Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Silly Question

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Ok this question might seem silly/dumb, but I was wondering something.

    If I was walking thru my neighbor hood walking my dog ($500 pure bred yellow lab) and a stray dog was tostart attacking myslef or my dog what is the law pertaining to protecting myself and my property (dog) against the aggressive animal with my side arm, if there was no other options?

    I have heard of LEO's usingthere side arms to protect themselves from aggressive dogs/animals.

    What is everyones take on this?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    shoot the dog in the face, a lot

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Springfield, Va, , USA
    Posts
    354

    Post imported post

    you cannot use deadly force to protect property (your dog), however if you could articulate that you were in fear for your life or serious bodily harm, then deadly force is usually justified.

    that's my take on it

    happy carrying,


    jason

  4. #4
    Regular Member glockfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    The dog would have to be threatening deadly force wouldn't it? and if you kill it, you may still be sued by its owner.

    I think it's better to carry a dog repellant like a mailman you don't want to kill a dog.

    It's attacking you but could be dearly loved by someone else.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Troy, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    I'd shoot the dog.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    First off, it's not a silly question. A dog attacking your dog could very well attack you, too.

    Secondly, although it's probably the correct answer, it appears various members went off half cocked by not citing any applicable law. If the Commonwealth of Virginia is anything like the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (us commonwealths have to stick together against the other states), there's probably something buried in the agriculture/animal husbandry statutes. Pennsylvania's law on such is as follows:

    3 Pa. C.S. § 501, KILLING DOGS; DOGS AS NUISANCES[/b]

    (a) LEGAL TO KILL CERTAIN DOGS[/b] - Any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing or wounding or killing any domestic animal, wounding or killing other dogs, cats or household pets, or pursuing, wounding or attacking human beings, whether or not such a dog bears the license tag required by the provisions of this act. There shall be no liability on such persons in damages or otherwise for such killing.







  7. #7
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    Most locals in VA have leash laws. If a dog is off its leash and wandering loose, it’s a hazard. If it begins attacking you and it’s not a small dog which you can simply punt away like a Chihuahua, but a pittbull or a Rottweiler, then you can easily make the argument that YOU felt you were in immediate threat of bodily injury and/or death, and in order to stop and control the situation you were forced to shoot the dog to defend your life.

    Then you take out your toss-down, plant it next to the dead dog and tell the responding officers that the dog was reaching. . .and it was kill or be killed!! (ok, that last part was from The Shield, and I don't recommend doing that. . .but watching it was damn funny!)
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when youre serious and when youre being sarcastic. Abraham Lincoln

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran kimbercarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Just to let you know, Hampton does not have a leash law. I was told this by an officer when I called about people who would walk and take their dog with them. They let it run loose and crap in everyone's yard.

    She said they let people think that because it keeps people from letting their dogs run loose.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Virginia law is relatively silent on the matter. A quick search provided the following:

    § 3.1-796.127. Dogs and cats deemed personal property; rights relating thereto.

    All dogs and cats shall be deemed personal property and may be the subject of larceny and malicious or unlawful trespass. Owners, as defined in § 3.1-796.66, may maintain any action for the killing of any such animals, or injury thereto, or unlawful detention or use thereof as in the case of other personal property. The owner of any dog or cat which is injured or killed contrary to the provisions of this chapter by any person shall be entitled to recover the value thereof or the damage done thereto in an appropriate action at law from such person.

    An animal control officer or other officer finding a stolen dog or cat, or a dog or cat held or detained contrary to law, shall have authority to seize and hold such animal pending action before a general district court or other court. If no such action is instituted within seven days, the animal control officer or other officer shall deliver the dog or cat to its owner.

    The presence of a dog or cat on the premises of a person other than its legal owner shall raise no presumption of theft against the owner, and the animal control officer may take such animal in charge and notify its legal owner to remove it. The legal owner of the animal shall pay a reasonable charge as the local governing body by ordinance shall establish for the keep of such animal while in the possession of the animal control officer.

    (1984, c. 492, § 29-213.95; 1987, c. 488; 1988, c. 537; 1998, c. 817.)

    § 18.2-403.1. Offenses involving animals - Class 1 misdemeanors.

    The following unlawful acts and offenses against animals shall constitute and be punished as a Class 1 misdemeanor:

    1. Violation of subsection A of § 3.1-796.122 pertaining to cruelty to animals, except as provided for second or subsequent violations in that section.

    2. Violation of § 3.1-796.69 pertaining to transporting animals under certain conditions.

    3. Making a false claim or receiving money on a false claim under § 3.1-796.118 pertaining to compensation for livestock and poultry killed by dogs.

    4. Violation of § 3.1-796.83:1 pertaining to boarding establishments and groomers as defined in § 3.1-796.68.

    (1984, c. 492; 1992, c. 177; 1993, c. 174; 1996, c. 249; 1999, c. 620.)

    Also read § 3.1-796.122. Cruelty to animals; penalty. regarding the criminal penalty for killing a dog. NO exception for being attacked by the animal.


    Virginia allows for the killing of dogs found to be killing livestock or fowl, but you pet pooch does not fit the definition of "livestock" as contained in the Code of Virginia.

    It seems that unless you sue the owner of the dog who was attacking YOU, you could end up paying the owner of the attacking dog what he can prove was the value of the beast. (And the owner of the attacking dog could counter-sue.) The only other possibility would be to prove that the dog was trained to attack and seek a warrant against the owner for that offense.

    Even if you prove that the dog was a "viscious dog" as defined in the law, all you can do is sue to recover damages.

    Thanks for asking.


    stay safe.

    skidmark


    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    KodiakISGOOD wrote:
    SNIP you cannot use deadly force to protect property (your dog), however if you could articulate that you were in fear for your life or serious bodily harm, then deadly force is usually justified.
    Justrhetorical sorts of questions.

    Would it really be deadly force to shoot the bad dog? If your dog is only property, would not the other dog be, at best, property, too?


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    FightingGlock19 wrote:
    shoot the dog in the face, a lot
    Is that kind of gratuitous comment necessary? Am I just overly squeamish? If I am, let me know. I think this kinda thing reflects bad on us.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Troy, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    I have no problem with the comment. No sense sugar coating what SHOULD be done. Just my .02

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    vmathis12019 wrote:
    I have no problem with the comment. No sense sugar coating what SHOULD be done. Just my .02
    I suspected it might be just me. Thanks.

    Ok, back onto the topic at hand, and apologies for my diversion

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Troy, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    To extend the diversion, and hopefully end it, I would like to add:

    I can see where you're coming from. As a dog owner, and relatively compassionate human being, the idea of any living creature being "shot in the face, a lot" is tough to swallow. Perhaps part of the psychological adjustment to carrying is becoming slightly more callous to this sort of thing? It seems to me that if the dog is threatening me or my property (my dog), I'm going to shoot it in the face, a lot. While I don't think you are being overly squeamish in thinking the comment was too graphic, I DO think that it is necessary for all of us at some point to face the bitter truth of WHY we carry handguns. It ain't because it brings out the color of our eyes. It's a tool for a purpose, and that purpose is sometimes a tough one to swallow.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Midlothian, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    vmathis12019 wrote:
    I have no problem with the comment. No sense sugar coating what SHOULD be done. Just my .02
    I suspected it might be just me. Thanks.

    Ok, back onto the topic at hand, and apologies for my diversion
    I did not like it either, butI chose not to say anything.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    vmathis12019 wrote:
    To extend the diversion, and hopefully end it, I would like to add:

    I can see where you're coming from. As a dog owner, and relatively compassionate human being, the idea of any living creature being "shot in the face, a lot" is tough to swallow. Perhaps part of the psychological adjustment to carrying is becoming slightly more callous to this sort of thing? It seems to me that if the dog is threatening me or my property (my dog), I'm going to shoot it in the face, a lot. While I don't think you are being overly squeamish in thinking the comment was too graphic, I DO think that it is necessary for all of us at some point to face the bitter truth of WHY we carry handguns. It ain't because it brings out the color of our eyes. It's a tool for a purpose, and that purpose is sometimes a tough one to swallow.
    I agree with you. I just thought it was overly-gratuitous, and reflected poorly on people who carry. I think we're all peaceful people who avoid confrontations and talking about shooting things "in the face, a lot" seems unnecessary.

    I'll try not to say too much more because I know that half the people reading this right now are going "SO WHAT?! "

  17. #17
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    "Also read § 3.1-796.122. Cruelty to animals; penalty. regarding the criminal penalty for killing a dog. NO exception for being attacked by the animal."

    My limited knowledge of these matters seems to bear this and the other info out, but dang it, it's just ridiculous that there is no self defense clause. Of course we all know that self defense is case law in VA, but I can see where this statutue really needs to be modified. Is it too late to take this to Richmond this year?
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    If the attacking dog kills your dog it can attack you, can it not?

    Enough justification right there.

    Animals lack logic or reason. A dog charging at you armed with teeth isn't something friendly.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Va, ,
    Posts
    623

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    FightingGlock19 wrote:
    shoot the dog in the face, a lot
    Is that kind of gratuitous comment necessary? Am I just overly squeamish? If I am, let me know. I think this kinda thing reflects bad on us.
    I would have said "shoot the dog in the head as many times as needed to stop the attack". Shooting it in the face may only wound it and make it suffer more until it does die.

    If I only have a knife then I would offer the dog my left arm. While it is busy with the left arm I would gut it with my knife in my right hand.

    Revelation 1911 - And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Va, ,
    Posts
    623

    Post imported post

    glockfan wrote:
    The dog would have to be threatening deadly force wouldn't it? and if you kill it, you may still be sued by its owner.

    I think it's better to carry a dog repellant like a mailman you don't want to kill a dog.

    It's attacking you but could be dearly loved by someone else.
    I used to carry pepper spray and a firearm. I didn't want to have to explain why I had to protect myself with the gun instead of the non lethal peper spray. It is harder to justify shooting someone when you have an alternative.
    Revelation 1911 - And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    paramedic70002 wrote:
    "Also read § 3.1-796.122. Cruelty to animals; penalty. regarding the criminal penalty for killing a dog. NO exception for being attacked by the animal."

    My limited knowledge of these matters seems to bear this and the other info out, but dang it, it's just ridiculous that there is no self defense clause. Of course we all know that self defense is case law in VA, but I can see where this statutue really needs to be modified. Is it too late to take this to Richmond this year?
    I need to qualify my comment about there being no exception -- it was based on the OP's scenario of walking his dog away from his (the OP's) property. There is an exception if the attack takes place on your own property. Off your own property the law is that you commit a misdemeanor if you shoot and wound/kill the attacking dog.
    § 3.1-796.122, Section H. Any person who (i) tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims or mutilates any dog or cat that is a companion animal whether belonging to him or another and (ii) as a direct result causes the death of such dog or cat that is a companion animal, or the euthanasia of such animal on the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian upon determination that such euthanasia was necessary due to the condition of the animal, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property by a dog so as to cause injury or death, the owner of the injured dog or cat may use all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack to protect his dog or cat. Such owner may be presumed to have taken necessary and appropriate action to defend his dog or cat and shall therefore be presumed not to have violated this subsection. [emphasis added] The provisions of this subsection shall not overrule § 3.1-796.93:1 or § 3.1-796.116.

    BTW, we have not even discussed the "discharge of a firearm within xx feet of a dwelling" and "discharge of a firearm within city limits" laws.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran roscoe13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Catlett, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,134

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    paramedic70002 wrote:
    "Also read § 3.1-796.122. Cruelty to animals; penalty. regarding the criminal penalty for killing a dog. NO exception for being attacked by the animal."

    My limited knowledge of these matters seems to bear this and the other info out, but dang it, it's just ridiculous that there is no self defense clause. Of course we all know that self defense is case law in VA, but I can see where this statutue really needs to be modified. Is it too late to take this to Richmond this year?
    I need to qualify my comment about there being no exception -- it was based on the OP's scenario of walking his dog away from his (the OP's) property. There is an exception if the attack takes place on your own property. Off your own property the law is that you commit a misdemeanor if you shoot and wound/kill the attacking dog.
    § 3.1-796.122, Section H. Any person who (i) tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims or mutilates any dog or cat that is a companion animal whether belonging to him or another and (ii) as a direct result causes the death of such dog or cat that is a companion animal, or the euthanasia of such animal on the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian upon determination that such euthanasia was necessary due to the condition of the animal, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property by a dog so as to cause injury or death, the owner of the injured dog or cat may use all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack to protect his dog or cat. Such owner may be presumed to have taken necessary and appropriate action to defend his dog or cat and shall therefore be presumed not to have violated this subsection. [emphasis added] The provisions of this subsection shall not overrule § 3.1-796.93:1 or § 3.1-796.116.

    BTW, we have not even discussed the "discharge of a firearm within xx feet of a dwelling" and "discharge of a firearm within city limits" laws.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    I don't think you would be committing a misdemeanor, as the law specifically says 'unnecessarily". If I'm in fear for my life, then taking action IS necessary.
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Winchester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Legal or not, a stray dogattacking me or my animals will quietly end up in a deep hole.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    roscoe13 wrote:
    I don't think you would be committing a misdemeanor, as the law specifically says 'unnecessarily". If I'm in fear for my life, then taking action IS necessary.
    +1, That's what I was just about to point out.

    "unnecessarily beats, maims, mutilates, or kills any animal, whether belonging to himself or another"

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    roscoe13 wrote:
    skidmark wrote:
    paramedic70002 wrote:
    "Also read § 3.1-796.122. Cruelty to animals; penalty. regarding the criminal penalty for killing a dog. NO exception for being attacked by the animal."

    My limited knowledge of these matters seems to bear this and the other info out, but dang it, it's just ridiculous that there is no self defense clause. Of course we all know that self defense is case law in VA, but I can see where this statutue really needs to be modified. Is it too late to take this to Richmond this year?
    I need to qualify my comment about there being no exception -- it was based on the OP's scenario of walking his dog away from his (the OP's) property. There is an exception if the attack takes place on your own property. Off your own property the law is that you commit a misdemeanor if you shoot and wound/kill the attacking dog.
    § 3.1-796.122, Section H. Any person who (i) tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims or mutilates any dog or cat that is a companion animal whether belonging to him or another and (ii) as a direct result causes the death of such dog or cat that is a companion animal, or the euthanasia of such animal on the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian upon determination that such euthanasia was necessary due to the condition of the animal, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property by a dog so as to cause injury or death, the owner of the injured dog or cat may use all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack to protect his dog or cat. Such owner may be presumed to have taken necessary and appropriate action to defend his dog or cat and shall therefore be presumed not to have violated this subsection. [emphasis added] The provisions of this subsection shall not overrule § 3.1-796.93:1 or § 3.1-796.116.

    BTW, we have not even discussed the "discharge of a firearm within xx feet of a dwelling" and "discharge of a firearm within city limits" laws.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    I don't think you would be committing a misdemeanor, as the law specifically says 'unnecessarily". If I'm in fear for my life, then taking action IS necessary.
    WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE WORDS PRINTED ABOVE!
    If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property
    Now, I'm no big fan of the limitations the law puts on pet owners who find their pets under attack off their own property, but the point is you need to start from where the law starts.

    It's all good to talk about how you feel, and what you want to do in spite of the limitations the law puts on your scenario, but if you are off your property and shoot the attacking mutt you are in for some problems.

    Possibly a good lawyer (an oxymoron if ever there was one) could get the Commonwealth Attorney or judge to dismiss the charge(s), and maybe get the civil case thrown out. But then again, maybe the best lawyer out there would strike out in your case.

    Big talk is just that. You are better off understanding what the law - and case law - says about the situation than blustering about how you will handle things yourself. Some of you folks are the kinds of bad examples you complain all the time about.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •