Page 3 of 3

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:59 pm
by Paladin
Glockamolie wrote:If you need to shoot the dog, just be sure to hit him and not your foot. From the Houston Chronicle...

A deputy constable shot himself in the foot Thursday morning while trying to fend off a pit bull attack, authorities said.

Deputy C. Menefield was in the process of evicting a tenant from a residence in the 13900 block of Wrigley when the man opened the door and allegedly ordered a dog inside the home to attack, said DeAnn Collins, a Precinct 7 spokeswoman.

She said the pit bull lunged at Menefield's leg. As the deputy tried to kick the dog away, he fired his gun, shooting himself in the left foot, Collins said. The dog ran back inside at the sound of the shot and was later taken to the city pound.

Menefield, a five-year veteran, was transported to Memorial Hermann Hospital. He was released in good condition and was recovering Thursday night at home, Collins said.

The dog's owner, 41-year-old Alan Trevino, was charged with making a terroristic threat, a Class B misdemeanor, she said. Collins said Trevino had been notified of the eviction date.

The deputy had arrived with a locksmith and a moving company.

Trevino, who has a "very lengthy criminal history," was inside, refusing to leave when he allegedly ordered his dog to attack, Collins said.
Interesting story.

My experience with a dog attack was that once the attacking dog gets close, they move fast and it is difficult to get a clear shot at them. It's one of the reasons why defensive spray is my first choice when dealing with a single aggressive dog.

Sounds like Trevino should be charged with aggravated assault

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:30 pm
by KRM45
Here is a link to a story of a pack of dogs attacking a young man:

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player. ... .wtvc.wtvc

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:29 pm
by G36Packer
IANAL but I have an opinion. If a person is being attacked, and deadly force would be warranted if the attacker is a human, deadly force would also be warranted if the attacker is an animal.

An animal attack is just as real as a human attack. If Deadly force is necessary, it is necessary. Why would discharge of a firearm as a result of an animal attack be more of an issue than any other deadly force self defense scenario?

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 7:17 pm
by txinvestigator
G36Packer wrote:IANAL but I have an opinion. If a person is being attacked, and deadly force would be warranted if the attacker is a human, deadly force would also be warranted if the attacker is an animal.

An animal attack is just as real as a human attack. If Deadly force is necessary, it is necessary. Why would discharge of a firearm as a result of an animal attack be more of an issue than any other deadly force self defense scenario?
Because Texas Deadly Force laws regarding defending yourself allows a person to use deadly force against another. A dog is not another person. ;)

Thats why your defense is in 9.22.