Deadly force for Animal abuse?

[Cosmoline]

The general rule is that animals are property. However, there are certainly circumstances where an attack on an animal could reasonably be considered part and parcel of imminent deadly force against you and your family. For example, an armed man breaks into your house and runs into your dog on the stairway up. He shoots the dog, and you shoot him. You're not shooting him to protect the dog, but because he's an armed man in your house showing clear intention to bring deadly force to bear against your family in the near future. He's willing to kill the dog just as he was willing to break into the house. Or if you're walking your leashed dog and a would be mugger shoots your animal. Or if someone comes onto your property and starts killing any dog in his way en route to your dwelling. There are lots of examples.

Not to be too blunt about it, but a dog's purpose in such circumstances is to give you an early warning. By getting shot he's doing his job. You then need to do yours. Get the rifle out and get to a position of C&C.

Another note--if you actually find yourself in such a situation where you shoot someone who just shot your dog, PLEASE be careful what you say to people. It may be that in your heart of hearts you shot him because you were angered that he just killed your dog. But that's why the good lord invented lawyers and the right to counsel. Keep your fricking trap SHUT and wait till you have counsel to pour your guts out.

 

[Elza]

steveracer: It's sad and embarrassing that I would not do the same for him.

I wouldn’t say sad or that you should embarrassed. Everyone is different. If everyone was as much of an animal freak as I the world would be a strang(er) place to live. Different views, ideas, and beliefs are what makes life interesting. Without differences, we wouldn’t have THR to play on all day.

 

[Elza]

cloudcroft: After all, Americans think more of their pets than they do of people, especially unborn babies (abortion).

Hello!!! Countdown to thread lock.

 

[Elza]

Cosmoline: Not to be too blunt about it, but a dog's purpose in such circumstances is to give you an early warning. By getting shot he's doing his job. You then need to do yours. Get the rifle out and get to a position of C&C.

Sad but true, my friend. I would hate to lose my shepherd but I would hate it far worse if the loss were a family member.

 

[brerrabbit]

My dog sticks very close to the house. He is loud and aggressive to anyone he does not know coming to my house. Considering that I live about 6 miles from paved road and 45 minutes from a LEO response, I must figure that anyone screwing with my dog is intent on causing me problems in the very near future.

OTH regular strays with no identification, just shoot them.

 

[.45&TKD]

I've always thought that if your dog is your first line of defence and your dog is killed, it would be reasonable to assume that you would be next, and reasonable for you to take action. But the law is another thing.

 

[stevek]

It's not a matter of dog = human. If someone enters my house or attacks my dog while leashed on a walk, I have every reason to believe they are intent on causing the human members of my family, or myself serious harm as our dogs are house dogs and we have a fenced in yard. I would try to protect my dog against physical attack, though a 100 lb. German Shepherd is a pretty formidable animal in it's own right. If that means the assailant starts to attack me I would be absolutely justified in using whatever means were at my disposal. I'm not talking about some idiot that takes a swing/kick at my dog, he'd just get a smack upside the head and a caution, but someone that is trying to maim/kill him deserves what he gets...my wife feels the same way.

 

[TimboKhan]

Keep your fricking trap SHUT and wait till you have counsel to pour your guts out.

And people say you can't get good advice on the internet. For as much as it is popular to bash lawyers, people seem to forget that the law can work for you just as well as it can work against you.

 

[Kentak]

Some of us have lost sight of the original post, which was about the legality of using deadly force in defense of an animal. If you limit it to that, the law is clear--not justified.

Now, all kinds of "what ifs" have been added to try to make it into a justifiable homicide, like an armed guy breaking into your home and shooting your dog. Fine, but you've changed the thrust of the original post. Just have the sense god gave a goose to never say you used deadly force to defend your animal. *That* dog won't hunt.

K

 

[TallPine]

To equate animals with humans is something PETA does, and they are crazy, but apparently don't have a monopoly on it.

Yeah, my animals are nicer than most people

So I wouldn't want to insult my animals by equating them to people

 

[glockman19]

My pets are family members and anyone harming my pets would be shot or beaten.

 

[Zoogster]

The law is that they are property.
Also keep in mind many people will feel thier beloved "sparky" was the best dog in the world and was not really going to hurt someone else. Yet if "sparky" is out of control, or running up to people in what you as the owner might not consider agressive believing you know your pet better, but others take as threatening: barking/growling etc while pursuing" and the dog is shot and you take action you will be in the wrong even if you are sure in your heart the judgement call of the person taking action against an animal they do not know was incorrect.

Others do not know your animal, do not know its past or intent.

However the law is also biased in its interpretation of animals. A police k-9 injured may end up with someone charged with serious felonies. Yet the same police will routinely kill gaurd dogs while serving a warrant simply to remove it from the equation, not because it did anything at all. Of course it is wrong, yet logical since they will often be entering a dwelling, proceeding to do what will appear to be attacking the owners putting them into handcuffs etc, so a guard dog would be a threat if doing its job, and they simply remove it at the start. The only other solution would be to have the owner handle it, which they cannot if they are taking him into custody, or having an extra detachment put into harms way attempting to subdue the dog while executing the warrant, which they will not do. So at the start of such warrants, dogs are usualy killed. So even if the warrant turned up nothing, or the people were not charged or found guilty of anything, the use of unprovoked lethal force agianst thier animals was justified.

There is ancient laws still on the books some places involving cattle/horse theft that would permit it. Since a horse was often a man's transportation back then, it goes to show they felt lethal force was justified for what today would be auto theft, which is not justified anymore. If stealing it permited such force, and was even punishable by execution if caught, then I would surmise that force in response to injury or the killing of the animal followed the spirit of the law in such instances. But those are ancient laws no longer enforced or upheld, just mentioned for arguments sake.

Basicly defending anything besides yourself or another human being with lethal force is not justified unless you live in a state where defense of property is justified in some circumstances like Texas.

If your pet runs at someone barking or growling even if it has no idea what it would do next and you have witnessed it do the same thing many times knowing it is not going to hurt the person, and the person harms the dog in fear of thier safety and you retaliate you will be the one legaly in the wrong.

Now as others have said if someone is in the process of commiting another crime and kills or injures your animal showing they are inclined to use deadly force, then depending on the situation you responding with such force may be appropriate. But the jury will decide that.

If your animal got loose or is on someone else's private property, then there will be almost no justification. If it is on your own property, it still may or may not be justified depending on what else the person was doing and what people determine was the intent of the person. If it is within your home and the person broke into your home then it shows an obvious imminent threat to others and is justified. But someone coming into your home with a weapon would be inclined to justify it if necessary anyways, so once again it has little to do with the pet. The underlying theme here is that it would be justified when the act demonstrates you and others are in imminent danger, not the pet. So it would still only be appropriate when defending yourself or others.

As with other property if someone destroys or steals property your legal recourse is civil court, not lethal force. A pet is no different under the law. You can sue them for the value of the animal, and if they were in the wrong they can be charged criminaly as well, but that is the extent of your legal recourse in most public situations.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I guess my comments earlier need clarification.

If someone breaks into your home and shoots your dog, I think its fine to shoot the person. But then, if someone breaks into your home and you shoot them, thats Ok even if they didnt shoot your dog. If a criminal breaks into your home, he is a threat to you, and the dog is immaterial.

If someone shoots your dog while he is on a leash and you are walking him, then I agree shooting the person is fine. Again, its not so much because he shot the dog as I think you can assume the dog shooter will probably harm you too.

If someone drives by your house and shoots your dog in your own yard, you should call the police. This is assuming of course there was not personal risk to you. The dog shooter needs to be arrested, but not executed.

If your dog runs up barking and acting aggressively to someone on the street, and gets shot by the person, then I don't think you should shoot that person. The shooter is defending himself, and posing no threat to you. Keep your dog on your own property and this won't happen.

If you dog is someone elses property, and the property owner shoots him, then I don't think you have any grounds to complain. Keep your dog home and he won't get shot.

I think you will get in big trouble though if you shoot someone in the heat of the moment, while you are emotionally distraught, because your dog was shot by someone who did not pose a direct threat to you.

 

[Lupinus]

In most states you would be up the creak without a paddle, in several there would be a hole in the boat, and in a few there would be no life jacket.

That said would I shoot someone to protect a pet? Doubtful, my pets life really isn't worth mine being spent in prision. Do I think I should be able to? Very much so. But I don't hold most human life up on this high pedistal society seems to the last hundred or two years.

 

[cracked butt]

[A police k-9 injured may end up with someone charged with serious felonies. Yet the same police will routinely kill gaurd dogs while serving a warrant simply to remove it from the equation, not because it did anything at all./QUOTE]

Hell they'll shoot lapdogs if they happen to be in the yard if the police stop over to do nothing more than a welfare check.I'm not fond of proections on police dogs either.

 

[arctictom]

+1 Cosmoline,

Think carefully beforehand when you might engage in deadly force, and what your say to justify your actions.

 

[Professor K]

Well, I'm not sure, I've heard LOTS of bad stories of animal abuse. Now, I'm not PETA man, and I dont even like vegetarianism, but I believe animals are a bit more valuable property than say...electronics, it all comes down to your value of over your stuff.

However, I have heard of some of the **** burglers do to people's pets, on sites like Totse and the like, and it's not good. I'm not talking "oh, shoot the gaurd dog" or poisoning the cats with anti-freeze, but just plain horrible stuff. I've heard of people stuffing explosives in cats anuses, and blowing them up, or the worst one, putting them alive in the microwave (usually of the owner's house) and cooking it alive until blood and stuff starts seeping out, and it pretty much explodes. I wouldnt have any sympathy at all for someone that did that, especially to my pets. Sorry if I sound like a PETA superhero, but I dont think animal abuse like that should be tolerated, especially with the fact that many serial killers start off by doing nasty things to pet animals.

 

[skinnyguy]

"Your Honor, the perpetrator was in process of harming my pet, and I had every reason to think he was going to come after me next, so I shot that bas.... perpetrator."

that's my story and I'm sticking to it

 

[Dgindlesperger]

All I can really say is my dog is a member of my family, so if someone tries to hurt her, I would interveen with the force needed to stop it. Even if said force is deadly, but nice to know the law as i live in Portland

 

[Art Eatman]

Killing a person because they're kicking a dog is a good way to learn more than you wanted about the Graybar Hotel.

Art