Sick'em! Bad guy commands dog to attack!

[CharlieMike]

A recent thread about a dog attack raised a few questions. In that thread, janq mentioned the following video in which a belligerent dog owner commands her pit bull to attack someone:

YouTube - Pit Bull Snacks on Police Officer

In this case, the dog owner was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

My question: Assuming you are on the right side of the law and and someone is actively commanding their dog to attack you, is the owner a valid target?

I can imagine two scenarios:

a) Someone has commanded their dog to attack and it charges but it hasn't made contact yet.

b) Someone has commanded their dog to attack, it charges, closes the gap, and is actively biting you, and the owner is still provoking the dog saying, "kill! get 'em! sick 'em!" etc.

In either case, since the owner is causing the dog to attack, it is reasonable to treat the owner as the real threat? Can you shoot the owner?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[GWRedDragon]

The jury is going to ask why you didn't shoot the dog instead.

[ccw9mm]

In this case, the dog owner was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

There's the answer, I think. It is what it is.

We speak of stopping the threat, so long as the threat persists, with the degree (ideally [legally], the minimum) of force required to stop the threat. That referenced case was an example of how a deadly attack was being actively controlled by the owner, and those charges are a direct and clear acknowledgment, IMO, that the law sees such a clear situation clearly.

I believe that the laws most folks have applying to them support the citizen who would work within the same legal statutes in the same manner: stopping a lethal assault with the force necessary to stop it, even if that included terminating the owner's participation in that deadly assault.

In short, if you want to lethally attack me then you'd best be prepared for me to refuse. That would, I'm certain, start with the dog. Likely it would end there, if in fact the dog was stopped and the owner presented no further apparent ability to continue that deadly threat. If not, not.

[CopperKnight]

The dog is the threat. It won't do any good to shoot the owner if the dog is charging you or biting you. Once the dog is down, the owner is no longer a threat, unless he comes at your or has a weapon, of course.

[atctimmy]

Six months in jail for assault with a deadly weapon! That is what's wrong with America! That officer had multiple fractures and fifty + stitches not to mention the other two victims. She should have got at least 5 years. In response to the op, no, shooting the owner would not be justified. IMO just the dog is a threat.

[SIXTO]

Come on.. really!?

Wheres the threat? The dog or the owner? If you shoot the owner, will it stop the threat?

[atctimmy]

Come on.. really!?

Wheres the threat? The dog or the owner? If you shoot the owner, will it stop the threat?

I don't know Sixto, it looked like that lady was big enough to eat a person.

[Reborn]

This happen to me when I was on a warrant assignment. BG was laying on his bed when I entered the room. He commanded his dog to attach and I shot the dog thru the head. The owner was no threat after that; in fact he was on his knees with his fingers lock behind his head.

[SIXTO]

I don't know Sixto, it looked like that lady was big enough to eat a person.

Maybe, but I dont see a half wit wearing a moo moo much of a threat. Still, if you shot her, you'd see prison time.

[Tye_Defender]

Come on.. really!?

Wheres the threat? The dog or the owner? If you shoot the owner, will it stop the threat?

It might. Unless the dog is trained to ignore loud noises, the gun shot sound itself will probably stop the dog, if the owner gives the dog another command the dog will attack again. Shoot the owner, dog stops and no new command. Hard to justify to a jury though.

Of course, shoot the dog and you guarantee to stop that particular threat.

I would feel bad shooting a dog that an owner had commanded to attack me though. After I shot the dog, I'd feel bad about it.

[Mikey]

I don't know Sixto, it looked like that lady was big enough to eat a person.

HAHA, this is made my day.

I have watched that video a long time ago, and I've heard rumors that that video is fake. don't know if it is or not, just wanted to post it here.

[retsupt99]

I'm going to stop the threat, although after putting down the threat, a new threat emerge...

Stay armed...always carry metal dog biscuits...stay safe!

[detroit9mm]

I'm surprised to see a question like this asked. Shooting the owner will land you in prison. I would suggest that you invest in some additional training that focuses on the use of deadly force. Massad Ayoob sells a video on his website which covers this in depth. The use of force criteria varies somewhat from state to state (depending on whether or not you have the Castle Doctrine) so consult with a local attorney that does Use of Force cases in your area. IMO, if you are going to carry a gun for self defense you better know exactly when you can and can't use it. One mistake can ruin your life. Just my opinion!

[archer51]

My answer would be shoot the dog. Then if the owner takes a step towards you shoot them. By sic' ing the dog on you they have already assaulted you with a deadly weapon. Once they begin to approach you they are attempting to continue the assault.

[SIXTO]

My answer would be shoot the dog. Then if the owner takes a step towards you shoot them. By sic' ing the dog on you they have already assaulted you with a deadly weapon. Once they begin to approach you they are attempting to continue the assault.

I see what you are saying here, but think about that... the intention might be there, but what about the capability? Does the person have the capability to do you harm? By simply stepping forward, they are not demonstrating intent, ablilty or motive. Good luck defending yourself after you pull the trigger on that one.