CHL holder shoots dog

[mcneyens]

Just took the class on Sunday. Way I interpreted the instructor was that if the dog is attacking you you aren't covered by that code section. Because the dog was attacking his property (dog) that's what made it justified. I'm new here and I'm sure there have been plenty of stories, but I thought making that distinction could be helpful.

[newlife12176]

I've often wondered about this dog-shooting issue. A LOT of dogs will make a "charge," fangs bared, ears back, the whole nine yards, and then stop short. They're just being territorial. But what are you supposed to do, wait until he tears a chunk out of you (or your dog) and THEN shoot him?

In one place where we lived several years ago, we used to walk our dog around the area. It was a nice place for a walk, an outlying development near a lake, houses 200-300 feet apart, etc. One guy down the road was constantly leaving his doberman on his front porch, unrestrained. Any time anybody walked past that doberman would come CHARGING out like he was going to tear you apart, stopping only a couple of feet away. Once the owner was in the yard and I yelled at him, "if your dog does that again, he won't come back." He cussed at me and I ignored him, and the dog was kept in the back yard after that. But still, I wondered what the repercussions would be if I had just pulled out my gun and blown the animal's head off.

Taken directly from the code I posted.....

(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:


The key word is about to attack. You would be justified based on that statute if you shot a dog that was charging your dog. Now I agree, not all dogs that charge actually attack. However, there is a very fine line between charging and attacking and it might be tough to make that call. I would be very shocked if someone were found in criminal legal trouble for shooting a charging dog. As a side note, the 2 dogs that attacked me didn't even make a sound! One second one was just looking at me, next thing I knew he was charging and snapping at my legs. I had to hit him with my catch pole. I made the mistake of taking my eyes off him for a split second and he capitalized on it. The second attack was the pit bull that appeared out of nowhere and grabbed my hand to tear it off! Yikes! Wish I was not on shift that day and was armed. There would be one less trashy pit bull walking the earth.

[newlife12176]

Just took the class on Sunday. Way I interpreted the instructor was that if the dog is attacking you you aren't covered by that code section. Because the dog was attacking his property (dog) that's what made it justified. I'm new here and I'm sure there have been plenty of stories, but I thought making that distinction could be helpful.

You are correct. You would not be justified under that code if the dog was attacking you. Because that code only deals with livestock and domestic animals and fowls. However you would be justified in shooting a dog that was attacking you. How else are you going to defend yourself and stop the attack? Run?

I don't know what legal code to quote on that one. Id have to look it up.

[kg5ie]

Just took the class on Sunday. Way I interpreted the instructor was that if the dog is attacking you you aren't covered by that code section. Because the dog was attacking his property (dog) that's what made it justified. I'm new here and I'm sure there have been plenty of stories, but I thought making that distinction could be helpful.

If the dog is attacking you ...you are not covered by that statute.

[Javier730]

Just took the class on Sunday. Way I interpreted the instructor was that if the dog is attacking you you aren't covered by that code section. Because the dog was attacking his property (dog) that's what made it justified. I'm new here and I'm sure there have been plenty of stories, but I thought making that distinction could be helpful.

If the dog is attacking you ...you are not covered by that statute.

Well in that case the someone can say the dog was attacking his property (his pants) and be covered by that statute...

[kg5ie]

Just took the class on Sunday. Way I interpreted the instructor was that if the dog is attacking you you aren't covered by that code section. Because the dog was attacking his property (dog) that's what made it justified. I'm new here and I'm sure there have been plenty of stories, but I thought making that distinction could be helpful.

If the dog is attacking you ...you are not covered by that statute.

Well in that case the someone can say the dog was attacking his property (his pants) and be covered by that statute...

PC9.22 would likely cover you if you claimed "necessity"....that you reasonably thought it was a necessity to shoot the dog to avoid imminent harm. But a dog is not listed as a dangerous animal. Now if you are attacked by a hyena, jackal, or baboon...you are covered.

[Javier730]

Just took the class on Sunday. Way I interpreted the instructor was that if the dog is attacking you you aren't covered by that code section. Because the dog was attacking his property (dog) that's what made it justified. I'm new here and I'm sure there have been plenty of stories, but I thought making that distinction could be helpful.

If the dog is attacking you ...you are not covered by that statute.

Well in that case the someone can say the dog was attacking his property (his pants) and be covered by that statute...

PC9.22 would likely cover you if you claimed "necessity"....that you reasonably thought it was a necessity to shoot the dog to avoid imminent harm. But a dog is not listed as a dangerous animal. Now if you are attacked by a hyena, jackal, or baboon...you are covered.

My pants comment was a bit of a joke. Dangerous animal or not and covered or not, I'm not letting a dog tear me up. I'll take my chances in court.

[pushpullpete]

Thanks for sharing. It always saddens me when this happens. It's usually the fault of the owner.

I do not know who (not me) said it first but, I remember hearing years ago that "there are no bad dogs, only bad owners". We own big boys, the small one (11yrs) is 88lbs, the other (16 mos) just broke 100. My wife carries pepper gel when she walks them (always on leash) and has used it. She says it works quite well, I prefer my 40. We love animals but, I have in the past had to shoot dogs (wild & locally owned) and coyotes that were after the cattle. Necessary evil that must be done. The hardest part was the collars that were on the locally owned dogs. Bad owners.
Ignorance & stupidity really should be very painful.

[pushpullpete]

Dangerous animal or not and covered or not, I'm not letting a dog tear me up. I'll take my chances in court.[/quote]

Javier730 I'm too old to run & besides in the wild, prey runs. I refuse to be prey.

[Nortex]

Last summer I was mowing the yard at the house we were renting. The neighbor has a pitbull and a german shepard that always go nuts when I mow by his fence. Well, this day was different in that said dogs were coming over the fence at me and I pepper sprayed them both. That stopped them but if they had got over the fence I would have shot them. Later I talked to the neighbor about and he was on that river in Egypt. He said they would not bite me and not to worry about it, I said that I was NOT going to get bit, and he went back home. Nothing else ever happened because shortly after we bought a house and moved.

Pepper spray is not always effective depending on how you use it but it was here. The last Con I sprayed at work was still able to hit me in the face before he succumbed.

[Javier730]

Pepper spray is not always effective depending on how you use it but it was here. The last Con I sprayed at work was still able to hit me in the face before he succumbed.

Even your pistol may not always be effective, but against an attacking dog, it will do better. If I'm being attacked, I want the my defense tools chance of being effective as high as possible.

If they made some non lethal deterrent that was more effective at stopping attacking dogs than a pistol, I'd carry that while jogging every morning instead of my. 40.

That being said, its a good thing you had your pepper spray that day. It probably saved you from being punched any more.

[Nortex]

That being said, its a good thing you had your pepper spray that day. It probably saved you from being punched any more.

I agree. You wouldn't believe how many strong guys we have working there. It's real easy to get sucker punched or worse by a con. That incident was my fault in that I violated number one rule: Don't be too close when you spray.



Edit: Sorry for the profanity, but what I meant was officers who think they are really tough, when in reality they are not at all, and are old and worn out much like me. :)

[mojohn]

" number one rule: Don't be too close when you spray."

My experience is that everyone in the room's getting a big 'ol whiff of spray. Good times!

[Nortex]

" number one rule: Don't be too close when you spray."

My experience is that everyone in the room's getting a big 'ol whiff of spray. Good times!

I was the segregation officer for quite a while and I had to spray several cons while there. Usually because they were saying they were going to hang them self. This one was wrapping his pants around his neck and throwing the other end over a fixture on the wall when I gassed him. Of course the spray goes all over in a closed area, and when the supervisor came over and was doing the use of force interview with the con, every other syllable was a cough and a gasp! It may have been amusing, I think. ;)