Can I shoot an animal that is a threat?

[jbarn]

Texas Penal Code
Sec. 42.092. CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS. (a) In this section:
(1) "Abandon" includes abandoning an animal in the person's custody without making reasonable arrangements for assumption of custody by another person.
(2) "Animal" means a domesticated living creature, including any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured. The term does not include an uncaptured wild living creature or a livestock animal.
(3) "Cruel manner" includes a manner that causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering.
(4) "Custody" includes responsibility for the health, safety, and welfare of an animal subject to the person's care and control, regardless of ownership of the animal.
(5) "Depredation" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.001, Parks and Wildlife Code.
(6) "Livestock animal" has the meaning assigned by Section 42.09.
(7) "Necessary food, water, care, or shelter" includes food, water, care, or shelter provided to the extent required to maintain the animal in a state of good health.
(8) "Torture" includes any act that causes unjustifiable pain or suffering.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(1) tortures an animal or in a cruel manner kills or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;
(2) without the owner's effective consent, kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;

How does shooting one in the back of the head and letting it suffer fit with the part of the law you highlited in red? Seems to me it would be against the law.

In what context?

[mojo84]

In whatever context. The law you pointed out didn't specify context?

[jbarn]

In whatever context. The law you pointed out didn't specify context?

I was wondering from where you got the shoot a dog in the head and leave it to suffer.

But, yes, that would be unlawful. Penal code 9.22 might provide a defense to prosecution.

[mojo84]

In whatever context. The law you pointed out didn't specify context?

I was wondering from where you got the shoot a dog in the head and leave it to suffer.

But, yes, that would be unlawful. Penal code 9.22 might provide a defense to prosecution.

I can see instances when it would be necessary to shoot a dog. However, not sure I can picture very many instances when it would be necessary to critically wound a dog and leave it to die a slow death without taking the necessary steps to put it out of its misery.

[EEllis]

In whatever context. The law you pointed out didn't specify context?

I was wondering from where you got the shoot a dog in the head and leave it to suffer.

But, yes, that would be unlawful. Penal code 9.22 might provide a defense to prosecution.

I can see instances when it would be necessary to spot a dog. However, not sure I can picture very many instances when it would be necessary to critically wound a dog and leave it to die a slow death without taking the necessary steps to put it out of its misery.

There is no requirement to "put it out of it's misery" if you legally shoot an animal and don't instantly kill it. Point of fact you could be in violation of the law for doing so since the animal theoretically would not be a danger and you would no longer have legal reasons to have a gun out or to fire a gun in an area where such was prohibited.

[Dragonfighter]

As I am aging and 28 years of firefighting injuries is taking its toll I am a mere shadow of myself where strength, speed and agility are concerned. That said I would feel pretty small if I resorted to shooting anything I can hold up at arms length by the scruff of the neck. So it would have to be something at least capable of nipping above my shoe tops while standing flat footed. My stance on this in no way precludes the option to punt.

[jayinsat]

As I am aging and 28 years of firefighting injuries is taking its toll I am a mere shadow of myself where strength, speed and agility are concerned. That said I would feel pretty small if I resorted to shooting anything I can hold up at arms length by the scruff of the neck. So it would have to be something at least capable of nipping above my shoe tops while standing flat footed. My stance on this in no way precludes the option to punt.

[The Annoyed Man]

Texas Penal Code
Sec. 42.092. CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS. (a) In this section:
(1) "Abandon" includes abandoning an animal in the person's custody without making reasonable arrangements for assumption of custody by another person.
(2) "Animal" means a domesticated living creature, including any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured. The term does not include an uncaptured wild living creature or a livestock animal.
(3) "Cruel manner" includes a manner that causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering.
(4) "Custody" includes responsibility for the health, safety, and welfare of an animal subject to the person's care and control, regardless of ownership of the animal.
(5) "Depredation" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.001, Parks and Wildlife Code.
(6) "Livestock animal" has the meaning assigned by Section 42.09.
(7) "Necessary food, water, care, or shelter" includes food, water, care, or shelter provided to the extent required to maintain the animal in a state of good health.
(8) "Torture" includes any act that causes unjustifiable pain or suffering.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(1) tortures an animal or in a cruel manner kills or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;
(2) without the owner's effective consent, kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;

Is there any other section of the law which specifies whether or not the above applies in ALL instances, or only to animals that are under control and located on the owner's property? I would hazard to guess that the two situations are different.

Scenario:

1. I walk onto a neighbor's fenced in property uninvited, through a closed gate, and the neighbor's [insert your large breed of choice] attacks me. I shoot the dog.
2. I am walking down a street 3 blocks away, and that same neighbor's [insert your large breed of choice] has escaped his property and attacks me at that location 3 blocks from his property. I shoot the dog.

My guess is that 42.092 covers (A), but not (B). I would further guess that the "reasonableness" standard may not apply in (A) but certainly does apply in (B). In (A), I have no more rights than any other trespasser.......and even then I'm not sure that I surrender my basic right to self-defense just because I am trespassing. In (B) I have every right to defend myself, and the dog's owner has no standing because he broke the law by allowing his [insert your large breed of choice] to escape, which unnecessarily placed other people in danger.

What say you?

[EEllis]

Texas Penal Code
Sec. 42.092. CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS. (a) In this section:
(1) "Abandon" includes abandoning an animal in the person's custody without making reasonable arrangements for assumption of custody by another person.
(2) "Animal" means a domesticated living creature, including any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured. The term does not include an uncaptured wild living creature or a livestock animal.
(3) "Cruel manner" includes a manner that causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering.
(4) "Custody" includes responsibility for the health, safety, and welfare of an animal subject to the person's care and control, regardless of ownership of the animal.
(5) "Depredation" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.001, Parks and Wildlife Code.
(6) "Livestock animal" has the meaning assigned by Section 42.09.
(7) "Necessary food, water, care, or shelter" includes food, water, care, or shelter provided to the extent required to maintain the animal in a state of good health.
(8) "Torture" includes any act that causes unjustifiable pain or suffering.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(1) tortures an animal or in a cruel manner kills or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;
(2) without the owner's effective consent, kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;

Is there any other section of the law which specifies whether or not the above applies in ALL instances, or only to animals that are under control and located on the owner's property? I would hazard to guess that the two situations are different.

Scenario:

1. I walk onto a neighbor's fenced in property uninvited, through a closed gate, and the neighbor's [insert your large breed of choice] attacks me. I shoot the dog.
2. I am walking down a street 3 blocks away, and that same neighbor's [insert your large breed of choice] has escaped his property and attacks me at that location 3 blocks from his property. I shoot the dog.

My guess is that 42.092 covers (A), but not (B). I would further guess that the "reasonableness" standard may not apply in (A) but certainly does apply in (B). In (A), I have no more rights than any other trespasser.......and even then I'm not sure that I surrender my basic right to self-defense just because I am trespassing. In (B) I have every right to defend myself, and the dog's owner has no standing because he broke the law by allowing his [insert your large breed of choice] to escape, which unnecessarily placed other people in danger.

What say you?

I would think that the issue would be if you were lawfully someplace or not. By case law you can open a closed gate, as many service people do, to enter a property and it is not considered trespass just by that action. If a gates not locked then the mail person, meter reader, ups driver, and really anyone who just wants to knock on your door to speak with someone can and do so every day without the vast majority thinking it's trespass. I think tho it's missing the point to focus on that. It seems to me that here in Texas animals are considered property. Unless ones actions were designed to cause suffering to a animal as the primary goal, then someone trespassing on to a property and killing an animal for protection wouldn't be guilty of anything more than the direct crimes, trespass, burglary, or what have you, and then causing monetary lose by killing the animal. It just isn't much of a criminal issue and more of a civil one for the most part.

[polly]

Jail is probably the safest place for somebody who kills my dog in my back yard.

[The Annoyed Man]

Jail is probably the safest place for somebody who kills my dog in my back yard.

Agreed, but that isn't the point of this thread, is it?

[packinmama]

Wow, y'all have been busy while I was away. :P I need to take a closer look at some of these responses when it isn't after midnight. My original thought that led me to post this question was about wild animals. (ie: one of my son's preschool teachers was chased by a coyote while she was riding her bike home) We have coyotes and bobcats show up in the neighborhood frequently. I know they aren't typically going to "hunt" you down, but if I'm walking in the afternoon with my kids and I come across a coyote and feel threatened - I am not going to wait long, if at all, before I take action.

Really, the same goes for a dog that is loose, if it decides to come after me or my child - I know what I would do, but what does the law say is legal? (Of course, if it's a yorkie yapping me to death, I'm not going to harm it. However, if it's a larger breed that I feel is capable of causing serious bodily harm or death, that's a whole different story.) And no, I wouldn't come into anyone's backyard and start that fight. :P I'm talking about me minding my own business and getting attacked by a wild animal or dog.

Thank you for all of the responses!

[EEllis]

If you feel it's a danger, and any feral animal no matter how small should be considered a danger if it acts like it would bite, then you can legally shoot without issue. The only concern would be that if you were in an area where you normally couldn't legally discharge your firearm, inside city limits, you may have to convince a cop or a judge that your actions were justified.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Jail is probably the safest place for somebody who kills my dog in my back yard.

Agreed, but that isn't the point of this thread, is it?

Also agreed on both points.

[Selina Kyle]

Jail is probably the safest place for somebody who kills my dog in my back yard.

Yes, I realize this isn't the point of the thread, but just had to agree here.