sawah said:
I have no respect for a person who is seeking permission to kill a defenseless animal.
Sounds like an anti ranting about killing an unarmed attacking human.
The way I read it, the OP wasn't
wanting to shoot a dog, but asking what the assemblage thought was the proper thing to do, & if any of us had legal references to back our position (
I think 1 person has provided such, & it wasn't you).
so foolish as to expend a round in a high chaos situation where they might harm another.
Which describes any self-defense situation.
Though I don't like being charged by dogs, 99% are 'fake charges'. Only pack attacks are to be feared
Except that they aren't, & single dogs have seriously injured people.
the ramifications if you guess wrong, miss, hit something else, discharge your firearm in the city, are too high to consider using a firearm as a first choice.
Just as with any other self-defense situation, the gun is never a first choice (except maybe against a bear...).
I have to wonder about someone who is PREWARNED there is potential for dog 'attack' by a single dog in the city
That would be any dog, anywhere, any time.
And attack isn't an affectation or thing that people make up. It doesn't belong in quotes, to belittle the concept. Dogs attacking people is a real thing that happens to real people & causes real pain & harm.
Take my advice or wind up in jail for killing someone's pet and wounding a bystander while you swing your firearm around trying to hit a low fast-moving target.
If it's low, & a person is average height, the trajectory will be downward. The bullet might skip but it's not likely, esp. if aiming toward grass. The steeper the angle, the less likely it is to skip.
And as with any other self-defense situation, if the dog is attacking a person the dog is likely to be close & moving closer, possibly already biting the person.
If someone can't control their pet, & that pet harms someone (or is reasonably perceived as being imminently about to do serious harm) then there's no legal reason the victim would be punished, even for discharging a firearm in city limits. (At least in most areas, there are sensible exceptions to that law, including self-defense.)
sawah said:
'shooting someone's dog' despite the law has hazards:
It's no more "despite the law" (vigilante, taking the law into your own hands) than any other self-defense shooting.
Almost all your points could also apply to a human attack.
6. On a bike or on foot, getting to your gun, getting a sight picture, and firing without knocking yourself over (if riding), or shooting yourself in the leg is very tough. It all happens very fast. The best solution is to escape or dismount and put the bike between you and the dog or spraying the dog with water from your drink bottle. On foot, interpose anything, jacket, newspaper, umbrella.
Most of which applies to a human attack.
If you have time to get a water bottle, you have time to get a pistol.
If you can aim a water bottle & hit the dog, you can aim the pistol & hit the dog. No need for using the sights, & in a self-defense situation there probably won't be time or room. Point & shoot.
Escape is good, except when you can't. When the attacker keeps coming retreat doesn't work.
(Seriously, use a newspaper to stop an attacking dog? I imagine that works just as well as on human attackers. Hit them on the nose. Yeah, that'll work real well.)
