Did I stutter?ericuda said:
Please see post #49.
Defense of a domestic animal
- Thread starter TapNRack
- Start date
- Status
Please see post #49.
No need to "bow out" of the thread. Just please stay on topic.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
I have a related question regarding the topic, what if the trespasser who is engaged with the animal brandishes or picks up a weapon? Does that change things?
I don't know what kind of dogs the OP has but I know my single girl in hand to paw confrontation can handle her own and will usually send people of that sort in the opposite direction. But what if the trespasser is persistent and gets or shows a weapon? Is that cause enough to pull/grab a gun?
I don't know what kind of dogs the OP has but I know my single girl in hand to paw confrontation can handle her own and will usually send people of that sort in the opposite direction. But what if the trespasser is persistent and gets or shows a weapon? Is that cause enough to pull/grab a gun?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
No, not really.
See the thing is, even if the "perpetrator" here is trespassing, he or she still is not lawfully subject to being mauled by an animal (or homeowner, or booby trap, etc.). A trespasser CAN INDEED legally defend their own life against violent attack.
If you think someone who's wandered into your yard and is attacked by your dog doesn't have the right to use whatever needed means to stop your dog from attacking them, you would be totally wrong.
Heck, if YOU run out the door and start pointing a gun at a trespasser, they CAN (and some have) draw their own weapon and defend themselves against YOU and be found in the right. Their minor legal transgression of trespassing doesn't rescind their right to life and freedom from harm. If that's true about a threat from you, it's certainly true about a threat from your dog.
See the thing is, even if the "perpetrator" here is trespassing, he or she still is not lawfully subject to being mauled by an animal (or homeowner, or booby trap, etc.). A trespasser CAN INDEED legally defend their own life against violent attack.
If you think someone who's wandered into your yard and is attacked by your dog doesn't have the right to use whatever needed means to stop your dog from attacking them, you would be totally wrong.
Heck, if YOU run out the door and start pointing a gun at a trespasser, they CAN (and some have) draw their own weapon and defend themselves against YOU and be found in the right. Their minor legal transgression of trespassing doesn't rescind their right to life and freedom from harm. If that's true about a threat from you, it's certainly true about a threat from your dog.
Hullraiser
Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
- Messages
- 194
My small & young dog was once attacked in my fenced back yard. I tried yelling and hitting to try and stop the attack first. With no results I pulled my gun and shot at close range. Problem solved.
Ofcourse the attack was by a much larger stray dog.
If it had been a person I'd have went to jail.
Ofcourse the attack was by a much larger stray dog.
If it had been a person I'd have went to jail.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
So if I've got "No Trespassing, Private Property and Beware of Dog" signs all over the place and a trespasser comes onto my property and my dog engages, the trespasser has the 'right' to defend themselves?
Maybe I'm way off base on what I think trespassing to be in terms of law, as well as 'beware of dog'. Perhaps you could educate me?
Officers'Wife
Member
I've been told that a "No trespassing" sign is merely the office to insure you have legal cause to press charges for trespass not a waiver of any harm that may befall the trespasser due to hazards on your property. After that came a long string of phrases but frankly my eyes glazed over at "attractive nuisance."
danez71
Member
Good Ol Boy,
Simply put, physical injury or death isnt punishment for trespassing.
Simply put, physical injury or death isnt punishment for trespassing.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Absolutely they do. Treapassing is a minor offense. No one gives up their rights to self defense just because they've broken some minor law. They are liable for prosecution for that minor offense. But they are not subject to bodily injury or death at your hands (or your dogs teeth) for it.
Don't feel bad. Most people really don't have any idea how the laws surrounding lethal force, defense of life, protection of property, and trespassing really work.
You putting up a no trespassing sign serves as preliminary notice that you are asking people not to enter. That's a convienience to you because if someone is found on your posted property they can be prosecuted for trespass right away. Otherwise they could only be charged with trespassing if you'd already gone to them personally and asked them to leave.
That's all the sign does. It does NOT serve notice to them that you could lawfully injure or kill them if they enter.
A beware of dog sign is even less of a legal protection. It may serve as a deterrent to entry for people who are afraid of dogs, but just because you put up a warning sign doesn't protect you from liability if your dog harms someone.
In fact I've heard it explained that it could even increase your own liability if your dog does hurt somebody because it shows you KNEW that dog was dangerous and did not take adequate steps to protect people from it.
As Frank often says, the law works in specific and sometimes counter-intuitive ways. A very great many things people think about how it works are quite wrong, and following conventional wisdom (I.e. The law according to movies and tv) will get you awfully jammed up.
Bingo!Sam1911 said:
This is one of those areas where one would have to take a very close look at the specific caselaw of the state in which an incident occurred to sort it out. In the event that a trespasser is injured by the dog, and sues the homeowner, I would expect both arguments to be made. The Plaintiff (trespasser) would argue that the sign indicates that the owner of the dog knew that the dog was dangerous. The dog's owner would argue that, in light of the sign, the trespasser assumed the risk of being attacked by entering the property in spite of the sign.Sam1911 said:
RetiredUSNChief
Member
If I may, I'd like to address some previous issues people posted and explain why they drifted from the topic, even when they thought it might be related. I'll be speaking as a retired Navy CPO who had to learn the definition of deadly force and when it was authorized.
"Suppose a trespasser on an Army base is attacked by an Army dog and in the process of defending himself, he begins to harm the dog. Would a soldier on guard duty be justified in shooting the trespasser?"
The reason why this is not germane to the OP is because the rules governing the use of deadly force for the military are different than those governing civilians. Take a look in section 4 of this link:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggdMAE&usg=AFQjCNHzWpig6bMXQjDC2TAgPi9ivpiZLg
A servicemember who shoots a trespasser on military facilities isn't doing so because the trespasser is beating the guard dog...he shoots the trespasser for one of the seven reasons he's authorized to use deadly force.
You and I, as civilians, only get to use reasons 1, 2, and 6 in accordance with the jursidictional laws wherever we're at. (Texas laws on property protection not withstanding.)
"Suppose a trespasser to police owned property is attacked by a police dog and in the process of defending himself, he begins to harm the dog. Would the police be justified in shooting the trespasser?"
Here, I'm not speaking as someone from a civilian law enforcement background. However, in a similar fashion, LEOs are authorized to use deadly force in some circumstances which go beyond that for regular civilians ("private citizens").
Police would thus act similarly to the explanation I discussed above, for the military example. It's not the harming of the dog that gets one justifiably shot...it's the total circumstances of the encounter, based upon the rules of engagement for the use of deadly force under which police officers are trained and authorized to operate by.
Not being LEO, I'll leave this matter for the LEO members and lawyers here to more fully address (and correct) as they see fit.
As with many postings in which the OP cites a specific example, it's easy, indeed human nature, to start changing the circumstances in order to make a point that isn't really on target with what the OP asked in the first place. What I wanted to do here was explain the root reason(s) that these two circumstances are NOT in line with the OP's question, because those ARE germane to the discussion: one must understand WHEN you are authorized to use deadly force. The authorizations are based on the role in which you are acting. And for the most part, we're talking about private citizen roles, as opposed to LEO or military.
I hope this helps.
"Suppose a trespasser on an Army base is attacked by an Army dog and in the process of defending himself, he begins to harm the dog. Would a soldier on guard duty be justified in shooting the trespasser?"
The reason why this is not germane to the OP is because the rules governing the use of deadly force for the military are different than those governing civilians. Take a look in section 4 of this link:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggdMAE&usg=AFQjCNHzWpig6bMXQjDC2TAgPi9ivpiZLg
A servicemember who shoots a trespasser on military facilities isn't doing so because the trespasser is beating the guard dog...he shoots the trespasser for one of the seven reasons he's authorized to use deadly force.
You and I, as civilians, only get to use reasons 1, 2, and 6 in accordance with the jursidictional laws wherever we're at. (Texas laws on property protection not withstanding.)
"Suppose a trespasser to police owned property is attacked by a police dog and in the process of defending himself, he begins to harm the dog. Would the police be justified in shooting the trespasser?"
Here, I'm not speaking as someone from a civilian law enforcement background. However, in a similar fashion, LEOs are authorized to use deadly force in some circumstances which go beyond that for regular civilians ("private citizens").
Police would thus act similarly to the explanation I discussed above, for the military example. It's not the harming of the dog that gets one justifiably shot...it's the total circumstances of the encounter, based upon the rules of engagement for the use of deadly force under which police officers are trained and authorized to operate by.
Not being LEO, I'll leave this matter for the LEO members and lawyers here to more fully address (and correct) as they see fit.
As with many postings in which the OP cites a specific example, it's easy, indeed human nature, to start changing the circumstances in order to make a point that isn't really on target with what the OP asked in the first place. What I wanted to do here was explain the root reason(s) that these two circumstances are NOT in line with the OP's question, because those ARE germane to the discussion: one must understand WHEN you are authorized to use deadly force. The authorizations are based on the role in which you are acting. And for the most part, we're talking about private citizen roles, as opposed to LEO or military.
I hope this helps.
larry_minn
Member
Just from first post. NO. You do not want to shoot anyone. Finding "reasons" where you can shoot them... 
Contact Police that there have been trespassers,you are concerned (whatever you are concerned about)
Maybe consider motion activated camers, lights....
Personally if my dog is attacking anyone I will attack them. You would have to hurt my wife to get my dog to bite you.
Contact Police that there have been trespassers,you are concerned (whatever you are concerned about)
Maybe consider motion activated camers, lights....
Personally if my dog is attacking anyone I will attack them. You would have to hurt my wife to get my dog to bite you.
Saw-Bones
Member
This is a no-no in my State, but in Colorado how about a non-lethal load of salt rock in the perp’s ass for trying to kill or injure your guard dogs or attack cats for that matter?
Just sayin'...
Just sayin'...
RetiredUSNChief
Member
This is a no-no in my State, but in Colorado how about a non-lethal load of salt rock in the perp’s ass for trying to kill or injure your guard dogs or attack cats for that matter?
Just sayin'...
Heh! I know you're being sarcastic here, but you don't get a legal thumbs up for "non-lethal load of salt".
Shooting anybody with anything is going to be considered an application of deadly force. And we don't want to go there in this thread.
JTHunter
Member
If you want "non-lethal", what about a baseball bat or golf club to the arms or legs? Incapacitate - not kill.
Posted by JTHunter:
Striking with a bat, a golf club, or just about any other kind of bludgeon is likely to be considered the use of deadly force. An exception is the use of certain specialized law enforcement instruments by persons well trained in their use.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
"Deadly Force is that amount of force which I know, or should know, will cause serious bodily injury or death, to be used as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed."
That's the definition as I had to memorize it many years ago in the Navy.
In the link I provided previously, page 13 contains the following verbiage on the definition of deadly force:
"Force that a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm or injury."
Please note here that nowhere in the definition of deadly force is there any limitation on the methodology of applying that deadly force. No mention of guns, knives, clubs, specific martial training, etc.
Attacking someone with a baseball bat or some other club is, therefore, a defacto use of deadly force.
And before someone jumps in and points out that this isn't the military (since I use the military definitions in my postings here), let me point out that the definition of deadly force is virtually identical in the civilian world as well. The only major difference between private citizens and the military (or LEO) is WHEN deadly force is authorized to be used.
That's the definition as I had to memorize it many years ago in the Navy.
In the link I provided previously, page 13 contains the following verbiage on the definition of deadly force:
"Force that a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm or injury."
Please note here that nowhere in the definition of deadly force is there any limitation on the methodology of applying that deadly force. No mention of guns, knives, clubs, specific martial training, etc.
Attacking someone with a baseball bat or some other club is, therefore, a defacto use of deadly force.
And before someone jumps in and points out that this isn't the military (since I use the military definitions in my postings here), let me point out that the definition of deadly force is virtually identical in the civilian world as well. The only major difference between private citizens and the military (or LEO) is WHEN deadly force is authorized to be used.
- Status