Trespasser killing your pet in the yard, deadly force justified? - Page 4

Trespasser killing your pet in the yard, deadly force justified?

This is a discussion on Trespasser killing your pet in the yard, deadly force justified? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by 1911srule Seems like a lot of people here are willing to go to prison for their dog by going straight for a ...

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 138
Like Tree309Likes

Thread: Trespasser killing your pet in the yard, deadly force justified?

  1. #46
    Distinguished Member Array kukla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,385
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911srule View Post
    Seems like a lot of people here are willing to go to prison for their dog by going straight for a firearm for the solution. Decision making based on emotion imho will get you prison time. I agree prevention best cure, keeping a dog tied probably cuts this probability down significantly....glad its a hypothetical...but could happen especially for people living in close proximity to others. Ya never know.
    I hope you meant keeping a dog trained.
    Keeping a dog tied makes it a trapped target for an attack by another dog, an abuser, a coyote, etc.
    AzQkr, Hoganbeg, BamaT and 1 others like this.
    "I plan ahead. That way, I don't have to do anything right now!"

  2. #47
    VIP Member Array Hodad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Roswell, GA
    Posts
    3,520
    I wouldn't shoot him if that's what you are implying.

    I would simply beat him to within an inch of his life with a baseball bat (much more satisfying) and then call my dog's vet (not a doctor a vet) since the circumstance involves injuries to two animals.
    Skullthumper likes this.
    "Life is tough but it's really tough if you are stupid"

  3. #48
    Senior Member Array DaGunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    850
    I'd just let my other Rottweiler out and try to get a picture of the BG's face when he sees it charging him.
    Struckat likes this.
    KNOWLEDGE: A tomato is a fruit.
    WISDOM: Not putting a tomato in a fruit salad.
    .

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #49
    Senior Member Array BradyM77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    729
    If someone were to manage to get the drop on one of the dogs the other two would quickly be taking care of the situation long before I could intervene.
    Struckat likes this.
    "Good. Bad. I'm the one with the gun." Ash

  6. #50
    Member Array sqlb3rn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    We have a great, big, long thread about a similar topic only recently.

    Long story short - We (rightly) imagine our pets as family. The law (rightly) classifies our critters as property. I'm not an attorney (thank Gaud!), yet it seems to me a real s-t-r-e-c-h to justifiably defend a shooting in this instance under the Castle Doctrine.
    Thanks, I mentioned I did some searching, but I didn't see other threads. The only scenarios I saw were if another dog were attacking your dog, not a human attacking your dog. I also saw scenarios if a human attacked your pet in a home invasion would you shoot them, but since castle doctrine applies it's perfectly legal and not an interesting question. I already went over the dog is considered property, and castle doctrine does not apply in my original post. I ask about this scenario because of a little clause in "stand your ground" law that says this:
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.
    because aggravated animal cruelty is a felony, which does make "would you shoot to protect fido" an interesting question, because it seems like you could be justified. I realize I am not going to get law advice, but thought it an interesting scenario considering castle doctrine does not apply, defending yourself or another person does not apply, but stand your ground could apply based on the underlined section.

    Please keep in mind this is a hypothetical, I even picked a dog because I figured no one is going to shoot someone over a cat or other pet. So preventative answers like "build a fence and be a nice neighbor", while I agree, it does not really apply to this hypothetical scenario.

  7. #51
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    10,874
    Quote Originally Posted by sqlb3rn View Post
    ...it does not really apply to this hypothetical scenario.
    Well, that's one of the funny things about hypothetical scenario quizification. All of the suggested solutions are...hypothetical as well.
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  8. #52
    Senior Member Array BuckJM53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertywheel View Post
    No. I love my dogs. But I love my family more. I carry to protect them. I can't protect my family from behind bars.
    My thoughts exactly
    I was taught to respect my elders! The problem is, I'm having a much harder time finding them these days .

  9. #53
    Member Array rickcharles606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    36

    Trespasser killing your pet in the yard, deadly force justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave909 View Post
    If you're beating someones' pet or even your own, you've earned that bullet in my opinion. Animal cruelty is right up there with hurting a child.
    This is a ridiculous statement, pets are animals and children are human beings. NOT the same thing. I love my pets, but wouldn't run into a busy intersection to save their lives, but would do so without thinking for my kids. Just my opinion:-)

    I should add that if someone did somehow get the jump on my 115lb German Shepherd, who guards this property with extreme prejudice, I'd be surprised. That said, I wouldn't go to guns immediately, but would intervene "forcefully", because I love my Gunner lol. If the BG then turned on me, well....you know the rest.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  10. #54
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    13,021
    Quote Originally Posted by sqlb3rn View Post
    Thanks, I mentioned I did some searching, but I didn't see other threads. The only scenarios I saw were if another dog were attacking your dog, not a human attacking your dog. I also saw scenarios if a human attacked your pet in a home invasion would you shoot them, but since castle doctrine applies it's perfectly legal and not an interesting question. I already went over the dog is considered property, and castle doctrine does not apply in my original post. I ask about this scenario because of a little clause in "stand your ground" law that says this:


    because aggravated animal cruelty is a felony, which does make "would you shoot to protect fido" an interesting question, because it seems like you could be justified. I realize I am not going to get law advice, but thought it an interesting scenario considering castle doctrine does not apply, defending yourself or another person does not apply, but stand your ground could apply based on the underlined section.

    Please keep in mind this is a hypothetical, I even picked a dog because I figured no one is going to shoot someone over a cat or other pet. So preventative answers like "build a fence and be a nice neighbor", while I agree, it does not really apply to this hypothetical scenario.
    The law is pretty clear on this in every state. Pets are considered property, and few if any states allow one to use deadly force to protect property. I'd never consider shooting the hypothetical perp in your scenario while I ran to intervene and protect the dog. I won't shoot him to protect the dog, but I will shoot him instantly if the perps creates a situation where I have to defend myself while protecting the dog by putting myself in between the two.
    The mind is the limiting factor

    https://www.youtube.com/user/azqkr

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  11. #55
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    22,953
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    The law is pretty clear on this in every state. Pets are considered property, and few if any states allow one to use deadly force to protect property. I'd never consider shooting the hypothetical perp in your scenario while I ran to intervene and protect the dog. I won't shoot him to protect the dog, but I will shoot him instantly if the perps creates a situation where I have to defend myself while protecting the dog by putting myself in between the two.
    I honestly expected this thread to burn out after the first page or so, simply because there are no jurisdictions which allow the use of lethal force in the described scenario. Once that has been said four or five times, there really doesn't seem like there would be much to talk about. That not being the case, I would strongly urge those who believe they could shoot their dog's assailant and get a prosecution or jury pass to review the use of lethal force laws for their state. Litigating a case like this would cost thousands, and would most likely go against the shooter.

    This is probably one of the largest concealed carry forums out there, and it is open to the public. The old "idiots who make us all look bad" adage is certainly in effect on this thread. Imagine legislators who are considering loosening gun restrictions reading through this thread as part of their decision-making process.
    "Ideals are peaceful. History is violent."

    Don Collier, Fury

  12. #56
    Member Array Skullthumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by Hodad View Post
    I wouldn't shoot him if that's what you are implying.

    I would simply beat him to within an inch of his life with a baseball bat (much more satisfying) and then call my dog's vet (not a doctor a vet) since the circumstance involves injuries to two animals.
    I agree. MY dog is family to me. No gun needed. Ones going to the VET and one's going to the ER
    Retired United States Air Force 1983-2004

  13. #57
    Senior Member Array Dougb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Minn
    Posts
    634
    You are allowed to take action to protect and recover property, short of killing or injuring a person. If the action to protect results in a counteraction that is life threatening, you are allowed to defend yourself. In MN, a good guy witnessed an attempted purse theft that involved a pistol whipping. Thug left the scene with the purse. GG gave chase and bought the guy. BG attempted to pull the gun, and was slow. Law said it was two separate acts, both legal. Giving chase to recover, and self defense. For a purse, I won't. For the dog, maybe. I like the dog. (family of BG was sad, as he was turning his life around. His sister was a "witness" and wound up in jail).

  14. #58
    VIP Member Array matthew03's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    VA-KY
    Posts
    4,358
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    We have a great, big, long thread about a similar topic only recently.

    Long story short - We (rightly) imagine our pets as family. The law (rightly) classifies our critters as property. I'm not an attorney (thank Gaud!), yet it seems to me a real s-t-r-e-c-h to justifiably defend a shooting in this instance under the Castle Doctrine.
    Look at my cat, Banshee, cross eyed and you will never again be seen.

    She's an indoor cat, so if someone is messing with her, they are probably already in my sights.

  15. #59
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    10,874
    Quote Originally Posted by matthew03 View Post
    Look at my cat, Banshee, cross eyed and you will never again be seen.

    She's an indoor cat, so if someone is messing with her, they are probably already in my sights.
    Yeah but Brother Matt, we have the distinct advantage over more, uhhhh, urban-dwellers. We have deep-woods dirt & a...backhoe.

    "No officer, I never even SAW the guy."
    Struckat likes this.
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  16. #60
    VIP Member Array matthew03's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    VA-KY
    Posts
    4,358
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    Yeah but Brother Matt, we have the distinct advantage over more, uhhhh, urban-dwellers. We have deep-woods dirt & a...backhoe.

    "No officer, I never even SAW the guy."
    Now that I'm back in VA, it's not as easy as it was in KY, plus everything I saw there led me to believe dueling was approved if not expected.

    I also don't have G here to bail me out with the local LEO's.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •