Homeowner fires back after accused burglar shoots his dog, Texas police say

[Member 53328]

This brings up an interesting question. Is it legal to use lethal force to protect an animal?

If someone comes on your property and shoots your dog, they've shown the willingness to kill and it's reasonable to consider your own life in danger and react accordingly.

On the other hand, if they've shot your dog, but are clearly and demonstrably not threatening you when you shoot them, I think you'd better hope the jury is full of dog lovers, or you'll be spending the rest of your days in prison for murder.

At that point legalities can get f-cked

 

[L84Cabo]

This is nuts.

You have a stranger in your damn house...who is ARMED...and is actively discharging his weapon, INSIDE YOUR HOUSE! That is a threat. Period. It doesn't matter what the hell he is shooting at. The notion that you are just supposed to sit there and wait to see if he decides to start shooting at you or your family once he's done with the dog is insane.

 

[Provincial]

The US Constitution applies to practices used in the United States. It may be usual elsewhere, but it is not usual here. Thus, the prohibition applies.

This implies that the definition of "cruel or unusual" is a moving target, and can only move toward more lenient punishments, since the Overton Window

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

is prevented from moving in the severe direction by that clause. I don't think that the Founding Fathers predicted this effect. Instead, they didn't want a return to Drawing and Quartering, or Burning at the Stake.

 

[Cavedweller]

The notion that you are just supposed to sit there and wait to see if he decides to start shooting at you or your family once he's done with the dog is insane.

Who says you have to wait? In Oregon anyway, I believe lethal force is legal in order to stop the commission of a burglary in a residence. Forced entry.is burglary.

 

[Cavedweller]

This implies that the definition of "cruel or unusual" is a moving target, and can only move toward more lenient punishments, since the Overton Window

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

is prevented from moving in the severe direction by that clause. I don't think that the Founding Fathers predicted this effect. Instead, they didn't want a return to Drawing and Quartering, or Burning at the Stake.

Yes and no.

First of all, it is not "cruel OR unusual." It is "cruel AND unusual." The Founders recognized that any form of capitol punishment is inherently cruel. Hanging, for example, can be considered cruel, but is was not unusual at the time, so it is not prohibited. However, punishments such as electrocution and asphyxiation by lethal gas became accepted and usual, but I doubt if they can be considered more lenient than hanging.

Instead, they didn't want a return to Drawing and Quartering, or Burning at the Stake.

This is exactly the point. And by the same token, they would not have approved the amputation of a limb as punishment for theft.

 

[Mark W.]

The US Constitution applies to practices used in the United States. It may be usual elsewhere, but it is not usual here. Thus, the prohibition applies.

Oh I thought we were all supposed to ignore the constitution that's what the weird voices in my TV keep telling me.

 

[CLT65]

This is nuts.

You have a stranger in your damn house...who is ARMED...and is actively discharging his weapon, INSIDE YOUR HOUSE! That is a threat. Period. It doesn't matter what the hell he is shooting at. The notion that you are just supposed to sit there and wait to see if he decides to start shooting at you or your family once he's done with the dog is insane.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone saying that in this thread. Of course that's an imminent threat to you and your family, even if he's just shooting at your cat.

I just think that some of the talk I've seen over the years, blustering about killing anyone who threatens their dog, is a bit over the line and makes "gun nuts" look bad. I don't bluster or spout that way about killing someone who might threaten my kids, and I can guarantee that I would protect them with my life, to the ends of the earth.

I can respect those who feel that way about their dogs; I just have to question the wisdom of posting talk online that crosses a line beyond legal self-defense.

 

[Certaindeaf]

If someone shot my dog they wouldn't be breathing. Period.

This is why I'm a goldfish man.

 

[Alexx1401]

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone saying that in this thread. Of course that's an imminent threat to you and your family, even if he's just shooting at your cat.

I just think that some of the talk I've seen over the years, blustering about killing anyone who threatens their dog, is a bit over the line and makes "gun nuts" look bad. I don't bluster or spout that way about killing someone who might threaten my kids, and I can guarantee that I would protect them with my life, to the ends of the earth.

I can respect those who feel that way about their dogs; I just have to question the wisdom of posting talk online that crosses a line beyond legal self-defense.

This is why I LONG ago took to wearing a bodycam when I walk my dogs. It started with the one in my avatar when he was a baby. Was out walking him, neighbors dog tried to make a meal out of him. Words were exchanged between me and dog owner. When I got home my Wife was waiting with "WHAT DID YOU DO, THE POLICE CALLED, ANIMAL CONTROL CALLED?" I told her I had words with guy down the street, told him if he could not control his dog I would do it for him. He decided to take offense so I called the law and waited till they got there to explain to him how it worked. Said I was now going to swear out a complaint with animal control and all would be fine. Well it scared Wife enough to buy me my first bodycam. Couple decades later one has come in very handy in dealing with dog walks. Now just as with LEO's the body cam can be a two edged sword. If you film yourself doing something "stupid" you may burn yourself. If I ever again have to use deadly force though I will not be worried about what the video shows.

 

[Mark_Dorman]

If someone shot my dog they wouldn't be breathing. Period.

I'm pretty sure I'd go over the top in my response as well. I feel like I'd probably go to jail for excessive use of force in that situation.

 

[Member 53328]

I'm pretty sure I'd go over the top in my response as well. I feel like I'd probably go to jail for excessive use of force in that situation.

Yea….. that shooting in the texas restaurant where the guy gets dead checked would be a children's story compared to what I would do.

And I would gladly do time in jail for it. If you shot my dog then you just killed my best friend and one of the main reasons I'm still alive to this day.

 

[solv3nt]

This is why I'm a goldfish man.

Because criminals won't shoot a fish in a barrel?

 

[The Heretic]

If you film yourself doing something "stupid" you may burn yourself.

Or you can burn the body cam

 

[eustace_stelio]

This brings up an interesting question. Is it legal to use lethal force to protect an animal?

If someone comes on your property and shoots your dog, they've shown the willingness to kill and it's reasonable to consider your own life in danger and react accordingly.

On the other hand, if they've shot your dog, but are clearly and demonstrably not threatening you when you shoot them, I think you'd better hope the jury is full of dog lovers, or you'll be spending the rest of your days in prison for murder.

The original story is from Texas and I believe in Texas you can use deadly force to protect your property. That might have changed over the years though.

 

[MrTwentyTwo]

We need to bring back public stonings, public hangings, firing squads to eliminate some of these dirt bags!

I live in Idaho and as soon as the bill crosses the Governor's desk, and he signs it..., firing squad will be an alternative to Lethal injection. Because of the, supposed difficulty in obtaining the Lethal drugs. I have emailed my governor and my representative that introduced the bill and offered my full support!

I can't think of a better deterrent for heinous crimes, other than hanging (which was used here not too many years ago!).


Y E S . . . I T P A S S E D ! ! !

You're correct. My dogs life is more important to me than 99.99999% of the population.

I don't have 100,000 people I know!


Y E S . . . I T P A S S E D ! ! !

 

[Stomper]

View attachment 1378877

That's funny, because "dog" spelled backwards…..

 

[RVTECH]

In Oregon anyway, I believe lethal force is legal in order to stop the commission of a burglary in a residence.

This is true. I was reminded of it by the on scene LEO sup when they showed up during my 'experience' a few years ago.

 

[titsonritz]

I don't have 100,000 people I know!

Maph is hard.

 

[SUPER X]

I highly agree. I'm all for the Guillotine as well. Send a strong signal to an overall message. We have too much scum on this earth. Including Biden.

To fast , slow and painful and infected is what is needed

 

[OldBroad44]

Maph is hard.

So is spelling.