CCW shoots dog- cops say man had the right

[precision_shooter]

I always carry my pistol when out walking with the dog or Wife or both. There are quite a few "pit bulls" in our area and I don't want to take any chances of my Wife, Dog or Me getting attacked by a "pit bull" or any other large dog for that matter. Sure, pepper spray might work, but I'm a lot more familiar with my pistols and if push comes to shove, it's the attacking dog that will meet it's end before I let one of my family member be hurt or killed...

[ClayInTx]

A lady near Houston got killed by dogs when her dog was attacked a couple of years ago.

[Double Naught Spy]

It's somewhat a stretch of faith to believe just where or when the use of "deadly force" can be legally used here in Colorado - plus, interpretation of just what that is and were it can be used is decided mostly by anyone from LEOs to "dog catchers" - rather that by the DA or courts.

Animal control officers in Colorado are law enforcement officers and in many cities are part of the Sheriff's department.

As for what is legal being decided by the officers instead of the DA and courts, it really does work that way in many cases all over the country. It is really no better if the DA does it than the cops, right, as that isn't proper due process. Otherwise, the cops would have to arrest everyone for everyone and then let the courts determine everything all the time.

Think about it. Does the DA or Judge arrest you for breaking the law? Nope. It is a law enforcement officer.

Have you ever seen SWAT Judges? They get all dressed up in their kevlar gowns to serve the warrants they write.

I assume that the DA can request information on the case if they feel it isn't being handled properly and issue a warrant. No doubt they are well aware of the case.

[teeroux]

"Deadly force only applies against persons not property or pets."

Incorrect. A number of states allow the use of deadly force to protect property.
__________________

Sorry
Mabe I should have worded it different what I mean by it is Deadly force can only be lawfuly cited if used against a person not property even if the property is capable of dying. Doesn't matter how many dogs you shoot criminaly or not. You could never be legaly charged with a form of homicide. A specific statute would have to exist against the property in question otherwise all you did was damage a person's property.

I don't know of any place in the US that has murder of a dog on the books but hey some places do have some strange laws.

[Lokpyrite]

How nice of you to walk your wife.

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't know of any place in the US that has murder of a dog on the books but hey some places do have some strange laws.

A rose by any other names....

All but 4 states have significant animal cruelty laws and "murder" would be considered cruelty in many of those states.
http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_laws.php

[Bud Helms]

Originally Posted by Lokpyrite

How nice of you to walk your wife.

... when out walking with the dog or Wife or both.

I assume this is a reading comprehension problem.

[noelf2]

In summary, we really don't know the attacking dog was "vicious"

LOL - Can anyone make sense of the statement above? The dog may have been the sweetest giant canine of all times, but when he was "attacking", he was certainly "vicious", and he was rightfully shot.

[Aguila Blanca]

All but 4 states have significant animal cruelty laws and "murder" would be considered cruelty in many of those states.

The incident under discussion did not involve the "murder" of an animal. The shooter did not encounter a peaceful dog that was bothering nobody and unilaterally decide to shoot it just for laughs. His own dog was viciously attacked by a dog twice the weight, the owner of the attacking dog was incapable of controlling the attacking dog, so he took the action necessary to protect his own dog.

Show me the law from any state that would make that a criminal act.

[leadcounsel]

A very sad situation. I've been on both sides of the equation. I would have been heartbroken if my dog was shot and killed, and it would also be a very hard thing to shoot a neighbors dog, both emotionally and for the future of the neighborhood relations... difficult to repair that and having upset neighbors means you may as well move from the area. You may be a payback.

Logistically, dog fights are lighting fast. I don't know how you would effectively and safely shoot just one of the dogs. You'd have to somehow isolate it and be careful of the backdrop... it would be dangerous and tough.

I agree with the idea of pepperspray and have a Foxlabs sprayer that I will carry on dogwalks.

[Double Naught Spy]

The incident under discussion did not involve the "murder" of an animal. The shooter did not encounter a peaceful dog that was bothering nobody and unilaterally decide to shoot it just for laughs. His own dog was viciously attacked by a dog twice the weight, the owner of the attacking dog was incapable of controlling the attacking dog, so he took the action necessary to protect his own dog.

Show me the law from any state that would make that a criminal act.

Wasn't stating that the incident was murder, but responding to the comment that there are no "dog murder" laws but that some places do have strange laws. Animal cruelty laws are not strange and are the norm in 46 states.

I actually don't have a problem with the greyhound owner's use of lethal force on the attacking/biting/mauling, but normally sweet, kind, and cuddly cutiepie ball of love fluff.

Logistically, dog fights are lighting fast. I don't know how you would effectively and safely shoot just one of the dogs. You'd have to somehow isolate it and be careful of the backdrop... it would be dangerous and tough.

I have had ahold of my dog when it has been attacked twice and I have seen several other attacks and so no longer go to the dog park. In several cases, they aren't lightning fast and they happen almost in your lap when you are holding your own dog or have it leashed. I certainly didn't have any problem trying to handle my own dog or punching the other dog. It is the type of situation where contact shots could be made and the backstop can be the ground. When the prey can't run away or can't return the attack, the fight can slow down quite a bit. Loose dogs fighting can go a million miles an hour, it would seem.

[OJ]

leadcounsel
Senior Member


Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Army, moving often!
Posts: 1,248 I agree with the pepperspray idea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A very sad situation. I've been on both sides of the equation. I would have been heartbroken if my dog was shot and killed, and it would also be a very hard thing to shoot a neighbors dog, both emotionally and for the future of the neighborhood relations... difficult to repair that and having upset neighbors means you may as well move from the area. You may be a payback.

Logistically, dog fights are lighting fast. I don't know how you would effectively and safely shoot just one of the dogs. You'd have to somehow isolate it and be careful of the backdrop... it would be dangerous and tough.

I agree with the idea of pepperspray and have a Foxlabs sprayer that I will carry on dogwalks.

Thanks - we are in nearly total agreement. Dogs are territorial by nature and their idea of where their property line is usually extends beyond where the deed places the property line. Good fences make good neighbors in many ways and, over the more than 2 1/2 decades of raising and showing dogs - they have always been restrained by fences, in home, in auto, and on leash otherwise. That little dog that died attacking my 250# Mastiff wasn't a vicious dog - it was just being a dog (terrier personality like) but I was the loser when he bit me as I was rescuing it.

Owning a dog requires more than feed and shelter - Owners should recognize dogs need obedience training that continues beyond the course - for all the dog's life - and the owner should be held responsible if his/her dog gets out of hand and attacks other dogs or people. It is more appropriate (and easier to prove) to charge owners as "irresponsible owners" for not maintaining control of their dogs rather than labeling a dog as "vicious" and hold that owner responsible in every way.

Over the years of my dog showing in shows with 2000 to 3000 dogs present, I can recall only four instances of dog fights breaking out - and those handlers/dogs were ejected instantly.

I've carried pepper spray over the years and, in the half dozen or more times I used it, it was always effective in changing aggression in involved dogs - with no permanent damage - I confess, it did bring aggressive conversation from the aggressive dogs owners/handlers but, with the pepper spray in my hand, that aggressive people talk was always at a distance from me (out of pepper spray distance) and my suggestions they report me to animal control were evidently ignored..

The stories in the paper lack substance in fact - not uncommon - the attacking dog was called a 140# Bullmastiff but, from the picture, I have more Bullmastiff ancestry than he did. He was nearly all black with a slender pointy nose - Bullmastiffs standard calls for max weight of dogs to be 100#-130# and colors are fawn, brindle, and apricot - looking somewhat like my Mastiffs - with a little more "pug nose". Otherwise, they look like cut down versions of these two -


BRINDLE

FAWN (The one up front)

Bullmastiffs in shows were universally friendly and easily controlled. I'm not a fan of blanket badmouthing breeds but, from the picture and action, my money would be on it being what gets called a "Pit Bull" - a "breed" not recognized by the American Kennel Club (UKC lists the breed) - and are usually some varied mix of terriers and who knows what else.

While some breeds are more aggressive than others, it makes no sense to charge an owner with owning a "vicious dog" - when the charge should be to be against the irresponsible owner for not maintaining control of his/her dog.

Nothing I've said should be interpreted as being critical of the man shooting the attacking dog - I might well have done the same if I hadn't had experience with pepper spray and making such decision isn't one that gives one much time to weigh alternatives.

I just think (based on experience) it could have been achieved with more safety and less controversy using pepper spray - we don't really want to give the anti-gunners any reason to panic when a gun is used for personal defense, IMHO.

[huzzah]

I've never had an experience with a dog of mine being attacked. But here in Mi. a person who has livestock, chickens or anything of this nature has the legal right to kill any dog they find harrasing/worrying said property. When I raised horses the dog warden told me to shoot then call him if I didn't want to dig and he would dispose of it. So it was practice the three S's. Shoot, Shovel, Shut up

[Aguila Blanca]

A bit more than a decade ago I spent some time in Kiev, Ukraine. My host family had a dog -- an Afghan. We walked the dog every morning and every evening. The apartment was in a typical Soviet high-rise apartment building, which was part of a typical Soviet housing block consisting of identical buildings extending in all directions, as far as the eye could see. And it appeared that at least every second family had a dog, and they ALL walked their dogs at the same time.

Nobody used a leash. And no dogs ever attacked any other dogs, or threatened any children (of whom there were many).

I found it surreal. I still can't figure out what it is about either (a) Ukrainian dogs that makes them LESS aggressive/territorial than their American counterparts; or (b) American dogs, that makes them much MORE aggressive/territorial than their Ukrainian counterparts.

Whatever the reason, I no longer accept the simplistic statement that "It's what dogs do."

[OJ]

huzzah
Junior Member


Join Date: July 24, 2008
Location: mi
Posts: 11 I've never had an experience with a dog of mine being attacked. But here in Mi. a person who has livestock, chickens or anything of this nature has the legal right to kill any dog they find harrasing/worrying said property. When I raised horses the dog warden told me to shoot then call him if I didn't want to dig and he would dispose of it. So it was practice the three S's. Shoot, Shovel, Shut up

Colorado has such such law making it legal to shoot dogs harassing livestock also.

I found it surreal. I still can't figure out what it is about either (a) Ukrainian dogs that makes them LESS aggressive/territorial than their American counterparts; or (b) American dogs, that makes them much MORE aggressive/territorial than their Ukrainian counterparts.

Whatever the reason, I no longer accept the simplistic statement that "It's what dogs do."

I sincerely hope nothing I said was interpreted as "It's what dogs do" - aggression varies widely in different breeds of dogs and dogs tend to be "territorial" - defend their property as they see it but, most breeds do so by only barking and the majority of breeds are not physically aggressive - as can be seen by attending a dog show where dogs literally bump shoulders walking around the arena or waiting at the gate to enter the ring that breed is showing in.

Those "gentle giants" I showed were never aggressive and Bullmastiffs have similar personalities - their territorial activities consisted of barking the alarm but were nothing but sweet and friendly to visitors. I think I mentioned having earned more titles in obedience than conformation with them- once even for "high scoring" dog of the breed - won by a dog that seemed more interested in drawing laughs from spectators than winning medals.

Ultimately, any dog's behavior is the responsibility of the owner/handler - who should be - and legally is - responsible for the dog's actions.

My dogs get along well with these guys -





But, felt this one wore out his welcome -



He won't be back - RIP

[Double Naught Spy]

The stories in the paper lack substance in fact - not uncommon - the attacking dog was called a 140# Bullmastiff but, from the picture, I have more Bullmastiff ancestry than he did.

You didn't include a picture of yourself, but you are spot on about the dog in question's breeding.

[Rifleman1776]

I was once put on trial for killing a dog on my farm. It had killed three of my purebred registered cattle, costing me thousands. And it once attacked my seven year old daughter. I had no gun and had to fight it off with a stick.
I had an expert witness who testified that even the gentlest, most tame dog is capable of reverting to feral at any time.
The judge dismissed the case and said I had a right to defend my property. BTW, this is in Arkansas.
Another BTW, I have a friend who had Mastiffs. They were the gentlest dogs I have ever met. But, I know they were originally bred to fight and kill and that capability is still there. It would be frightening to see one of these big animals go on the attack.

[OJ]

Double Naught Spy Quote:
The stories in the paper lack substance in fact - not uncommon - the attacking dog was called a 140# Bullmastiff but, from the picture, I have more Bullmastiff ancestry than he did.

You didn't include a picture of yourself, but you are spot on about the dog in question's breeding.

Yep - thanks - I'm the mixed breed one on the left -

Another BTW, I have a friend who had Mastiffs. They were the gentlest dogs I have ever met. But, I know they were originally bred to fight and kill and that capability is still there. It would be frightening to see one of these big animals go on the attack.

Yep - they have earned the nick-name of "Gentle Giants". Matter of fact, in their past history, they were used to guard estates (and game there) of British nobility - and those nobles gamekeepers became dissatisfied with Mastiffs because they weren't ferocious enough - they would just corner and hold the game poachers - and poaching was a capital crime and the offenders didn't get executed any deader if they also killed the gamekeepers.

The gamekeepers tried to solve that problem by crossing Mastiffs with Bulldogs (much larger dog than today's Bulldogs) trying to produce a breed that would rip a leg off the poacher - or at least have that reputation to discourage poaching/killing gamekeepers.

The cross produced a breed called "Bullmastiffs" - gamekeepers night watchdog - which breed subsequently developed similar gentle and loving characteristics as the parent Mastiffs.


"Could this conversation wait until half-time?"

Obviously a killer - except in football season when he is otherwise occupied.

[Double Naught Spy]

I had an expert witness who testified that even the gentlest, most tame dog is capable of reverting to feral at any time.

Given Rifleman1776's expert and the size of your dog, you could just about be consumed whole at any moment, despite your own bull mastiff lineage.

I don't know that dogs are prone to revert to feral at any time especially given that feral is the conditioned from domestic. That would be akin to going back to the future. Your dog would have to revert to being wild. The apparent spontaneous reversion that they are all capable of apparently doesn't seem to happen with any regularity.

[youngunz4life]

"Could this conversation wait until half-time?"

Obviously a killer - except in football season when he is otherwise occupied.

LOL. That last pix and line had me laughing, and my two yr old pointed out that he is watching TV. *though it also sort of looks like he has got his eye on your hero, sub, or whatever snack you might be munching on if that's the case*

[noelf2]

I believe Rifleman1776 is right on the mark. There's something in all dogs that can just snap, and they do an unimaginable thing. I understand the emotional tie to the animal that would make an owner think that their animal could never be vicious, but I believe that's not realistic. They are domesticated, but they act differently with other animals vs. people. To top it off, they are extremely inbred, which contributes to their potential mental instability.

[tnhawk]

I carry a weapon when I walk my dogs, as there are a few pit bulls in the area. If one charges toward my dog or me, I must assume I am in danger and will take defensive action to end the threat. Several adults and children have been injured and one killed by out of control animals.

[ZeSpectre]

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

In my youth we had the most lovingist, friendliest, Beagle in creation. Then he got a little cranky, then one day he just went completely crazy and we had to put him down. Because the circumstances were so odd the vet did an autopsy and found a thumb-sized tumor in his brain that had obviously made him crazy.

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

[orionengnr]

Fox pepper spray does a better and more instant job of warding off the attacking dog than bullets

Maybe yes, maybe no.
I "bought in" to the pepper spray marketing a few years ago, and started carrying Fox pepper spray every day. I bought a few extras, and talked the wife into carrying it too.
One day she had occasion to use it on an aggresive dog, and let's just say that the results were far less effective than expected.
I still carry it (sometimes) but she will not waste her time with it.

I certainly would not rely on it to the exclusion of other self-defense measures.

[skeeter]

The law may consider my dog property but my dog is considered a family member. I think the owner defending his dog did the right thing, hopely he had the presence of mind to consider the angle of his shot so it would not ricochet and hit a person, that should have been an equal priority. If he could not do that his gun was not in his control. Some people for whatever reason can think very coolly during times of crisis.
The only time I ever got bitten was when I tried to break up a fight between my dog and a neightbors dog. It happened so fast I am not sure who bit me.