CHL use in self defense against a dog?

[RiderDean]

Kinda crazy question but a buddy's wife was walking their dog recently when two rotweilers charged her and the dog and forced her dog to the ground and held it there. If it tried to get up they did it again. This went on long enough for her to call animal control and for them to arrive. What if they attacked her and she was a CHL? Do our same rights extend to protect ourselves? This one did not come up in my CHL course.

[AtkRWC]

If a Rot attacked me or my family I would not really question it....Dog goes, its self protection. I'll deal with the legal later. My wife is missing a finger due to a big dog biting her, they can do some serious damage.

[texanjoker]

If a Rot attacked me or my family I would not really question it....Dog goes, its self protection. I'll deal with the legal later. My wife is missing a finger due to a big dog biting her, they can do some serious damage.

[RottenApple]

If a Rot attacked me or my family I would not really question it....Dog goes, its self protection. I'll deal with the legal later. My wife is missing a finger due to a big dog biting her, they can do some serious damage.

[RJGold]

This actually came up in our CHL course. Our instructor said he would shoot to stop the threat if he felt threatened. He also said that extended to protecting his own dog if his dog were attacked.

He said he had heard of this actually happening and based on hearsay, the individual was cited for discharging a firearm in the city limits but no other crimes. He didn't know (or hadn't heard) how it finally ended up (charge dropped, convicted, etc.).

FWIW...

[CainA]

Isn't there a leash law?

With regards to the story above it sounds like the owner of the dog should have been cited.

[RottenApple]

This actually came up in our CHL course. Our instructor said he would shoot to stop the threat if he felt threatened. He also said that extended to protecting his own dog if his dog were attacked.

While many of us treat our pets as beloved members of our family, legally they are property just like your car, house, etc. As I'm sure you know, you absolutely may shoot to defend property (depending on the circumstances, of course).

He said he had heard of this actually happening and based on hearsay, the individual was cited for discharging a firearm in the city limits but no other crimes. He didn't know (or hadn't heard) how it finally ended up (charge dropped, convicted, etc.).

Assuming I did everything right, my attorney would have a field day with trying a case like that.

[RX8er]

Would this not be covered under 9.42?

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[Jumping Frog]

Can't look it up and cite from on my phone, but there also a Texas law that explicitly states a dog or coyote can be killed for going after your animals/livestock. A pet dog qualifies as something you can protect.

As far as discharging within city limits, the statute on NECESSITY applies as your affirmative defense.

[RJGold]

Re: The Leash Law question, I don't know. I wasn't told where it happened.



Re: The Protection of Property question, I agree. I think Paragraph 3 (a) and 3 (b) would cover it.



Re: The Lawyer having a field day with the discharge in the city limits charge, I agree. Like I said, this was hearsay (and now it's double hearsay) so I don't know what really happened.



The solid truth is I believe it's covered under the property protection section as mentioned above.

[RottenApple]

Re: The Lawyer having a field day with the discharge in the city limits charge, I agree. Like I said, this was hearsay (and now it's double hearsay) so I don't know what really happened.

Oh, I wasn't being critical. Just making a statement. My apologies if I came across otherwise.

[RJGold]

Not at all. I didn't take it for anything except the way it was intended.

It being hearsay probably makes it less than useful on the forum but it did lead to some good discussion in our class and I figured it would here as well.

[JJVP]

Gov. Perry had no problems when he dispatched a coyote that treatened his dog.

[RottenApple]

Gov. Perry had no problems when he dispatched a coyote that treatened his dog.

I like Perry's stance on 2A issues. That's one man (among several) that I'd like to sit down & have a beer with.

[RJGold]