Gonna be gunfire in our cul-de-sac.

[Keith B]

I think the next time they show up, the problem may be solved permanently.

I wouldn't call it premeditated, I would call it being prepared.

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.

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...

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?'

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.

[VMI77]

I think the next time they show up, the problem may be solved permanently.

I wouldn't call it premeditated, I would call it being prepared.

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.

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...

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?'

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.

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.

[RoyGBiv]

Thanks VMI77.. You are correct.

Sorry to have drug this so far off topic..
I'd like to let this part of the discussion end, in respect for the OP's thread.

And I'll reiterate... I hope the situation gets resolved without any further issues.
I would be steaming mad too, if an angry, poorly-owned dog threatened my peaceful corner of the world.

[smoothoperator]

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.

[VoiceofReason]

I think the next time they show up, the problem may be solved permanently.

I wouldn't call it premeditated, I would call it being prepared.

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.

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...

OK, let’s play that game.

Read my original post again. Nowhere in that post did I say I was going to shoot those dogs. I speculated that someone might shoot them. My position would be “I didn’t shoot them and I didn’t see who did”. I would imagine you would not find anyone in our neighborhood that saw anything regardless of who did what. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t even call to report anything if someone did take care of the problem.

Equating the shooting of a dog that shredded two pet cats and threatened my neighbors wife with an annoying neighbor just doesn’t get it. Any lawyer that tried to draw that analogy to a jury should probably seriously consider a career change.

[C-dub]

A little different scenario, but a NASCAR driver Jeremy Mayfield was just ordered by a judge to pay a $1M settlement to a postal carrier who was attacked by his dogs. He lives a mile off the road and has No Trespassing and Beware of Dogs signs http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nascar-fr ... 36842.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for the OP's neighbor being premeditated, it is no more premeditated than a CHL having a gun in case someone shows up and decides to attack them. I wouldn't call it premeditated, I would call it being prepared.

Interesting story, Keith. Unfortunately, Mayfield seems to have other problems. However, the story does point out the problem people face when they just want to be left alone. Guess he should have had a gated and locked fence to keep out any interlopers. The letter carrier should have left a notice in his box to pick up the package at the post office. I believe she made a serious mistake when she ignored the "no trespassing" and "Beware of Dogs" signs. Apparently that didn't mitigate his liability, however.

The signs won't make a bit of difference and possibly made things worse by his acknowledgment that he had dangerous dogs. I think the postal carrier had the right to drive up to his house, but should not have gotten out of the truck once she saw the dogs. I also think it's a real shame the dogs were put down. She was on their property and it is difficult to teach a dog when a person is okay or not okay.

[C-dub]

American Staffordshire Terriers (the proper name for pit bulls I think)

You are correct. In the dog world, Pits are known to be the poorly bred AmStaff or AST. Well bred AST's are actually very nice and loyal very trainable dogs.

[jmra]

As far as I'm concerned, if you know for a fact that these dogs have killed pets and posed a threat to people they should be shot on sight. I won't go so far as to say that the whole breed should be eliminated but every single one that has shown unwarranted aggression should be put down immediately. When the safety of children is at stake I place no value whatsoever on the well being of a dog.

[sjfcontrol]

A little different scenario, but a NASCAR driver Jeremy Mayfield was just ordered by a judge to pay a $1M settlement to a postal carrier who was attacked by his dogs. He lives a mile off the road and has No Trespassing and Beware of Dogs signs http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nascar-fr ... 36842.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for the OP's neighbor being premeditated, it is no more premeditated than a CHL having a gun in case someone shows up and decides to attack them. I wouldn't call it premeditated, I would call it being prepared.

Interesting story, Keith. Unfortunately, Mayfield seems to have other problems. However, the story does point out the problem people face when they just want to be left alone. Guess he should have had a gated and locked fence to keep out any interlopers. The letter carrier should have left a notice in his box to pick up the package at the post office. I believe she made a serious mistake when she ignored the "no trespassing" and "Beware of Dogs" signs. Apparently that didn't mitigate his liability, however.

The signs won't make a bit of difference and possibly made things worse by his acknowledgment that he had dangerous dogs. I think the postal carrier had the right to drive up to his house, but should not have gotten out of the truck once she saw the dogs. I also think it's a real shame the dogs were put down. She was on their property and it is difficult to teach a dog when a person is okay or not okay.

If a 30.06 sign counts, and a gun-buster sign counts for non-CHL carry, and no trespassing signs (and purple paint, of all things) count, why wouldn't a "beware" sign count? Seems to me she had effective notice and ignored it.

[C-dub]

A little different scenario, but a NASCAR driver Jeremy Mayfield was just ordered by a judge to pay a $1M settlement to a postal carrier who was attacked by his dogs. He lives a mile off the road and has No Trespassing and Beware of Dogs signs http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nascar-fr ... 36842.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for the OP's neighbor being premeditated, it is no more premeditated than a CHL having a gun in case someone shows up and decides to attack them. I wouldn't call it premeditated, I would call it being prepared.

Interesting story, Keith. Unfortunately, Mayfield seems to have other problems. However, the story does point out the problem people face when they just want to be left alone. Guess he should have had a gated and locked fence to keep out any interlopers. The letter carrier should have left a notice in his box to pick up the package at the post office. I believe she made a serious mistake when she ignored the "no trespassing" and "Beware of Dogs" signs. Apparently that didn't mitigate his liability, however.

The signs won't make a bit of difference and possibly made things worse by his acknowledgment that he had dangerous dogs. I think the postal carrier had the right to drive up to his house, but should not have gotten out of the truck once she saw the dogs. I also think it's a real shame the dogs were put down. She was on their property and it is difficult to teach a dog when a person is okay or not okay.

If a 30.06 sign counts, and a gun-buster sign counts for non-CHL carry, and no trespassing signs (and purple paint, of all things) count, why wouldn't a "beware" sign count? Seems to me she had effective notice and ignored it.

I've known of instances where a lawyer used it against the dog owner saying that they knew they had dangerous dogs. I guess it could be somewhat analogous to putting up a sign that says "trespassers will be shot." My guess is that it wouldn't go very well for someone that shot someone else, especially if their property were not fenced or gated, which this guy's property apparently was not.

[VMI77]

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.

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).

[South Texas RGV]

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.

[Wienerdogtroy]

You know these are dogs, not people, and I will state that if a dog poses a lethal threat to me or my family I will stop the threat by whatever means I have. That is not premeditation, it is a promise. I love dogs I really really do and it would break my heart to have to kill one because the owners did not keep it put away or train it well, but I would not have my children put in mortal peril. American Staffordshire Terriers (the proper name for pit bulls I think) have incredible bite strength and can be exceedingly territorial. When not trained properly they can be very dangerous dogs.

The only time I've drawn was when walking the dogs with the wife. Some loser had two pits off the leash and they came running up.

[mamabearCali]

You know these are dogs, not people, and I will state that if a dog poses a lethal threat to me or my family I will stop the threat by whatever means I have. That is not premeditation, it is a promise. I love dogs I really really do and it would break my heart to have to kill one because the owners did not keep it put away or train it well, but I would not have my children put in mortal peril. American Staffordshire Terriers (the proper name for pit bulls I think) have incredible bite strength and can be exceedingly territorial. When not trained properly they can be very dangerous dogs.

The only time I've drawn was when walking the dogs with the wife. Some loser had two pits off the leash and they came running up.

I had a similar situation happen. I did not draw, but I had my kids behind me pepper spray ready to go in left hand, right hand at the ready. I carry pepper spray to give me options....hopefully.

[VMI77]

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.

This all boils down to a third party, not WITNESS to an attack, may only detain or impound.....