use of force ??

If my golden retriever and I were in your situation, I would shoot the dog. I couldn't just watch my best friend get mauled to death. I have no idea what the law says about that though.

Click to expand...

If my golden retriever and I were in your situation, I would shoot the dog. I couldn't just watch my best friend get mauled to death. I have no idea what the law says about that though.

Click to expand...

in VA every dog has a one bite thing they can bite you and you cant do anything

(from what I understand)

Click to expand...

I don't see why shooting the other dog would be illegal unless your dog is not considered a life. If it's seen as property I don't think you have a right to defend it...

Click to expand...

§ 3.2-6585. 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 § 3.2-6500, may maintain any action for the killing of any such animals, or injury thereto [emphasis added], or unlawful detention or use thereof as in the case of other personal property. The owner of any dog or cat that 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 [emphasis added].

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 and notify its legal owner. 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, § 3.1-796.127; 1988, c. 537; 1998, c. 817; 2008, c. 860.)

Click to expand...

[I see Ric in Richmond and I were writing at the same time, so I've said the same thing he did, but did so with a lot more words. Since I am a lawyer, and get paid by the word...:lol:]

1. The dog question's gotten most of the interest, here, but I'm going to answer the second question first, the one having to do with "home invasions" as trespassory acts.

I maintain that the "castle doctrine" is good law in Virginia, and that permits one to defend his home against any and all invaders at any time. But the last cases on that point are over a hundred years old, and the Va. Sup. Ct. has recently issued an opinion observing that there is no statute in Virginia implementing the common law "castle doctrine". Which is true, but it's also a big, "so what?", in my opinion. I'd use it as a defense at trial if I had a client with an appropriate case, but I don't advise people to shoot trespassers.

So what's a "trespasser" and what's that got to do with "home invasion"? This phrase, "home invasion" is a recent coinage in the popular media, based on press release statements by law enforcement agencies. It is not "legalese", and there is no legal definition for the phrase. I think they coined it in order to make a distinction between the seriousness of a "home invasion" and an ordinary trespass, so as to politically justify a stronger response by LEO's, a better chance at conviction, and harsher sentences. That doesn't mean they'll treat you any better if you shoot someone who's broken into your house in the daytime without having made any threats against a person.

There are quite a few judicial opinions (including Va. and U.S. Sup. Ct. opinions) that say that defense of "mere" property does not excuse the use of deadly force. Note that, as a technical point, I'm using the word, "excuse" rather than "justify": justifiable homicide is when the state or someone acting for the state kills another person lawfully. When a citizen kills another citizen in a situation which wouldbe unlawfulexcept that a legal defense applies, that's "excusable" homicide.I would point out that "stopping a serious felony" is one such defense. The "serious felonies" are well defined: rape, robbery, murder, arson, and burglary. Note that last item, burglary. The common law definition of burglary is "the breaking and entering of the dwelling place of another in the night-time with the intention to commit a felony." There are a number of forms of statutory burglary that apply that definition to other places, but the day-time/night-time distinction is still important.

So a "home invasion" at night is presumptively a serious felony, so you can use deadly force to stop a person who's broken in at night; but the "home invasion" that happens to take place while there's still daylight is merely a trespass, and you can't use deadly force to protect "mere" property, whether real or personal.

Another side note: the notion of "one's home" for castle doctrine purposes, as well as the definition of "dwelling place" for burglary purposes have traditionally included "the curtilage thereof". The curtilage is the area normally used by people, and the concept comes from the time when one might have a fenced-in farm yard, outbuildings, etc.; beyond the "curtilage", are fields and wood-lots and such, where one would normally not expect to find a defenseless human. That legal concept was designed to protect someone trudging to the outhouse at 2:00 a.m., as well as someone sleeping in his bed.

2. As to the dog. A couple of the points I've already made apply, most importantly, that you cannot use deadly force to protect "mere" property. And a dog is an article of personal property, not a "person". Which means you cannot shoot the owner of the dog because his dog is attacking you or your dog, but you can sure as hell shoot the other dog. That's not "deadly force", because that other dog is not a person.

Glocker9's commentabout the rule, "ever dog is entitled to one bite" makes sense, but only in the civil context. You can't sue someone and recover punitive damages on account of he let his dog bite you, unless you can show that he had reason to know the dog was vicious. And if the dog's bitten someone before, then he had reason to know, and his act in letting the dog bite you washis own malicious act. You can get compensatory damages for the bite, regardless, but this only has to do with the question of punitives. It has absolutely nothing to do with defending against a dog attack.

As to the issue of discharging weapons within the city, or some other minor criminal offense arising out of the shooting of an attacking dog. The relevant defense there is called the "sudden emergency doctrine." That's the same rule that allows cops to violate speed limits and run red lights when chasing down a speeding vehicle. It's basically a way of avoiding the "intent" element of a criminal offense - If you acted under compulsion, due to a sudden and immediate threat to life, limb, or property, then you did not have the criminal intent required to be found guilty of a crime.

Legally, the dog is not your friend. IT is an article of personal property; and your sentimental attachment to that property is just as worthless in the eyes of the law as how you feel about great-grandmother's teacup. ("If the law believes that, then the law is an ass." Well, yes.)

Click to expand...

in VA every dog has a one bite thing they can bite you and you cant do anything

(from what I understand)

Click to expand...

So when you shoot the the dog (property by definition) that is attacking your dog (property by definition), you aren't using deadly force since the dog is not a person it is property.

Click to expand...