TexasCHLforum.com

§ 822.013. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS. (a) A
dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently
attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:

Since humans are not livestock, domestic animals, or fowl, are you legally required to be attacked, about to be attacked, or recently been attacked?

seamusTX wrote: In the first place, if you get to the courtroom in a felony trial, your life is already messed up. You'll have spent upwards of $20,000 by that time.

I agree, but not nearly as messed up as having a child killed or mauled. How do you put a price on that?

The fact that the dog is a pitt bull, is a big circumstance. They were bred to fight, they look threatening when they are sleeping. When was the last week you did not hear a story about a pitt bull attack? I don't believe it would be hard for a lawyer to convince jurors (those without prejudices either way) that pitt bulls are powerful dogs, who are aggressive by nature (tons of pitt bull attack stories), and that the defendant felt it necessary to defend theirself.

As a "reasonable person" and potential juror, I think it would be much easier to prove a "defence of necessity" for shooting a pitt bull, than it would for say, a beagle. A lawyer would have a hard time finding 12 people who believe pitt bulls are not dangerous animals. Google "Pitt Bull Attack", search for pitt bulls on this forum and read the responses, listen to the radio, or watch the evening news. Start asking your family and friends their opinions. My personal, anecdotal experience has shown that the large majority of people fear them and think they are dangerous animals. They have been banned by communities all over the country.

They are hard wired to be aggressive. It is in their genes, even the "sweet" ones.

If I have to choose between the hastle of a trial, and having my children attacked by a pitt bull, I'll pick the trial every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

02transam wrote: the sad thing is now pits get more negative rep for this. my mom has a female pit and i honestly dont think there is a mean bone in its body. i also think it may be mildly retarded but all the pits ive ever encountered were very loving and playful(not in any sort of aggressive way)

Its too bad a few THOUSAND bad apples spoil the whole barrel.

tallmike wrote:If I were this guy I would probably have done the same things he did, except for putting the uniform on (and hopefully the missing part too). The uniform was the only part where I think he went off course.

Once he chose to put on the uniform he stopped doing what he was doing as a concerned father and he became an animal control officer. Concerned fathers can cuss out irresponsible dog owners, the dog catcher can not.

I wouldn't have put the uniform on either.

Uniform or not, the dog owner deserved some harsh words for letting her pitt bull run loose in a residential neighborhood. Mr. McAvin may be an animal control officer, but he is also a father. His 5 year old, or him, could have been seriously injured. My only criticism of Mr. McAvin is that he did not use a shotgun.