• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Him or me

2ndammendmentbrotha

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
40
Location
Hammond, Indiana, USA
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.
 

Kirbinator

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
903
Location
Middle of the map, Alabama
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:

sultan62

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,311
Location
Clayton, NC
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.
 

Darkshadow62988

Activist Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Iowa
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
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.
 

Darkshadow62988

Activist Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Iowa
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.
 

2ndammendmentbrotha

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
40
Location
Hammond, Indiana, USA
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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 . . .
 

sultan62

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,311
Location
Clayton, NC
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
HankT said:
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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. :rolleyes:
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 

sultan62

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,311
Location
Clayton, NC
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 
Top