21 foot rule equivalent for dogs?

[akodo]

The other thread got me thinking.

I am sure you are all more familiar with the specifics of the 21 foot rule than I am, but the basics of it are...

From standing flat footed and appearing unarmed, a person can draw a knife and dash 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. This is also roughly the amount of time it takes a well trained police officer (or carrying citizen with good training) to pull an openly carried firearm and fire one shot.

I am going to assume concealed carry would add time to that factor, and we all known 'action beats reaction' which in this case means it will take a split second between your eyes intaking the data of 'he has a knife and is moving my way!' and your brain receiving this data, processing it as INCOMING THREAT, and then process SOLUTION: DRAW AND FIRE and then to finally process GIVE HANDS-ARMS THE COMMAND: COMMENCE DRAW AND FIRE NOW!


But what is the rule for dogs?

To anyone's knowledge, has there been any study about how fast a dog can go from sitting/standing to teeth on? Like for instance a trained police dog, how much distance can it cover in 1.5 seconds?

As we saw above, self defense against dogs can be very complicated. NOTE: PLEASE CONCENTRATE ON SPECIFIC INCIDENTS, OR GENERIC ATTACKS/BEHAVIORS, NOT ON THE LOCKED INCIDENT.

I assume we all agree that you don't have to wait for the criminal to actually stab into flesh before firing.

Do we all agree that in the same manner, we don't have to wait for a dog to actually sink teeth into flesh before firing?

Of course, another complication is that all dogs have teeth, but not all people have weaponry. If you shoot a guy claiming 'he pulled a knife and menaced me at very close range' and then the police find a knife on the corpse, this will be seen as corroborating evidence, because most people don't have knives on them. For a dog, of course the dog will have teeth, that is the standard! So what corroborating evidence can you supply that the dog had barred his teeth and appeared about to attack as much as a man pulling a knife would appear ready to attack?

It is true that most dogs are very territorial, and will raise a ruckus and bare teeth, but never actually leave the yard...this is 99.9% of dogs. But many attacks end up being cases of the dog leaving the yard to attack. From the outside, the behaviors of a normal dog being territorial and a dangerous dog ready and willing to ignore his owner's yard and attack will look nearly identical. How can the average person distinguish between them? Do you need to get a degree in Animal Behavior to spot the tiny distinctions to be justified in using force?

What about the cases where the dog has appropriated public right-of-way as part of his territory? A great example of this would be a side-walk that passes across the front yard. What about someone who has a reasonable reason for being on your property?

Say A person pulls up to a house to sell something, deliver fliers, or ask for directions. Person gets out of car and approaches house, and rings bell. Dog, who had been in the back yard hears the bell and comes charging around the corner teeth bare, snarling. Do you expect the person to submit to the attack simply because they are on the dog's yard? Do you suggest the person try and run for their car maybe 20 yards away? (which could kick the dog into prey pursuit mode) Do you believe the person being on the 'dog's property' needs to wait until he is bitten before he can use force to stop the dog? Can the person simply draw and shoot the dog?

Again, 99.99% of dogs in that situation probably wouldn't bite...but a lot of dog bites at the emergency room come from stories like that.

For the record, I am a HUGE dog fan. However, I also recall my sister when she was about 4 or so getting rushed by a dog and bitten when we were at a public park, by a dog the owner would have sworn 'would never hurt anyone, this dog loves kids!'

Also, we are all familiar with shooting incidents where the shopkeeper or homeowner is forced to defend themselves and in the aftermath it turns out the attacker is killed. At that point you have all his family and relatives and school friends and basketball teammates etc etc coming out and saying 'My boy was a good boy, he never did no harm to nobody! Why'd that guy have to shoot my son, he never been in trouble with the law, he was always fun at parties never caused any trouble, was a great player and teammate!'

We tend to roll our eyes at that. We realize these people are both very biased and ignoring the evidence right in front of them that their son was indeed a scumbag. If a mother can be that wrong about her son, how much credence should we give any dog-owner who states 'my dog would never do that! He's a good dog!' OR, on the flip side, if the stereotypical 'attacker's mother' is correct, and her son's actions are out of character, but happened non-the-less, how much weight can we put in a dog owner's statement of 'my dog would never do that! he's never done it before!'

 

[Gunnerpalace]

This wont end well, people get all wound up over this topic,

I'll just say, you do what you have to to stay alive.

 

[Dr.Who]

Just to make this simple.... The 21 foot rule for human's (2 legs) should maybe be 40 foot rule for Dogs (4 Legs). Twice as many legs, twice as quick.... Now I'm not applying any science to this formula.... Just looking at the double leg power....

If I was a conceal carry person and a dog was charging me, with what I feel is intent to do harm, he may get a warning shot or just a shot in his chest... Depends on the circumstance. I know that from concealment, I can draw and fire a point shot in close contact in 1.25 seconds. An aimed shot a bit longer, due to bring gun up to aquire sight picture. So the question is, how fast can a medium size to large dog cover 40 feet?

 

[Maelstrom]

I'd look up the average running speed for a dog and an average running speed for a human. I forget the exact numbers but a typical dog is about twice as fast as a person.

 

[Geneseo1911]

The problem is, a it's pretty easy to tell if a human is going to attack or just wants to play; it's not so easy with a dog.

By the time you could have any inkling a dog has bad intentions, it's too late. You can't shoot every running dog (plus I'd bet they're darn hard to hit), so the best solution is avoidance and keeping an adult between ANY unknown animal and any vulnerable person (ie child etc).

 

[JMusic]

I've shot a lot of dogs it would be hard for me to do it much anymore. Move , use your feet or cover but remember dogs can turn fast. I hit one with a knomchocks one time and about knocked myself out. When they are coming toward you you are better off to try to push them away with feet, hip, or hands then kick the hell out of them right behind the rubs. At least thats what I here. Yeah shouting helps too when they get close. Not many dogs are a problem if you stay calm and do not show fear. Serious dogs in my experience make little noise and your first indication is when you hear them running or they hit you.



JIM

 

[hso]

A teacup poodle and a standard poodle will cover the same distance in different amounts of time. That's just the variation within a breed. Considering that there's a much greater variation within the whole range of breeds it would be difficult to establish any similar rule of thumb.

 

[ArmedBear]

Say A person pulls up to a house to sell something, deliver fliers, or ask for directions. Person gets out of car and approaches house, and rings bell. Dog, who had been in the back yard hears the bell and comes charging around the corner teeth bare, snarling. Do you expect the person to submit to the attack simply because they are on the dog's yard?

And when you're found shot dead on someone else's property where you had no specific business being, with a gun in your hand and one round fired, then what?

Seriously, if a stranger was on your property with a gun out, pointing it at your dog, or whatever -- more so if he FIRES the gun -- would you be expected to ask him a lot of questions before you used force to stop a deadly threat? "Self-defense" is a pretty limited thing, when you're on someone else's property without an invitation. Brandishing a firearm would most likely be an act of offense, not defense.

I'm guessing that, most of the time, you'd be far better off yelling for the property owner, and suing for any injury from the dog attack, than to be found shooting a gun on someone else's property for any reason. The guy following the dog with a 12 Gauge might call off the dog when he sees you're not a threat, but if he finds you pointing a pistol in his direction, he might be inclined to shoot you.

People don't think these scenarios through very much.

(The best defense is your brain. Don't intentionally go into any situation that could require you to use a gun in self-defense, or that gives you a bad feeling. Stay off others' property unless you have a reason to be there initiated by the owner. Selling something, littering their door with flyers, or "asking for directions" are not initiated by the property owner. Furthermore, "asking for directions' can be a suspicious act in and of itself in some contexts.)

 

[huntsman]

Say A person pulls up to a house to sell something, deliver fliers, or ask for directions. Person gets out of car and approaches house, and rings bell. Dog, who had been in the back yard hears the bell and comes charging around the corner teeth bare, snarling. Do you expect the person to submit to the attack simply because they are on the dog's yard? Do you suggest the person try and run for their car maybe 20 yards away? (which could kick the dog into prey pursuit mode) Do you believe the person being on the 'dog's property' needs to wait until he is bitten before he can use force to stop the dog? Can the person simply draw and shoot the dog?

The best thing to do is understand dog behavior.

I had a job that took me into people's yards without prior notice, naturally I had dog encounters but I never had one just rush up and attack, even Rots and Dobies would stop and size up the situation.

So no I'd say you couldn't just shoot a dog because he's inside 40' or even 20'. But I wouldn't advise any running or other fast movement either and never turn your back on them.

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW dogs can attack VERY quickly.

However, in nearly all cases, these are extremely-well-trained dogs (e.g. police K9), and they attack ON COMMAND, not whenever they see someone.

huntsman is right on, re guard dogs that encounter a human and have not been commanded to do anything. If they're growling, that means they aren't attacking. They want you to leave, so they don't have to fight.

Furthermore, if the dog has not been commanded to attack you, a properly-presented Slim Jim (the "food" item, not the auto burglary tool) would probably be a better defense than a handgun.

 

[buck460XVR]

a human with a knife or gun will kill you within seconds........a dog ain't gonna be that fast. You give 'em your free arm to chew on and you got maybe four or five minutes till he gets to your jugular. Make the most of it.


That's if he's alone.

 

[21bubba]

Years ago a k-9 officer told me that a dog can be defeated one way, treat it like a man. Stand your ground and fight it as if you're in a street fight. Most people let a dog attack them. The trick is to go on the offensive. Punch it, grab it and choke it, get it down and kick the living crap outta it.
Sure you might get scratched, maybe bit, but remember, you're being attacked by something that probably weighs 120 pounds max. It's only "weapon" are teeth.
Yes i've been attacked by a dog before (rottwhiller). I got bit once, but the dog had a broken nose and broken ribs.

 

[Frank Ettin]

First, it's not a rule. It's a drill intended to demonstrate the distance at which an attacker with a contact weapons can be a credible threat.

 

[akodo]

And when you're found shot dead on someone else's property where you had no specific business being, with a gun in your hand and one round fired, then what?

Seriously, if a stranger was on your property with a gun out, pointing it at your dog, or whatever -- more so if he FIRES the gun -- would you be expected to ask him a lot of questions before you used force to stop a deadly threat? "Self-defense" is a pretty limited thing, when you're on someone else's property without an invitation. Brandishing a firearm would most likely be an act of offense, not defense.

wait, so you are saying that anyone on your property with a firearm in hand, you just shoot first and ask questions later?

One argument against CCW the antis like to make is that in a situation that would warrant use of a firearm, the CCWers will be busy shooting eachother, as they will see 'man with a gun!'

This seems to be the argument you are making.

The counter to this argument can be found in the advice of some of the Israelies when asked this question about their generally armed society. Their answer was 'easy...the guy shooting unarmed people, women, and children, he's the terrorist!'

This means (to me anyways) when encountering another armed individual who isn't aiming the gun at you, you need to see what he is acting against before you decide if you are going to fight against him or with him.

Seriously, if a stranger was on your property with a gun out, pointing it at your dog, or whatever -- more so if he FIRES the gun -- would you be expected to ask him a lot of questions before you used force to stop a deadly threat?

really? And then you look down and realize the stranger was shooting your dog because it was biting a child? Too bad, stranger dead?

Are you saying that you would only use YOUR firearm for self defense on YOUR property, for fear of being mistake by the property owner as an attacker? Seems to me you deal with the CURRENT threat with whatever tools you have, and worry about a future threat when it materializes.

"Self-defense" is a pretty limited thing, when you're on someone else's property without an invitation. Brandishing a firearm would most likely be an act of offense, not defense.

That is contrary to my understanding. Self-Defense is pretty much 'you can use whatever means necessary to stop someone/thing from attempting to kill/seriously harm you or your loved ones. If the attacker is killed in the process, that is acceptable.

Now, it is true that in some states on your own property you are given 'benifit of the doubt' in an instance of, say, an armed intruder in your home. To my knowledge, "Castle Laws" and the like don't apply to the front lawn or driveway.

To me, the reasonable thing to do with a HUMAN not actively threatening you, but clearly armed, #1 assess what threat they are dealing with and then #2 to COMMUNICATE with them. It is much easier to do that with a person than a dog. Tell them drop the gun, yell GET DOWN GET DOWN GET DOWN at them, etc. Now, if the guy swings the gun toward you...then you are reacting to his action, not simply him having a gun.

In closing, I must suggest you never go and buy land in a rural area where the exact boundaries are not clearly marked. You might have a hunter who inadvertantly crosses a few feet off the property he has permission to hunt and onto yours, at which point you would apparently shoot them in self defense because they have a gun in their hands.

 

[Sunray]

You will never be faster than any animal.
"...understand dog behavior..." Exactly. Dogs defend their territory, even if it's a wee bit of front yard. Dogs don't pay the least bit of attention to warning shots. However, a dog running at you isn't necessarily charging. He may be just running out to greet you.
Listen to Geneseo1911.

 

[22-rimfire]

Every situation is different. I make no rules. I follow my instincts.

 

[lions]

...a properly-presented Slim Jim (the "food" item, not the auto burglary tool) would probably be a better defense than a handgun.

But how fast can you draw and deploy a concealed Slim Jim?

 

[bigfatdave]

Stand your ground and fight it as if you're in a street fight. Most people let a dog attack them. The trick is to go on the offensive. Punch it, grab it and choke it, get it down and kick the living crap outta it.

I have been attacked by two different dogs. Both times, the solution was to attempt to jam my fist through the mouth and out the back end. Both times I received only minor scrapes on the arm from teeth, and was able to disengage.
I'm not saying that a firearm isn't a viable choice for canine defense, but rule zero still applies - DON'T PANIC.
You are smarter than a dog (I hope), most adults are larger than most breeds by a comfortable margin, and you are on the defense, so the dog's speed isn't as much of an advantage. A club of some kind will give most dogs pause, while a handgun might not even be noticed until a round is discharged ... perhaps an asp/baton would be the better plan if you are expecting canine encounters.

 

[springmom]

But how fast can you draw and deploy a concealed Slim Jim?

Come to the free state of Texas. We can open carry Slim Jims without a problem. Handguns, no. Slim Jims...you're good.

Probably the best suggestion I've heard yet. I have never seen a dog that didn't become my Very Best Friend when I had a piece of jerky to dangle in front of his nose.

Jan

 

[ArmedBear]

wait, so you are saying that anyone on your property with a firearm in hand, you just shoot first and ask questions later?

The "rule" I've heard is "you can't talk and shoot at the same time." If I ask a lot of questions, or yell repeatedly like a cheerleader, I'm asking to die.

I doubt I'd say anything beyond, "Drop it!" with my gun pointed at him and my finger on the trigger. That's what the cops would do, too. If he turns towards me with the gun still in his hand, I'm not volunteering to die.

In closing, I must suggest you never go and buy land in a rural area where the exact boundaries are not clearly marked. You might have a hunter who inadvertantly crosses a few feet off the property he has permission to hunt and onto yours, at which point you would apparently shoot them in self defense because they have a gun in their hands.

There's a pretty clear distinction between a hunter hiking around and a guy on my property brandishing a handgun in front of my house, whether I live on 1/10 acre or 100.

Here's the thing: when you're dead, will you care about the property owner's court case?

But hey, you go and assert your right to shoot on someone else's property and enjoy yourself. Personally, I wouldn't be too eager to get shot. But maybe you'd enjoy it.

 

[jerkface11]

Carrying a gun will probably present less legal difficulties than carrying a club.

 

[jerkface11]

And this nonsense is why dog threads always get locked.

Seriously, if a stranger was on your property with a gun out, pointing it at your dog, or whatever -- more so if he FIRES the gun -- would you be expected to ask him a lot of questions before you used force to stop a deadly threat? "Self-defense" is a pretty limited thing, when you're on someone else's property without an invitation. Brandishing a firearm would most likely be an act of offense, not defense.

IF YOUR DOG ATTACKS SOMEONE IT SHOULD BE KILLED. If you want your dog to live control and contain it.

 

[ArmedBear]

jerkface, that's true, to an extent (not including a guard dog on your property, which is not something I own but I think that anyone has a right to have if they want to -- on their property).

However, I'm guessing from experience that most people can't tell if a dog is attacking or running around the yard. Maybe in your neck of the woods they can, but not where I've been.

Stay off private property, though, and you won't have to worry about that so much.

Or are you seriously recommending that I come down to Arkansas, stroll around on others' property, and shoot their dogs if they come running at me?

I don't think that would be a good idea. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

There's a difference between "I have the technical right to do X" and "Doing X is a good idea." I don't think that the OP had really given a lot of thought to what is "a good idea".

The fact that he just posted another long post arguing about his rights, and castle doctrine law, etc., demonstrates clearly that he doesn't WANT to consider what is "a good idea."

If there's a guy in my BACK yard with a gun out, he's VERY close to getting shot. I have a full fence around it. I'd call the cops then wait with a gun pointed at him. My exact actions would depend on his demeanor.

If there's a guy in my FRONT yard with a gun out, I'd call the cops, and have my gun ready. At best, he'll have explaining to do when the cops arrive (because I will ID him when he's down the street, too).

HOWEVER, I'm pretty sane. I do NOT trust that everyone, even on my own street, will act with a lot of restraint. The technicalities of castle doctrine law don't stop bullets, nor do they make all people cool-headed.

And that's not even considering the fact that a house with an unrestrained human-aggressive dog is likely to contain people who are NOT exactly law abiding... Don't you have any meth or other drugs where you live?

Do you think that your being "right" will extract those bullets from you?

 

[christcorp]

I will simply say that a gun is just a tool. If you are planning on a gun potentially SAVING your life; DON'T!!! "Gun don't Kill people; People Kill People". "Guns don't SAVE people; People Save People". It's simply a tool. Other MORE IMPORTANT tools are: Being able to be aware of your situation and surroundings. This alone can help you AVOID potential hazardous situations. Also; knowing/learning some very basic self defense moves. (You don't even need classes; just the HOWS and practice on your own); This will help you with giving yourself more time, or assisting when you don't have the 1.5 seconds/21 feet to work with. This is applicable to humans or dogs.

When the gun comes out; it's a neutralizing tool. It should bring such a situation to a halt. Either 1) The criminal stops. 2) The criminal Flees. or 3) You shoot the criminal. I'm sorry, but I truly believe (based on my own experiences) that no matter how good you are with a gun; no matter how much you practice; and no matter how much you've played every possible scenario in your mind: This is not hollywood. And if you think that all you need is a gun, and being proficient is going to save your life when needed; then I can only pray that you never need it. (Which I pray that no one ever needs it anyway). But a gun alone is not going to save you. It NEVER has, and NEVER will. It's you the person who will save you. When you add other tools to your self-defense; besides a gun; your chances of survival go up more than they did by you having a gun. Don't get me wrong; I definitely support guns. I wish that more people owned and carried them. But more people in the country have defended themselves from attacks by using many other tools than those who have had a gun. The gun can definitely give you an edge. But to have the attitude of: "I have a gun now; I'll be safe", is a very dangerous attitude to have.

 

[bigfatdave]

Carrying a gun will probably present less legal difficulties than carrying a club.

I lost a bit there, I was talking about an improvised club or baton ... not suggesting that everyone carry a baseball bat at all times.
(not to say that a law-abiding citizen carrying a baseball bat should raise any eyebrows, either ... even though it would)