Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 69

Thread: Him or me

  1. #1
    Regular Member 2ndammendmentbrotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Hammond, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    40

    Him or me

    I recently had a large pit bull charge at me on the sidewalk. I back pedaled for a bit and it was still pursuing me so I had no choice but to use lethal force. I drew my weapon and fired once into the dog's side. The dog then retreated a few feet and died after several minutes in a neighbors walkway. I'm glad I live in a jurisdiction where I can legally carry a gun for personal protection. After I called the police and told them what happened it took 15-20 minutes for officers to arrive I could have been devoured in that time. The police assailed the owner for letting the dog run loose and for not having pit bull insurance as required by law.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Any News reports of said incident?

  3. #3
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    Any News reports of said incident?
    +1

    with all of the fakers around,we tend to want proof that something happened or it will likely be deemed a fake,and the poster ridiculed
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    Bear in mind that not every dog that "charges" intends you harm.

    You probably greased someone's pet.

    Great, you have a deadly weapon. You just haven't had a chance to actually think before you use it. Remember this about dogs.. they often have a reason for doing what they do.

    I had a large retriever walk up on me one night when I was walking down the middle of the road. When I stopped walking forward, the dog stopped moving toward me. He was silently protecting a twenty-something who was unloaded a car in a driveway on the opposite side. She saw me and called him back. Sure, I was dead to rights to kill the dog. But he wasn't snarling, barking, or anything like that. And she called him back.

    At the end of the day, I went home without any holes in my soul or self, she did the same, and the dog did as well.

    I've got a friend who owns a pitbull. And he's the nicest dog you'll ever meet, but he plays like a bull in a china shop. He's big, friendly, and all over the place. Hasn't hurt anyone and I don't expect him to. But like you, I had my reservations about the dog from the breed. Experience has shown me that he's no less tenacious than a miniature schnauzer. He just has the mass to back up his actions.

    I worry less from a dog than a human. Dogs generally "tell" when they are about to strike, or for some reason that's usually visible. Humans are more subtle.
    Last edited by Kirbinator; 11-03-2010 at 07:34 PM.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sultan62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Clayton, NC
    Posts
    1,319
    I won't pretend to know if OP made the right decision (assuming the reported incident is true). I wasn't there so I can't. But I will say this:

    Mandatory 'Pit Bull Insurance' just shows that we are heading in the wrong direction.

  6. #6
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndammendmentbrotha View Post
    I recently had a large pit bull charge at me on the sidewalk. I back pedaled for a bit and it was still pursuing me so I had no choice but to use lethal force. I drew my weapon and fired once into the dog's side. The dog then retreated a few feet and died after several minutes in a neighbors walkway. I'm glad I live in a jurisdiction where I can legally carry a gun for personal protection. After I called the police and told them what happened it took 15-20 minutes for officers to arrive I could have been devoured in that time. The police assailed the owner for letting the dog run loose and for not having pit bull insurance as required by law.
    You have not stated that the dog showed any signs or aggression, a rapid approach in itself is not enough. You may be liable for damages legally.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Based on the OP's description that the dog "charged at" him, it sounds like it might be a reasonable self-protection situation. Also based on the OP's description the police are concentrating on the owner of the deceased animal, not on the OP's use of a firearm.

    While more details are always enjoyed, I am quite surprised at all the armchair commandos and armchair attorneys who did not take any notice of the statement that "... fired once into the dog's side. The dog then retreated a few feet and died after several minutes". It meets the definition of a one-shot kill, but it also brings up issues about how we deal with a wounded asggressor, human or otherwise.

    My position is to support the behavior of the OP to not fire another round to "put the dog out of its misery". Not because I condone unhumane behavior but because he was facing a wounded animal that was, at the moment, no longer threatening his safety. The cops had been contacted and were on their way. It's their job to deal with everything from the time the shot was fired and the dog stopped being a threat. The owner had an opportunity to come and deal with the animal, presuming they knew it had been shot.

    Remember, we shoot to stop the threat. Not to kill. And since he felt the dog had attacked him, he is probably under no legal obligation towards the dog and the treating of its wound except to call the appropriate authorities.

    What I'd like to hear from the OP is a bit more description about trying to aim when confronted with a moving object and where he was aimingt vs. where the bullet actually struck the dog.

    stay safe.

  8. #8
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    I'd give the OP the benefit of the doubt and presume it to be true because of the way it was reported. I also doubt that most of the news media would report this.

    FWIW, I like dogs in general and have met quite a few pit bulls that were the nicest, friendliest dogs you'd ever want to meet. I've also encountered dogs of many different breeds who made it very clear that they were after my rear end. I've been lucky in that I've only had to shoot known feral animals and not someone's pet.

    If I ever have a dog advancing on me in a threatening manner, I won't hesitate to stop it by whatever means is at my disposal. Been too many folks my age killed by "family pets" for me to take a chance.

  9. #9
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Based on the OP's description that the dog "charged at" him, it sounds like it might be a reasonable self-protection situation. Also based on the OP's description the police are concentrating on the owner of the deceased animal, not on the OP's use of a firearm.

    While more details are always enjoyed, I am quite surprised at all the armchair commandos and armchair attorneys who did not take any notice of the statement that "... fired once into the dog's side. The dog then retreated a few feet and died after several minutes". It meets the definition of a one-shot kill, but it also brings up issues about how we deal with a wounded asggressor, human or otherwise.

    My position is to support the behavior of the OP to not fire another round to "put the dog out of its misery". Not because I condone unhumane behavior but because he was facing a wounded animal that was, at the moment, no longer threatening his safety. The cops had been contacted and were on their way. It's their job to deal with everything from the time the shot was fired and the dog stopped being a threat. The owner had an opportunity to come and deal with the animal, presuming they knew it had been shot.

    Remember, we shoot to stop the threat. Not to kill. And since he felt the dog had attacked him, he is probably under no legal obligation towards the dog and the treating of its wound except to call the appropriate authorities.

    What I'd like to hear from the OP is a bit more description about trying to aim when confronted with a moving object and where he was aimingt vs. where the bullet actually struck the dog.

    stay safe.
    I agree with you in general. The OP, assuming it was reasonable to assess the animal as a threat, did the correct thing. However, I don't know what happen and that makes the problem the lack of details. But, hey, innocent until proven guilty, at least in this country. I'm glad the OP wasn't hurt and that it only took one shot. The fact that the OP called the police shows that he didn't act in malice and truly believed he did the right thing. The only way this could have gone better is if the owner of the dog was responsible and the situation was prevented.

  10. #10
    Regular Member 2ndammendmentbrotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Hammond, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Based on the OP's description that the dog "charged at" him, it sounds like it might be a reasonable self-protection situation. Also based on the OP's description the police are concentrating on the owner of the deceased animal, not on the OP's use of a firearm.

    While more details are always enjoyed, I am quite surprised at all the armchair commandos and armchair attorneys who did not take any notice of the statement that "... fired once into the dog's side. The dog then retreated a few feet and died after several minutes". It meets the definition of a one-shot kill, but it also brings up issues about how we deal with a wounded asggressor, human or otherwise.

    My position is to support the behavior of the OP to not fire another round to "put the dog out of its misery". Not because I condone unhumane behavior but because he was facing a wounded animal that was, at the moment, no longer threatening his safety. The cops had been contacted and were on their way. It's their job to deal with everything from the time the shot was fired and the dog stopped being a threat. The owner had an opportunity to come and deal with the animal, presuming they knew it had been shot.

    Remember, we shoot to stop the threat. Not to kill. And since he felt the dog had attacked him, he is probably under no legal obligation towards the dog and the treating of its wound except to call the appropriate authorities.

    What I'd like to hear from the OP is a bit more description about trying to aim when confronted with a moving object and where he was aimingt vs. where the bullet actually struck the dog.

    stay safe.
    Well it was not at all like range shooting I was back pedaling when I fired and I aimed at the dog's side and in spite of the long D/A pull of p95 hit what I aimed at. Due to the adrenaline I didn't notice the recoil at all I was wearing my summer slide shoes which had come off while going backwards and was barefoot on the sidewalk when I fired.

  11. #11
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndammendmentbrotha View Post
    The police assailed the owner for letting the dog run loose and for not having pit bull insurance as required by law.
    How did the owner react?

    I think some dog owners are utterly irresponsible about their dogs running free. This person sounds a scofflaw.

    It sounds to me from your reporting that you did just fine. Good job.2ab.

    The mandatory insurance idea sounds like it could be pretty good for certain dog behavior risk situations.

    Probably would be a good idea for certain OC/CC behavior risk situations, too.

    Requiring gun carriers to carry ample liability insurance could answer a lot of the objections to gun carry that society has. Really, I don't see much wrong with the idea . . .

  12. #12
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    Really, I don't see much wrong with the idea . . .
    Oh yeah, nothing at all wrong with limiting one's rights.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sultan62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Clayton, NC
    Posts
    1,319
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    How did the owner react?

    I think some dog owners are utterly irresponsible about their dogs running free. This person sounds a scofflaw.

    It sounds to me from your reporting that you did just fine. Good job.2ab.

    The mandatory insurance idea sounds like it could be pretty good for certain dog behavior risk situations.

    Probably would be a good idea for certain OC/CC behavior risk situations, too.

    Requiring gun carriers to carry ample liability insurance could answer a lot of the objections to gun carry that society has. Really, I don't see much wrong with the idea . . .
    I believe that you and I are likely to agree on very little.

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by HankT
    Requiring gun carriers to carry ample liability insurance could answer a lot of the objections to gun carry that society has. Really, I don't see much wrong with the idea . . .
    Oh yeah, nothing at all wrong with limiting one's rights.
    I don't see that requiring some financial responsibility for, say, a gun carrier's stray shots, can be "limiting one's rights."

    If some poor bloke is innocently walking down the street and gets shot in the head by some gun carrier a quarter of a mile away who is defending himself (or just being a goof with a gun), then it would be nice for his hospital or funeral expenses to be paid by the shooter's insurance company.

    That's not "limiting" anything. Except for highly undesirable situations where poor citizens get blasted by a gun owner/carrier for absolutely no good reason.

    So, I guess mandatory insurance would be "limiting" financial irresponsibility. But that's a good thing.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    I don't see that requiring some financial responsibility for, say, a gun carrier's stray shots, can be "limiting one's rights."

    If some poor bloke is innocently walking down the street and gets shot in the head by some gun carrier a quarter of a mile away who is defending himself (or just being a goof with a gun), then it would be nice for his hospital or funeral expenses to be paid by the shooter's insurance company.

    That's not "limiting" anything. Except for highly undesirable situations where poor citizens get blasted by a gun owner/carrier for absolutely no good reason.

    So, I guess mandatory insurance would be "limiting" financial irresponsibility. But that's a good thing.
    Of course it limits rights. If one cannot afford "ample liability insurance," one's right to carry would be, de facto, infringed.

    Unless you want to propose "national gun care" for the uninsured.

  16. #16
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Of course it limits rights. If one cannot afford "ample liability insurance," one's right to carry would be, de facto, infringed.

    Unless you want to propose "national gun care" for the uninsured.
    Nah, our rights wouldn't be "infringed," in the constitutional sense by a requirement for liability insurance. A law could easily be drafted by states to comply with the reasonable restriction constraint.

    I don't know what "national gun care" is in your mind. But there would conceivably be a "high-risk" category of gun carriers who would find it necessary to resort to some type of taxpayer-supported, government-backed insurance pool. People who have demonstrated behavior as goofs with a gun, for example . . .

    In the interest of solidarity, I wouldn't mind subsidizing those guys. Up to a point.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sultan62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Clayton, NC
    Posts
    1,319
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    Nah, our rights wouldn't be "infringed," in the constitutional sense by a requirement for liability insurance. A law could easily be drafted by states to comply with the reasonable restriction constraint.

    I don't know what "national gun care" is in your mind. But there would conceivably be a "high-risk" category of gun carriers who would find it necessary to resort to some type of taxpayer-supported, government-backed insurance pool. People who have demonstrated behavior as goofs with a gun, for example . . .

    In the interest of solidarity, I wouldn't mind subsidizing those guys. Up to a point.
    The way I read your statements there are only two possibilities for your thinking. Please present a third, as I sincerely hope it's neither of the following:

    1. Poor people have no right to Self Defense.

    2. My taxes are raised and I am forced to pay for someone else's insurance along with my own, for a form of insurance I don't agree with in the first place.

    Remember, just because one person, or even a lot of people, like an idea, that is not justification for it becoming law.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    Nah, our rights wouldn't be "infringed," in the constitutional sense by a requirement for liability insurance. A law could easily be drafted by states to comply with the reasonable restriction constraint.

    I don't know what "national gun care" is in your mind. But there would conceivably be a "high-risk" category of gun carriers who would find it necessary to resort to some type of taxpayer-supported, government-backed insurance pool. People who have demonstrated behavior as goofs with a gun, for example . . .

    In the interest of solidarity, I wouldn't mind subsidizing those guys. Up to a point.
    Wow. Socialized gun-carry.

    Just like with health care, when the government puts forced-buy requirements on an activity and subsidizes the activity for some, they control that activity. It ain't a right if the government controls it.

    Moving on.

  19. #19
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    I have absolutely no qualms about shooting a dog that I would perceived threatening to my good and welfare. I love the things and have owned two of them, but a bad dog or a dog that is bent on sinking its teeth into my body when I have done nothing to deserve his ire... well, I would use deadly force in a heartbeat; because I have in the past. My first job out of high school was as a letter carrier and I soon received some first hand experience with dogs that are, shall we say, less than desirable.

    Love 'em. Have no wish to hurt the good ones. But one that has targeted me for some extra holes? Well, he is going down with whatever I can get my hands on at the time.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 11-06-2010 at 07:03 PM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Wow. Socialized gun-carry.

    Just like with health care, when the government puts forced-buy requirements on an activity and subsidizes the activity for some, they control that activity. It ain't a right if the government controls it.

    Moving on.
    But rights can be compelled. the often cited city that requires its residents to have arms is not the first govt body to do so. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm not only were people compelled to arm themselves, but to do so with military arms and bayonets.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    But rights can be compelled. the often cited city that requires its residents to have arms is not the first govt body to do so. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm not only were people compelled to arm themselves, but to do so with military arms and bayonets.
    It's not a right being compelled. One time-honored power of a government (and one recognized by our Founders) was the power to compel participation in the militia.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Eastern Shore
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    I don't see that requiring some financial responsibility for, say, a gun carrier's stray shots, can be "limiting one's rights."

    If some poor bloke is innocently walking down the street and gets shot in the head by some gun carrier a quarter of a mile away who is defending himself (or just being a goof with a gun), then it would be nice for his hospital or funeral expenses to be paid by the shooter's insurance company.

    That's not "limiting" anything. Except for highly undesirable situations where poor citizens get blasted by a gun owner/carrier for absolutely no good reason.

    So, I guess mandatory insurance would be "limiting" financial irresponsibility. But that's a good thing.
    Are you honestly suggesting that we pay additionally for the right provided by the constitution? Besides if it is proven that you killed or injured a "poor citizen" by a stray bullet you the weapon owner / the person that fired the weapon without checking your surroundings can do prison time, pay restitution, etc. Besides the cost of ownership is prohibitive these days to some as well ... standard CCW weapons cost $200 - $1000 or more, add on top of that the cost of ammunition, holsters, permits ....

    Please can we find a few more things that we have to pay for?? After all we are already paying for the privelidge of many to not work, take care of children not ours, undocumented people to work our jobs, and soon to keep people we don't know healthy ...

  23. #23
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by newgenesis View Post
    Besides the cost of ownership is prohibitive these days to some as well ... standard CCW weapons cost $200 - $1000 or more, add on top of that the cost of ammunition, holsters, permits ....
    By the time I've finished purchasing everything that I need, I'll have easily spent over a thousand dollars. And of that, $220-$300 could have easily been saved and used for other things if it wasn't for that meddling government and their dog. I mean, the stupid licensing requirements for conceal carry.

  24. #24
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT
    I don't see that requiring some financial responsibility for, say, a gun carrier's stray shots, can be "limiting one's rights."

    If some poor bloke is innocently walking down the street and gets shot in the head by some gun carrier a quarter of a mile away who is defending himself (or just being a goof with a gun), then it would be nice for his hospital or funeral expenses to be paid by the shooter's insurance company.

    That's not "limiting" anything. Except for highly undesirable situations where poor citizens get blasted by a gun owner/carrier for absolutely no good reason.

    So, I guess mandatory insurance would be "limiting" financial irresponsibility. But that's a good thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by newgenesis View Post
    Are you honestly suggesting that we pay additionally for the right provided by the constitution?
    No. My suggestion is not to "pay additionally" for the RKBA. It's to pay "extra" for proper insurance to deal with the havoc created by stray shots and poor judgments. My suggestion is to allocate something "extra" for assurance of ethical and financial performance by a shooter in the aftermath of a gun firing incident.



    Quote Originally Posted by newgenesis View Post
    Besides if it is proven that you killed or injured a "poor citizen" by a stray bullet you the weapon owner / the person that fired the weapon without checking your surroundings can do prison time, pay restitution, etc.
    Yeah, rrrrrrrrright. Ever get hit by an uninsured/underinsured auto driver????????
    Think of the average cost of that multiplied by a factor of 50 or more. Medical/funeral expenses for a bystander person ravaged by a couple of sloppily-aimed gunshots to the head is a LOT more than the average fender bender.

    Why in heck should some poor bystander-slob shot by an excitable goof with a gun who's afraid of dark shadows have to wait years and years to get compensated by the current system? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    Some kind of no-fault system would work pretty well. That's current technology that would likely work.



    Quote Originally Posted by newgenesis View Post
    Besides the cost of ownership is prohibitive these days to some as well ... standard CCW weapons cost $200 - $1000 or more, add on top of that the cost of ammunition, holsters, permits
    You've got a right to bear arms. Not the right to (Les) Baer arms. . .

    I'm sure that our national forefathers would have been satisfied with a modern Hi-Point. You should be too if that's all you can manage . . .



    Quote Originally Posted by newgenesis View Post
    Please can we find a few more things that we have to pay for?? After all we are already paying for the privelidge of many to not work, take care of children not ours, undocumented people to work our jobs, and soon to keep people we don't know healthy ...
    Strawman. Called.
    Last edited by HankT; 11-07-2010 at 09:24 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912

    Bad Dogs

    Working in my chosen profession for over 40 years I have run into many unfriendly dogs both in the street and in someone's yard. With a dog in their own yard, all I do is back off and contact the owner. With a dog in the street, if it is actually brave enough to convince me that it is going to attack, it is a dead dog. I am a large size person and quite capable of taking out most dogs without a weapon. If one will come after me, it is too dangerous to others to be allowed to live. If one of my own dogs got loose and attacked without provocation and I got to the dog before others, it would be DRT.

    So far it has not been necessary for me to eliminate a bad dog. I hope it stays that way.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •