laws about defending your dog

[BlayGlock]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

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.

Orly? That does indeed suck.

[BlayGlock]

27
§ 8340.2. Civil immunity for use of force.
28
(a) General rule.--An actor who uses force:
29
(1) in self-protection as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 505
30
(relating to use of force in self-protection);
20110HB0040PN1038
- 12 -

1
(2) in the protection of other persons as provided in 18
2
Pa.C.S. § 506 (relating to use of force for the protection of
3
other persons);
4
(3) for the protection of property as provided in 18
5
Pa.C.S. § 507 (relating to use of force for the protection of
6
property);
7
(4) in law enforcement as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 508
8
(relating to use of force in law enforcement); or
9
(5) consistent with the actor's special responsibility
10
for care, discipline or safety of others as provided in 18
11
Pa.C.S. § 509 (relating to use of force by persons with
12
special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of
13
others)
14
is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil
15
liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which
16
were caused by the acts or omissions of the actor as a result of
17
the use of force.
18
(b) Attorney fees and costs.--If the actor who satisfies the
19
requirements of subsection (a) prevails in a civil action
20
initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the actor,
21
the court shall award reasonable expenses to the actor.
22
Reasonable expenses shall include, but not be limited to,
23
attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation
24
for loss of income.
25
(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
26
"perpetrator" shall mean a person against whom an actor is
27
justified in using force as provided by 18 Pa.C.S. § 505, 506,


That is text from HB40 which just passed the house. The way I read that is that although they may actually take you to court for civil liability, if you win they have to pay all associated court fees? It does not actually prevent such a case from being brought in the first case?

Also there is another one of these bills that passed the PA state senate but I have not read it.

[Aguila Blanca]

I had to reformat that before I could read it:

(1) in self-protection as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 505 30 (relating to use of force in self-protection);

(2) in the protection of other persons as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 506 (relating to use of force for the protection of other persons);

(3) for the protection of property as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 507 (relating to use of force for the protection of property);

(4) in law enforcement as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 508 (relating to use of force in law enforcement); or

(5) consistent with the actor's special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 509 (relating to use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others) is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which were caused by the acts or omissions of the actor as a result of the use of force.

(b) Attorney fees and costs.--If the actor who satisfies the requirements of subsection (a) prevails in a civil action initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the actor, the court shall award reasonable expenses to the actor. Reasonable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation for loss of income.

(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "perpetrator" shall mean a person against whom an actor is justified in using force as provided by 18 Pa.C.S. § 505, 506,

Thanks for posting that. I wasn't aware this was being considered this year, let alone having been passed. As you note, this won't protect you from being sued, but it does protect you from liability if you prove your case.

But ... it's a lousy law in two ways. First, if you have already been tested by the criminal system, and possibly even been before a grand jury, to determine that you should not be charged criminally, why should the perp (or his heirs) be allowed to drag you into court again with a civil suit? The law in other states blocks such suits entirely, which is the way it should be.

Secondly, this law says that if you prevail, the other party will pay for your costs. Those costs may be several to many thousands of dollars, probably in the tens of thousands of dollars. It is unlikely that a career criminal or his family will have that kind of money, so this is a law that has no teeth. Saying the perp will pay your costs won't make it happen, so you can (and will) be out-of-pocket the cost of your defense in a civil suit. A "real" civil immunity law is designed to make this unnecessary. In Florida, for example, a perp simply cannot sue you ... period ... if it has been ruled a "good shoot." That's the way it SHOULD be.

Moreover, reading this law closely, it makes me wonder if it applies to a shooting. It seems more like this law applies to cases in which a perpetrator is injured while in custody and sues, alleging that his injuries were caused by the use of excessive force while he was in custody. Do you have the legislative history and discussion on this law? Are you sure it applies the way you think it does, to self-defense shootings?

[45Gunner]

This thread offers some thought and reflection as to how to handle a situation that I had given no previous thought to. As mentioned, we in Florida have the Castle Doctrine. With that being said, I reason it as follows:

1. Some maniac is in my house wielding a knife.

2. My dog is being threatened. For some of you, a dog is a dog is a dog. For others, like myself, my beloved dog is part of the family.

3. I am defending a family member. I have to assume that if I have to do it, there was not a LEO to oversee the situation. Therefore, I am either alone with the dog or possibly my wife is at home with me. She feels the same about the dog as I do.

4. My statement: "He was coming at me with the knife. I defended myself." No body living at my house is going to refute my statement.

[BlayGlock]

Sorry about the formatting, I am typing and posting from an iPhone. I took that text straight from the PA website:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...H&type=B&bn=40

I do not have the legislative history, however, reading the definitions at the first of the bill it does appear to be applicable to self defense shooting. I am not a lawyer however. I agree that you should have civil immunity period, and thank you for your insights.

I have seen certain organizations selling insurance in the case that you need to defend yourself with a firearm that they will defend you. I need to look up the details, moving to PA it may be a very good thing to have considering the poor civil immunity protections offered by this bill,

[bikerbill]

If somebody breaks into my house and pulls a knife, he's toast, dog or no dog ... the dog isn't the issue, the knife is ... he's brandishing a deadly weapon after breaking into your house ... adios ...

[Rifleman1776]

IMHO, the dog is not even part of the equation. An intruder who pulls a knife on you is legitimate grounds for self-defense. Shoot him.
I am in Arkansas also and know the laws are not clear cut in matters like this. Sadly. The scenario that would follow depends on the attitude of the law enforcement officer, Sheriff or Chief, prosecutor and judge.
I was once arrested for killing a dog that killed three of my valuable, registered purebred cattle. In court the judge dismissed charges saying I had a right to defend my property. A bleeding heart judge could have put me in prison for a year.

[Vt.birdhunter]

This past week 3 armed intruders broke into a guys home 20 minutes from me and shot his dog with a .22. He returned fire with a shotgun killing one, wounding one.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/...in-east-islip/

Once inside the home, the suspect armed with a .22 caliber rifle shot the family’s pit bull. A man who lives in the home, grabbed a shotgun and returned fire, police said.

Last I heard, no charges filed against homeowner/tenant.

We have no Castle Doctrine here, all our bad-guys have lawyers. We can not use deadly force unless a threat to our safety is perceived.
Someone injurers/kills your dog, hes a threat.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Well I'll see it this way, if he has the audacity to pull a knife in an attempt to stab your dog to death..what makes you think you're not next on his list. Mean while he's already on your S list..for entering your house, trying to rob you, and now trying to kill your dog and probablu you? I'm not on the dogs side here I'm on mine, and a good humans life. If he's willing to do that...I'd say, "justifiable homicide in an act of self defense". Because wouldn't you fear for your own life if he's in your home, forced entry stabbing your dog? Come on now.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Bored now. He's in your house waving a knife. What if he is using the knife to stab your turtle and get your gold fish out of the tank?

The beloved dog is irrelevant. You could act in most states against an obviously armed intruder. Nice that you loved your dog. But that's not the point.

PS - just thinking about it - if the shoot was in anyway ambiguous - mentioning you shot him for Fido or Fluffy could be counter productive.

I love what if's. Say he is the lost neighborhood visitor, old, drunk, kid - whatever who wandered into your house or yard. Fierce Fluffy chomps on him. Carrying a knife - as many do - the lost person starts to defend himself.

You blast him. Then, the DA says that did you identify him or challenge? You say: NO, he was killin' my DAWG!! I luv that DAWG!

Or are you better saying: I saw an armed intruder and I was in fear of my life and that of my family.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

I love what if's. Say he is the lost neighborhood visitor, old, drunk, kid - whatever who wandered into your house or yard. Fierce Fluffy chomps on him. Carrying a knife - as many do - the lost person starts to defend himself.

You blast him. Then, the DA says that did you identify him or challenge? You say: NO, he was killin' my DAWG!! I luv that DAWG!

Or are you better saying: I saw an armed intruder and I was in fear of my life and that of my family.

Mah mama taught us to always tell the truth.

"But Occifer, I HAD to shoot him. He was a-hurtin' FLUFFY!"

[hermannr]

Someone breaking in to your house, knife or not, is enough reason to point your firearm at him (I did not say pull the trigger, just cover him) If the intruder's reaction to being covered is to flee, let him go. If he will drop, hold him for police. If the covered intruder responds with something that would make you think he was going to be a continued danger to you (That is he pulls a weapon or advances) (or your dog) you can proceed and eliminate the danger.

In practice, I would bet the kind of intruder that would break in would either flee or drop if he saw a firearm. In which case, hold him if you can until the police can take him away.

[Edward429451]

What if you point your gun at him, he turns to flee but your dog attacks him and is biting him...do you call the dog off or go ahead and shoot him because he is in your home with a knife? Perhaps let the dog cover him while I call my attorney and ask what to do?

Seriously, could the owner be charged for the dog continuing to attack the attempting to flee felon? Dogs will be dogs...

[Theophilus]

Someone breaking in to your house, knife or not, is enough reason to point your firearm at him (I did not say pull the trigger, just cover him) If the intruder's reaction to being covered is to flee, let him go.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was told at the CCW training. (once he's actually inside your house, at least). It was stressed that if the burglar continues to advance on you - even if he's unarmed - it is fair to assume that you are in danger - because the deadly weapon he has access to is the one your are holding in your hand. If you let him get up close, he has an opportunity to wrestle it away from you.

Seriously, could the owner be charged for the dog continuing to attack the attempting to flee felon? Dogs will be dogs...

Please tell me that I'm not legally responsible if my dog bites his behind on his way our the door. My dog listens very, very well...but a BG running out the house might just be too tempting for her. Besides, I doubt I'd be thinking about controlling an animal when I'm suddenly pointing my gun at an intruder...all my attention would be on his movements alone.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Folks, esp. new members - we do not tolerate excessive blood lust, glorifying shooting someone or stating you will disregard the law.

If one posts such - repeatedly - you will lose membership and posts deleted.

For those responding to such - thank you for corrective comments. But sometimes they get deleted to avoid the first post living on as a parasite. One can report them.

Firearms usage implies not a love of violence or disregard of the law - esp. here.

GEM

[brickeyee]

why should the perp (or his heirs) be allowed to drag you into court again with a civil suit? The law in other states blocks such suits entirely, which is the way it should be.

Most of the laws in other states are the same as this.

If the shooter prevails, the loser pays.

It is VERY hard to have laws prohibiting the filing of lawsuits stand up, almost impossible.

The 'loser pays' is just as effective.

Denying access to the judicial system for a tort is NOT a good idea, and has a LOT of bad repercussions.

[MLeake]

Denying access for a tort is not necessarily a bad thing; depends on how it's done.

As I understand it in FL and GA, for instance, the BG is blocked from filing if the shooting was found to be justified SD. In which case, the BG is eligible for criminal (usually felony) charges for the action which justified the shooting.

I have zero problem with barring criminals from filing suits in cases where their damages were incurred as a direct result of their own criminal activity. Actually, I'm all for it.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by brickeyee

Most of the laws in other states are the same as this.

If the shooter prevails, the loser pays.

It is VERY hard to have laws prohibiting the filing of lawsuits stand up, almost impossible.

The 'loser pays' is just as effective.

Sorry, but "loser pays" is not at all effective. YOU will be the defendant here. You may already have gone through an expensive criminal case before a jury decided that you were legally justified in shooting a bad guy. Now the bad guy (or his family) come back at you with a civil suit, and it may cost you thousands of dollars (which you don't have) to defend yourself all over again. You win, so the court tells the BG (or his family) to pay your bills.

And, of course, they have no assets ... so what good is a law saying that they'll pay if they lose? The reality is that they WON'T pay, regardless of what the law requires.

Look at Florida's law. It's written the way such laws should be written.

[MLeake]

Now, if you really want people to be able to launch such torts, then make a provision: Loser pays, but if loser is unable to pay, the State pays.

Since that won't happen, I prefer laws that ban torts by criminals with regard to the bad results from their crimes.

[brickeyee]

Sorry, but "loser pays" is not at all effective. YOU will be the defendant here.

Loser refers to the prevailing party in the suit.

You might need to review Florida's law.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/.../0776.032.html

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Laws that prohibit the filing of suites are easy to strike down, one of the reasons they are not usually worth the paper they are printed on.

[MLeake]

Brickeyee, we get that part. What you do not seem to get is that the award is a civil judgement against the plaintiff, who probably cannot pay the judgement. That leaves the defendant on the financial hook to his defense attorneys, despite the judgement.

[brickeyee]

Brickeyee, we get that part. What you do not seem to get is that the award is a civil judgement against the plaintiff, who probably cannot pay the judgement. That leaves the defendant on the financial hook to his defense attorneys, despite the judgement.

As I understand it in FL and GA, for instance, the BG is blocked from filing if the shooting was found to be justified SD.

It would seem some do not "get that part.
The law in Florida does NOT prohibit filing except by the state.

No attorney is going to file the suit since they can be sanctioned, and will have no way to get paid.

It works very well and gets around the denial of die process inherent in prohibiting the filing of a suit.