May or may not have had to pull my pistol and discharge it.

[pacrat]

If you had a righteous reason to use it, say so. Otherwise, what's the point in acting like a 12 year old?


.

Yeah, what's up with the jocular 12 yr old mentality crap? You should have just shot the puppies in the butt with an underpowered pellet pistol and then drowned them in a bucket while they writhed in pain.

Doheny said,

I recently acquired a 1377c. My primary reason was to dispatch rabbits that are eating my lawn. Within a few hours of unboxing it I had shot my first rabbit. [in the butt] It didn't kill him and because I live in a residential area I didn't want to alert the neighbors with a finishing second shot, so I had to drown him in a bucket. Yeah, not the most humane way to kill a rabbit.

That's the grownup way to deal with maurading puppies.

[Doheny]

If the puppies were eating my lawn you can bet they'd suffer the same fate!


.

[Boblaw]

I was just watching the news where they were interviewing that dog's mother. She said he was a good dog, just ran with the wrong crowd. He was turning his life around though too she said.... sniff....

And she's looking for a good lawyer...Anyway, "hypothetical" good job.

[steadyrock]

grow up, it all sounds within parameters...you can shoot a dog, stray or not if it threatens to harm you

you should have shot to kill however....you just left that animal available to kill someone elses baby

In all seriousness, I was thinking about this yesterday in regard to dog parks. I know if a dog is threatening me or a loved one, I can shoot it. But to the point: what about if it's attacking my dog?

My thinking is this: legally, most likely not. Dogs are property, so a shooting would not be justifiable in court if I was using deadly force to protect my property. However, since the attacker is not human any charges about "deadly force" would probably not apply. My suspicion is if someone shot a dog in a dog park to protect their own dog, they'd probably get charged with any or all of the following: cruelty to animals, reckless discharge of a firearm, reckless endangerment (to the standers-by), unlawful destruction of property.

Depending on the circumstances, any good lawyer could probably beat all of those charges with a simple "it was comin right for us!" defense. So let's alter the scenario a bit: I am walking my dog or I have taken the dogs and the kids to the dog park. We're playing around, and some "dog of peace" actually does decide to take a swipe at me or my kid, but my dog intervenes and attempts to fight him off. At that point, could someone consider the threat to be removed since my dog is taking care of it? Or is it still a threat since the attacker could chew through my dog and still get to me or my kids?

(ETA before someone calls me a Dog Zimmerman: yes, the more prudent course would be to yell and run, or throw rocks, or pepper spray, or just start beating the **** out of the filthy animal with a baseball bat, but, pretend the person here is an old lady in a wheelchair taking Miffy to the park with no means of defense, but she just happens to have an 8-inch S&W 29 in her knitting bag.)

[JoshuaS]

You can shoot a dog to protect livestock. The question is whether you can shoot it just to protect livestock or whether you can to protect any domestic animal.

Johnson v. McConnell (1889) does state that you may not shoot a dog unless you have proof that they posed actual danger to your domestic animals. A dog merely following some sheep, e.g., did not justify a shooting. But if it were being aggressive it would.

The question then is whether a dog is treated the same as a chicken. I can shoot a dog that attacks a chicken after all...the law is explicit about that. But pets may be treated differently and not as domestic animals....

[DoubleA]

I understand the Dog's Mom is considering a movie deal. Possible actors include Lassie's granddaughter as the Mom, in an effort to be PC and avoid stereotyping.

[<blocked>]

Careful, if you're a regular civilian OT jury will say justified. If you're an LEO than it will be a wrongful use of force. Of course this is only theoretical reasoning as nothing may or may not have happened.

[Connman]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I heard that shooting a mountain lion or bobcat on a hike can land you in some trouble. I think you have to show clear cause that it was attacking which could be gray. Because it could look like you are poaching or hunting, I heard this and thought, how the hell can you prove it was going to attack or just watch. Which might be in this case, but you at least have witnesses in this situation?

You are correct! Be sure to llet the animal maul you a little before you kill it, then you will have proof!