Shooting to save your dog.................

[444]

Mark, I figured that this was in a rural area and in that time and place, that was the thing to do. But, I wouldn't do it.

Dogs are born with a taste for chickens and just about anything else for that matter. The problem here wasn't that the dog ate the chickens, that was to be expected. The problem was that the owner of the dog let it run loose or allowed it to get loose. There is no doubt in my mind that my dog would eat all the chickens he could, and would kill the rest. But he never has done so because he hasn't had the opportunity. This is the reason that my dog doesn't think rabbits taste like chicken. He has never eaten a chicken.

 

[Drjones]

Mark:

You are clearly a religious man, and I am not.

The fundamental basis for our beliefs differs so greatly.

I was raised in a religious family, went to church often, though I now believe none of it, nor are any of my beliefs today based in any way upon religion.

However, THR is definitely not the place for religious discussion.

Thus, we are just going to have to agree to disagree...

 

[AZTOY]

It's not the taste of the chicken, it's the taste of the blood. Sorry guy's but if a dog get the taste for blood the dog must be put down .

 

[Mark Benningfield]

Hello All.

DrJones: As you wish. No hard feelings on my part.

444: We had quite a few dogs that never went after the chickens. Some were hunting dogs, too. So, I disagree that it is something that any dog would do, given the opportunity. I think, maybe, that some dogs are simply not as domesticated as others. But, as far as that goes, any predator, whether it be dog, wolf, coyote, mountain lion, Godzilla, has to be stopped (only one way) or you might as well just go shoot your livestock yourself.

 

[444]

"Sorry guy's but if a dog get the taste for blood the dog must be put down . "
That is ridiculous. Dogs have a taste for blood from day one. They are predators. Just because we feed them dog food from a bowel doesn't change that. Dogs will also go after most anything that runs from them whether it be chickens, cats or people. But, we can train dogs to not do things that we find offensive. Hunting dogs are highly trained animals (good ones). A good bird dog will not go after a bird, he will point. He will also retirive without eating the bird. But, they want to eat it. Most any bird dog has to be trained not to eat the bird. My dog loves meat of course. But he wouldn't dare take meat off my plate. He had to be taught that because it was his natural instinct to do so.

By the way, the thing about rabbits tasting like chicken was supposed to be a joke son, Ah say, that was a joke son. Or at least I thought it was funny.

 

[cratz2]

I don't know... I consider myself an animal lover and sicko sckumbags they may be, I don't see myself putting a bullet in someone I see having carnal contact with a sheep as I drive down the road. Nor do I see myself killing an 18 year old for (gulp) gutting a cat.

Are they troubled? Yup. Do they need help? Probably. Might they turn out to be a serial killer? Could be. But no way am I gonna actually kill someone over torturing an animal. Unless the circumstances were really extenuating.

 

[Gordon]

I am a BIG time dog shooter, and a BIG time dog lover. If a dog attacks my live stock he is a dead dog. Even if hes my dog. But I think on this forum the important thing to remember is back a few years ago in out back Idaho on a small mountain there was a boy who saw an unidentified tresspassing ninja shoot his dog and he bravely shot back and gave his life for his constitutional rights and ours. His mother eventually gave hers too. Now thats what I call reason to use deadly force on your dogs beheft!

 

[Black Dragon]

The more people I met the better I like my dogs!

Shoot a BG to save my dog.....Yes

My dogs protect the house and me and the Mrs. so I defend the dogs as they defend me.

Have I had to put down a wild dog that was attacking livestock? Yes, I wasn't happy about it but the livestock had to be protected. I've also
put down a wild dog that had attacked my dog. Again I wasn't happy about it but it had to be done.

 

[Beren]

Black Dragon:

This point has been made before, but people seem to be ignoring it.

Is it worth defending your dog at the cost of your liberty and all your worldly possessions? The pending voluntary manslaughter charge (at best; a second degree murder charge is just as likely) would ensure that the wife wouldn't see you except during visitation periods for at least a couple of years, and the civil suit filed by the BG's family would ensure that the wife spent the time living with relatives.

I've seen a couple of arguments:

1. "The dog would alert you to intruders, thereby potentially saving your life, so you should defend its life."

An alarm system would do the same. Should I shoot any man on sight if I catch him messing with my alarm system?

2. "The dog loves me more than any person does and behaves better too."

That doesn't change the fact that the dog, as an animal, does not hold the same intrinsic value as human life. Your dog will never possess the capability to fount knowledge, for one.

Lethal force is only justified to prevent death or grave injury to yourself or a third person.

 

[coati]

1. No way. My beloved dogs are property, everywhere.

2. My moral standards say I cannot.

3. You propose a situation I pray never to be in. I may make a life-changing decision.

 

[Steel]

interesting...

I invision the liberals who have been disarming us law-abiding folks switch and defend the gun owner-turned-dog-protector-with a gun since they may be radical animal rights activists!

 

[Leatherneck]

444

Just because we feed them dog food from a bowel

EEEWWWWWW...poor pup.
TC

 

[ahenry]

My dog is my property.

“1. Would you be legally justified in shooting a BG to save your dog (I think I know, or can guess the answer here).â€
Yes I would be legally justified to save the life of my dog.

"2. Would you be morally justified in doing so.â€
Yes I would be morally justified to save the life of my dog with deadly force.

“3. Given your answer to the above, would you?†Absolutely.

You cannot even use deadly force to protect property if it's just the property you are protecting. and unforetuneatley the dog would qualify as property.

Such ignorance. Sigh.

Where do you draw the line? Why is a dog equal to a human's life, when a goldfish is not?

It is a matter of how much value I place on my property. I place an extremely high value on the life of my dog. Little on the life of a goldfish. Best way for the criminal to avoid problems with me is to just not damage property that is not his. The choice lies with him however.

 

[Beren]

It is a matter of how much value I place on my property. I place an extremely high value on the life of my dog. Little on the life of a goldfish. Best way for the criminal to avoid problems with me is to just not damage property that is not his. The choice lies with him however.

Using this reasoning, I could "justify" shooting someone for stealing a piece of bubble gum. After all, if I place an extremely high value on my bubble gum, and if you steal it, it's your choice to die!

This thread is veering off into the insane. That you could, in a court of law, justify killing a man because he hurt or killed your dog - this is not even in question. There is not a jury outside of California that would fail to convict someone for such an act.

Prosecutor: "Why did you shoot and kill that man?"
Defendant: "I was in fear of my dog's life, and to save the life of my dog, I shot that man."

Enjoy the next twenty years of state-paid vacation.

The only question is whether it is morally just to do so, and whether you would do so yourself.

 

[ahenry]

Using this reasoning, I could "justify" shooting someone for stealing a piece of bubble gum. After all, if I place an extremely high value on my bubble gum, and if you steal it, it's your choice to die!

In the world of extremes, sure.

This thread is veering off into the insane. That you could, in a court of law, justify killing a man because he hurt or killed your dog - this is not even in question. There is not a jury outside of California that would fail to convict someone for such an act.

You’re not to familiar with other locations are you? Matter of fact there are plenty of juries in plenty of locations outside of California that would no bill somebody that defended the life of his dog with deadly force. In fact, some places no-bill you for defending the lives of your chickens. Allowing the use of deadly force in defense of property is as it should be.

 

[Beren]

You’re not to familiar with other locations are you? Matter of fact there are plenty of juries in plenty of locations outside of California that would no bill somebody that defended the life of his dog with deadly force. In fact, some places no-bill you for defending the lives of your chickens. Allowing the use of deadly force in defense of property is as it should be.

I stand corrected. There are indeed places where you may legally shoot someone in the back as they're running away with your chicken.

 

[ahenry]

Amazingly, if you never steal somebody else’s chickens and try to trot off with them, then you won’t ever get shot over it. Pretty crazy how that works ain’t it?

 

[JMLV]

Well given that anybody who

poses a threat to my dog(130 saint bernard) is already dangerous to me hell yes I would shoot him. Given the fact that my dog is generally larger than most folks dogs and more powerfull than most people would beleave. (a 130lb dog is a lot stronger than a 130lb human).
I have no moral quams about the act at all. BG attacked my home. what ever he gets he deserves, weither that be massive laceration & trama from dog(s) teeth, buckshot, or bullet holes from 9mm 115 jhp's.
sorry but I don't feel sorry for him at all. If he's lucky I will call him an ambulence befour I take the dog to the vet hospital(if injured)

 

[Beren]

Question for the IKYIYTMD (I'll Kill You If You Touch My Dog) crowd:

You witness a man taking your dog into their house. Do you call the police, or do you grab the Uzi and enact Saving Private Fido? Or do you knock on their door, demand your dog back, and shoot them if they fail to honor your request?

(Yes, this question presents an unlikely cicrumstance.)

 

[2dogs]

You witness a man taking your dog into their house..... do you grab the Uzi and enact Saving Private Fido?

Air, ground and sea assault- a Normandy invasion kind of scenario.

Sorry, it's that John Edwards thread, made me crazy.











Edited for real bad grammar and spelling.

 

[ahenry]

Question for the IKYIYTMD (I'll Kill You If You Touch My Dog) crowd:
You witness a man taking your dog into their house. Do you call the police, or do you grab the Uzi and enact Saving Private Fido? Or do you knock on their door, demand your dog back, and shoot them if they fail to honor your request?

[sarcasm on] Yes; of course. Anytime somebody does anything at all that I disagree with or that might be harmful to me in the slightest, I immediately call down the dogs of war and reduce my enemy and his family to ashes. Afterwards I pillage his home, take his possessions as spoil, and erect monuments to commemorate my victory.[end sarcasm]

Why does this question remind me of arguing with a liberal? Your absurd insistence on reducing the view that the option of deadly force to protect a pet (or property) is the same as actually doing so in every possible instance of even possible damage to the property is somewhat juvenile and inane. You know I have held to this view for many years, and I know people far older than I that have lived their lives around concepts such as this, and shockingly they have never shot or needed to shoot anybody.

 

[Beren]

[sarcasm on] Yes; of course. Anytime somebody does anything at all that I disagree with or that might be harmful to me in the slightest, I immediately call down the dogs of war and reduce my enemy and his family to ashes. Afterwards I pillage his home, take his possessions as spoil, and erect monuments to commemorate my victory.[end sarcasm]

By the tone and wording of some of the responses I've seen on this thread, it seems there are people out there who would feel justified acting in exactly the manner you sarcastically describe.

 

[ahenry]

Would you mind if I asked you to point out the comments that invoke the belief that such an action might just be carried out?

 

[Beren]

Oh, and if I happened across some situation with some sicko hurting or torturing an animal intentionally, I think it perfectly morally correct to send more than a few bullets their way.

I don't know if I could keep myself from shooting someone hurting my dog.

If I caught someone torturing ANY animal, I don't care if they gave birth to it themselves, they should catch bullets.

Would the sick ------ get shot anyway? bet your @$$ he will.

Loyalty and rule of claw and fang predates and preempts all. No moral conflicts.


I don't care if it is legal or not, try to kill my dog and I will shoot you..

just because someone is human doesn't mean a thing to me..


Okay, maybe they don't speak of house razing.

I'm going to bow out of this thread with what little grace and dignity I retain. I may disagree with y'all, but don't think that I view you as animals. You're still human to me.

 

[444]

I certainly would feel justified in it, but as I have now stated twice, I wouldn't. There are lots of things that I feel justified in doing, but the law won't allow it, so I don't do it. But the point is moot. If I witness someone leading my dog in his house, it would also probably be the last time I ever saw the guy alive not because of anything I would do, but rather what the dog would do. You see, dogs don't have these legal dilemas. They have been programed with the knowlege they need to survive.