Unleashed Dogs

[ChuckB]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I think a lot of people are over-estimating the value of a dog's life here (in the eyes of the law).

Let me start by saying I in no way support using a firearm to stop a charging dog. If anyone actually believes that a single dog charging at them is an imminent deadly threat, then they should probably stay at home and barricade all their doors. A PACK of dogs is a different story, but a single dog is not going to kill you before you can react. To shoot it before it even bit you would be the king of over-reactions. After it bites, that's a different story, and shooting may be the only way to get the dog to stop.

However, the better way to deal with such a situation is to go after the real culprit- the dog's owner, and in a legal manner. In most states, you can and often will be held fully responsible for any damage your dog does, as if you had inflicted the damage yourself. If your dog bites, you can be charged with aggravated assault.

Now, on the OTHER side of that... No matter how much YOU feel your dog is a member of your family, the law views it as property. Nothing more, nothing less. If you were to shoot and kill someone for killing your dog, you would likely be tried for 1st degree murder. Hell, you can't even kill someone for killing your CHILD- why would you even consider doing so in revenge for killng your pet??? Are you crazy? In the case of the child, you would get charged, but if you get a good sympathetic jury, you may just walk (stress MAY), but a vengeance killing for a DOG? You might just end up on death row.

Also on that side, if someone kills your dog without justification, the most they are likely to be charged with is negligent discharge of a firearm and destruction of private property, or other similar charges, all of which are usually misdemeanors. If the killing of the dog was justified, then they will probably not be charged with anything at all, and you will probably still get hooked up for assault.

When you take on the responsibility of owning a dog, you also take on responsibility for that dog's actions. You also need to remember that, as far as the law is concerned, that pet is just property, no more important than your appliances or your furniture. Consider that when deciding on what action to take in response to your dog being killed.

Why in the world would anyone wait to be bit by a dog before stopping it????

 

[rodbender]

imported post

ChuckB wrote:

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I think a lot of people are over-estimating the value of a dog's life here (in the eyes of the law).

Let me start by saying I in no way support using a firearm to stop a charging dog. If anyone actually believes that a single dog charging at them is an imminent deadly threat, then they should probably stay at home and barricade all their doors. A PACK of dogs is a different story, but a single dog is not going to kill you before you can react. To shoot it before it even bit you would be the king of over-reactions. After it bites, that's a different story, and shooting may be the only way to get the dog to stop.

However, the better way to deal with such a situation is to go after the real culprit- the dog's owner, and in a legal manner. In most states, you can and often will be held fully responsible for any damage your dog does, as if you had inflicted the damage yourself. If your dog bites, you can be charged with aggravated assault.

Now, on the OTHER side of that... No matter how much YOU feel your dog is a member of your family, the law views it as property. Nothing more, nothing less. If you were to shoot and kill someone for killing your dog, you would likely be tried for 1st degree murder. Hell, you can't even kill someone for killing your CHILD- why would you even consider doing so in revenge for killng your pet??? Are you crazy? In the case of the child, you would get charged, but if you get a good sympathetic jury, you may just walk (stress MAY), but a vengeance killing for a DOG? You might just end up on death row.

Also on that side, if someone kills your dog without justification, the most they are likely to be charged with is negligent discharge of a firearm and destruction of private property, or other similar charges, all of which are usually misdemeanors. If the killing of the dog was justified, then they will probably not be charged with anything at all, and you will probably still get hooked up for assault.

When you take on the responsibility of owning a dog, you also take on responsibility for that dog's actions. You also need to remember that, as far as the law is concerned, that pet is just property, no more important than your appliances or your furniture. Consider that when deciding on what action to take in response to your dog being killed.

Why in the world would anyone wait to be bit by a dog before stopping it????

Kinda like waiting to get shot at before you return fire, isn't it.

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

ChuckB wrote:

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I think a lot of people are over-estimating the value of a dog's life here (in the eyes of the law).

Let me start by saying I in no way support using a firearm to stop a charging dog. If anyone actually believes that a single dog charging at them is an imminent deadly threat, then they should probably stay at home and barricade all their doors. A PACK of dogs is a different story, but a single dog is not going to kill you before you can react. To shoot it before it even bit you would be the king of over-reactions. After it bites, that's a different story, and shooting may be the only way to get the dog to stop.

However, the better way to deal with such a situation is to go after the real culprit- the dog's owner, and in a legal manner. In most states, you can and often will be held fully responsible for any damage your dog does, as if you had inflicted the damage yourself. If your dog bites, you can be charged with aggravated assault.

Now, on the OTHER side of that... No matter how much YOU feel your dog is a member of your family, the law views it as property. Nothing more, nothing less. If you were to shoot and kill someone for killing your dog, you would likely be tried for 1st degree murder. Hell, you can't even kill someone for killing your CHILD- why would you even consider doing so in revenge for killng your pet??? Are you crazy? In the case of the child, you would get charged, but if you get a good sympathetic jury, you may just walk (stress MAY), but a vengeance killing for a DOG? You might just end up on death row.

Also on that side, if someone kills your dog without justification, the most they are likely to be charged with is negligent discharge of a firearm and destruction of private property, or other similar charges, all of which are usually misdemeanors. If the killing of the dog was justified, then they will probably not be charged with anything at all, and you will probably still get hooked up for assault.

When you take on the responsibility of owning a dog, you also take on responsibility for that dog's actions. You also need to remember that, as far as the law is concerned, that pet is just property, no more important than your appliances or your furniture. Consider that when deciding on what action to take in response to your dog being killed.

Why in the world would anyone wait to be bit by a dog before stopping it????

Kinda like waiting to get shot at before you return fire, isn't it.

Not at all. Getting shot is quite likely to kill you. Getting bitten by a dog is not.

I've been bitten by digs before- HUGE dogs, dogs like Akitas and Rottweilers. It hurt...it hurt a lot. However, at no time did I feel my life was in danger at all. I got a few stiches, a tetnus shot, and a few percoset, and before you knew it, I was just fine.

The only reason I would shoot a dog that has bitten me is that I don't know if I could get it to stop doing so any other way, and it has already proven that is a dangerous animal.

I'm truly shocked at how scared of dogs some of you guys are- to compare a charging dog to being shot at? Seriously?

 

[protector84]

imported post

I don't think any of us are referring to little yippy dogs that might gnaw at your pant leg. A rottweiler, pitbull, or other powerful breeds can dive right for your genitals or your neck both of which could cause massive bleeding and be potentially fatal. You said that you had to get stitches which is basically considered aggrevated assault in Arizona which authorizes deadly force if necessary to stop the threat. A second issue with dangerous and vicious dogs is that they may not bite right away. The first tactic of the dog may be to lunge forward and push you down. Once you are down on the ground the dog may try to tear you to pieces. You may have the gun properly holstered and not even be able to get to it in time and the mere movement of your hand to draw it could cause the dog to knock it out of your hand or otherwise prevent you from reaching it. Like I said, I would rather not wait until I am bleeding to death until shooting at the dog. People should simply use common sense and sound judgment. If the classic signs of an attack and a potentially deadly one are present in the dog's behavior and you have made attempts to get the dog to stop and retreat and those have failed, deadly force is an option.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

Extremely irate man coming at you with a baseball bat may only want to hit you hard enough to bruise you up a little. Why did you kill him?

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

protector84 wrote:

People should simply use common sense and sound judgment. If the classic signs of an attack and a potentially deadly one are present in the dog's behavior and you have made attempts to get the dog to stop and retreat and those have failed, deadly force is an option.

+1 That would certainly fall under judicious use of force for self-defense. As a witness, the dog's owner or the shooter I would be saddened by the necessity but thoroughly understanding of it as well.

 

[Pointman]

imported post

*

 

[rodbender]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I'm truly shocked at how scared of dogs some of you guys are- to compare a charging dog to being shot at? Seriously?

The only thing I fear is God Almighty himself. I do not cherish the thought of getting any part of my body punctured by inch long canine teeth. Who in the world would let a dog bite him before doing something about it? Some people need to get their head on straight. Say he only bites you in the thigh. Will it kill you? What if tears out a hunk of flesh before you can get it to stop?There are arteries running all over your body that could bleed you out.

 

[ChuckB]

imported post

Not at all. Getting shot is quite likely to kill you. Getting bitten by a dog is not.

I've been bitten by digs before- HUGE dogs, dogs like Akitas and Rottweilers. It hurt...it hurt a lot. However, at no time did I feel my life was in danger at all. I got a few stiches, a tetnus shot, and a few percoset, and before you knew it, I was just fine.

The only reason I would shoot a dog that has bitten me is that I don't know if I could get it to stop doing so any other way, and it has already proven that is a dangerous animal.

I'm truly shocked at how scared of dogs some of you guys are- to compare a charging dog to being shot at? Seriously?

OK this just seems strange to me...... This is not a pissing contest and I don't need to say I'm not afraid of getting bitten by a dog in order to prove my toughness.... I definitely do not want to get bit, I do not want to get stitches, I do not want to get a tetanus shot, and I don't want to have to take percocets and have a recovery time either. I'm more concerned for my well being than a dog's life. I think someone that is willing to do this has some issues.

Let's be serious I don't think anyone is going to shoot the Daschund that is charging them, but if a good sized dog is charging you ready to attack I think you'd be silly to wait for it to attack you to defend yourself, just doesn't make sense. (Obviosly each situation would dictate proper reaction)

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

OK... you can take a hit in the arm... or leg... Sometimes it's only one bite... sometimes it's 'chomp-chomp-chomp'... So... imagine 'chomp-chomp-chomp' on yer johnson and nads. Nah... Rover's gettin' clocked.The otherside is all those Rabies shots that you're gonna have to take... if the dog runs off.Again... Rover's gettin' his ticket punched. I ain't puttin' myself thru that.

 

[JoeSparky]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

rodbender wrote:

ChuckB wrote:

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I think a lot of people are over-estimating the value of a dog's life here (in the eyes of the law).

Let me start by saying I in no way support using a firearm to stop a charging dog. If anyone actually believes that a single dog charging at them is an imminent deadly threat, then they should probably stay at home and barricade all their doors. A PACK of dogs is a different story, but a single dog is not going to kill you before you can react. To shoot it before it even bit you would be the king of over-reactions. After it bites, that's a different story, and shooting may be the only way to get the dog to stop.

However, the better way to deal with such a situation is to go after the real culprit- the dog's owner, and in a legal manner. In most states, you can and often will be held fully responsible for any damage your dog does, as if you had inflicted the damage yourself. If your dog bites, you can be charged with aggravated assault.

Now, on the OTHER side of that... No matter how much YOU feel your dog is a member of your family, the law views it as property. Nothing more, nothing less. If you were to shoot and kill someone for killing your dog, you would likely be tried for 1st degree murder. Hell, you can't even kill someone for killing your CHILD- why would you even consider doing so in revenge for killng your pet??? Are you crazy? In the case of the child, you would get charged, but if you get a good sympathetic jury, you may just walk (stress MAY), but a vengeance killing for a DOG? You might just end up on death row.

Also on that side, if someone kills your dog without justification, the most they are likely to be charged with is negligent discharge of a firearm and destruction of private property, or other similar charges, all of which are usually misdemeanors. If the killing of the dog was justified, then they will probably not be charged with anything at all, and you will probably still get hooked up for assault.

When you take on the responsibility of owning a dog, you also take on responsibility for that dog's actions. You also need to remember that, as far as the law is concerned, that pet is just property, no more important than your appliances or your furniture. Consider that when deciding on what action to take in response to your dog being killed.

Why in the world would anyone wait to be bit by a dog before stopping it????

Kinda like waiting to get shot at before you return fire, isn't it.

Not at all. Getting shot is quite likely to kill you. Getting bitten by a dog is not.

I've been bitten by digs before- HUGE dogs, dogs like Akitas and Rottweilers. It hurt...it hurt a lot. However, at no time did I feel my life was in danger at all. I got a few stiches, a tetnus shot, and a few percoset, and before you knew it, I was just fine.

The only reason I would shoot a dog that has bitten me is that I don't know if I could get it to stop doing so any other way, and it has already proven that is a dangerous animal.

I'm truly shocked at how scared of dogs some of you guys are- to compare a charging dog to being shot at? Seriously?

Utah law says I can use deadly force if I REASONABLY believe that I am as risk of death or serious bodily injury....

Since, I can't tell before hand what exactly said dogs intentions are, and I do fear getting bit, inoculated with rabies, other infections, don't want to get shots, or sutures, or a whole but of other stuff.... If said dog passes by mypredetermined distance threshold which WILL vary depending upon the speed of the dog...(loudly barking dog approaching slowly will get closer than the rapidly approaching dog with ears flat on skull who is NOT barking/snarling/growling...

THEN IT WILL BE PERFORATED (as in... "Officer, I feared death or serious bodily injury and only tried to stop the dog! Do you know who the owner was?"

 

[Alwayspacking]

imported post

So why is it that in so many cases I hear of the police having to shoot a dog, and animal control officers carry guns not only for humans, but for the dogs also.

You said one dog can not kill a person :?I think one can. The picture I added is a Cane Corso IT IS A MONSTER:shock:This kind of dog killed a lady in San Francisco some years ago, I will shoot this dog if it ever attacked me and would not think twice.

If a lab attacked me I may not shoot it.

 

[esstac]

imported post

If a dog is set on doing me or my family harm, and it not sized right to play soccer with I will not wait to be bit and will do what is needed.



This is a pic of me, well after the bite and the 109 stitches removed.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/esstac/bite.jpg

If it was not for intervention of a complete stranger beating the dog off me with a tire iron this would be a picture from the morgue.

 

[protector84]

imported post

It seems like a few people are understanding what I mean here. Some dogs may be harmless and are just playing a game. They may run up to you and could give you a soft bite which would be a very minor injury but still require the whole rabies testing and shots issue. However, a whole pack of mid-sized dogs or even a single determined dog is not something to fool around with. If I see a man looking at me in a threatening manner running right toward me with a butcher knife in his hand, I will draw my gun, tell him to stop and set the knife down, ask him what the hell he is doing, and if this is determined to be some bizarre coincidence, then I would have him pick up the knife from a safe distance and continue on in a different direction. In the case of a dog, we are referring to a mouth full of razor-sharp teeth which is not much different than a knife. It is the same deal. The dog won't speak English but if yelling and waving a shiny metal object (gun) at it causes it to stop, retreat, and continue on its way with a safe distance gap, then the firearm gets reholstered and we go on about our business. In both cases, if the human or dog doesn't understand the language given to it to stop and retreat, I am not going to wait until the knife is plunged into my heart or the teeth have severed my juglar vein before I do something about it.

It is important to remember that the law is generally on your side in such cases at least here in Arizona because the dog wasn't leashed or fenced in the first place which is already illegal, you already made efforts to withdraw from the situation which failed, and then you as a reasonable person would considered yourself in danger of serious bodily injury or death in which deadly force was the best option at saving life and limb.

 

[Alwayspacking]

imported post

protector84 wrote:

It seems like a few people are understanding what I mean here. Some dogs may be harmless and are just playing a game. They may run up to you and could give you a soft bite which would be a very minor injury but still require the whole rabies testing and shots issue. However, a whole pack of mid-sized dogs or even a single determined dog is not something to fool around with. If I see a man looking at me in a threatening manner running right toward me with a butcher knife in his hand, I will draw my gun, tell him to stop and set the knife down, ask him what the hell he is doing, and if this is determined to be some bizarre coincidence, then I would have him pick up the knife from a safe distance and continue on in a different direction. In the case of a dog, we are referring to a mouth full of razor-sharp teeth which is not much different than a knife. It is the same deal. The dog won't speak English but if yelling and waving a shiny metal object (gun) at it causes it to stop, retreat, and continue on its way with a safe distance gap, then the firearm gets reholstered and we go on about our business. In both cases, if the human or dog doesn't understand the language given to it to stop and retreat, I am not going to wait until the knife is plunged into my heart or the teeth have severed my juglar vein before I do something about it.

It is important to remember that the law is generally on your side in such cases at least here in Arizona because the dog wasn't leashed or fenced in the first place which is already illegal, you already made efforts to withdraw from the situation which failed, and then you as a reasonable person would considered yourself in danger of serious bodily injury or death in which deadly force was the best option at saving life and limb.

I agree, not everyanimal or person that threatens us deserve lethal force.

 

[Bookman]

imported post

xd.40 wrote:

Bill in VA wrote: (snip)

As far as "rights" show me where in the US Consitution you have a right to go anywhere. Your "right" to walk down the street and to have a quiet nightis the same "right" that dog owners have.You seem to have a hard time understanding what "rights" are. You do not have a "right" to walk down the street, nor do you have a "right" to a quiet, bark-free night.If it troubles you that much, buy a set of ear plugs. You have that "right" too.

Doesn't this fall under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Where does it say that our rights have to be written on a piece of paper? Isn't it my God given right to walk peacefully anywhere I want to go in a public place?

While I support and defend the Constitution, it isn't the end all - be all of our rights. It just specifies some of them that our founding fathers thought required special notice.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

Bookman wrote:

xd.40 wrote:

Bill in VA wrote: (snip)

As far as "rights" show me where in the US Consitution you have a right to go anywhere. Your "right" to walk down the street and to have a quiet nightis the same "right" that dog owners have.You seem to have a hard time understanding what "rights" are. You do not have a "right" to walk down the street, nor do you have a "right" to a quiet, bark-free night.If it troubles you that much, buy a set of ear plugs. You have that "right" too.

Doesn't this fall under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Where does it say that our rights have to be written on a piece of paper? Isn't it my God given right to walk peacefully anywhere I want to go in a public place?

While I support and defend the Constitution, it isn't the end all - be all of our rights. It just specifies some of them that our founding fathers thought required special notice.

"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."
Barking dogs constitute a public nuisance... 'disturbing the peace'... 'same as loud music 'n such noise. So yeah... people have a reasonable expectation of quiet in their homes and environments. That's covered by local ordinance.... 'like leash laws.

 

[JDriver1.8t]

imported post

I had a bad experience with invisible fences not working, and being attacked because of it. It was about a decade ago, and I was walking to a friends house. Their neighbor has a german shepherd that is mean and only lets people on the property when with the family, and growls the entire time.

Well, the dog barked at me the entire time I was crossing in front of the property, and then once I was past and nearing my friends house, it charged. The dog broke through the invisible fence, charge me, tackled me from behind and tore into my back.
Some how, I made it through the experience unharmed. My best description of what happened is the dog tried to treat my shirt like a rag doll. It bit at my back, got shirt, and just shredded it, while just leaving my with some scratches and shaken up. As suddenly as it started, the dog lost interest, and just went back to in front of "its" house and waited for its owner to let it back on the property because the invisible fence wouldn't let him in.

I have been charged a couple times since then, but seen it coming. Thankfully, they have all been smaller (30lbs) dogs and a swift kick w/ deflection had been the solution.
I have no problem though putting down a dog if it is acting aggressively and in a threatening manner towards me in a public area.

 

[buster81]

imported post

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/28758/dog_attacks_officer/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/237803/mad_dog_attack/

Anyone see a difference here? :banghead:

If I'm in the shoes of these two different people, one dog gets shot, the other does not!

 

[MetalChris]

imported post

buster81 wrote:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/28758/dog_attacks_officer/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/237803/mad_dog_attack/

Anyone see a difference here? :banghead:

If I'm in the shoes of these two different people, one dog gets shot, the other does not!

LoL. Nice.