Deadly force for Animal abuse?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kd7nqb

Member
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
2,207
Location
Puyallup Washington
I was having a conversation with a man in Portland who teaches CHL classes and I asked him what Oregon law said about using deadly force to protect the lives of Animals. He mentioned that in Oregon pets are considered property and this you cant use deadly force for the sole reason of protecting property.

My question do other jurisdictions address this more directly? Are animals ever NOT property?

How does this apply to service animals (guide dogs/ wheelchair dogs)?

Are Police K-9 Units or Horses different?
 
Most states legally consider Police Animals to be part of the force and would be treated as such. YMMV depending on your state.
 
I guess I'll be the first to say it...if I caught anyone abusing one of my dogs, all bets are off. They are members of my family, and will be treated as such.
 
Years ago, I was told that a Colorado law made it legal to shoot dogs that were harassing wildlife "... may be shot by any person at any place and at any time.. (sic)."
 
And here I thought

PETA 's animal=human was crazy! A good horsewhipping should suffice,please lets not allow all problems to look like nails,'cause I've got a hammer!
robert
 
Ugh I'm afraid to look up indiana laws on this one. If some psycho held a knife to my dogs neck it would be very difficult for me not to shoot him even if my dog was considered "property" by the state. Heh, guess I'd be spending time in jail then.
 
As far as K-9 units go, I dont know the exact details. but I do know this, you will be dealt with swiftly and efficently if you attempt to harm a K-9. When it comes to other animals, I saw a dog get shot for getting to close to a K-9 overseas. Its a gov't property issue, and that is not the same as personal property. How does the law up there work for rabid animals or ones that threaten you or your family??
 
Use of deadly force laws are quite clear virtually across the board--to protect the life and limb of oneself and others (humans) in circumstances of imminent threat to such. As emotionally attached as one might be to their animals, using deadly force to protect them, absent a threat to you, would incur serious criminal liability. I wouldn't want to have to count on a sympathetic jury of pet owners to nullify the law. Killing a police animal may incur additional charges, but wouldn't be homicide, of course.

You may *choose* to use deadly force to protect your animal, but your life will change forever. And, not in a good way.

K
 
I have to assume anyone who threatens harm to my dog is mentally ill and an immediate threat to my life as well. I can only relax that assumption once the threat has been neutralized one way or the other. Hopefully, it can be neutralized with the perpetrator in handcuffs, but if he forces me to use deadly force, that's on him.
 
No no no no no no no!
It may be a pet, but its a fricken animal for petes sake.
You might be emotionally attached to the animal, but who's to say that the guy down the street isn't emotionally attached to the ants that crawl on his sidewalk?


I thought that people around here are smarter than to believe in the child=rat=cockroach idealism?
 
Ugh I'm afraid to look up indiana laws on this one. If some psycho held a knife to my dogs neck it would be very difficult for me not to shoot him even if my dog was considered "property" by the state. Heh, guess I'd be spending time in jail then.
Click to expand...

Dog or no dog, he was a guy brandishing a deadly weapon. That's a threat to your life. No reason for the dog to enter into the equasion. Self-defense is self-defense.

I thought that people around here are smarter than to believe in the child=rat=cockroach idealism?
Click to expand...

I would say that "child=rat=cockroach" applies to far too many children around here.:evil: Actually, it applies to the parents; the children don't choose the parents.

The fact of the matter is that many dogs will give their lives to protect their human families. This is not just emotional attachment to ants or somesuch. If a police dog is considered an officer, than there are situations in which a dog is part of the family.

Now animal cruelty should be punished in kind. Chain the perp to a tree outside for a few months, beat him with a 2x4, don't feed him, whatever.

But if a dog is on one's property and someone trespasses on that property with a deadly weapon, and kills or intends to kill the dog, I'd say he's a deadly threat to the people on the property as well.

Like a lot of things, there are several dimensions to this.
 
Do Not. Mess. Wit my Dawg. To do so jeapordizes your health and general well being.
Not a threat, just a prophesy.

Biker
 
Interesting thought. In Texas you have the right to protect property with deadly force. Since animals are considered to be property would it apply to them as well? I hope that I never have to find out the hard way! My German shepherd would lay down her life for me at any time. I’ve seen her in action so I know exactly where I speak. She defiantly comes under the heading of family. I have to say that I would do anything needed to protect her.
 
Hopefully, it can be neutralized with the perpetrator in handcuffs, but if he forces me to use deadly force, that's on him.
Click to expand...

No, it's not on him. The law places it squarely on you to justify the use of deadly force, and that, virtually universally, requires a threat to human life and limb. Generally, to be a threat, the perp must have the intent, means, and opportunity to cause you imminent harm. In addition, in many locations, you cannot use deadly force if you have the opportunity to safely withdraw from the threat. Rushing into a situation to save your dog with deadly force would not be covered.

However, I would think you would be justified to be armed, confront the perp to save your dog, and use non-deadly force means to do so. If the perp then threatens you, let's say with a weapon or overwhelming physical superiority, well then, that may be a different matter.

Understand, I'm not defending anyone who would kill someone's dog who was not attacking them, but wouldn't want to see you put in prison for unlawful use of deadly force. Don't assume the law is going to be sympathetic to homicide just because you love your dog.

K
 
If I was on the jury of someone who murdered another person over an animal, I would give them the death penalty.

To equate animals with humans is something PETA does, and they are crazy, but apparently don't have a monopoly on it.
 
In Texas you have the right to protect property with deadly force.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but the closest you're probably going to get to justifying the use of deadly force to protect the lives of animals is criminal mischief during the nighttime. What gets indicted by a grand jury is a different matter.

From the penal code:

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


§ 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.
Click to expand...
 
If I was on the jury of someone who murdered another person over an animal, I would give them the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I was gonna say I would totally agree. . .except. . .

Dogs, cats, typically just pets. Get another one, in six (6) months you'll love it as much as the previous one. Yeah yeah yeah, somebody is gonna throw a fit about that.

However. . .if the animal, or animals, in question were some sort of livestock on which the owner depended for their livelihood. . .I would have to take a really hard look at the circumstances.
 
Lone_Gunman - I think you've been watching too much TV. :neener:

In this case I doubt it would be brought as 1st degree murder. More likely second or third degree.

If emotions are factored in and it is considered temporary insanity, the charge would be that of manslaughter more than likely.

I'd be hard pressed to think capital punishment would be even considered.
 
In Texas, as Elza pointed out, property can indeed be defended with deadly force. Now, that hardly means that somebody who walks by and kicks my dog should, or could, be shot. But if a person is on your property and, say, killing all the goats in your goat pen for fun; or shooting your cattle or horses, or even injuring your dogs, it is a defense to prosecution in Texas that they are destroying your property.

If you see someone abusing their OWN animal, or a stray, better call the police and be a good witness.

Edit: PCF posted the statutes while I was typing, LOL. Thanks for clarifying the Texas law.

Springmom
 
Last edited:
"Murdering somene over an animal" to me would mean something like: person A found out that person B shot his dog. A went to B's house, knocked on the door (or snuck in) and shot him in cold blood.

Using deadly force when someone is brandishing a deadly weapon at your dog and you is simply not the same thing.

The OP was talking about a CHL class, so I'm thinking that nobody was talking about murder. They were talking about the threshold for legal use of deadly force. And it can be a fine line, since many dogs accompany people, and a legitimate threat to the dog might or might not be a threat to both dog and human.
 
But if a person is on your property and, say, killing all the goats in your goat pen for fun; or shooting your cattle or horses, or even injuring your dogs, it is a defense to prosecution in Texas that they are destroying your property.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what I was referring to. . .thnx mom.
 
My dog would readily give his life for me.

It's sad and embarrassing that I would not do the same for him.
I would let pretty much anybody kill the family cat with not more than a stern talking-to, but my dog, well, he's family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Texas Law - Use of Lethal Force in Defense of Property
Replies
3
Views
944
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
B
  • Locked
Why you should care about dove hunting..
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Barbara
B
evan price
  • Locked
Ohio HB541 Text (nutshell) Set criteria to allow deadly or nondeadly force in defense
Replies
0
Views
394
evan price
evan price
BringHomeTheBacon
  • Locked
Acts Justifying the Use of Deadly Force (AJDF)
Replies
3
Views
559
JShirley
JShirley
H
  • Locked
HSUS backs Kerry
Replies
9
Views
648
Cortland
C
Back
Top