In the example I responded too the central issue isn't hearsay, it's vigilantism. The law allows you to stop defend yourself or another person under attack, it's doesn't allow you to administer punishment after the fact.recaffeination wrote:If the child testifies in court hats not hearsay, so why would it be different if the parent acted on the same evidence?
If the neighbor is a registered sex offender that's not hearsay either.
Search found 6 matches
Return to “Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.”
- Wed May 16, 2012 4:54 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.
- Replies: 40
- Views: 3731
Re: Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.
- Wed May 16, 2012 9:56 am
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.
- Replies: 40
- Views: 3731
Re: Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.
No, read my reply to speedsix above. I'm saying the law allows only two parties to kill: 1) a WITNESS to an attack; and 2) the OWNER of an animal attacked (or person acting on his behalf). So, in the analogy given, if he was a witness to the event (and I presume armed, since this is a CHL forum), then presumably he would have killed the dog when he saw it attack. If the dog is alive, then either he wasn't a witness, which means he doesn't have legal consent to kill (unless the owner has empowered him to act on his behalf); or, he was a witness and didn't kill the dog during the attack for some other reason, such as he couldn't get a safe shot off. The way the analogy was framed suggests the hypothetical person in question is a third party who heard about the attack from someone else, not a witness, and not acting on behalf of the owner ---and that is the assumption my reply is based on.bizarrenormality wrote:Are you doubting the OP's story because the neighbor didn't solve the problem right there?VMI77 wrote:Especially in the example you cite as presumably your knowledge of the act is based on hearsay, since if you'd witnessed the assault, you'd have "solved the problem permanently" right then (legally).
- Wed May 16, 2012 9:46 am
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.
- Replies: 40
- Views: 3731
Re: Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.
Read it again....unless you've got some knowledge of the law outside what is posted above it doesn't say that.....it specifies who may kill a dog --there are only two parties granted permission to kill: 1) a witness to an actual attack; 2) the owner of an animal attacked (or a person acting on behalf of the owner). These are the people granted this permission --subsets 1 and 2 of paragraph a). No, it doesn't say third party "may ONLY" because it explicitly states who a dog may be killed by. The "may" paragraph limits what someone NOT described in paragraph a) may do...in other words, someone not described by subsections 1 and 2 of paragraph a) doesn't have to do anything, but "may" detain or impound. Someone who just heard from another party, and is not acting on behalf of the owner, is not granted permission to kill.speedsix wrote:VMI77 wrote:This all boils down to a third party, not WITNESS to an attack, may only detain or impound.....South Texas RGV wrote:Didn't see this mentioned, but the original post brought this to mind:
TEXAS STATUTES AND CODE / HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
Title 10. HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ANIMALS
Chapter 822. REGULATION OF ANIMALS
Subchapter B. DOGS THAT ARE A DANGER TO ANIMALS
Current through the 81st First Called Session
§ 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:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.
(c) A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal control authority. The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all damage done by the dog or coyote.
(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority.
(e) A person is not required to acquire a hunting license under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or coyote under this section.
History. Renumbered from Tex. Health & Safety Code § 822.033 and amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1002, Sec. 1, eff. 9/1/2003.
...nope...doesn't say that at all...(a)(2) is what it says...having knowledge could mean "Joe said"...doesn't have to witness it ...
...(a)(2)(c) is the only reference to detaining or impounding...and that says if a person discovers on a person's property...not MUST but MAY detain...same dog could be shot IF the above applies...and does not say third party...could refer to property owner or someone else caring for the property owner's property...(doesn't say 'person's OWN property')...but doesn't say third party may ONLY...
...the truth shall make you freer
- Tue May 15, 2012 9:29 am
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.
- Replies: 40
- Views: 3731
Re: Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.
This all boils down to a third party, not WITNESS to an attack, may only detain or impound.....South Texas RGV wrote:Didn't see this mentioned, but the original post brought this to mind:
TEXAS STATUTES AND CODE / HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
Title 10. HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ANIMALS
Chapter 822. REGULATION OF ANIMALS
Subchapter B. DOGS THAT ARE A DANGER TO ANIMALS
Current through the 81st First Called Session
§ 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:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.
(c) A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal control authority. The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all damage done by the dog or coyote.
(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority.
(e) A person is not required to acquire a hunting license under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or coyote under this section.
History. Renumbered from Tex. Health & Safety Code § 822.033 and amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1002, Sec. 1, eff. 9/1/2003.
- Mon May 14, 2012 3:06 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.
- Replies: 40
- Views: 3731
Re: Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.
I think you might be surprised with the outcome, should you make such a public comment, since it amounts to saying you'll kill someone based on their past conduct....(an imperfect CHL analogy for that might be shooting someone in the back as they're fleeing the scene of the crime). If you caught a child molester in the act, you probably wouldn't even go to trial, since stopping a sexual assault is a legitimate use of deadly force, but I think if you kill someone who was merely "accused" of molesting a child you'll find yourself in prison. Especially in the example you cite as presumably your knowledge of the act is based on hearsay, since if you'd witnessed the assault, you'd have "solved the problem permanently" right then (legally).smoothoperator wrote:The difference is the dogs are not just annoying neighbors. They already attacked someone else's pet.
A better analogy is a neighbor who sexually molests a child and the cops do nothing, so the parents say they will solve the problem permanently if he comes back. I don't know many people who would convict a parent in that situation, and most would have nothing but contempt for the lawyer putting the "rights" of the child molester over the rights of innocent children to keep their innocence.
- Fri May 11, 2012 10:43 am
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.
- Replies: 40
- Views: 3731
Re: Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.
I don't think he's saying that.....seems to me he's just pointing out that the statement doesn't qualify the conditions under which the dogs will be killed and suggests that at the mere appearance of the dogs they will be killed, even if they don't pose a threat. You may read the statement as being conditional on the dogs posing a threat because you're familiar with the character of the person posting the comment, and reading it in the context of the forum (or taking the position that their mere appearance constitutes a threat), but it doesn't say that, and can be read as intent the kill them unconditionally, and may be so read by someone who doesn't know anything about the poster or the forum.Keith B wrote:If I was a defense attorney, my response to your logic would be 'So you are saying you are going to shoot the next person who walks past your house whether they are a threat or not? You did buy a gun to protect your family in case of a threat, didn't you Mr. RoyGBiv?'RoyGBiv wrote:VoiceofReason wrote:I think the next time they show up, the problem may be solved permanently.I don't want to argue semantics here, but if I was a juror and you came to me with the first statement posted to an internet forum by Mr. Reason, it would give serious weight to the argument that Mr. Reason planned to kill the dogs the next time he saw them, regardless of whether the dogs, at the time of the shooting, posed an immediate threat to anyone.Keith B wrote: I wouldn't call it premeditated, I would call it being prepared.
We here all know that it is very unlikely that Mr. Reason actually intended to infer this, but I could make an easy argument against him if he's gonna give me this as ammunition.
Let me take it one small step further... Let's replace "dog" with "annoying neighbor".
Just changing a noun.... The quote would then become...
"I think the next time that annoying neighbor shows up, the problem may be solved permanently."
If that neighbor showed up, and was subsequently shot and killed by Mr. Reason, what would a jury say about that statement?
Just my read... I understand many would disagree. No problem with that. Peace.
Apologies for the offtopic...
A threat is a threat. Your view apparently is if there are burglaries going on in the neighborhood and you go and buy a gun to protect yourself if you get burglarized and shoot someone, it is premeditated. I don't believe it is.
In this case, there are roaming dogs (or gangs, or whatever) threatening the safety of the neighborhood. He is just making sure he has a means to protect himself and his family (gun, baseball bat, car, pepper spray) in case they are attacked, the same way you are doing that by carrying a gun with your CHL.
