Question About Texas CD and SYG Laws.

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

ManBearPig

member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
151
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ftie-dog-12-year-old-owner.html#ixzz2YZ6y4Oj6

So here we have an off-duty officer shooting to death the neighbor's dog in front of their 12-Year-Old. It is my understanding that Texas, like Florida, is the leader in Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. So would the owner of the dog be justified in going in their home, grabbing their self-defense weapon, and returning fire in a case like this? Seems to be an attack on a person's being and property to murder their dog; who could say the mad man going around the neighborhood shooting the neighbor's pet would stop at just that.
 
Note: I'll leave this thread open for now on the chance that there can be an intelligent and evidenced based discussion of the law involved. But if I decide that this has degenerated into unsupported opinion, rants or cop bashing, the thread will be closed, and folks might wind up with infractions. So let's stay focused.

ManBearPig said:
...It is my understanding that Texas, like Florida, is the leader in Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. So would the owner of the dog be justified in going in their home, grabbing their self-defense weapon, and returning fire in a case like this?...
Click to expand...
The short answer is "no."

  1. This has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws. See here.

  2. The off-duty officer said the dog attacked him and his wife, so in the case of a legal challenge he would be entitled to try to establish the defense of justification.

  3. Under Texas law, a person would not be justified in using deadly force after his property has already been destroyed. Under Texas law a person may use deadly force in defense of his property only as described in Texas Penal Code 9.41 and 9.42, as follows:
    Sec. 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.​

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


    Sec. 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.
    ​
    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
    Click to expand...

ManBearPig said:
...Seems to be an attack on a person's being and property to murder their dog; who could say the mad man going around the neighborhood shooting the neighbor's pet would stop at just that.
Click to expand...
But based on the newspaper article that's not anything like what happened.
 
Last edited:
Shorter answer: NO. Shooting someone because they shot yer dog is called REVENGE. Going back to a place of safety, retrieving a weapon, and SEEKING OUT a confrontation in which you intentionally kill someone for REVENGE will be tried as FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

One thing you've probably heard about Texas that IS true: we execute people for that.
 
Going back to a place of safety, retrieving a weapon, and SEEKING OUT a confrontation in which you intentionally kill someone for REVENGE will be tried as FIRST DEGREE MURDER
Click to expand...
.

So they'd need to have their self-defense weapon on them already, meaning they would not be retreating to safety, but rather reacting immediately to the threat. I say threat, because the dog was shot; who knows if he would have continued by turning the gun on the child as well.

But I do understand your point about leaving, going into one's home, retrieving their weapon, and coming back outside.
 
ManBearPig said:
...who knows if he would have continued by turning the gun on the child as well...
Click to expand...
One can not justify a use of deadly force in self-defense on a basis of speculation. One would need to be able to articulate manifest actions which would cause a reasonable an prudent person to infer an intent to shoot the child.
 
If the 12 year old was present why did he not call his dog away? Maybe the presence of the child put the dog in protection mode? Leading to the dogs demise.
ll
 
Well, the pets owners shouldn't have let the dog get out of the fence. The worst part about it is that the kid let him out on accident according to the article. So the kid will probably feel responsible for his dog getting killed.

OTOH, I find it hard to believe the boxer attacked anyone. I have owned several boxers and they aren't people aggressive. They are very hyper active and playful so I could see the dog running over to the couple walking the dog. However, one of the well known and published traits about boxers is that they don't bite. They are working dogs for livestock. Having a soft mouth is characteristic of them.

I believe the guy that shot the dog either overreacted or just plain shot the dog out of meaness. His profession has nothing to do with it.
 
Just to be clear, you are asking if a dog escapes its yard and runs at a family, the family certainly feels threatened by the dog and possibly was injured by it, and the family uses deadly force against the loose dog . . . You want to know if stand your ground laws would justify shooting the family who the dog was running at?

The answer is no.

Bruno, while many dog shootings can be said to be overreaction, I don't think the onus is on the shooter to know that boxers have soft mouths. While you, as a boxer owner, may know that, I would not say it it common knowledge even among dog owners.

This man was walking with his wife and his dog, and he likely saw a large muscular dog running quickly at him. He may not even have known the breed. According to the 12 year old dog owner, the shooter did not fire until the dog was at "point blank range". As we know, to the non ballistically inclined public this phrase means "extremely close to."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top