TexasCHLforum.com

I did a search, but couldn't find anything specific like this. In my neighborhood within city limits, there are some dogs that seem to be strays (though I'm not 100% sure, no collars and they wander around at will)...that is, they do NOT have an owner. If one of those dogs were to attack, for instance, a small child in my neighborhood, is it legal to pull my concealed carry weapon to shoot said stray dog? I'm not saying about what is right to do, of course its right to keep a small child from being hurt or killed...I am asking if it is LEGAL? A human trying to do you deadly bodily harm is covered under the law. But I don't know how Texas law handles stray animals. Would this be a defense to prosecution, as an example, for discharging a firearm in a municipality? Would it even be considered "lethal force" since its not against a human? I would call law enforcement if I were put into the situation, of course. I haven't had this happen, just trying to run mental scenarios. Looking forward to some knowledge on this one. Thanks.

It is legal. Destroying a dangerous stray dog is not a crime, espacillay when you are protecting a child. Ask your PD if you have any doubts

Just be sure you don't shoot the kid or anyone else. Shooting into a furball can be a challenge. Also, dogs don't watch TV, they don't know they are supposed to drop dead on the first hit or the second or third or, or, . . . Get my drift?

edit: Report the dogs to animal control.

I really have no clue but I have thought about it a lot because my area is loaded with coyotes. The thing that keeps coming back is that a dog is a very small, very fast moving target. Unless I was right on top of that dude and standing on ground as opposed to concrete, I wouldn't shoot. I would feel much better with a Louisville Slugger than a pistol.

Legally, I don’t see any difference if you can prove that you were protecting life & limb. But, you better not miss and have your round glance off the pavement and end up in someone’s living room. Even if the round strikes home, I’m not all that sure there’s enough body mass to stop a pistol round from doing a through & through and then where’s that bullet gonna go?

Folks talking about shooting at dogs in an urban area makes me nervous.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I did a search, but couldn't find anything specific like this. In my neighborhood within city limits, there are some dogs that seem to be strays (though I'm not 100% sure, no collars and they wander around at will)...that is, they do NOT have an owner.

I am curious why you are asking the question about stray dogs. Do you think it would make any difference if the dog had an owner?

WildBill wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:I did a search, but couldn't find anything specific like this. In my neighborhood within city limits, there are some dogs that seem to be strays (though I'm not 100% sure, no collars and they wander around at will)...that is, they do NOT have an owner.

I am curious why you are asking the question about stray dogs. Do you think it would make any difference if the dog had an owner?

Exactly, if I see any animal attacking a kid im gonna do my best to put it down.

Ownership matters if you want to sue the owner for the child's medical care, or if you want to sue the owner for a private nuisance before a child is injured.

It also matters for prosecuting the owner for committing a second or third degree felony.

Sec. 822.005. ATTACK BY DOG. (a) A person commits an offense if the person is the owner of a dog and the person:(1) with criminal negligence, as defined by Section 6.03, Penal Code, fails to secure the dog and the dog makes an unprovoked attack on another person that occurs at a location other than the owner's real property or in or on the owner's motor vehicle or boat and that causes serious bodily injury, as defined by Section 1.07, Penal Code, or death to the other person;
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree unless the attack causes death, in which event the offense is a felony of the second degree.

I've thought a lot about that too. I won't be that concerned about if it's legal or what happens afterward. I still have enough faith in the system that if you take that kind of action for the right reason you won't get in trouble. I worry a lot more about hitting what I'm trying to hit and the bullet not ending up somewhere it shouldn't.

Barbi Q wrote:Ownership matters if you want to sue the owner for the child's medical care, or if you want to sue the owner for a private nuisance before a child is injured.

It also matters for prosecuting the owner for committing a second or third degree felony.

The OP was asking about the legality. I don't see how any of this would matter in the OP's decision making process whether or not to shoot.

I mentioned about stray dogs because I have never seen a dog with a collar wandering randomly around our neighborhood. And, I know there are a lot of legalities involved with owners and their dogs. I do understand the inherent difficulties of hitting a small moving target. I have not attempted this in any form or fashion since I was a kid in South Texas living way out in the country shooting at rabbits with my .22. I merely ask questions so that I can educate myself. I was in the USAF for over twenty years stationed in several different places and only recently moved back to Texas within the last year. I mostly lived in the country as a kid, and what is and isn't legal inside city limits these days is what I'm trying to learn. Shooting a mangy coyote on South Texas ranchland, no big deal. Shooting a stray dog, even if attacking someone, in city limits, maybe a big deal. Like I stated, I wasn't talking about what is right, but what is legal. And unfortunately, they aren't always the same thing. Thanks for the food for thought.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I mentioned about stray dogs because I have never seen a dog with a collar wandering randomly around our neighborhood. And, I know there are a lot of legalities involved with owners and their dogs.

Obviously, if the dog doesn't have an owner you won't get sued for shooting the dog, but I didn't think you were concerned about that. IANAL, but I think you would be justified saving some one from getting injured whether or not the dog was stray or had a collar and license.

Again, as other posters have stated, tactics are another issue. Trying to hit a constantly moving fur ball without hitting some non-intended person or thing would be a "hairy" situation.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I mentioned about stray dogs because I have never seen a dog with a collar wandering randomly around our neighborhood. And, I know there are a lot of legalities involved with owners and their dogs. I do understand the inherent difficulties of hitting a small moving target. I have not attempted this in any form or fashion since I was a kid in South Texas living way out in the country shooting at rabbits with my .22. I merely ask questions so that I can educate myself. I was in the USAF for over twenty years stationed in several different places and only recently moved back to Texas within the last year. I mostly lived in the country as a kid, and what is and isn't legal inside city limits these days is what I'm trying to learn. Shooting a mangy coyote on South Texas ranchland, no big deal. Shooting a stray dog, even if attacking someone, in city limits, maybe a big deal. Like I stated, I wasn't talking about what is right, but what is legal. And unfortunately, they aren't always the same thing. Thanks for the food for thought.

I posed the same kind of question the other day in a thread about hogs showing up in suburbia and trashing yards and gardens. Would it be legal for me to shoot a hog that had gotten into my wife's begonias. Without a hunting license. As I recall, the general consensus was that it wasn't shooting the hog that was the problem; it was discharging a firearm inside the city limits for reasons other than self-defense that was the problem.

In Governor Perry's famous encounter with a coyote, he shot it because it was attacking, or about to attack, his dog which had accompanied him on a morning jog. Nobody pressed charges. The point being that an attack on you, your child, or your dog, is probably valid reason to shoot an attacking dog. But shooting that same dog for getting into your rutabagas is probably illegal. Or not. I don't know. Why did I even answer?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:I mentioned about stray dogs because I have never seen a dog with a collar wandering randomly around our neighborhood. And, I know there are a lot of legalities involved with owners and their dogs. I do understand the inherent difficulties of hitting a small moving target. I have not attempted this in any form or fashion since I was a kid in South Texas living way out in the country shooting at rabbits with my .22. I merely ask questions so that I can educate myself. I was in the USAF for over twenty years stationed in several different places and only recently moved back to Texas within the last year. I mostly lived in the country as a kid, and what is and isn't legal inside city limits these days is what I'm trying to learn. Shooting a mangy coyote on South Texas ranchland, no big deal. Shooting a stray dog, even if attacking someone, in city limits, maybe a big deal. Like I stated, I wasn't talking about what is right, but what is legal. And unfortunately, they aren't always the same thing. Thanks for the food for thought.

I posed the same kind of question the other day in a thread about hogs showing up in suburbia and trashing yards and gardens. Would it be legal for me to shoot a hog that had gotten into my wife's begonias. Without a hunting license. As I recall, the general consensus was that it wasn't shooting the hog that was the problem; it was discharging a firearm inside the city limits for reasons other than self-defense that was the problem.

In Governor Perry's famous encounter with a coyote, he shot it because it was attacking, or about to attack, his dog which had accompanied him on a morning jog. Nobody pressed charges. The point being that an attack on you, your child, or your dog, is probably valid reason to shoot an attacking dog. But shooting that same dog for getting into your rutabagas is probably illegal. Or not. I don't know. Why did I even answer?

I don't think it hurts to ask questions and discuss things...that's one of the reasons we belong to this forum, right? Better to think it out beforehand, if possible, than be put in a situation and not be sure of what is okay and what is not and there are lots of smart and knowledgeable folks here to talk it out with...though, wouldn't killing the hog, in your case, be defense of property? HA HA...

The Annoyed Man wrote:I posed the same kind of question the other day in a thread about hogs showing up in suburbia and trashing yards and gardens. Would it be legal for me to shoot a hog that had gotten into my wife's begonias. Without a hunting license. As I recall, the general consensus was that it wasn't shooting the hog that was the problem; it was discharging a firearm inside the city limits for reasons other than self-defense that was the problem.

In certain causes, preservation of human life can be a defense to prosecution, saving begonias is not.

WildBill wrote:

Barbi Q wrote:Ownership matters if you want to sue the owner for the child's medical care, or if you want to sue the owner for a private nuisance before a child is injured.

It also matters for prosecuting the owner for committing a second or third degree felony.

The OP was asking about the legality. I don't see how any of this would matter in the OP's decision making process whether or not to shoot.

It doesn't matter for that. People already said that. I was pointing out potential consequences for the bad owner who lets their animal run loose.