TexasCHLforum.com

I asked a Harris County Deputy yesterday if I'm walking or cycling on the street and a dog attacks me, would it be legal for me to shoot it in self defense if I thought it absolutely necessary?

His answer was all over the place with nothing really definitive or completely understandable.

So, does anyone here KNOW, when, where or if it's legal?

P.S. One of the answers he gave was it wouldn't be O.K. to shoot some poor tiny dog. Well, of course not and I wouldn't if it came after me.

I'm speaking of larger dogs in general. They don't have to be Pit Bulls to do you great harm.

It's a gray area. If the dog threatens death or serious injury, you have a necessity defense. You might still be arrested for something like discharging a firearm in the city limits.

Pepper spray would be a better first step.

- Jim

I don't know the exact answer to your question, but .....

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

Also, dogs are property; they are not persons. That has to figure into the answer somewhere.

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

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

It may have no legal meaning, but it has definite meaning for me.

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

Jim is right on. The Texas use of force laws regarding deadly force refer to persons. Both the user of said defense and the person it is used on.

In Texas there could be several charges for shooting a dog;

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;

However, Texas use of force laws also has a clause called Necessity;

§ 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.)

It is clear to me that a large dog attacking you would justify your injuring or killing said dog.


I don't see this as a gray area at all though. Plenty of cops have shot dogs, and the danger of dog attacks is part of LEO training.

txinvestigator wrote: However, Texas use of force laws also has a clause called Necessity;

§ 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.)

It is clear to me that a large dog attacking you would justify your injuring or killing said dog.

I don't see this as a gray area at all though. Plenty of cops have shot dogs, and the danger of dog attacks is part of LEO training.

When I read the section on "Necessity", I can't help but think that being in reasonable fear for one's life is not encompassed in it, especially in section "1", even though that exact phrase does not appear.

Frankie,

Being in fear of one's life is included under necessity, but is not mentioned because it does not have to be that large a harm. This is why that phrase has no real legal meaning in Texas. I can should the dog because I am trying to prevent the minor injury of it biting me.

I can shoot a toy poodle for it if it is attacking (I do not agree with the previous poster that the size makes a difference in the eyes of the law). I really worry more about chihuahuas more than some larger dogs because they have no back-up or let go in them. They also have no common sense and will attack much larger animals, like people, that obviously outmatch it.

To me, the law is clear that a person can shoot a dog that is attacking and officers do it all the time, so a citizen who is not an officer can also do it.

srothstein wrote:Frankie,

Being in fear of one's life is included under necessity, but is not mentioned because it does not have to be that large a harm. This is why that phrase has no real legal meaning in Texas. I can should the dog because I am trying to prevent the minor injury of it biting me.

I can shoot a toy poodle for it if it is attacking (I do not agree with the previous poster that the size makes a difference in the eyes of the law).

I really worry more about chihuahuas more than some larger dogs because they have no back-up or let go in them. They also have no common sense and will attack much larger animals, like people, that obviously outmatch it.

To me, the law is clear that a person can shoot a dog that is attacking and officers do it all the time, so a citizen who is not an officer can also do it.

Having had a Chihuahua in our home for about 8 years (in the past), I can confirm all of the above.

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.

With so many tree hugging, animal rightists in the world, you would probably stand a better chance of getting off if you were to shoot the drunk driver.

When I had a paper route long ago as a yout' the worst dog attack I experienced was a chihuahua. Little heathen was hiding under a chair and latched onto my ankle while the little old lady was handing me the money.

A few weeks later he was outside when I was delivering the sunday edition. His having tasted blood made him even more game. As he ran up to me when I was on my bike I slammed the folded up paper on him like I was an NBA all-star at the slam dunk contest. Last I saw was four legs splayed out from under the paper.

The old lady never said a word. Never saw the dog again.

Yes, I would shoot a dog that attacked me or someone else. I have.

I killed a pit bull in my front yard when we lived in Chamber's County. The neighbor had just bought him that morning. He chased my Lab onto the fron porch. I hustled the wife, kids, and Lab into the house, fetched my trusty 20 ga short barreled pump loaded with 3" #2 buckshot. I stepped off the porch. He was under my utility trailer growling. I took a bead on the spot between his eyes and he launched, literally. I squeezed and took the top of his head off.

The neighbor heard the shot and drove over. He said "You shot my dog." I said "Your dog should have stayed in your yard. He attacked me" as I worked the action of the pump, ejecting the spent shell and ramming another one home.

Never talked to that neighbor again either.

Using a handgun against a dog attack is not my idea of fun. There are multiple ways of halting a dog attack, pepper spray being one. More often than not facing the dog and in a loud, firm, voice commanding it "NO!" will do the trick.

Anygun

Having to go into peoples yards as a telecom repairman i can tell you that pepper spray is an appetizer to a lot of dogs. I have seen all size dogs sneeze then keep on coming. Wasp spray will stop any dog in its tracks but can kill it if used excessively. I dont mean in the customers yard but you might have to enter a half dozen yards to repair a phone line and most people arent home. Worst dog to go against i have seen is a Chow (very smart, doesnt growl but will wait till you are in the middle of the yard) and a dachsund. Dachsunds i have seen will learn the limit of the spray and stay just out of range, waiting....

Thanks for all the great replies and responses to my question.

For the record, I have no desire to hurt or kill any critter, but if I had to protect me or mine I would do soI would feel dreadful.

So far, the smallest dog I've had come after me and come after me with a vengeance too, was a Jack Russel terrier. I sprayed him with pepper spray right in the kisser and stopped him dead in his tracks.

I rode past him day before yesterday and he launched himself out of his yard, but when he saw it was me he stopped and came no closer.

Smart dog.

Generally speaking, I like dogs . . . and - again, generally speaking - most dogs are friendly, or curious at worst. (At least in my suburban neighborhood.)

But some are not.

When I was a kid walking to school, I found that good "medicine" for bad dogs was a squeeze bottle filled with concentrated ammonia (not the weak household stuff, I mean ammonia from a diazo blueprint machine) that I'd added powdered cayenne pepper to. This was before commercial pepper spray was on the market . . .

Today if threatened by a dog, I'd respond appropriately; Itty-bitty little ankle-biting yappy things would get a kick, but if Fido were big enough to do some serious damage by sinking his teeth into my leg or elsewhere - I'd shoot him.

I usually stay away from discussions like this, but most here have made some outstanding comments...

My opinion is that size does not matter...There are two circumstances to my opinion...

One would be the health of the animal (dog, cat, bat, bird etc etc) Rabid animals are a threat, their instincts are more aggressive (easily agitated to react to certain stimuli) and if you can avoid them, that much the better...

Two would be that I believe the owners of some animals (pets) are culpable for the over-aggressiveness of a particular species, above and beyond the natural agressiveness or passivity of that animal...

Example...I own till recently two Dalmatians, the female I had to put down this last Friday...She had a fantastic disposition, I didn't feel children and other factors would make her snap or lose control...The male is a bit different, I do not allow him to be unsupervised with just about anyone, because I know him to have been abused as a puppy, and therefore I do keep him on a short leash...

I know people who own pit bull dogs...Some are horrendously anti-social, and I believe they should be put down...Others I see as being very social, active, and good with people, but I would keep them on a short leash as well, just because of their natural disposition...

As far as having to defend yourself from an animal attack...Well, those who have our capability, should know our limitations, and make sure we do our best to not get into situations like this...Sometimes you can't help it, most understand that aspect...

Just be mindful that the law will bear more on you, and pay more attention to your actions than to an animal at certain times and situations...

This is just my take on it...