.

Boy, this is a good one! It seems that a lot of us are trying to hash out the "legal justification" part of it. I think that depends to a very large degree on the jury and the jurisdiction, insofar as the question of whether you would be exonerated. Now, before I go on, let me say that as a rule, I love dogs, but not all dogs are Lassie. When I was a kid, we had a dog come on the place and proceed to kill some of our chickens. Well, my old man sent him off to doggie heaven with his Remington .22. About 2 hours later, a man comes walking up the road and asks me and my brothers if we had seen a black dog. My older brother, being a big-mouth even then, pipes up "My daddy SHOT your dog!" Well, this fella turns beet red and heads back down the road. Sure enough, about an hour later, here he comes, trailing a bull whip for my old man. Well, us kids started squalling and my Dad steps out into the yard to meet him. Coulda been a bad situation, except when that old boy got about half way across the yard, my mother stepped out onto the porch with the 12 guage double barrel.

Now, was my Dad justified in shooting the dog? Yes; those were our chickens going down his neck. I'm also pretty sure that fella felt justified in trying to give my Dad a whippin'. Would my mother have been justified shooting him if he did? Yep. No doubt about it. So, as far as the legal part of the question goes, it depends on the exact situation, which is where the jury comes in.

Morally, I think the same holds true. If the BG were on my place, physically torturing (not just irritating or baiting) my dog, I would start with beating the crap out of him. I would not just up and shoot him out of hand. Now, if he were using a deadly weapon, I would intervene in such a way as to make him have to go through me to get to my dog. If he persisted, then, since he did have a deadly weapon, he could explain his motives to Jesus. That way, I would not be killing him to save my dog's life, but my own. Because no way in the world is the life of a beast worth more than the life of a man. Even the lowest, scuzziest, slimiest, piece of crud BG has an immortal soul and is loved by God. To slay him in order to preserve the life of a beast -- even one that is a blessing and a comfort -- is wrong.

 

[Drjones]

Hello Mark. Frankly, I think the discussion is more centered on the moral aspect, as in most places, you would very likely get screwed legally if you shot someone over "just a dog."

Because no way in the world is the life of a beast worth more than the life of a man. Even the lowest, scuzziest, slimiest, piece of crud BG has an immortal soul and is loved by God. To slay him in order to preserve the life of a beast -- even one that is a blessing and a comfort -- is wrong.

That is where you and I will have to agree to disagree.

You would still say that for a child molester, or a serial rapist?

 

[444]

Mark, I have to say that I don't agree with any of that, but that is OK. This thread wouldn't be any fun if we all agreed. I am discussing this thread not on legal grounds, but on my own belief system. I clearly stated in my original post that I would not shoot someone over my dog even though in my mind it would be justifed. I wouldn't do it because I would suffer at the hands of the legal system. The penelty is worse than losing my dog.

Was your dad justifed in shooting the dog ? To me, no. Yeah, the dog ate your chickens. That is what dogs do, they are predators. I personally would have been mad about it, and I would have caught the dog (or tried to catch the dog), call animal control, and ask the guy to pay for the chickens. If he didn't pay, I would just leave it go. A deadly encounter over chickens makes less sense than a dog to me.
Was your mother justifed in shooting the guy ? Again, to me, no. The guy was not threatening your dad with deadly force. And, unlike a gun, simply having a whip in his hands did not make a threat of dealy force. Your dad could have simply went in the house and the guy couldn't have done anything.

 

[Mark Benningfield]

Yep.

Hello All.

DrJones: Yes, I do. Notice, I did not say that persons convicted of heinous crimes do not deserve the death penalty. Are you trying to equate child molestation with cruelty to animals? If your objection is with the fact that Jesus loves even the slimeballs, then I'm not sure what to say. Here's my point of view, if it helps:
We are instructed not to judge, lest we be judged in turn. This does not mean judge behavior, but worth. When Jesus ran those old boys out of the temple with a whip, he was being pretty judgemental, don't yout think? But he was judging their behavior. What we are cautioned against is judging someone to be unworthy of the good news, beyond redemption. Now, this does not mean that we should never require the forfeit of someone's life, on the grounds that he has not yet had salvation. It is not our job to see that he has it. It is his. But, to require his life, it must be for no less a reason than that he has grievously trespassed on another persons rights. Person, not beast. HTH.

 

[Drizzt]

considering that I care a WHOLE lot more about my dogs than I do a BG, the answer would be obvious...

 

[Mark Benningfield]

Animal Control

Hello all.

444, where I grew up, animal control was a question of hitting the kill zone. Besides, once a dog has a taste for chickens, there's no breaking him of it. I've seen it too many times.