TexasCHLforum.com

sf1058 wrote:You may not be able to shoot a dog if it's attacking you,

mcub wrote:I think every one is over thinking this:
It comes down to would a jury believe you where afraid of serious injury or death.

seamusTX wrote:

nuparadigm wrote:Fear for one's life due to life-threatening behavior is still fear for one's life.

Being in fear of one's life has no legal meaning in Texas.

I fear drunk drivers more than street criminals. That doesn't mean I can shoot one.

- Jim

Texas Penal Code

§ 42.09. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person intentionally or knowingly:

.
.
.

(5) kills, seriously injures, or administers poison to
an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats,
belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's
effective consent;

(9) injures an animal, other than cattle, horses,
sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal
authority or the owner's effective consent;



§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly;
.
.
.

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a
public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section
250.001, Local Government Code;

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct (shooting the dog) is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;( that harm being mauled by the dog)
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm
clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law
proscribing the conduct; (the harm avoided by the law proscribing killing or injuring an animal is reasonably less than the harm caused by YOUR being mailed by the dog) and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear. (it does not appear the legislature wanted to keep people from protecting themselves from dogs attacking them.)