laws about defending your dog

[Theophilus]

So, I just took a concealed carry class, and an ex-cop came in to talk with us about the laws covering self defense. He did an excellent job – but, now, after the fact, I have a question that I wish I’d asked him. He told us that if a guy kicks in your door and you find him unplugging your TV, you do not have legal grounds to shoot unless you see a gun, or he runs at you. 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).

[ClayInTx]

I’m not a lawyer and I’m in Texas but I that doesn’t sound kosher about Arkansas.

[WhiskeyTango]

Thats a good question, and i'm glad to see some new CCW permit holders have the sense to ask questions. Unfortunately I don't have an answer, I guess you could check with the local sherrif's office, or call the instructor that gave the class. I would like to think that your dogs life is much more important than some scumbag crook's breaking into your house.

[Wildalaska]

I cant think of any jurisdiction that will allow you to shoot someone who is fleeing and is isnt an immediate threat to you.

I would go so far to say that if you shoot someone over a dog, ya shouldnt own a gun.


WildimhoAlaska ™©2002-2011

[stonewall50]

Well does Arkansas have a Castle Doctrine? The State of Florida does and if someone steps onto my property without my permission and I feel I am in danger I do not have a duty to retreat. I can shoot. I suggest you do research on the Arkansas law regarding actual intrusion into the home. More than likely an entry by force into your home would PROBABLY legalize you to shoot, but I would certainly check that out.

If they pull a knife on your dog? I doubt it would be legal to kill them. But of course it depends on your distance to man with said knife. If he pulls a gun to shoot the dog? I am sure you could kill him. But a knife could be brought to court and it could be stated that he had no intention to come after you(assuming you accidentally allow him to tell his side of the story after you pulled the trigger).

[Don H]

I think you'll find that in most states dogs are considered to be property. If you aren't allowed to use deadly force to prevent the destruction or theft of property in your state, then it seems doubtful that the use of deadly force to protect a dog would be allowed. Most laws that I've read regarding the use of deadly force specify that it may be used for the defense of a "person". You'd probably have a difficult time finding a state that has elevated a dog to the legal status of a "person".

[Theophilus]

My apologies for posting in the wrong forum!
If I remember right, I was told by way of the Tueller drill that if an intruder shows a knife on the other side of the living room (less than 21 ft away), then legally your life is in danger, b/c he can cross that distance in an instant. I do not want to shoot a man for a dog. But dog will probably get between us and engage said man. Things could get unpredictable from there. Just wondered if there is any legal precedent that establishes a guideline for thinking through that situation. As in, does violence to part of your defensive arsenal (the dog) equate to violence to you, or is violence to a dog just a "property crime".
And yes, we DO have the Castle doctrine in Arkansas, but apparently (and this surprised me) we still have to be under immediate threat of serious harm from the intruder before using deadly force. I'm actually OK with that, since I don't want to shoot a guy over my $50 tube TV, or if he's scared less and just trying to get out the back door. (that's my hope in any home invasion anyway; they get scared and get out).

@ Don H. - I just read your reply, about dog = property. Thank you. Makes sense, I guess. Don't know how the old girl's gonna feel when I break the news to her though.
Maybe I'll check with the local authorities about our state's laws sometime.

[HoraceHogsnort]

GEEZE! Even out here in the PRC we have the right to open fire on anybody who forcibly enters our domicile (some exceptions apply). When that happens we are "legally presumed" to be in danger of suffering loss of life or great bodily harm.

[Nitesites]

For a intruder to kill my pooch would be a very hard, if not impossible pill to swallow. Frankly, the little guy is almost like a family member to me. I'm not so sure that I could stand by idly and watch some ill-willed individual invade my home, use violence to harm my dog, and then who knows what.

But I want to look at this again and think about it...

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?

Say this were to happen exactly as imagined. I would argue that I am not protecting my dog but rather myself and only used necessary force. The imaginary intruder pulled a knife and I can only assume his intentions were to harm ME. A knife is a very serious weapon and can quickly inflict massive damage. The "fact" that the dog is present and understandably aggressive towards the intruder is just a minor circumstance. Take the dog out of the equation. A person is in the act of violating your home and when confronted while still inside, brandishes a weapon. Handle accordingly.

Only an opinion.

[kinggabby]

Someone other than me , family member or a friend holding a knife in my home is threat. Pet or no pet . Knife scare me ... I am in fear of my life. nuff said.

[cloud8a]

Not sure about the laws in your state. In Texas they have home and property defense laws a little more in favor of the home owner than the burglar.
What about police dogs????
Are there cases where a police dog was in the line of duty and in danger of being killed by the BG and an officer opened fire?
Some people spend alot of money and love on their beloved furry best friend.

I would not swallow that pill if the law allowed for me to protect my 80 pound Blue Doberman Minko from death in my home by a BG. He stays inside, sleeps near the kids, takes his place last in line, and is infinitely patient while they lead him around the house. He also alerts me when he thinks something outside doesn't sound right or if a stranger is around. He is a loving member of my family. Even more so that my wife was the one who talked me into a Doberman because she in love with that breed. I was very reluctant at first because of my aunts doberman Shadow that we were not allowed to be around when I was a kid. Now that Minko is in my life I see the love and pure devotion the breed offers.

People take their pets very seriously and consider them family. This is easy to see in the heart break people feel when they lose one.

I'm gonna hold my tongue here on other purposely incendiary statements that go so far to say.

[Kreyzhorse]

Say this were to happen exactly as imagined. I would argue that I am not protecting my dog but rather myself and only used necessary force.

Once a knife is produced I'm assuming that my life is in danger and will act accordingly. You are not shooting to protect the dog, you are shooting to protect yourself.

As far as using deadly force to protect your dog? No, domestic pets are more or less live stock in the eyes of the law. But again, if someone is in your home, and presents a knife, I would feel my life is in danger.

[brickeyee]

Dogs are property, despite how we feel about them.

Police dogs are given additional protection by law to make harming them MORE than a simple property issue.

If they are harming your dog in your house you should probably feel your life is in danger.

[WhiskeyTango]

Wild Alaska, so I should not own a gun because I would gladly defend my property(my dog) or a member of my family (my dog). My dog works for a living, goes hunting with me, protects my house while I'm away, and provides a friend to my daughter. If some scum bag thief breaks into my house and threatens my dog first, you bet your ass I'm going to shoot him. Your completely missing the point here, and that is that there is an intruder in your home, whom is capable of doing harm to you and your loved ones. After he's done with the dog who do you think he's coming after? He just witnessed you watch as he killed your dog, now he's going to call your bluff and come after you. Your going to have to shoot him anyway, I'd rather keep my dog.
I would go as far to say that anyone not willing to take a life in defense of their loved ones and home shouldn't own a gun.

[cloud8a]

Wild Alaska sells guns to people who would shoot an intruder that was killing their dog.

[ronto]

If someone kicks in your door and pulls a knife on your dog, it would be reasonable to think that you would be next. It would also be reasonable to think that someone who kicks in your door is not there to tuck you in and read you a bedtime story.
Arkansas does have a "Castle Doctrine" that not only applys to your house, but to anywhere on your property.

[earlthegoat2]

Use no force to protect your dog and just try to get the dog from them. They will either leave at this time or resist.

If they resist, then you have your grounds.

[Hook686]

Wildalaska wrote:

I cant think of any jurisdiction that will allow you to shoot someone who is fleeing and is isnt an immediate threat to you.

I would go so far to say that if you shoot someone over a dog, ya shouldnt own a gun....

To add confusion to this issue ... my dog is a level three service dog, working to become level 4. I use him for vision, hearing and mobility assistance. This is what he is trained for. I figure his value to be about $30,000. While I would most likely survive without the dog, it would definitly lead to serious injury (doctors reason for recommending a service dog).

Does that change the outcome ? I know in California one cannot shoot if a dog is being threatened. A dog after all is property and covered the same as you TV, even if worth a heck of a lot more. However, if destruction of the service dog will result in serious injury, does that change the scenario ?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by wildeyedalaska

I would go so far to say that if you shoot someone over a dog, ya shouldnt own a gun.

Agreed -- regardless of how much we love them dogs are property under the law.

However, if a perp is inside my house and has a knife drawn, it's reasonable to think that after he has stabbed my dog he's going to come at me, so I'd shoot. But ... the presence of the knife changes the situation. That's not a would-be robber running out the back door when I walk in the front door -- that's an active threat.

[Don H]

The OP contains two separate issues that may be in conflict with the title and confusing the issue:

#1 - An intruder forcibly breaks into a home while the occupant is home;

#2 - A person is attempting to kill my dog and what can I do about it?

There are specific legal remedies for #1 and specific legal remedies for #2. The remedies will likely not be congruent.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Theophilus

If I remember right, I was told by way of the Tueller drill that if an intruder shows a knife on the other side of the living room (less than 21 ft away), then legally your life is in danger, b/c he can cross that distance in an instant.

You may remember correctly that this is what you were told, but that is NOT what the Tueller drill was all about. There is no way the Tueller drill makes a legal, magic 21-foot free fire zone surrounding you. And the Tueller drill certainly said nothing about "intruders."

First, the Tueller drill was for uniformed police officers.

Second, while it was intended to demonstrate that an assailant within 21 feet could be a threat, it did NOT teach that opening fire was the correct (or legal) thing to do. An alternate response, for example, might be to step back a couple of paces to increase the distance -- or to draw your weapon and hold it at low ready to reduce your reaction time IF the assailant charges you.

ALL the Tueller drill was intended to do was to show that an armed adversary within 21-feet could be a threat. Do not try to make anything more out of it, except at your (legal) peril.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Hook686

To add confusion to this issue ... my dog is a level three service dog, working to become level 4. I use him for vision, hearing and mobility assistance. This is what he is trained for. I figure his value to be about $30,000. While I would most likely survive without the dog, it would definitly lead to serious injury (doctors reason for recommending a service dog).

Does that change the outcome ?

Nope. Your $30,000 dog is still "property."

[Silver Bullet]

Once a knife is produced I'm assuming that my life is in danger and will act accordingly. You are not shooting to protect the dog, you are shooting to protect yourself.

This reflects my feelings on the matter. How do I know what the intention of the intruder is ?

[maestro pistolero]

Low-ready my rear-end. If there's an intruder in my house with a knife, the best he can hope for is that I only point the gun at his head. What happens from that point forward will be driven by how well he follows directions.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Low-ready my rear-end. If there's an intruder in my house with a knife, the best he can hope for is that I only point the gun at his head. What happens from that point forward will be driven by how well he follows directions.

I was addressing a significant misunderstanding of the Tueller drill, not what to do when you find an armed intruder inside your home. In any state with any sort of castle doctrine law, an armed intruder inside your home is considered a threat and you are justified to use lethal force to defend yourself.

But that's because of castle doctrine law, NOT because of anything arising out of the Tueller drill -- which had nothing at all to do with us "civilians," or with intruders per se.