laws about defending your dog - Page 2

HotShot.444 · April 10, 2011, 10:44 PM

the effects upon YOU, if you kill dog (a), prob. nada. Dog (b), you pay replacement cost as set by a judge. Dog (c), you mighty get shot in
response, because "the dog is a sworn officer of the law in pursuit of its duty". It happens.

Steve Fogleman · April 12, 2011, 04:29 PM

You generally cannot use deadly force to protect objects or animals but if your dog is near you then defend yourself legally.

MLeake · April 12, 2011, 04:40 PM

Shoot the intruder, defending my dog? Of course not. I'd shoot him while defending against a guy who seems to be trying to remove the last barrier (the dog) between himself and me and my lady.

Of course, if the dog ended up not getting knifed as a result of my defense against the intruder, so much the better.

And since I train to shoot to stop, the sooner the BG dropped the knife, the higher his survival odds would be. (As would the dog's.)

Although I can't say I disagree with WA's statement as far as the law goes, I can't say I agree with it as far as morality goes. Morally, child molesters and people who torture dogs deserve the same plane in hell, IMO.

highvel · April 12, 2011, 05:08 PM

I was thinking "what would Walker do?" Shoot the knife outta the guy's hand with a quick draw, hip shot, from his 1911?

I do not think shooting a person over a dog is good idea, and will land you in deep doo doo; shooting an intruder in your home is, under most every circumstance, within your rights.

kinggabby · April 12, 2011, 05:11 PM

I think we need to take the dog out of the equation . If there is a intruder with a weapon then take em out .

**Aguila Blanca** · April 12, 2011, 08:32 PM

We can't fairly take the dog out of the equation, because the entire question of this thread is about the dog.

Quote:

In my house, by the time I get out there, he’ll probably have my dog hanging off his forearm. He can’t very well run at me with a dog on his arm, but what if he pulls a knife? Do I have to watch him kill my dog to get free before I can assume that my own life is at risk? Can I use deadly force to protect my dog inside my own house? I realize states can vary (I’m in Arkansas), but I’d like to figure this one out as part of my mental preparedness (and because I like my dog).

We can have another discussion about an intruder in a house that doesn't have a dog, but that's for a separate discussion. This one IS about the dog.

kinggabby · April 12, 2011, 08:36 PM

ok you got me there can i throw in a cat ?

Theophilus · April 12, 2011, 08:57 PM

OK so let me get this straight - many of you do think that in the event of an intruder flashing a knife, we are within legal (and moral) bounds to fire upon them - even if they are getting attacked by the family dog?
Because it is still a simple "intruder with a weapon" issue, and the presence of the dog does not legally change that.....would you agree?

**Aguila Blanca** · April 13, 2011, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophilus

OK so let me get this straight - many of you do think that in the event of an intruder flashing a knife, we are within legal (and moral) bounds to fire upon them - even if they are getting attacked by the family dog?
Because it is still a simple "intruder with a weapon" issue, and the presence of the dog does not legally change that.....would you agree?

I agree -- legal to shoot an armed intruder. The dog does not change that.

Point: The dog may be hanging off the intruder's arm, but you do NOT know if the dog or the intruder will prevail. The intruder is an active, armed threat.

Point: Suppose you don't have a dog. Suppose your wife is standing beside you, and you are both armed with handguns. Would you propose that you should NOT shoot because your wife can take care of it?

My arguments in this discussion have been more oriented toward the original post. The question that was asked is if it's legal to shoot to protect the dog. My answer to the original question remains "No." A dog is property. Unless you live in Texas, you cannot legally use lethal force to protect property. To protect yourself against an active threat inside your own home? Yes.

Edward429451 · April 13, 2011, 12:43 AM

What it amounts to I think is that even if in your heart you do protect your dog...you certainly do not speak of it as such. If an intruder is battling with your dog, if he wins it is reasonable to assume he would continue to be violent with the humans who are present so you do what you have to do without regard to the dog, but the humans. Officially speaking at least.

Glenn E. Meyer · April 13, 2011, 02:44 PM

A long time ago - before I was a mod, I posted about a scenario where someone was setting fire to dogs. Happened in TX - some nut was tying poor dogs to fence posts and torching then. So I asked would you shoot and was it justified. It had some controversy.

The trick in it that was that setting anything on fire was arson and that might be a legit shoot. Capt. Charlie shut it down, IIRC.

Lavid2002 · April 13, 2011, 02:46 PM

If someone's in my house stabbing my dog, there getting shot.

Your over thinking this

BlueTrain · April 13, 2011, 03:23 PM

There are a surprising number of threads here about dogs; either defending yourself from dogs (feral or otherwise), using dogs to defend yourself and now, defending the dog.

Eagle Eye · April 13, 2011, 10:56 PM

I agree with many. Intruder in my house with knife....heck with the dog -- he does not count. Just shoot straight so you don't hurt your dog.

Cops come...forget the dog. Intruder was after you. Dog just got in on the action....who cares?

Oh yeah....shoot the intruder good and make sure it sticks. That way only you and the dog are witnesses and the dog ain't talkin'.

armoredman · April 13, 2011, 11:41 PM

Quote:

OK so let me get this straight - many of you do think that in the event of an intruder flashing a knife, we are within legal (and moral) bounds to fire upon them - even if they are getting attacked by the family dog?
Because it is still a simple "intruder with a weapon" issue, and the presence of the dog does not legally change that.....would you agree?

Yes, and in AZ, an intruder in my home is likely guilty of Burglary in the 1st or 2nd degree, being Armed Burglary or Burglary of an occupied structure, both of which are under the justifiable statute. Also we have Castle Doctrine, and a clarifying bill almost all the may through that spells it out in so many words -anyone in the home illegally is presumed to be a deadly threat. So, yes, what you are saying is perfectly correct, even if you didn't MEAN it that way.

Here is the left's version of what you should do in face of a knife carrier in your home...

BlayGlock · April 14, 2011, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lavid2002

If someone's in my house stabbing my dog, there getting shot.

Your over thinking this

Agreed,until I leave Texas anyway. In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property. My dog is property therefore I can protect my dog. I'm moving to PA soon and they do not have Castle Doctrine (yet). The real answer is, it depends on your state. Check your AR Law. I have called the Ark Attorney Generals office before to answer a firearms law question. They were very helpful.

Nitesites · April 14, 2011, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Because it is still a simple "intruder with a weapon" issue, and the presence of the dog does not legally change that.....would you agree?

Assault with a deadly weapon?

**Aguila Blanca** · April 14, 2011, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlayGlock

I'm moving to PA soon and they do not have Castle Doctrine (yet).

Moving from Texas, you will have to adjust your mindset. Many other states do have castle doctrine laws. In fact, PA probably does, as well. But Texas is the only state that allows the use of deadly force to protect property. A castle doctrine law is not about property, it is about protecting yourself (and other people) within your home.

Unfortunately, new laws that relate to being allowed to defend yourself OUTSIDE of the home without first having to try to flee are often referred to, both by the media and by us, as "castle doctrine" laws. They are NOT castle doctrine laws. They are "no duty to retreat" laws, and should be regarded and referred to as such to avoid this type of confusion.

PA will probably expand it's self defense laws to remove the duty to retreat when outside of the home, but it is extremely unlikely that they'll ever get to allowing the use of lethal force to protect property. That doesn't mean their law isn't a castle doctrine law, and it won't mean that a new "no duty to retreat" law is defective.

LordTio3 · April 14, 2011, 07:51 AM

In Indiana, the home-defense laws are quite friendly to the home-owner. If a criminal breaks into your home, they are legally assumed to have entered in order to do violence to the occupants of the property. So here, if you come upon someone that has broken into your home, you automatically have reasonable and articulable fear of the threat of death or serious bodily harm merely by his very presence in your home. I wouldn't shoot someone to protect my television, but I sure would threaten and subsequently follow through in order to protect my dog (who cost me about 10% as much as the TV). Price and Value are very different things.

Now, if this takes place somewhere else like my driveway or a public park, then that is an entirely different situation. But in my home, after he has illegally broken in, if the man attacks, charges, or does anything except follow my every instruction including leaving my dog alone under threat of fire, then I will fire. I'm a man of my word that cares far too much about the occupants of my home than the safety of the criminal breaking in to do damage to my family.

~LT

BlueTrain · April 14, 2011, 07:54 AM

First rule of home defense: do not lie on floor.

Glenn E. Meyer · April 14, 2011, 10:21 AM

What about if you are taking a prone position with your megablaster?

Also watch the blood lust folks. Disdain for any human life is nice to chest pound about on some forums but not our style. I'm going to delete some of that.

Also, the defense of property in Texas is a touch more complicated. However, a person in your house with a knife isn't complicated. That's the important variable.

About the legal BS later - ok, it's nice to chest pound. However, the thousands of dollars needed for legal costs and the possible consequences of a bad shoot aren't BS.

Glenn

BlayGlock · April 14, 2011, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

PA will probably expand it's self defense laws to remove the duty to retreat when outside of the home, but it is extremely unlikely that they'll ever get to allowing the use of lethal force to protect property. That doesn't mean their law isn't a castle doctrine law, and it won't mean that a new "no duty to retreat" law is defective.

I gave been following this with interest. They seem to have a lot of momentum with removing the duty to retreat clause. From what I can tell, they really do have a castle doctrine in the strict sense of the term. I am actually in PA atm house hunting. Tomorrow I am going by the Sherrif's office and hopefully pick up a law booklet along with my CHL application. I will report back with meaningful findings.

Even when I get to PA, my mindset will not be "adjusted". I would never shoot someone over a TV or even an automobile. I will shoot a man in my house if he has a knife, attacking my dog or not, unless he is running away or surrendering and going prone on the floor spread-eagle.

BlayGlock · April 14, 2011, 08:58 PM

http://mobile.pennlive.com/advpenn/p...tguid=9u2Mif4p

Actually here you go. According to the article they have standard castle doctrine for your home with no duty to retreat, however they are expanding it to include work, car ect. I am unsure about civil suite immunity.

**Aguila Blanca** · April 14, 2011, 09:31 PM

The current PA proposal does NOT provide for immunity from civil suit in the event of a self-defense shooting that is deemed "good." It's a major flaw in the proposed law, and I have not been able to get people to understand that allowing the law to be passed this way is actually a BAD THING, because legislators don't like to go back the next year and change what they just passed. So taking the "incremental" approach of saying "Well, this year we'll get the no-duty-to-retreat and NEXT year we'll get civil immunity" is only being foolish. It won't happen.

kilimanjaro · April 15, 2011, 12:28 AM

He's in your house with a knife, that's all that matters. You defend yourself and your family. That's what you go to the inquest with, not the dog.

April 10, 2011, 10:44 PM	#26
HotShot.444 Junior member Join Date: September 21, 2010 Posts: 112	(a)"Mutt", (b)$30000 property, or (c) "LEO" dog, compare the effects upon YOU, if you kill dog (a), prob. nada. Dog (b), you pay replacement cost as set by a judge. Dog (c), you mighty get shot in response, because "the dog is a sworn officer of the law in pursuit of its duty". It happens.

April 12, 2011, 04:29 PM	#27
Steve Fogleman Junior Member Join Date: February 22, 2010 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 8	Defend yourself legally while your dog is near you You generally cannot use deadly force to protect objects or animals but if your dog is near you then defend yourself legally.

April 12, 2011, 05:08 PM	#29
highvel Senior Member Join Date: January 21, 2010 Location: Powhatan VA Posts: 633	I was thinking "what would Walker do?" Shoot the knife outta the guy's hand with a quick draw, hip shot, from his 1911? I do not think shooting a person over a dog is good idea, and will land you in deep doo doo; shooting an intruder in your home is, under most every circumstance, within your rights. __________________ Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.--Mark Twain "I have opinions of my own 'strong opinions' but I don't always agree with them."--George Bush

April 13, 2011, 02:44 PM	#36
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	A long time ago - before I was a mod, I posted about a scenario where someone was setting fire to dogs. Happened in TX - some nut was tying poor dogs to fence posts and torching then. So I asked would you shoot and was it justified. It had some controversy. The trick in it that was that setting anything on fire was arson and that might be a legit shoot. Capt. Charlie shut it down, IIRC. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

April 13, 2011, 02:46 PM	#37
Lavid2002 Senior Member Join Date: April 6, 2007 Posts: 2,568	If someone's in my house stabbing my dog, there getting shot. Your over thinking this __________________ Math>Grammar

April 12, 2011, 04:40 PM	#28
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Shoot the intruder, defending my dog? Of course not. I'd shoot him while defending against a guy who seems to be trying to remove the last barrier (the dog) between himself and me and my lady. Of course, if the dog ended up not getting knifed as a result of my defense against the intruder, so much the better. And since I train to shoot to stop, the sooner the BG dropped the knife, the higher his survival odds would be. (As would the dog's.) Although I can't say I disagree with WA's statement as far as the law goes, I can't say I agree with it as far as morality goes. Morally, child molesters and people who torture dogs deserve the same plane in hell, IMO.

April 12, 2011, 05:11 PM	#30
kinggabby Senior Member Join Date: March 22, 2011 Location: OKC Posts: 502	I think we need to take the dog out of the equation . If there is a intruder with a weapon then take em out .

April 12, 2011, 08:36 PM	#32
kinggabby Senior Member Join Date: March 22, 2011 Location: OKC Posts: 502	ok you got me there can i throw in a cat ?

April 12, 2011, 08:57 PM	#33
Theophilus Member Join Date: February 11, 2011 Location: Ozarks Posts: 92	OK so let me get this straight - many of you do think that in the event of an intruder flashing a knife, we are within legal (and moral) bounds to fire upon them - even if they are getting attacked by the family dog? Because it is still a simple "intruder with a weapon" issue, and the presence of the dog does not legally change that.....would you agree?

April 13, 2011, 12:43 AM	#35
Edward429451 Junior member Join Date: November 12, 2000 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado Posts: 9,494	What it amounts to I think is that even if in your heart you do protect your dog...you certainly do not speak of it as such. If an intruder is battling with your dog, if he wins it is reasonable to assume he would continue to be violent with the humans who are present so you do what you have to do without regard to the dog, but the humans. Officially speaking at least.

April 13, 2011, 03:23 PM	#38
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	There are a surprising number of threads here about dogs; either defending yourself from dogs (feral or otherwise), using dogs to defend yourself and now, defending the dog. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

April 13, 2011, 10:56 PM	#39
Eagle Eye Senior Member Join Date: March 10, 2011 Location: Kansas Posts: 178	I agree with many. Intruder in my house with knife....heck with the dog -- he does not count. Just shoot straight so you don't hurt your dog. Cops come...forget the dog. Intruder was after you. Dog just got in on the action....who cares? Oh yeah....shoot the intruder good and make sure it sticks. That way only you and the dog are witnesses and the dog ain't talkin'.

April 14, 2011, 07:51 AM	#44
LordTio3 Senior Member Join Date: March 5, 2010 Location: Bloomington, Indiana Posts: 850	In Indiana, the home-defense laws are quite friendly to the home-owner. If a criminal breaks into your home, they are legally assumed to have entered in order to do violence to the occupants of the property. So here, if you come upon someone that has broken into your home, you automatically have reasonable and articulable fear of the threat of death or serious bodily harm merely by his very presence in your home. I wouldn't shoot someone to protect my television, but I sure would threaten and subsequently follow through in order to protect my dog (who cost me about 10% as much as the TV). Price and Value are very different things. Now, if this takes place somewhere else like my driveway or a public park, then that is an entirely different situation. But in my home, after he has illegally broken in, if the man attacks, charges, or does anything except follow my every instruction including leaving my dog alone under threat of fire, then I will fire. I'm a man of my word that cares far too much about the occupants of my home than the safety of the criminal breaking in to do damage to my family. ~LT __________________ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ- Greek:"Come and take them..." Meaning: Here we peaceably stand as armed and free men, willing to defend that peace, and ready to make war upon anyone who threatens that freedom.

April 14, 2011, 07:54 AM	#45
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	First rule of home defense: do not lie on floor. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

April 14, 2011, 10:21 AM	#46
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	What about if you are taking a prone position with your megablaster? Also watch the blood lust folks. Disdain for any human life is nice to chest pound about on some forums but not our style. I'm going to delete some of that. Also, the defense of property in Texas is a touch more complicated. However, a person in your house with a knife isn't complicated. That's the important variable. About the legal BS later - ok, it's nice to chest pound. However, the thousands of dollars needed for legal costs and the possible consequences of a bad shoot aren't BS. Glenn __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

April 14, 2011, 08:58 PM	#48
BlayGlock Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 243	http://mobile.pennlive.com/advpenn/p...tguid=9u2Mif4p Actually here you go. According to the article they have standard castle doctrine for your home with no duty to retreat, however they are expanding it to include work, car ect. I am unsure about civil suite immunity. __________________ (Space for Rent.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txeGZoBW7vY The Double Glock TM.

April 14, 2011, 09:31 PM	#49
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,468	The current PA proposal does NOT provide for immunity from civil suit in the event of a self-defense shooting that is deemed "good." It's a major flaw in the proposed law, and I have not been able to get people to understand that allowing the law to be passed this way is actually a BAD THING, because legislators don't like to go back the next year and change what they just passed. So taking the "incremental" approach of saying "Well, this year we'll get the no-duty-to-retreat and NEXT year we'll get civil immunity" is only being foolish. It won't happen.

April 15, 2011, 12:28 AM	#50
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	He's in your house with a knife, that's all that matters. You defend yourself and your family. That's what you go to the inquest with, not the dog.