gyp_c2
Member
Does the guy even know what address he went to?
Good idea to learn all you can about use of force law including case law and the jury instructions before drawing decision trees like that.Well now I’m going for my pistol and I’m going to shoot the intruder without question. He’s shot my dog, in my home. He’s a threat.
The posting of a sentiment like that can destroy a defense of justification.He’s a dead man. r
...If we lived in an actual city, the doors would be locked. But our kids wouldn’t go to the neighbors house two or tree streets over, they wouldn’t ride their bikes in the road, they wouldn’t have over an acre of backyard to play in. I hate the city. She does too. So we bought....
Good idea to learn all you can about use of force law including case law and the jury instructions before drawing decision trees like that.
The posting of a sentiment like that can destroy a defense of justification.
Typically I would agree with you. But in that scenario, he is in my home illegally. He has a weapon and has used it against a member of my home. He is a continued threat that has not been eliminated. He more than meets the requirements for lethal force. In the use of lethal force, you do not aim for the leg. You aim for the highest percentage shot(s) to end the threat (You know that. It’s been discussed as nauseam). Well there is no maximum use of force statute and no requirement for a homeowner to render aid regardless of their profession. Clearly I’ve shown enormous restraint when having my home invaded. But an armed intruder that has used a firearm to kill a member of my family and is still a threat, deserves no quarter and will receive none.The posting of a sentiment like that can destroy a defense of justification.
I don't think anything about it would've been cut & dry. That 3rd party is trespassing. The officer has no business there and he just entered illegally and shot the homeowner's dog. He may not have forced entry but he wasn't invited either, had no probable cause and no warrant. He didn't follow procedure and people got hurt. I'm not going to predict the outcome but it would've been a hell of a mess to figure out and it mostly would've been the officer's fault.Big Bore, if you think for one minute that the judicial system will likely conclude that a deputy entering a house to save a third party has entered unlawfully and forcibly, you have some learning to do.
To conclude that a deputy who has shot a violent animal is a "threat" could reasonably be seen as a very hard sell at best.
And legally, the dog is property.
One other thing--never believe that a DA's recommendation is final.
You are probably right.I don't think anything about it would've been cut & dry
One may not use deasdly force to prevent or terminate trespass--even in Texas in the dead of night.That 3rd party is trespassing.
whether he "had business there" would have to be determined. Officers do enter houses in hot pursuit, lawfully.The officer has no business there and he just entered illegally and shot the homeowner's dog
remember, what he was doing was protecting someone against dog attack, which would have been his duty, not trying to apprehend a suspect.had no probable cause and no warrant.
In law, that would not matter.The officer would've 'thought' he was protecting someone from a dog attack but when it all boils down, that's not what he was doing.
The big difference is that the deputy was not trying to apprehend anyone in any house. The "Deputy sees Jimmy getting attacked by one of his sister’s crazy dogs" and is duty bound to protect Jimmy.To me this is similar to a no-knock warrant at the wrong house.
What does not matter is whether the actor was actually in imminent danger, or was not but had a basis for a reasonable belief that he had been.It does matter.
You can't walk into someone's house uninvited, shoot their dog and claim self defense.
Yeah but it ain't gonna be that black and white either. You also have to put yourself in the homeowner's position, who is just reacting to a friggin' stranger in the living room. The officer didn't just happen along. He did not enter private property when he walked in the door. He entered private property when his feet left the sidewalk. It was his actions that created this situation in the first place. In defense of self or another does not matter. The person being defended is trespassing, inside someone's home. If I call the law because someone breaks into my house and the officer shows up to find my dog chewing on the suspect, inside my house, is he justified in shooting the dog without warning? No and he was invited. I don't even like dogs but this is the United States of America and we have a Constitution. You don't TRESPASS into somebody's house and shoot their friggin' dog. Unless you're just really, really stupid. Because that is the bottom line, both the officer and "Jimmy" were trespassing. The officer screwed up, royally and if things had gone south, it should be laid as his feet.What does not matter is whether the actor was actually in imminent danger, or was not but had a basis for a reasonable belief that he had been.
Of course not.
That is not the scenario described.
The officer shot a dog who was attacking someone else. To enter private property to perform an immediately necessary duty does not require an invitation.
Has a resident shot an officer, or perhaps anyone else else, under the circumstances described, and appealed a conviction, the appellate case would be a good candidate for one of Attorney andrwe Mranca's Lae of Self Defense blog programs
And?He entered private property when his feet left the sidewalk.
That may or may not figure in. Likely not.The person being defended is trespassing, inside someone's home.
The resident had not called the law, the person attacked by the dog had not broken in, and I so not think it prudent to try to "warn" an attacking dog before acting.If I call the law because someone breaks into my house and the officer shows up to find my dog chewing on the suspect, inside my house, is he justified in shooting the dog without warning?
We need to remind ourselves that trespass is a minor offense, and that the remedy is limited.Because that is the bottom line, both the officer and "Jimmy" were trespassing.
You’re actually serious. Why do I need to read a book when I’ve already read and provided the statute of the state that I reside in?And?
That may or may not figure in. Likely not.
The resident had not called the law, the person attacked by the dog had not broken in, and I so not think it prudent to try to "warn" an attacking dog before acting.
We need to remind ourselves that trespass is a minor offense, and that the remedy is limited.
The only way that shooting the officer might be justified is if a reasonable person in similar circumstances, knowing what the actor knew at the time, would have reasonably believed it necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury.
In Oklahoma, a reasonable belief that an unlawful and forcible entry had been made would provide a presumption, albeit rebuttable, that a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of harm existed.
The OP would be well advised to attend Attorney Andrew Branca's virtual course on self defense and to read the book The Law of Self Defense. There is a basic course and a state supplement.
Again , take the opportunity to learn all you can about use of force law. Use both of the premier sources: Branca's LoSD, and Massad Ayoob Group's classroom course.I have 100% faith that I would be protected under the law.
So if everyone in the process can get it wrong, what then is the point of me taking Branca's LoSD, and Massad Ayoob Group's classroom course? Show me where the statute says I’m not protected if someone shoots my dog in my home.For heaven's sake, do not draw any conclusions from a layman's reading of the code, without knowing the relevant case law and the jury instructions, or from what you think you know about a few incidents.
Even defense attorneys, prosecutors, and trial court judges get it wrong. That's why there are appellate courts. And they screw it up sometimes.
Sorry. That’s not true. You are only bound or have a duty to protect those in your custody. An officer can go 10-7 to watch you get mauled by a dog on the side of a street and do nothing. And when the dog is done he can go 10-8 and drive away. Now, there might be some repercussions from the mayor or chief, but he has no duty to protect you. Jimmy was not in his custody.The "Deputy sees Jimmy getting attacked by one of his sister’s crazy dogs" and is duty bound to protect Jimmy.
Come on--THINK!So if everyone in the process can get it wrong, what then is the point of me taking...
You have it inside out.Show me where the statute says I’m not protected if someone shoots my dog in my home.
Because nothing is certain.You’ve said “may”, and “might”. And I really have to wonder why.
Your basis for that?You are only bound or have a duty to protect those in your custody.