CCW shoots dog- cops say man had the right

[KeeganDC]

post removed

[Double Naught Spy]

I believe Rifleman1776 is right on the mark. There's something in all dogs that can just snap, and they do an unimaginable thing.

This business about dogs just "snapping" or reverting forward to feral "at any time" is just plain nonsense. I don't know as I have looked for this twice now. Maybe you can find the study veternary, biological, forensic (you know there had got to be a lot of lawsuits if this is true), or other type of scientific or documentary paper describing the condition of dogs seemgingly turning into harmful, crazed, dangerous sorts of killing machines for no other reasons than it just happening and it happens light a light bulb going off. You know such a condition would have a catchy acronym like DOG SICK (Dog On Guard Sudden Incident Catastrophic Killer). Every so often there would be some well intentioned episode on shows like The View, Oprah, Dr. Phil, etc. dealing with this devastating issue. No doubt History Channel or Discovery would have some sort of episode on Monster Quest or a show specifically dedicated to this type of event. No doubt the Dog Whisperer would be considered a top expert in the field and show up on all these shows.

No. This sort of thing doesn't just happen at any time.

Anything that can happen to humans (dementia, tumors, etc) can happen to a dog as well.

Sort of, sure. There can be Charlie Whitman dogs, but even Charlie Whitman had issues leading up to his event. Failure to recognize behaviors is not the same thing as such acts of violence happening for no apparent reason.

The owner's proclamation of the aggressive dog not being aggressive seems to be about as valid as any statement we hear on TV from a mother about her child upon learning that child has been arrested for some terribly crime, sometimes even with repeat offenders.

[hogdogs]

OJ, I didn't read every post but I will say that if a dog sees another dog and chooses to attempt to get to it to fight, it is a dangerous dog by definition... even if it is the first offense!

I own several dogs that could, in an instant, become a "dangerous dog". There is an inherent risk since they were chosen as hog catch dogs from a litter whelped by a hog catch dog with a hog catch dog sire...

They have a HIGH PREY DRIVE. I cannot let them loose, unattended, in the presence of small kids. I do not think it is a sure risk but I cannot risk it just the same. Also, I cannot let just anyone walk my catch dogs where they may come into contact with kids or dogs that may make those squeaky noises that trigger the sort of behavior they exhibit when they get to a squealing pig.

Again, it goes back to irresponsible dog ownership to treat them differently than I do.

Brent

[OJ]

hogdogs OJ, I didn't read every post but I will say that if a dog sees another dog and chooses to attempt to get to it to fight, it is a dangerous dog by definition... even if it is the first offense!

I own several dogs that could, in an instant, become a "dangerous dog". There is an inherent risk since they were chosen as hog catch dogs from a litter whelped by a hog catch dog with a hog catch dog sire...

They have a HIGH PREY DRIVE. I cannot let them loose, unattended, in the presence of small kids. I do not think it is a sure risk but I cannot risk it just the same. Also, I cannot let just anyone walk my catch dogs where they may come into contact with kids or dogs that may make those squeaky noises that trigger the sort of behavior they exhibit when they get to a squealing pig.

Again, it goes back to irresponsible dog ownership to treat them differently than I do.

Brent

Actually, you and I are in close to total agreement - my thoughts were wandering but, in the end, the one who should be held responsible is the owner of the dog that attacked and was, in fact, not under control - as the law requires. I think we can assume, she was acquainted with the dog's personality and whether it had aggressive tendencies and, if she took it out in public, she had the responsibility to do whatever was needed to control that dog.

After decades of raising/showing my mastiffs, I am well aware some breeds tend to be more aggressive/territorial - or just poor socializers and, even in breeds like Mastiffs - who usually deserve the nickname of "gentle giants", I've seen a couple I didn't feel I could trust - but extremely rarely.

Our concealed carry permits are issued for the carrier to use lethal force if needed to protect his or other persons lives - and, I think it is fair to assume he was defending his own life - which might well have been threatened with his dog disabled to protect him.

Why then, was it a good idea to pass the "Castle Doctrine" which allows the use of lethal force for defense from persons invading your home ??? - does that mean you can kill them deader???

Carrying it one step further, when that type "Castle Doctrine" was purposed in our legislature to apply to a person's business property and was defeated - does that imply you can use "lethal force" to defend human lives at home, somewhat less elsewhere, and a lot less or even not at all in your place of business??? We seem to have legislators somewhat less than Phi Beta Kappa candidates.

Reading the attacking dog's mind can't be done so we really don't know from that one incident, whether that dog is generally aggressive or just territorial of what it considered its own property and calling it a "dangerous dog" might not be really justified - academic, since it paid the price of its life.

What we do know for certain is that the owner of that dog failed to maintain control of that dog and that is the one, in my mind, that deserves blame and prosecution. Any owner should be aware of their dog's personality - regardless of appearance -

No threat to anyone - except to "Drown'em in drool"





In training but, needs to be watched carefully - and is ALWAYS under close control - not vicious but regards contact with her teeth to be "playing" - she's learning slowly but surely -



And, she is the quickest, strongest (per pound), and most intelligent dog I've ever owned. Humane society claimed "part Mastiff" - I have more Mastiff genes than she but she was irresistible (3 months) - I suspect her original owner found himself in over his head and unable to "keep up" so unloaded her there anonymously one night. Looks like Boxer and thinks like a terrier -so - "Boxterrier"

[youngunz4life]

they just passed or are about to pass a law in FL where you must, as the owner of a dog, get $100,000 insurance on the dog if he will be running loose.

[Micropterus]

Cite a few.

Every state I'm familiar with - Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia - allows an owner of a dog being attacked by another dog to kill the attacking dog to save the dog being attacked.

That may (or may not) be correct but it has nothing to do with whether dogs are considered property. In Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania dogs are, indeed, considered "personal property." They have no greater standing than a coffee table. In the event you negligently damage (injure) someone's dog, they are subject to the same standards as any other personal property. For example, if the owner spends $10,000 on vet bills, but the dog is worth $250, then you only owe $250.

The justification for the shooting is derived from the perceived threat - to self, or property (where legal). The shooting can be justified if the perceived threat criteria are met, whether that threat comes from a human, a dog, or a wild-eyed, marauding coffee table. Whether or not one is prosecuted for the shooting may rest with the sympathies and sensibilities of the one in power to advance that prosecution.

[hogdogs]

they just passed or are about to pass a law in FL where you must, as the owner of a dog, get $100,000 insurance on the dog if he will be running loose.

One more law I will be forced to break!

Brent

[noelf2]

This business about dogs just "snapping" or reverting forward to feral "at any time" is just plain nonsense.

No, it's not, but we'll never be in agreement. I come from a line of dog breeders, way back to the great depression where my Grandfather made a living raising purebred dogs, mostly little foofy dogs like Pekingese and Pomeranians which were popular with folks that had a bit of scratch. My father raised registered German Shepherds (white) and Collies. Just wanted to add that info so you don't think I'm making up what I know to be true. Dogs have been so inbred to achieve desired attributes that they are rife with physical and mental disorders, some unseen until the limp, the seizure, or the "snap". Most people can't trace the bloodline of their dog back more than 1 generation. The previous generations, at some point, were inbred as hell. I've seen the "snap" first hand, several times with different dogs that were trusted. Dogs are loved, I get it. Most dogs will never go berserk, but it shouldn't be a big surprise when they do. Also, if you take people out of the equation, dogs will ALL revert back to pack hunting animals in a quick way, if they aren't eaten by other dogs first.

[Micropterus]

they just passed or are about to pass a law in FL where you must, as the owner of a dog, get $100,000 insurance on the dog if he will be running loose.

One more law I will be forced to break!

Brent

A homeowner's or a renter's insurance policy with at least $100,000 in personal liability coverage will satisfy the requirement. Most people who have one of those policies will have at least that much liability coverage.

Here in Virginia, one of the requirements many courts have imposed upon people who have dogs that are deemed "vicious" and who want to keep the dog is to secure a policy with at least $100,000 in liability coverage. (The ironic part is that once your dog is deemed vicisous, no knowing insurer will insure you.)

[ClayInTx]

In Texas it is legal to kill any animal which is attacking a human, live stock, or a pet. Had a local problem with a dog pack and the sheriff went over the law with me and advised me to wipe out the pack. He assured me that no charge could be filed against me. A deputy had already shown me the applicable law about this.

His main fear was getting a 911 call that they had killed a child at the school bus stop.

As I write this there are two dogs right up the road feeding the buzzards because they chased someone. We pack a gun around here.

We cut no slack for rogue dogs in this part of Texas.

[hogdogs]

A homeowner's or a renter's insurance policy with at least $100,000 in personal liability coverage will satisfy the requirement. Most people who have one of those policies will have at least that much liability coverage.

My family only has state minimum auto insurance 'cuz it is required to have the tag...

I ain't about to buy "dog insurance"...

Brent

[hogdogs]

As for the actual topic... I would put down any dog with any available means anywhere I am at if it comes at my dog. My dogs are only property in a legal sense but I would have to assume I am also at risk of attack so that covers that.

My 5 indoor/outdoor pet dogs are loose in my un fenced rural yard when they are outside. My home is 75 or more yards off the road. All the folks (10 or so total) that might walk by (including with their leashed dogs) are told by me that they have no fear that I will take offense if they defend against my dogs should they be aggressive.

I don't get to out of shape if mine just bark from the lawn but if they step foot on the road I wouldn't care if the person shoots them, kicks them or knocks them in the head with a brick... I do not tolerate aggression towards humans or dogs from my dogs and I sure won't tolerate it aimed at me or anyone I am with.

Brent