The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old September 27, 2013, 06:58 PM   #26
dayman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 1,052
My wife and kids are my family. The dogs are animals we own.
They're higher up the ladder than the animals we raise for food, and they're higher than the cats we own to kill mice. But, when they die I'll feel sad for a couple days then I'll just buy new ones. These are not my first dogs, nor will they be my last.
I like them well enough, and I'd be very upset, but I don't think upset enough to kill a person over it.
That being said, I can't really think of a realistic situation where someone would be killing my dogs and I wouldn't feel that they were an immediate threat to me or my family.
__________________
si vis pacem para bellum
dayman is offline  
Old September 27, 2013, 07:51 PM   #27
Bullcamp82834
Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2013
Location: Buffalo, WY
Posts: 94
Try to hurt my dog and it's really on. I mean serious combat.

Me and my dog are pretty tight.
Bullcamp82834 is offline  
Old September 27, 2013, 09:41 PM   #28
Dwight55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 2,557
A human is a human, . . . and a dog is a dog.

Someone harming my dog would get a serious warning, . . . but I could not kill a human being just for the sake of a dog.

Should that human turn on me or my human family, . . . he will be met with deadly force to stop the attack.

Many will disagree with that scenario, . . . but that is the one that will allow me to avoid prosecution, jail time, stiff fines, and the loss of just about all my finances and property in the state of Ohio.

A dog is not worth the rest of my life, . . . and the hearthache it would bring to my family.

May God bless,
Dwight
__________________
www.dwightsgunleather.com
If you can breathe, . . . thank God!
If you can read, . . . thank a teacher!
If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!
Dwight55 is offline  
Old September 27, 2013, 10:48 PM   #29
Rob228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Broomfield CO
Posts: 554
My dog has saved my wife on numerous occasions when she sleep walks, she warns us when anything out of the ordinary is going on outside. If someone has made entry to my home she will be on the attacker after having warned me. If she is outside she is with me on a leash, an attack on her out of my home would be an assault that I would retaliate against, an attack against her inside of my place means that someone has broken in. I wouldn't tolerate either.

Rob228 is offline  
Old September 27, 2013, 11:38 PM   #30
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 599
My beagle is a family member. He would gladly go down fighting off hoards of invading rabbits or zombie steaks. He's useless for any other guard duties.
tomrkba is offline  
Old September 27, 2013, 11:39 PM   #31
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,154
Quote:
If someone was harming one of my dogs without good reason, I don't think I'd shoot to kill, but I'd send them away limping.
When you shoot someone, it's using deadly force. Shooting someone in the leg can kill them just as quickly as a shot through the lung if the femoral artery is hit. If you shoot a person for harming one of your pets (in the absence of further justification) you will likely go to jail.
Quote:
...would be an assault that I would retaliate against...
The use of deadly force to "retaliate" is never legally justifed.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 12:14 AM   #32
Rob228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Broomfield CO
Posts: 554
Yes, that was a poor choice of words. I would defend my dog and myself should a situation arise where I was forced to do so.

If criminals are doing 20 years for killing a police K9, why is it that I am not allowed to defend my own dog from said criminals?
Rob228 is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 01:17 AM   #33
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,154
Quote:
If criminals are doing 20 years for killing a police K9, why is it that I am not allowed to defend my own dog from said criminals?
There may be criminal penalties that can be assessed against a person who kills or injures your dog, but you are not authorized to administer them. Deadly force is not authorized as punishment for crimes, it is only authorized to prevent certain very serious violent crimes in limited circumstances.

You can defend your dog up to the point (using the resources) that the law in your area allows. I know of only one area in the U.S. where it MIGHT be justifiable to use deadly force to protect property (including pets) under very specific circumstances and it's not in CO.

I'm not picking on you, I just chose a couple of statements that seemed to stand out to respond to from amongst those that were clearly inconsistent with the law.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 01:25 AM   #34
Rob228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Broomfield CO
Posts: 554
I know you weren't picking on me, but you have definitely highlighted the fact that laws and opinions certainly do not agree on this topic, and it certainly can be a sensitive topic at that.
Rob228 is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 02:58 AM   #35
saleen322
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2010
Posts: 270
Sometimes one of the biggest risks for dogs being hurt/killed is LE even when the police get the address or information wrong. Here is some light reading...

http://dogmurders.wordpress.com/
saleen322 is online now  
Old September 28, 2013, 03:02 AM   #36
Jim243
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Posts: 4,304
Quote:
If someone was willing to use lethal force against this particular dog, then he'd be willing to use lethal force against me. Everything else is just details.
If someone draws a gun outside while my dog is on a leash being walked, I too am in eminent danger of being shot and will react with like force. If in my home, dog or no dog any attacker with a gun will be met with lethal force.

Hope that clears up the situation.
Jim
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Jim243 is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 05:09 AM   #37
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,154
Quote:
If someone was willing to use lethal force against this particular dog, then he'd be willing to use lethal force against me.
To justify deadly force, you'd have to be able to convince a jury that a reasonable person in your place would legitimately be in fear of imminent danger of death or bodily injury.

If, as in one of Jim243's example, you were in your house and someone broke in and attacked/killed your dog, the combination of illegal entry to your house and aggressive action would probably make it reasonable to assume that once they disposed of the dog, you'd be next. If you could articulate that and the jury/grand jury/police agreed with you (which I suspect they would) then your actions would be upheld as legal.

On the other hand, if the dog is out in your back yard while you're in the house, and a neighbor kills it for barking, the use of deadly force to retaliate or punish the neighbor would be a felony crime.

What it comes down to is that killing or attacking the dog, in and of itself, would not be sufficient legal justification for the dog's owner to use deadly force against the dog's assailant.

That would be true nearly everywhere. There may be one area in the U.S. where a person (unwisely) might be able to legally justify shooting to protect the dog using property protection rules assuming all the criteria of the law is met.

So additional circumstances of the situation may combine with the attack on the dog to warrant a deadly force response, but in my opinion, a critical component for any such set of circumstances would be that you or a family member were in very close proximity to the dog when the attack took place. So close that a reasonable person would assume that the attack was not just directed at the dog but was an attack against both the dog and the person.

Or, if you want to look at it from the other side--if the circumstances warrant the use of deadly force in defense of you or a family member then deadly force would be justified. In other words, for the most part, the fact that the dog was attacked or killed would be incidental to an imminent attack on you or a family member and it would be an imminent attack on a human (you or a family member) that would actually provide justification for a deadly force response.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 09:03 AM   #38
Larry K
Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2013
Location: Bella Vista Arkansas
Posts: 21
Family member, with out a doubt. They are there to warn the bad guys to not break in They would protect me and my wife with their lives, I would do the same for them.
__________________
I am addicted to break fluid . . . . I just cant stop
Larry K is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 09:07 AM   #39
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,902
Responsible firearms ownership does, in most cases, mean following the law. We don't always like the law, but here on TFL, we do advocate for obeying it.

Just a reminder for those who may have forgotten. I think it may be getting time toward closing the thread.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 09:36 AM   #40
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 862
My dogs have been "family members", that being said, I think I'm done. I had to put my 16 year old Lab down on 9-11-13 to avoid her dying a slow painful death.

Regardless of what the law is, I would have a very difficult time restraining myself from doing bodily harm to anyone who was attacking/hurting my dog. not that I would shoot anyone over it, but I certainly would use equal force to protect my dog.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason
iraiam is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 10:38 AM   #41
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,383
I'd protect my dog before some of my family members. For reals.
Willie Lowman is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 10:47 AM   #42
3.Shot.Group.
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2013
Posts: 208
Quote:
When you shoot someone, it's using deadly force. Shooting someone in the leg can kill them just as quickly as a shot through the lung if the femoral artery is hit. If you shoot a person for harming one of your pets (in the absence of further justification) you will likely go to jail.
I didn't say I would shoot them through the leg. I said I would send them away limping.

I can think of at least a half dozen ways to do that without shooting them through the leg.
3.Shot.Group. is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 11:20 AM   #43
afone1
Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2011
Posts: 79
My dog has a CHL, so he is really valuable.
afone1 is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 01:45 PM   #44
1hogfan83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2011
Location: Fayetteville AR
Posts: 367
Family or not, watch any western with a dog. They usually get shot. The vengeful cowboy comes back, "He shot my dog!". Regarding police dogs, I had always heard it was the same as a police officer.
__________________
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe—and shudder. James 2:19
"I do not fear the man that practices ten thousand kicks one time, I fear the man that practices one kick ten thousand times." Bruce Lee
1hogfan83 is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 02:38 PM   #45
PeteApps
Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2013
Location: Meridian, ID
Posts: 36
I always have thought of dogs as part of the family. Especially when compared to cats, that grace you with their presence, and poop in your shoes if you slight them.

I heard this on the new last night, very sad day indeed.

http://www.localnews8.com/news/man-o...z/-/index.html
PeteApps is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 03:15 PM   #46
skywag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2011
Posts: 121
I like dogs but usually can't stand their owners.
skywag is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 03:30 PM   #47
SC4006
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 27, 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 305
I don't have a dog, but I feel the same way towards my two cats that most of you feel toward your dog(s). My family thinks of them as family, and I am very attached to them.

If someone were to harm them, I certainly wouldn't shoot them (unless they were coming after me or a family member next), but I'd give them a nice punch to send a message across .
__________________
Army National Guard Infantry Nov. 2013 - Pesent

They say 5 out of 4 people are bad at math, but what do I know?
SC4006 is offline  
Old September 28, 2013, 03:32 PM   #48
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,154
Quote:
I didn't say I would shoot them through the leg. I said I would send them away limping.
You said you "wouldn't shoot to kill" but that you would "send them away limping". The most reasonable interpretation of that would be that you wouldn't shoot to kill but you would shoot to cause them to limp.

It's important to say exactly what you mean when dealing with important topics like this one.

That said, even assuming that wasn't what you meant and the wording of your comment was misleading, doing something to a person sufficient to cause them injury (punching, hitting, kicking) would likely be illegal with only an attack on a pet as justification.

It would CERTAINLY be illegal if it were done after the fact as retaliation or punishment. I am not aware of any justification in the law that would allow one citizen to do injury to another in retaliation for, or to punish them for committing a crime. There are situations where it is legal for a citizen to do injury to another to PREVENT that second person from committing, or carrying a crime through to completion, but once the crime has been committed, that justification no longer exists.

I hope that this thread has been educational because it appears that many of the people who have responded to it are not aware of how the law applies to the situation under discussion. A number of responses amount to admissions that those posting would be willing to commit a felony crime to protect a pet or to retaliate against/punish the person who had injured a pet. It's easy to appreciate the emotion involved in this topic, but emotion doesn't change how the law reads.

I'm going to close this thread because nothing further is to be gained by allowing more posters to fall into the same trap.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12218 seconds with 9 queries