Defensive shooting of animals

[LEO 229]

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

I'm not one to advocate the abuse of animals either, but I wouldn't allow myself to be bitten by a little mongrel. Small dogs are much more likely to bite than larger dogs. I'd rather not waste a bullet or have to deal with the paperwork afterwards.

You may not be convicted in a criminal case, but as sure as the Lord made little apples, Little Fifi's "mommy" will certainly file a civil suit that may not be worth the time & money you're sure to expend later. As mentioned earlier, the carrying of pepper spray would be a good idea.

I agree that the abuse of any animal should never be tolerated. I will kick the ass of anyone I find abusing an animal.

Now having said that.. if I am being attacked by an animal.. it is no longer an abuse matter.

Using any other means besides shooting the animal is the best option when possible.

 

[woodstock]

imported post

We live out in the country and don't have some of the limitations the town and 'burb dwellers have. A large animal vet told us the local farmers' solution to dogs running loose is, "Shoot, shovel, and shut up."

While a little off topic, the code section below is taken from the culpeper County Code.


Sec. 4-18. Dogs killing or injuring livestock or poultry.
(a)
It shall be the duty of the Animal Control Officer or other officer who finds a dog in the act of killing or injuring livestock or poultry to kill such dog forthwith, whether such dog bears a license tag or not, and any person finding a dog committing any of the depredations mentioned in this section shall have the right to kill such dog on sight.

I found it interesting that is is THE DUTY of the Animal Control Officer to destroy a dog that's killing or injuring livestock. And anyone else finding a dog in the act has the right to kill the dog on sight.

Nothing in the county code addresses of what you can do if a dog attacks a person. The dog can be confined for ten days to determine if it has rabies. If it does it can be humanely euthanized and examined.

 

[ChinChin]

imported post

I agree with the previous poster who mentioned the "rules" for deadly force used for people should be the same litmus test used for dogs or other aggressive critters.

You have immediate fear of grievous bodily injury and/or death and you must stop and control the situation. There is also the matter of responsibility to take into consideration. I myself feel the brunt of this responsibility falls on the dog owner to adhere to the laws of keeping their animal on a lead when in public or securely penned in when on their propertyper law.

If gun owners are expected to be good citizens and adhere to the laws the people have established pertaining to gun ownership/use/deploy of deadly force, why shouldn't we expect dog owners toalso adhere to the laws established by the people?

I am not advocating shooting a dog simply because he jumped the fence of the house he lives in; but advocating that if that fence was knowingly insufficient to pen the dog; or if the dog is simply let out the front door with no leash to "do their business" there should be an immediate liability towards the owner should anything happen such as that animal snarling, barking and charging at a person out for stroll with their child who has to shoot the dog out of fear of grievous bodily injury or death.

In that instance the focus should be on why the fence was insufficient or why the owner felt it proper to let the animal out without a lead. In the cause and effect structure; the introduction of a handgun isn't the causal problem; it was the effect.