I have often wondered if I would be legally justified in using deadly force to stop an armed attacker from unjustifiably killing one of my canines (who are not overly aggressive, but honestly loving and good natured even towards other people, yet protective). Would it most likely be seen as excessive force if I shot someone to protect a canine member of my family?
The Use of Deadly Force in Defense of My Dogs
- Thread starter Ben86
- Start date
- Status
AWorthyOpponent
Member
Well, I assume your dogs would be inside your house. If they've made it inside your house, here in Florida, you have the right to use deadly force. Its presumed that they are there to cause death or great bodily harm.
Also, I view my dog like most would view a child. If hes armed, and willing to kill my dog, I think hes willing to kill me too...bye bye bad guy...
Also, I view my dog like most would view a child. If hes armed, and willing to kill my dog, I think hes willing to kill me too...bye bye bad guy...
I would guess it depends on the jurisdiction in question...I would assume that a state which allows for the use of deadly force to protect personal possessions would allow this.
But the real question is - Would you actually shoot a human being over a dog?
But the real question is - Would you actually shoot a human being over a dog?
Absolutely. A general rule of thumb to the "can I shoot someone when ____" family of questions is: when no amount of consequences, legal or otherwise, can compel you to not shoot.
BCCL
Member
Dogs are property under the law, so what are the laws in your area about using force to defend property?
Gouranga
Member
In NC, no. Unless they present a lethal threat to your or another human being (who did not instigate the attack) then you cannot use lethal force. This was a VERY unpopular question asked in my CCW class.
Probably depends a lot on the state you are in and the actual scenario. Some guy comes on your property armed, and shooting at dogs, I think that would pass the criteria for YOU to feel endangered. However, I would also bet in most cases you would be defending that point of view in court.
Probably depends a lot on the state you are in and the actual scenario. Some guy comes on your property armed, and shooting at dogs, I think that would pass the criteria for YOU to feel endangered. However, I would also bet in most cases you would be defending that point of view in court.
While I prefer animals to many of the people out there I'm not aware of any state which allows the use of deadly force to protect animals from humans. (I will no doubt be corrected if one exists) Generally you are permitted to counter with the same level of force (or minimum necessary- which may rise to deadly force), to protect yourself or another person. While pets may mean far more to us than any human attacker- you may not use DEADLY force to protect them.
If they are attacking your pets in the middle of the street without anyone else around that may be different than an intruder coming down your hallway with your pets in between. In the latter you could likely make a case that you were in fear of your life.
If they are attacking your pets in the middle of the street without anyone else around that may be different than an intruder coming down your hallway with your pets in between. In the latter you could likely make a case that you were in fear of your life.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Suppose you had to shoot some guy who was trying to kill your dog because the dog was trying to protect you?
Dead men don't testify.
Dead men don't testify.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
My feeling is that if a man comes onto your property and starts shooting your dogs, it would logically follow that he has a reason for eliminating the dogs...and that his next target is you or one of your family members...and could be so argued in the courtroom.
In that scenario, I don't think I'd stand there waiting to see if the dogs were the only objects of his violence. I would feel that my life was in peril...and I'd respond accordingly. Who wouldn't?
In that scenario, I don't think I'd stand there waiting to see if the dogs were the only objects of his violence. I would feel that my life was in peril...and I'd respond accordingly. Who wouldn't?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
You may "feel" that your dogs are family but in most states they are just property. If it's not legal to use deadly force to protect your property you may be way past "excessive force" and right into murder.
Can you use deadly force to protect a weedeater under the same circumstances?
This all assumes as others have mentioned that the attacker is not in your home of course.
On your property only but not in your home? You still could face a murder charge.
There are all kinds of variables to play 'what if' but in general just keep in mind that the law will usually look at dogs as property, not family members. Now that said, the shooter may face charges for killing the dog because on the flipside dogs are NOT treated like simple property in many states from that angle. Doesn't make much sense of course.
mgkdrgn
Member
In a word, no, in most cases/places.
You can not use deadly force to protect property, and dogs are considered by the law to be property.
You can not use deadly force to protect property, and dogs are considered by the law to be property.
Zundfolge
Member
Here in Colorado you can use lethal force to stop a violent felony.
Here in Colorado shooting a dog (outside of self defense) is considered "Animal Cruelty"
Here in Colorado animal cruelty is a felony.
That said, IANAL ... and I don't know that I'd want to be a test case.
To be honest though I seriously doubt that there would be a situation where someone could shoot my dog and it not also be putting me in a position where I feel threatened as well (since the shots at my dog will also be in my general direction).
Here in Colorado shooting a dog (outside of self defense) is considered "Animal Cruelty"
Here in Colorado animal cruelty is a felony.
That said, IANAL ... and I don't know that I'd want to be a test case.
To be honest though I seriously doubt that there would be a situation where someone could shoot my dog and it not also be putting me in a position where I feel threatened as well (since the shots at my dog will also be in my general direction).
Violent would seem to apply to people and not animals, but I'm not a laywer either.
I once posted a thread elsewhere about would you shoot a guy who was setting dogs on fire. There was a nut around here, tying dogs to a tree or post and torching them.
I opined you could shoot him as in TX, you can use lethal force to prevent arson and setting that fire could be considered as arson. But I wouldn't want to be a test case either.
Property can have emotional value. Would you shoot to stop someone from defacing the Mona Lisa. IIRC, when it was in DC, some dopey woman decided to step over the velvet ropes to see if it was OK. Some marine guard buttstroked her. However, buttstroking someone who defacing your Elvis velvet painting?
I once posted a thread elsewhere about would you shoot a guy who was setting dogs on fire. There was a nut around here, tying dogs to a tree or post and torching them.
I opined you could shoot him as in TX, you can use lethal force to prevent arson and setting that fire could be considered as arson. But I wouldn't want to be a test case either.
Property can have emotional value. Would you shoot to stop someone from defacing the Mona Lisa. IIRC, when it was in DC, some dopey woman decided to step over the velvet ropes to see if it was OK. Some marine guard buttstroked her. However, buttstroking someone who defacing your Elvis velvet painting?
If your life is not in eminant danger then I think you could not use deadly force. That is the only criterion that I use and its defensible in court. Anything else even in protection of property(legal or not) is going to involve a court date. Hate me if you wish but I am not going to jail for my dog.
Not typically against other human beings.
Lethal force against another human being over a dog is legally similar to doing the same to a person committing vandalism or property damage.
You will go to prison in most cases, for a range of different crimes some worse than others and some dependent on the outcome of the individual, and in some states you could even be put to death for it.
You can defend your animals against other animals in some states.
There is many other factors at work however.
Is your dog on your property?
Is your dog off a leash in a place with a mandatory leash law?
If your dog ventures down towards another dog being walked just to say hi and smell its butt, and the other dog attacks it, you and your dog could still technically be at fault because it was your dog not on a leash or under control.
Its not like with people, who threw the first punch is not as legally important as who was legally at fault for creating the environment for such a situation to occur or breaking laws when it happened (like off a leash.)
Many people with dangerous or vicious dogs think their dogs are the sweetest thing and would never hurt anyone.
These are the same owners who are shocked when their pit bull gets loose and mauls some little girl down the street.
Many owners are the worst judges in character about their own dogs, like many parents of real scumbags think the scumbag is a great person.
And even if it is a harmless dog nobody else knows that if they see it running down the street towards them or their children.
Lethal force against another human being over a dog is legally similar to doing the same to a person committing vandalism or property damage.
You will go to prison in most cases, for a range of different crimes some worse than others and some dependent on the outcome of the individual, and in some states you could even be put to death for it.
You can defend your animals against other animals in some states.
There is many other factors at work however.
Is your dog on your property?
Is your dog off a leash in a place with a mandatory leash law?
If your dog ventures down towards another dog being walked just to say hi and smell its butt, and the other dog attacks it, you and your dog could still technically be at fault because it was your dog not on a leash or under control.
Its not like with people, who threw the first punch is not as legally important as who was legally at fault for creating the environment for such a situation to occur or breaking laws when it happened (like off a leash.)
Many people with dangerous or vicious dogs think their dogs are the sweetest thing and would never hurt anyone.
These are the same owners who are shocked when their pit bull gets loose and mauls some little girl down the street.
Many owners are the worst judges in character about their own dogs, like many parents of real scumbags think the scumbag is a great person.
And even if it is a harmless dog nobody else knows that if they see it running down the street towards them or their children.
Arkansas Paul
Member
I'm with Zundfolge. I don't think I'd want to be the one to establish the precedent there.
vett3v
Member
OP stated an armed attacker violently eliminating my second line of defense and alarm. Is that enough of a threat to my person or family?
omegaflame
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 186
My Dog's life> Some criminal's life
Also if it's only you, the criminal, and the dogs... who's going to testify?
Also if it's only you, the criminal, and the dogs... who's going to testify?
Freedom_fighter_in_IL
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,097
Ok granted, while slightly funny, it is statements like that that support the claims of the anti's! An old saying my dad used to say to me constantly "energize your brain before your mouth". Saying stupid stuff like that is one of the main sources of ammunition they have. They take it out of context or in cases such as this, simply point and say "see what you 2nd amendment activists support? This guy is basicly saying as long as noone sees it it wont be wrong!":banghead::banghead::banghead:
omegaflame
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 186
I understand, but a comment like that isn't going to give them more ammunition than what you'd find on the mall ninja forums.
HappyHunting
Member
This is just a broad question that cannot be answered without more details. If on your property, and some guy is killing your dog it is probably because the pooch found him and he didn't want it to alert you. That would create fear for my life, and isn't that what a lot of the laws require to justify a shooting?
If you're just out for a stroll and some dude pops out of the bushes with a machete and starts hacking at your dog, well that would create fear for my life too, and would justify a shooting IMO.
Anyone brazenly attacking a dog with a weapon in front of its owner would probably not think twice about going after the owner as well.
Once my sister's rabbit got annihilated by a dog in our yard and bit my mom as she tried to scare it away. Being less than thrilled, the next day the dog came in to the yard and my dad double-lunged it with an arrow, pulled the arrow out and let the dog go die somewhere else. If you were watching from the street would you have come and tried to kill my dad?
If you're just out for a stroll and some dude pops out of the bushes with a machete and starts hacking at your dog, well that would create fear for my life too, and would justify a shooting IMO.
Anyone brazenly attacking a dog with a weapon in front of its owner would probably not think twice about going after the owner as well.
Once my sister's rabbit got annihilated by a dog in our yard and bit my mom as she tried to scare it away. Being less than thrilled, the next day the dog came in to the yard and my dad double-lunged it with an arrow, pulled the arrow out and let the dog go die somewhere else. If you were watching from the street would you have come and tried to kill my dad?
General Tso
member
I would shoot to protect my dogs. I'll take my chances with the prosecutor and jury. I couldn't stand by and not protect them. I couldn't live with myself.
zignal_zero
Member
General Tso -
sometimes our personal code of honor conflicts with what society has deemed acceptable. at those times, i feel it is most appropriate to do what YOU consider just, regardless of the consequences. unfortunately, more and more people are willing to let THEIR own morallity take a back seat to local law. this is tragic.
an extreme example would be having a daughter brutally raped. the established authority says you are FORBIDDEN from taking a chainsaw to him, your (figuratively) personally code of honor would command you (again figuratively) to do so. you'll have to choose which one to defy. the choice is a no brainer for me.
as for shooting the guy who's shooting at your dog - you sure he's shooting at your dog? i might be pretty convinced he was shooting at me and hit my dog by mistake. in which case i'd want to eliminate the threat before he managed to try again.
sometimes our personal code of honor conflicts with what society has deemed acceptable. at those times, i feel it is most appropriate to do what YOU consider just, regardless of the consequences. unfortunately, more and more people are willing to let THEIR own morallity take a back seat to local law. this is tragic.
an extreme example would be having a daughter brutally raped. the established authority says you are FORBIDDEN from taking a chainsaw to him, your (figuratively) personally code of honor would command you (again figuratively) to do so. you'll have to choose which one to defy. the choice is a no brainer for me.
as for shooting the guy who's shooting at your dog - you sure he's shooting at your dog? i might be pretty convinced he was shooting at me and hit my dog by mistake. in which case i'd want to eliminate the threat before he managed to try again.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked