Question About Legal Use of Firearm:

imported post

T Vance wrote:

malignity wrote:

Likewise, something similar happened to me recently. I don't know how many of you live in Macomb county, but in the last 2 months, there have been 4-5 major pit bull attacks on Warren residents, and/or their animals.

Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but I hate it when people make it sound like pit bulls are a huge problem. Not saying that there aren't pit bulls out there that attack people and animals, but I have been around MANY pit bulls and have only had one problem with one. The rest were so sweet and friendly. If the dog is mean/vicious it usually means the dog was not raised properly.

I have been attacked and biten twice in my life by dogs. Once was by a @#$%zu, and the other was a short haired pointer. I see where you are coming from with a dog hanging out the window damn near at your throat. I'd feel threatened too. Just keep in mind that ANY dog can be vicious. Granted the pit bull is a larger breed, but I don't think they are as big of a problem as most people make them out to be.

I own 2 boxers (they are part of the bully breed so they look similar to pit bulls) and people will often ask "Are those pit bulls? (with a snotty tone)?", we usually respond with "No. They're Boxers, but what if they were pitbulls?"

Click to expand...

The reason I mentioned it, is because according to the paper, statistically speaking, pit bull attacks doubled in the last 2 months in Warren.

imported post

We have problems with feral dogs/coyote around here from time to time. If a dog is attacking your dogs,other people or livestock, there quarry. If there attacking wild game they are Not able to be culled. With that said, if you shot a chihuahua for biting your Labrador, i don't think your chances if winning are very good. I do live in a much more rural area, that may or may not play a factor.


M. C. L. A. 287.321 - 323


http://midnr.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/M...nl_JnBfcHJvZF9sdmwyPX5hbnl_JnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=

imported post

last year i shot and killed the neibors pitbull for attacking my then 6 year old daughter police came out and didnt say a thing about it

imported post

T Vance wrote:

I have been attacked and biten twice in my life by dogs. Once was by a @#$%zu...

Click to expand...

LMAO...it edited a word for me that was intended to be a curse word. I think I spelled it wrong anyway. I meant to say shih tzu.

imported post

T Vance wrote:

malignity wrote:

Likewise, something similar happened to me recently. I don't know how many of you live in Macomb county, but in the last 2 months, there have been 4-5 major pit bull attacks on Warren residents, and/or their animals.

Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but I hate it when people make it sound like pit bulls are a huge problem. Not saying that there aren't pit bulls out there that attack people and animals, but I have been around MANY pit bulls and have only had one problem with one. The rest were so sweet and friendly. If the dog is mean/vicious it usually means the dog was not raised properly.

I have been attacked and biten twice in my life by dogs. Once was by a @#$%zu, and the other was a short haired pointer. I see where you are coming from with a dog hanging out the window damn near at your throat. I'd feel threatened too. Just keep in mind that ANY dog can be vicious. Granted the pit bull is a larger breed, but I don't think they are as big of a problem as most people make them out to be.

I own 2 boxers (they are part of the bully breed so they look similar to pit bulls) and people will often ask "Are those pit bulls? (with a snotty tone)?", we usually respond with "No. They're Boxers, but what if they were pitbulls?"

Click to expand...

To a certain degree I agree with this. I once worked with a vet, and asked her about it. She told me that Pit Bulls were not a "dangerous" breed per se, but it was more a factor of breeding (or inbreeding according to her) and the way people train them. She used the example of Golden Retrievers, who at a height in their popularity were being bread (inbreeding was going on) to the point that it was causing problems. She said that it isn't the breed itself that is viscous.

However, go through the hood, and a large majority of the people there have either Rottweilers, or Pit Bulls. Most of them are trained well enough to not be a problem, but many of them are also trained to defend and protect. That can sometimes result in a dog being vicious. Pair that with the fact that for many years, people breed and raised them specifically to fight, and they get a bad reputation. Sad really, because it isn't anything the dog did, but what the owners did.

imported post

In regards to a pet dog being considered "livestock" under the law, I think that assumption is flawed. One reason is that livestock is quartered on your land... you don't necessarily take livestock for walks around the neighborhood (which is what I have questions about regarding defense). Livestock also entails an animal used for profit... I'd have a hard time convincing a court that my dogs are intended to produce any sort of income. Unless, of course, I opt to breed... which I don't think I will.

imported post

Did someone say something about a deer breaking into my house?......

Oh man that would be cool...

Sillydeer, "Broke into the wrong God damn rec room, didn't you, you bastard!"



uuuuummmmm venison

imported post

dougwg wrote:

Did someone say something about a deer breaking into my house?......

Oh man that would be cool...

Sillydeer, "Broke into the wrong God damn rec room, didn't you, you bastard!"



uuuuummmmm venison

Click to expand...

LOL

Love it.

imported post

Veritas wrote:

In regards to a pet dog being considered "livestock" under the law, I think that assumption is flawed. One reason is that livestock is quartered on your land... you don't necessarily take livestock for walks around the neighborhood (which is what I have questions about regarding defense). Livestock also entails an animal used for profit... I'd have a hard time convincing a court that my dogs are intended to produce any sort of income. Unless, of course, I opt to breed... which I don't think I will.

Click to expand...

Today, the dictionary definition of 'livestock' is sweeping, capturing every type of domesticated animal. For example, Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines 'livestock' as 'animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; esp: farm animals kept for use and profit.' MERRIAMWEBSTER COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 728 (11th ed. 2003). The Oxford English Dictionary is in accord and defines "livestock" as 'animals, esp. on a farm, regarded as an asset.' THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH 797 (9th ed. 1995).5 Even Black's Law Dictionary defines 'livestock' broadly as 'domestic animals and fowls that (1) are kept for profit or pleasure, (2) can normally be confined within boundaries without seriously impairing their utility, and (3) do not normally intrude on others' land in such a way as to harm the land or growing crops.' BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 953 (8th ed. 2004); see also Levine v. Conner, 540 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (analyzing the dictionary definitions of the word 'livestock' and observing that 'the scope of domestic animals used or raised on a farm can potentially extend to guinea pigs, cats, dogs, fish, ants, and bees.').

imported post

Again, I think the theory is flawed.

DOG LAW OF 1919 (EXCERPT)

Act 339 of 1919
287.279

Killing of dog pursuing, worrying, or wounding livestock or poultry, or attacking person; damages for trespass; effect of license tag. Sec. 19. Any person including a law enforcement officer may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, worrying, or wounding any livestock or poultry or attacking persons, and there shall be no liability on such person in damages or otherwise, for such killing. Any dog that enters any field or enclosure which is owned by or leased by a person producing livestock or poultry, outside of a city, unaccompanied by his owner or his owner's agent, shall constitute a trespass, and the owner shall be liable in damages. Except as provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person, other than a law enforcement officer, to kill or injure or attempt to kill or injure any dog which bears a license tag for the current year.

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

That law you are citing deals with trespass of a dog onto land outside of a city. From there, many of the dictionary definitions that you quote (when referring to "livestock") suggest the animals are of a farm; not of a city.

If a violent animal enters your property (such as a dog trying to attack your chickens) that's a different situation than if you encounter a violent animal on public property (such as a dog attacking your dog while going for a walk around the block).

Based on information provided, I'm not ready to accept the notion that my urban, non-profit, pets are considered livestock under the law. Nevermind that there does not appear to be any provision in the law for dealing with the defense of your "livestock" when taking them for walks on public grounds.

imported post

Veritas wrote:

Again, I think the theory is flawed.

DOG LAW OF 1919 (EXCERPT)

Act 339 of 1919
287.279

Killing of dog pursuing, worrying, or wounding livestock or poultry, or attacking person; damages for trespass; effect of license tag. Sec. 19. Any person including a law enforcement officer may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, worrying, or wounding any livestock or poultry or attacking persons, and there shall be no liability on such person in damages or otherwise, for such killing. Any dog that enters any field or enclosure which is owned by or leased by a person producing livestock or poultry, outside of a city, unaccompanied by his owner or his owner's agent, shall constitute a trespass, and the owner shall be liable in damages. Except as provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person, other than a law enforcement officer, to kill or injure or attempt to kill or injure any dog which bears a license tag for the current year.

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

That law you are citing deals with trespass of a dog onto land outside of a city. From there, many of the dictionary definitions that you quote (when referring to "livestock") suggest the animals are of a farm; not of a city.

If a violent animal enters your property (such as a dog trying to attack your chickens) that's a different situation than if you encounter a violent animal on public property (such as a dog attacking your dog while going for a walk around the block).

Based on information provided, I'm not ready to accept the notion that my urban, non-profit, pets are considered livestock under the law. Nevermind that there does not appear to be any provision in the law for dealing with the defense of your "livestock" when taking them for walks on public grounds.

Click to expand...

actually, the "outside the city" bit only refers to the sentence it is contained within, not to the previous sentence regarding liability.

imported post

smellslikemichigan wrote:

actually, the "outside the city" bit only refers to the sentence it is contained within, not to the previous sentence regarding liability.

Click to expand...

Either way, the entire article addresses a dog attacking "poultry, livestock, or people". In the absence of a legal definition of "livestock", we are left to dictionaries to define this. But most dictionaries agree that livestock refers to an animal that is of a farm, not city, nature.

I don't believe a jurisprudential analysis supports the theory that walking a dog on a city sidewalk is akin to livestock. And when dealing with the subject in the context of FIREARMS, it's not a risk I'd care to take. I'd rather be bit by the offending dog while trying to break up the attack and THEN have legal justification to shoot; rather than let me fear of being injured and my misunderstanding of the law cause me to shoot and face criminal charges later.

But that's me... I don't speak for anyone else.

imported post

apparently, the michigan court of appeals agrees with you (i do not):

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...gan&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

charges were dismissed in saint clair county and the decision was reversed by michigan court of appeals. looks like the guy had to forfeit his weapon and received probation for his troubles. restitution was $757 dollars and his total fees were over $3000 not including his own lawyer, i'm sure.

imported post

smellslikemichigan wrote:

apparently, the michigan court of appeals agrees with you (i do not):

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:uQzdiK6aM0AJ:euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Interpretation/InterpBugaiski.doc+are+dogs+considered+livestock+in+michigan&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

charges were dismissed in saint clair county and the decision was reversed by michigan court of appeals. looks like the guy had to forfeit his weapon and received probation for his troubles. restitution was $757 dollars and his total fees were over $3000 not including his own lawyer, i'm sure.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with the law either, for the record. But this clarifies my question... thank you for your research.

I think it's preposterous that a person has to knowingly put themselves in a high-risk position of personal injury in order to justify the defense of their pet. Like I said before... if something like this were to occur with my own pets, I would attempt to break the aggressor off using unarmed means; but the second I became the target of attack, it would become a self-defense issue... in which case the use of a firearm may be justified.

I brought my younger dog (5.5 month old German Shepherd) to my friends Redwings party yesterday (to let her play and get acclimated with the other 3 dogs that people had). Naturally, all 4 dogs played a little rough at times, but it was all in good fun. My dog was the youngest, and there were times that two or three of the other dogs would gang up against her (again, just in play... nothing violent) and someone asked me what I'd do if she were attacked "for real" while walking her (apparantly in response to the incident that occurred with my friend's friend's dog last week). He knows I carry a pistol and was, apparantly, asking if I would shoot the aggressor. I lamented that I didn't think it was lawful unless I was being attacked. But I also reiterated my aforementioned point that I would waste no time in getting involved to break up the fight and that if I were attacked, things could change.

Let's just hope, for everyone's sake (including all animals), that none of us have to ever face a situation like this.

imported post

I also find it curious that the law regarding the defense of a police dog seems to be different than for non-LEO dogs. I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that an attack against a police dog is akin to an attack against the LEO him/herself.

If this is true, then I would be further disgruntled with the law as it's written. To me, a dog is a dog; regardless of it's role or title. To discriminate against dogs (which ones are considered to have a higher life value) is similar to discriminating against humans for similar reasons. That's like saying an officer's life is worth more than a regular citizen's life. The reality is that a life is a life... it is not up to our legislators to determine who's is worth more based simply on their role or profession.

imported post

It only stands to reason if "some" LEO's believe they are God after getting the badge that they would feel that their animals would be on the same level.

disclaimer: notice I said some, I am not saying all or even most think that.

imported post

Generaldet wrote:

It only stands to reason if "some" LEO's believe they are God after getting the badge that they would feel that their animals would be on the same level.

disclaimer: notice I said some, I am not saying all or even most think that.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it has anything to do with the LEO's themselves... it might be more a matter of policy.

Again, I could be wrong about it too. But a police buddy of mine told me that police canines are viewed and treated as if they are actual officers.

imported post

The “Use of Deadly Force” continuum still applies. The escalating degrees of force still apply to all situations and the “Reasonable Man” standard is still used to evaluate an individual’s actions in a given circumstance. This means that the following three valid reasons to use deadly force still apply to all situations: 1) Fear of Death. 2) Fear of Serious Bodily Injury. 3) Fear of Forcible Sexual Penetration.

Click to expand...

So, the next time my neighbors dog tries to mount my leg...

imported post

FatboyCykes wrote:

The “Use of Deadly Force” continuum still applies. The escalating degrees of force still apply to all situations and the “Reasonable Man” standard is still used to evaluate an individual’s actions in a given circumstance. This means that the following three valid reasons to use deadly force still apply to all situations: 1) Fear of Death. 2) Fear of Serious Bodily Injury. 3) Fear of Forcible Sexual Penetration.

Click to expand...

So, the next time my neighbors dog tries to mount my leg...

Click to expand...

"3) Fear of Forcible Sexual Penetration"

Cykes, if this happens you may want to just remain silent and call it a day.

imported post

:celebrate