Dog on Dog Attack? Can use Gun?

[Boma]

Could u use deadly force in this situation?

[The link was to a video of a dog-on-dog attack, so everyone will know the subject matter of the responses.]

I removed the link. Sorry I should have put a warning. The video is of a pitbull type dog attacking another dog, who is trying to run away. The dog does not bite a human. People are trying to stop the dog by using lawnchairs, water hoses, etc. It doesn't work until someone gets it on a leash.

[txinvestigator]

http://inappropriatesite/master.php?id= ... _attack%2F

Could u use deadly force in this situation?

That links to a site with totally inappropriate content. Please remove it.



Your question is ambiguous at best.

This thread is a waste of bandwith.

[Charles L. Cotton]

While I don't feel as strongly about this as does txinvestigator, I do think we need to be very careful about the video. Some of our members may not handle it very well, so that's why I added the warning.

I've been away from the forum for a week due to moving my law office and I don't have much time now. Here is my short answer, and I have to admit I didn't watch the entire video and don't know if it was only a dog fight or if the dog attacked a person as well.

You can defend your property and if your dog was being attacked, he's your personal property. If you are using a firearm off of your own property (real estate) to preserve your personal property (dog), please remember that while it can be legal, it's fraught with potential trouble if you injury/kill someone or damage their property. If it's not your dog being attacked, forget it! We have to remember that in this circumstance, you're acting to preserve property, not defend a life, no matter how much we may love our dogs.

If the dog is attacking a person, then the laws of self-defense are a good guideline as to the use of a firearm, although they won't directly apply since you are not shooting a human.

I have to add one caveat: Texas may have a statute about harming or killing a domestic animal that could change my answer. I just don’t have time to look for it now.

Chas.

[flintknapper]

Pepper spray would have ended the fracas. No need for gunfire (in this case).

[MoJo]

I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night - - - that said - - - here's a link to the animal cruelty laws in Texas http://utopia.utexas.edu/explore/equine ... _cruel.htm

the way I read it deadly force is not allowed. Pepper spray may or may not have done the job.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thanks for doing the research Mojo. I just got back from church and I appreciate you doing this.

It appears the statute (TPC §42.09) does preclude the use of deadly force. I find it surprising that there is a defense to prosecution dealing with defense of a person from a wild animal (TPC §42.09(g)), but not from an attacking domestic animal such as a Pit Bull. I also find it surprising that you can kill an animal attacking, or that has just competed an attack, on certain farm animals, but not the farmer’s dog, so long as the attacking animal is on the farmer’s property. (TPC §42.09(e)).

While there is no express exclusion or defense to killing an attacking dog, such as a Pit Bull, set out in TPC §42.09, I feel confident that you can rely upon the general justification provisions in TPC §9.22 - NECESSITY. I don’t think TPC §§ 9.31 or 9.32 would apply, as those Sections deal with force used against a human. Whether or not the “Necessity� defense found in TPC §9.22 would apply if you were using deadly force against a dog to protect your property (i.e. your dog) is debatable, but I suspect it would depend upon the dog being protected. The nature of the “Necessity� defense is that although you are technically violating some provision of the Penal Code, your actions are justified because the harm you are inflicting is less, or less important, than the harm you intend to prevent. It’s very easy to say that protecting a human from death or serious bodily injury is more important than protecting the life of an attacking dog. It’s harder to argue that the value of your dog’s life or health is more important than that of the dog you are killing. (Of course it is to the dog owner, but not necessarily to the general public.) Now, if you have a valuable/expensive hunting dog, or a champion show dog, then perhaps the argument could be made.

I like Flint’s suggestion; hose him down with pepper spray.

Chas.

[txinvestigator]

If 42.09 precludes deadly force, it also precludes pepper spray. 42.09 states
Text
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly:

(9) injures an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep,
swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the
owner's effective consent;



Pepper Spray is effective on some dogs. However, a dog in an attack frenzy may not be effected.

The question posted was vague because we don't know who owned the dog. Can you shoot or spray a dog attacking another dog if neither is yours? How about if you know the attacking dog or the dog attacked?

If the dog attacks a person, the story is now different.

My concern about the site was not that the video was bad, but the other content on the site was. There was extremely foul language on the page of the video, and links to videos I would call 'soft-core'.

Regarding the animal cruelty law.....I believe the "legal authority" in ( a)(5)

allows me to use DF if the animal is attacking me.

here is that "legal authority"


Texas Penal Code
Use of Force
§9.22. Necessity.

Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately
necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly
outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm
sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

[flintknapper]

I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night - - - that said - - - here's a link to the animal cruelty laws in Texas http://utopia.utexas.edu/explore/equine ... _cruel.htm

the way I read it deadly force is not allowed. Pepper spray may or may not have done the job.

True...that some animals (and humans) would not be effected or would otherwise be able to "fight through" the effects. The vast majority should respond favorably though.

The only "study" I've been able to find is small and inconclusive IMO, but here it is just fun:

Evaluation of Pepper Spray.

Series: NIJ Research in Brief
Published: February 1997
15 pages
31,083 bytes

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief

Jeremy Travis, Director
February 1997

Evaluation of Pepper Spray

by Steven M. Edwards, John Granfield, and Jamie
Onnen



Animal control. Interest in OC's effectiveness in
animal encounters was high because, prior to
project implementation, BCoPD had experienced a
number of incidents where officers were forced to
shoot threatening or attacking dogs. During the OC
field study, dogs were sprayed with OC in 20
incidents where the animals posed a danger to
officers. Ten of the dogs sprayed weighed between
25 and 50 pounds, and 6 weighed more than 50
pounds.

Data showed that officers sprayed the dogs at
distances greater than those from which they
sprayed humans. The majority of dogs were sprayed
from a distance of 3 to 8 feet, whereas most humans
were sprayed from a distance of 1 to 3 feet. The
difference in application distances may account for
the differences in the effectiveness levels for
dogs and humans. OC was effective nearly 100
percent of the time in dog encounters (one officer
was bitten but required no medical treatment). (end quote).


I would hazard a guess that "shooting" is not 100% percent effective either.. unless the shot(s) were very well placed. In the incident recorded above, I believe "good" OC would be the most appropriate means of trying to gain control of the situation.

If OC did not have any effect on the attacking dog, then its use on the owner of said animal would be alright with me. Why was this dog roaming free?

[Houston1944]

I did not watch the entire video but based on what I saw on the video there is no way I would have taken a shot regardless of the legality of the situation. Most of the action I watched appeared to take place on a concrete sidewalk by a concrete or brick building with bystanders surrounding the scene. As much as I would want to protect an animal a dog on dog attack does not justify a shoot in an area with a high probability for a ricochet to hit an innocent person.

[Charles L. Cotton]

If 42.09 precludes deadly force, it also precludes pepper spray. 42.09 states
Text
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly:

(9) injures an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep,
swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the
owner's effective consent;

At least in theory, pepper spray wouldn't constitute an "injury" and if not, it wouldn't fit the prohibition in 42.09(a)(9).

My concern about the site was not that the video was bad, but the other content on the site was. There was extremely foul language on the page of the video, and links to videos I would call 'soft-core'.

I didn't watch enough to see that and perhaps Boma didn't either. He's already deleted the link. (Thanks Boma.)

Regarding the animal cruelty law.....I believe the "legal authority" in ( a)(5)

allows me to use DF if the animal is attacking me.

here is that "legal authority"


Texas Penal Code
Use of Force
§9.22. Necessity.

Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately
necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly
outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm
sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

I agree, that's the TPC Section I was referencing in my answer.

Chas.

[GrillKing]

This is not legal advice, simply a quote from the HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
CHAPTER 822. REGULATION OF ANIMALS, SUBCHAPTER A. DOGS THAT ARE A DANGER TO PERSONS

I have no idea how this interacts with other statutes.....


Sec. 822.013. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS. (a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.

[txinvestigator]

At least in theory, pepper spray wouldn't constitute an "injury" and if not, it wouldn't fit the prohibition in 42.09(a)(9).

Have you been sprayed? lol I think ( Actually I know..Hurts like crazy) it causes physical pain, and isn't that injury? It is regarding "bodily injury". ????

[txinvestigator]

This is not legal advice, simply a quote from the HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
CHAPTER 822. REGULATION OF ANIMALS, SUBCHAPTER A. DOGS THAT ARE A DANGER TO PERSONS

I have no idea how this interacts with other statutes.....


Sec. 822.013. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS. (a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.

Good catch.

[txinvestigator]

True...that some animals (and humans) would not be effected or would otherwise be able to "fight through" the effects. The vast majority should respond favorably though.

The only "study" I've been able to find is small and inconclusive IMO, but here it is just fun:

I have actually had to spray a dog. It took a pregnant second while he stood there trying to figure out what happened, then he yelped away.

[cyphur]

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. If a big seemingly psychotic dog charges me, I'm not going to pause and weigh possible charges against possible loss of life/limb. I don't want to seem like I don't respect or appreciate the law, I do. But whats the point of carrying anything(knife, handgun, OC) if you're not going to use it to save your life or the life of someone else?

I think it'd still be a clean shot if you shot a dog about to attack someone else. Defense of a third party, just the same as outlined in the codes concerning use of deadly force against another person.


Let me know if I'm way off base, but thats how I see it.