Almost shot neighbor's dog, right or wrong?

[bob.a]

My daughter has 4 kids and an American Bulldog cross. He's been neutered, has a sweet disposition, and has been hassled by other dogs but never responded with a bite. Nor does he behave in a threatening manner, with humans or other dogs.

The first couple weeks she had him (he was a walk-in volunteering to join the family, and maybe under a year old) I kept a very wary eye on him, and was armed. It soon became apparent that he was bright, tractable and not human aggressive. He is gentle with kids and tolerates being hassled by little ones, and is sensible about who he can play rough with. (He is a canine genius at keepaway and tug-of-war, but calibrates his play depending on the size and sensibility of those whom he plays with).

I did a fair amount of research and have come to the realisation that so-called "pit bulls" have received the same sort of media attention as most of the posters on this forum. Those of you who are attack-trained and brought up in violent circumstances are dangerous to be around, but you are in the vast minority. Golden retrievers have a greater percentage of "biters" than pit bulls.

Certainly caution is the best attitude toward strange dogs; after all, you don't know how they've been trained (or not, as the case might be). But don't condemn an entire breed because of what you see in the media; they'd have us believe we're always in immediate danger from every point of the compass. Fear sells commercial time, you know, and any media outlet that puts out only positive news will go broke in a week.

 

[kingpin008]

Do you not recognize that what you are suggesting IS confrontational?

Sure I do, but confrontation =/= violence. And in case you didn't notice, I mentioned the word "friendly".

I mean, don't shy away from confrontation if necessary, but if you want to be neighborly, try starting with a conversation, not an ultimatum.

How is a friendly request to control the dog an "ultimatum?".

Doesn't anyone know how to approach another person without a veiled threat?

Ok, you *totally* lost me on that one. Point out anywhere in my post that has anything to do with a threat, veiled or not.

Seriously, do most of you people think "neighbor" means "enemy"?

Of course not. Why?

And if it's a neighbor's dog, throw it some dog treats a few times. Threat neutralized. What do you think a dog is, godzilla?

How do you know the OP hasn't done just that very thing? For all we know, he was there the day they brought the pup home and was rolling around with it in the yard like it was his own.

And newsflash, not every dog instantly becomes your BFF when you toss it a snausage. Some will, sure - but others take time to get accustomed to someone, and others never do, no matter how good you are to them. Case in point, Pit Bulls. They're extremely loyal dogs, and often become extremely protective of their owners.

 

[Crusader103]

Jeffm,

Can you point out what part of kimberdad's actions were unreasonable? Unless I missed something he didn't make any verbal threats. When the threat ceased, his weapon stayed out of sight and out of mind. The fact that he was about to draw when the charging animal was 20 feet away is not unreasonable. We all know the 21 foot "rule" with humans. I'd say that a 4-legged threat could close that gap faster than a 2-legged one. Does the animal actually have to be ripping his flesh off before you think he would be justified? Come on, he prepared to meet a threat and exercised restraint when it ceased. What more you could you ask for?

As an aside, yea it's a tough decision to make if the threatening animal is still attached to the owner who can't control it but heck, your still under serious attack. That's a toughy but I can't say that I would risk my life just because the owner was present. Drawing and waiting until the last possible second with the best position to avoid the owner is the only reasonable option I can see. That is a tough one but your right to self preservation does not disappear.

Now you all may not like this but I will fill you in on a facet of the legally accepted principle of defense against animals. When leashed, the animal is considered an extension of the owner. If the animal is being aggressive action may be taken against the owner. No, I am not in any way saying shoot the owner. That would be stupid. What I am saying is that regardless of the mindset of the owner if they are injured while in control of an aggressive animal that you are defending yourself against no fault lies with you.

I can try and find the case law on this but it was appealed yet confirmed in that when a defender, swinging a bat at you guessed it, an attacking pit bull, hit the well meaning owner, the courts ruled that the defender was justified and incurred no civil or criminal liability.

That is not necessarily my advice. I'm just stating the viewpoint of the courts on this one.

Be aware. Shoot accurately.

Joshua Scott
www.FrontSightFocus.org

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

(Bob a) ^ Yes but........

An equal number or greater people who own that breed, train them for aggressiveness. (Again the peoples problem, not the breed....Iget it) In the O.P.s encounter, a dog dragging its owner accross the yard, while being aggressive has likely had some training to be aggressive (or no training at all). Without the time to ask the owner 20 questions I dont think the O.P. acted in appropriatly to the situation.

Size in dogs does matter. If the O.P. was telling us that the neighbors toy poodle was yipping at him and he almost drew then.......well????? Or if the dog was in a controlled enclosure but just being a nuicance....These are another matter, but charging & not under control???..... HE ABSOLUTELY has the right, duty to prodect himself and his family.

What would we all be saying if the O.P. wrote that he allowed his kid to be mauled while being armed? (Potentially risking death, periminant disfigurement, loss of eyesight, etc, etc.!) Furthermore, I believe a serious conversation is in order with the neighbor about the steps they will be taking to not let this happen again, EVER.

 

[Jeffm223]

Kimberdad: "I dont carry pepper spray, I carry a pistol."

This is what I'm talking about in terms of mindset. One response to every threat, lethal force. If you don't feel that you can deal with every threat in the range up to justifiable lethal force with your bare hands, give yourself another tool. I certainly don't think I could, which is why I carry pepper spray in addition to a gun (or 2). Incidentally, this is why the police carry spray and tasers in addition to firearms.

My opinion is that if you are going to assert your right to defend yourself, it is incumbent on you to be prepared to deal with a range of threat/response scenarios. To do otherwise is to prove the point of those who don't think that the average Joe is capable of making good decisions on the use of force. This "I'm going to buy a gun and use it to defend myself from every threat" mindset is what will lead to all of us being disarmed serfs.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

Nothing was incumbent on him.....

On his own property, minding his own business.

 

[kingpin008]

Nothing was incumbent on him.....

Bingo. It's incumbent on all of us to protect ourselves and our families, not carry a utility belt full of weapons useful for each and every situation under the sun.

One response to every threat, lethal force.

So when a police officer pulls their gun, someone gets killed?

To say that carrying a gun for self-defense equals lethal force being the only option is foolish and short-sighted. Hundreds of times every day, crimes are prevented and people save themselves by merely displaying a firearm. No shots ever fired.

This "I'm going to buy a gun and use it to defend myself from every threat" mindset is what will lead to all of us being disarmed serfs.

If you had really read the OP's post, you'd see pretty plainly that this particular statement is absolutely untrue. Kimberdad did defend himself from the threat - by using his brain and analyzing the situation, rather than reacting immediately without considering the proper course of action.

That's defense. Sometimes (hopefully always) the only tool we need to keep ourselves alive is our brain. In any case, it should be the first tool. I'm willing to bet that anyone stupid or dangerous enough to buy a gun and use it to "defend themselves from any threat" wouldn't be on the street for long.

I'd also like to add, that the potential for lethality is the same for firearms as it is with weapons such as tasers, knives, and pepper spray. All of these items can easily kill. The firearm happens to offer the most in terms of effectiveness and ability to maintain distance from the threat.

In short, it's not as simple as firearm = lethal force.

 

[ilbob]

It is hard to know if the OP did the right thing or not without having been there. It sounds like the dog was indeed unduly aggressive and the owner did not have the dog under proper control, and that it was mostly good fortune that nothing really bad happened.

This situation is 100% the dog owner's fault. It is the dog owner's responsibility to keep the dog under control 100% of the time. It is not someone else's responsibility to be a dog expert and try to make a split second decision as to whether a snarling, growling, and aggressive dog is really a threat or not. Any dog that displays aggressive behavior toward someone that does not warrant that kind of aggression, is not under proper control, and that is 100% the dog owner's fault as well.

Its also 100% clear from the OP, that assuming the OP accurately described the situation, the dog was not under an appropriate level of control. Again, 100% the fault of the dog owner.

I would say that as long as the dog was on leash and not an immediate threat, there was no need to shoot it. I would also say that should the dog have managed to have gotten away from the owner that the OP would have been completely justified in shooting an aggressive dog that attacked him and his child. And there is no need to wait for the dog to actually bite anyone before shooting.

based on what the OP has stated about the incident, I would say he acted appropriately, possibly even with considerable restraint.

 

[happybrew]

Anyone who thinks a pit bull will not be unduly aggressive needs a reality check. They won't be so to their owners, but to a stranger they definitely will be. A neighbour's new pit bull got loose, came into our BACK yard through a hole in a fence, and proceeded to kill six of our caged rabbits after destroying the cages to get at them, then became aggressive towards my wife when she looked to see what the commotion was. I have been charged by five different pit bulls on four occasions in the past few years that had the intent to rip my throat out, just for walking past on a public street. I've never had that experience with any other breed.

A firearm can be controlled by its owner. A pit bull can be controlled only so long as the owner can control it. Nobody carries their pit bull on their hip or has it in a gun safe, so it's pretty clear that the breed is a threat to other people when the owner is not around.

Pit bull owners can feel free to flame me all they want for my opinion, but before you do so, bear in mind that it is other pit bull owners who have led me to develop the opinion I have of that breed. It is based on experience, not prejudice.

 

[scythefwd]

Happy,
Nothing you have said is wrong... but it isn't right either. There are more reported dog bites by german shepards than pits every year. To claim it is the breed, and not the owner is NOT true. That is like saying a brat kid is like that by nature and not that way because a parent failed to do some parenting. Also, what you are encountering on the street is very rarely an American Pit bull terrier. Most people cannot positively identify the breed of a dog in the short time they have encountered it in aggressive situations.

Of the 6 dogs you mentioned, how many had you met with before? Of those you had dealt with before, what steps were taken to socialize and train the dogs? You assertion that dogs are aggressive by nature is a bit simplistic. That is like saying men are more intelligent than women. May be the case on some individual basis, but not as a whole. I would bet that of the 5 that attacked you on the street, they were never trained, and they were given the run of the neighborhood (when develops a pack mentality... and they are the leaders). The one in your back yard... again probably not trained. It isn't the owners intention to make them mean (usually), but their ignorance in what is needed to raise a well mannered dog of these breeds (the 25 or so that are regularly mislabeled as "pits" to include the American Bull Dog, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire terrier, etc... all of which are not American Pit Bull Terriers). These dogs cannot be raised like a greyhound.. which can be left to their own devices.. but require a firm will and enforced structure.

YES, you enter into my house or my yard without permission.... you will have to deal with my dogs. Once my dog leaves the yard... he has in the past, and will continue to approach people with a kind demeanor. Dogs on the other hand he still has some problems with... specifically dogs that stare (other bully breeds), dogs that try to assert dominance over him, and dogs that are taller than him (shepards, danes, wolf hounds, etc.)

Oh, the neighbors new terrier attacked rabbits? Might want to look up what the dogs in the terrier groups do... they hunt. Yes, even Yorkies were ratters and bred to go into rats nests and kill them. Then you tried to take its prey... which it was bred for.. away from it? I don't see that going well. Again, sounds like a lack of training in the home. When you see a misbehaved dog.. look at the owner and there your fault will lay. Same with kids and parents really.

 

[Utah1]

Kimberdad did just fine. Nobody's going to fault someone shooting an attacking pitbull. I'd do just about everything to avoid shooting with someone hanging on to a leash. But when it comes down to it, I'm not going to get bit and certainly not one of my kids.

Jeffm223, I don't agree with your opinion. In fact I think you're the one who should leave the guns locked up at home. I think you're way to hesistant to use lethal force, and when presented with the need you'll be too slow to respond.

 

[StrikeFire83]

Hmm, similar situation (kind of) happened a few years ago at my family's property. Our neighborhood is made up of 1 to 1.5 acre "estate" lots with houses and yards/land, but the homeowners are pretty free to develop (or not) their property how they like. There is no requirement to fence in your backyard, and some people do and some people don't. Our backyard is fenced.

One family on the block had a rottweiler that escaped pretty frequently. It was a nuisance for the neighborhood, but was pretty much tolerated because the owners would always catch it before anything happened and it wasn't outwardly aggressive towards anyone/it was only seen from inside cars or houses. That all changed one afternoon when the rottie in question escaped and charged a woman pushing her baby's stroller on the street. The owners were in hot pursuit and managed to restrain the dog before it got to the woman and her baby any harm, but the warning bells sounded. Some months later the rottie escaped and killed a very passive female golden retriever that was tied up behind its owner's house. The dead dog's owners, ourselves, and most of our neighbors signed a petition to get the dog destroyed. Sheriff's department would not order the dog's destruction because it had not harmed any people, simply issued a citation to the rottie's owners. The situation with the woman and the baby was chalked to a he said/she said argument about what "really happened" on a public street.

At this point ourselves and our neighbors had gone above and beyond to be polite and understanding concerning the dog's constant escaping and antics. It seemed as though the sheriff's department was dropping the ball, perhaps their hands were tied by limitations of the law. Again my family and our neighbors all signed off on a strongly worded letter that basically said: 1) you've proven unable to keep your dog confined to your property 2) your dog has proven itself dangerous to people and animals 3) if your dog if found on our properties, it will be shot, as is our right to do so. Period.

Luckily the dog did not escape again for the remainder of the time these people lived in our neighborhood, and their house was eventually foreclosed on and they moved away, taking their problem dog with them. I can say without hesitation that if I had seen the dog alone on our property within any reasonable distance from me, 7 yards or so, I wouldn't have hesitated to shoot it. The dog had proven itself dangerous, and it is not my responsibility to ascertain the intentions of a dangerous animal when it is unattended on my own property.

Now we had much more information about the dog in question, and this whole drama unfolded over a series of many months, so the situation is a little different than yours. The person holding the dog's leash definitely alters the situation, but there has to be some kind of minimum distance I would allow an aggressive, charging dog to get from a small child like one of my nephews before I decided draw and fire. I think you acted smartly and with restraint while still providing for your family's protection. Glad it didn't go any further.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Kimberdad: "I dont carry pepper spray, I carry a pistol."

This is what I'm talking about in terms of mindset. One response to every threat, lethal force. If you don't feel that you can deal with every threat in the range up to justifiable lethal force with your bare hands, give yourself another tool. I certainly don't think I could, which is why I carry pepper spray in addition to a gun (or 2). Incidentally, this is why the police carry spray and tasers in addition to firearms.

My opinion is that if you are going to assert your right to defend yourself, it is incumbent on you to be prepared to deal with a range of threat/response scenarios. To do otherwise is to prove the point of those who don't think that the average Joe is capable of making good decisions on the use of force. This "I'm going to buy a gun and use it to defend myself from every threat" mindset is what will lead to all of us being disarmed serfs.

Strawman.

You're creating an argument out of thin air (the Strawman) and attacking your fabricated argument with your own argument rather than going after what the Original Poster and the rest of us are saying.

No one here is making the argument to use lethal force (such as a firearm in this case) to counter every threat. I challenge you to point that out. What we are saying is that in cases where imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm to self or others (such as family), lethal force is then justified.

In this case, the OP reasonably believed that he and his son were in imminent attack from an animal that had the Ability (adult pit bull) and Opportunity (in open land and directly charging) to attack. Jeopardy seems clear as well. The OP prepared to draw at the last second should the distance close even more. What's the dog gonna do, start licking his kid's face and humping his leg? That's not how I read the situation from the OP's description.

So once again, nice Strawman argument. Nobody here is advocating trigger happy anti-gun fodder or mentality. Nobody here is advocating using a firearm or any other deadly force as an end-all solution to all threats. But threats that a reasonable man would conclude to be life threatening? Makes sense to me.

 

[scythefwd]

The dog had proven itself dangerous, and it is not my responsibility to ascertain the intentions of a dangerous animal when it is unattended on my own property.

To know the dog is dangerous... then you are ascertaining it's intentions. In this case, you knew the dog was dangerous from prior experience. If you hadn't know of it's past.. would you shoot it if it came up to you wagging it's tail, tongue hanging out, and trotting slowly because it might have been dangerous? Feel sorry for the deutchound that escapes from it's fence and runs across your front yard. You know they were bred to hunt and kill badgers in the badger's own lairs right?

 

[gc70]

Almost shot neighbor's dog, right or wrong?

kimberdad, you did well - you were prepared to defend yourself and your son, but showed proper restraint in your actions. However, it is hard to see why you described your actions as "almost shot neighbors dog" when you did not even draw your weapon. You determined that you were willing to use you weapon if necessary, but you also recognized that it was not necessary in this situation.

 

[rondog]

JMHO, but if a dogowner that is trying to restrain his/her charging dog suddenly sees you reaching for a weapon, that dogowner might drop the leash and flee for cover, thus putting you in a very undesirable position.

 

[StrikeFire83]

To know the dog is dangerous... then you are ascertaining it's intentions. In this case, you knew the dog was dangerous from prior experience. If you hadn't know of it's past.. would you shoot it if it came up to you wagging it's tail, tongue hanging out, and trotting slowly because it might have been dangerous? Feel sorry for the deutchound that escapes from it's fence and runs across your front yard. You know they were bred to hunt and kill badgers in the badger's own lairs right?

Of course I wouldn't shoot a tiny dog acting in a friendly manner that had wandered onto my property. Even an aggressive and snarling daschaund or chiguagua poses no threat to myself or my family members, and could be easily subdued by never touching a firearm. But you're comparing apples to turnips. I don't know many people who would come out on top in a fistfight against even a mid-size rottie, pitbull, etc if it was a determined attacker. As I stated in my original post, our situation was very different from his because we had prior knowledge of the dog and documentation of its aggressive nature and the lengths we'd gone to to go through the proper channels.

But very plainly, I have no duty to flee or attempt to become the dog whisperer in the few seconds that an outwardly aggressive and charging dog of sufficient size accosts me or family members on our own property. Being a rational person who has no desire to kill any animal unless it's for food, if running into the house or garage was an easy option that didn't put me at risk and could de-escalate the situation, even on my own property, I'd do it. But there's no way I'm going to turn my back on a possibly dangerous and outwardly aggressive animal if I'm not CERTAIN I can get away. Throw a defenseless child into the mix and the choice is an easy one: dead dog.

 

[Jeffm223]

"Nothing was incumbent on him.....
Bingo. It's incumbent on all of us to protect ourselves and our families, not carry a utility belt full of weapons useful for each and every situation under the sun."

With rights come responsibilities. Use of force appropriate to the situation at hand should have been covered in your CCW or POST class. Ask yourself which action (shoot vs spray) you would rather explain to a jury? Or to your child? Also, I fail to see how adding a 4oz can of pepper spray to your load poses an undue burden.

"So when a police officer pulls their gun, someone gets killed?"

There was a time when the police did not whip out their gun at the drop of a hat. America was a better place in those days. Of course the ht/wgt requirement was still in effect then......

"Hundreds of times every day, crimes are prevented and people save themselves by merely displaying a firearm."

I've heard this said before, but I've never seen any real proof of it. My gut instinct is that it's a bad idea and I hope it doesn't end up on your headstone. My thought: don't pull a gun unless you have no choice but to shoot.

"Sometimes (hopefully always) the only tool we need to keep ourselves alive is our brain. In any case, it should be the first tool."

I agree with this. What his brain should have said was "I need to get between this animal and my kid." Not "I'll think about pulling my gun with two friendlies at close quarters against a threat that is unlikely to result in death if I act quickly." If your brain can't think this through in the required time span, return to my first post.

"I'd also like to add, that the potential for lethality is the same for firearms as it is with weapons such as tasers, knives, and pepper spray."

Wow. Just wow. On that note I need to hit the sack. In closing though, I'll just say this: Nothing I've heard in this thread changes my initial reaction. If that sounds harsh it's because the stakes are, after all, life and death.

 

[PT1911]

we carry guns for protection! You percieved something as a threat and were thus prepared to take care of the situation should that be required...the potential danger in this is HAD the dog given you a reason to draw and fire could that have been accomplished without putting the owner (on the other end of the leash presumably BEHIND the dog) in danger?

I dont really think so.

that said, you were prepared to do what was necessary had the situation gotten worse. I am glad that wasnt the case.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

^ for being on THR and a CCW......I hope this guy is never on a jury trying a self defense case.....

 

[StrikeFire83]

Jeffm223, in my humble opinion your standards for use of force are based on academic arm-chair quarterbacking, and seeing as how the OP neither displayed the weapon nor pointed it at anything nor fired on the dog, I'd say he made the right decision. His thought processes were sound and he made the right decisions.

Also, you talk about straw men and flawed logic, but you're applying standards and tactics that can and should be employed when being confronted by human assailants to the complete unknown of an outwardly aggressive and dangerous animal. Verbal warnings, OD spray, harsh language, etc do not apply when dealing with an animal that is absent human control. The key to the situation was to determine whether or not the neighbor was re-gaining control over her dog. He realized she had and did not display the firearm...what's the gd problem?

 

[Bovice]

You don't have to shoot a charging dog. If you have legs, you can kick the dog repeatedly, until it gives up or dies. I speak from experience too. From my years as a long distance runner, I had more than a few encounters with dogs. They all seemed to happen when I was almost home and pretty tired. One dog was a doberman, just roaming around on the street. When it saw me, it came at me full speed, barking and snarling like any aggressive dog would. I stopped running and stood ready for it. When that dog got danger-close and I could see all those teeth, I kicked it so hard it fell over. I kicked it again and the dog limped off, whimpering. I went home without a scratch.

Second time was a lab mix of some kind, I'd say. This one came up behind me and actually nipped at my leg. I spun around and it was RIGHT on me. I pushed him off with my hands and kicked it like I was trying to make a field goal from 60 yards, and it didn't get up. Problem solved.

If kicking isn't your thing, you could even be so bold as to grab the dog by the neck with both hands and wring it into oblivion. You could gouge it's eyes out with your thumbs. You could break one of the legs. Show no mercy towards aggression.

And don't get smart and give me some nonsense about animal cruelty. Those dogs had it coming to them.

Shooting at a dog is entirely unnecessary. You're smarter than them and probably stronger too.

 

[rondog]

Bovice, you're an athlete, and can do those things. Many of us are NOT athletes, and can NOT kick off vicious animals. Small kids can't either. And dogs like pitbulls and rottweilers have jaw strength and grip like crocodiles, there ain't no getting them off once they get ahold of you, unless you shoot 'em in the head.

And I'm not going to start wearing a Batman Utility Belt with an assortment of "non-lethal" options for different threat levels. I wear a .45, it's good for most anything smaller than bears.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

^ Good for you but I dont think everyone should be relegated to that....

I have kids the O.P. mentioned being with someone. There is no way you should have to let it get to that. I guarentee you there are dogs that could get the better of you, or people who are not in your physical condition (Or strong mental condition). Again, a dog attack (Especially certain breeds, sizes, etc.) can be a very serious, life threatening event. To children it is easlily life threatening or easily life altering! That's not an option (just because some guy wants a tough dog or cant control their pet)

I too fought off a mix chow on my own back steps by kicking it, but I wouldn't do it again if I had a choice. In fact I built a fence so I dont have to worry (as much) about that kind of thing.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

I'm really suprised by all this.....

This one is easy IMO....