I was always under the impression that the burden of proof rests with the state/plaintiff VS the accused. Is it different in Va?
Normally, when accused of a crime, you could just say you didn't do it and that would put the burden of proof on the state. In a case like this, to claim self-defense or defense of property, you would have to admit to shooting the dog which essentially destroys your ability claim that you didn't do it. So you will start out admitting to an act that looks like a crime--leaving the burden of proof on you to show that what you did was justified under the law.
That doesn't mean you have to let them injure you to have a legitimate claim any more than you have to allow yourself to be shot or stabbed or bludgeoned to claim self-defense. Admittedly being able to show injuries does make things simpler, but it's certainly not a requirement.
MEHavey said:
As far as Virginia goes for right of defense of both self & property against other animals (incl dogs), it's instructive to read some actual case law:
Nice resource.
"Holding: When dogs become a public nuisance and menace, ordinary rules of self-defense apply. The owner of a domestic animal or fowl which is placed in jeopardy by the attack of a dog has the right to kill a dog for the protection of his property."
"While an owner of turkeys had a right to kill dogs, if necessary, in defense of his property, he had no right to kill them wantonly, or if his property could be reasonably protected without such killing. The court reversed judgment for defendant, finding that defendant’s act of killing dog while not engaged in the act of “worrying the livestock,” was not authorized within the statute."
Key takeaways for those in VA.
1. You wouldn't want to kill a dog in defense of someone else's pet/livestock since the cases appear to only give the right to defend property in that manner to the actual owner of the property. Perhaps there's more information in the actual statutes.
2. The defense of property appears to be very much like the typical self-defense laws in that the action taken needs to be to stop an actual attack that is in progress or to prevent an attack that is very obviously imminent and can't be stopped any other way. So killing a dog if there's another reasonable way to stop the property damage from occurring would not be legal. Same with killing a dog that's not actually attacking or that's not very obviously just about to attack livestock or pets.
