Lethal force in defense of pets

[Redith]

So I just got done with the CCW class needed for guard school. The CCW (Concealed weapon) class not only consisted of guard students, but everyday people. We talked alot of bout when is the correct time to use deadly force in many situations. Then a interesting one came up. Can you use lethal force to protect your pet if its life is in danger on your property? If the dog is in your house it is open season on the jerk in most states. But when its outside is another story. I will tell you what our instructor said we can do in Cali. But for now here is your question.
Your evil neighbor is tired of your dog barking, so he climbs the 6 foot fence surrounding your house with a shovel to kill your dog. You see him chase your dog and try to kill him. You have a handgun you know how to use and know you can take the shot with no colateral damage. It is legal to shoot in this situation according to your state. Do you take the shot?

[cowmuflage]

Nope. Don't like guns.

[Sukurachi]

Since handguns are completely illegal where I live...
I prefer to give the same to the same... I say the shovel would be my weapon of choice against this neighbor.

[Turgus]

What a disturbing question.

My question would be first, why would you think it was ok for you to shoot and kill a person over a pet? What about protecting life? Is your pet more important that a person?
(If you draw a deadly weapon, you must intend to use it, if you use it you must intend to kill with it. Do not forget that.)

Second, the guy has a shovel, that is not the same as a gun. Also, you have no idea what your neighbors "intent" actually is, unless you can read peoples minds.
To respond with a gun is an escalation of violence and should not be the response of a responsible person or pet owner.

It is that kind of escalation of violence that is the problem in the first place. (See recent media stuff from the USA)

And third, the world is full of many people that shouldn't be pet owners, as they do not take responsibility for the actions of their pets.
Why would the neighbor be so agitated with you pet to drive him to his actions?
As the owner of the pet the person is directly responsible for the actions of his pet and depending on the state may be criminally negligent. (disorderly conduct, etc.)

The answer to you question is a resounding NO, even if it is legal. Legal =/= right.

I would try to intercede on my pets behalf and disarm the situation and not make it worse which is what drawing a weapon, and attempting to use it would do.


-Edit- California is a proportional force state, so if the information given in the above story is all to the story and the owner fires his weapon, it is not defense of property and the pet owner would likely be charged criminally from what I have read.

"...Owners or residents of a home (but not their guests) are entitled reasonably to defend their property against imminent harm. If you are in the home when an intruder enters, California self-defense law presumes that you reasonably fear imminent harm or danger.

However, this presumption only applies once an intruder actually enters your home. Prior to the entry, you must prove that you acted reasonably if you used force to make him/her leave.

Similarly, you have a right to use force against someone who is trespassing on your property. If you ask the person who is trespassing to leave...and he/she does not...you are permitted to use reasonable force to make him/her leave your property...." http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html#4

[Chimera]

Why would the neighbor be so agitated with you pet to drive him to his actions?
As the owner of the pet the person is directly responsible for the actions of his pet and depending on the state may be criminally negligent. (disorderly conduct, etc.)

People dont usually go to the owners about the problem, in many cases ive seen in documentaries when i was younger, the abuse is taken out on the animal. Sometimes its outright killing them or sometimes in one story i watched not long ago (though for all i know the episode could be a few years old) a kidnaping and abused until dead.

As for the topic, you dont necessarly need to shoot to kill. My personal opinion will probably spark something with other people so im not going to state what i would do but since hes running around with a shovel and not something that can hit the dog without weapon impact, you dont need to shoot him to kill or even to injure if you feel that you can stop him with voice or if he doesnt respond to that, a shot into the ground to alert him to your presence and the seriousness of the situation so the bullet doesnt go sky high and possibly hit someone as it descends to the ground (its definitely not uncommon, just really bad luck for the victim).

[cowmuflage]

I would not trust alot of those animal documentaries alot of the time they exagerate things :/ and alot of the times they do go to the owner but alot of the times said owner is the jerk.

[GormanGhaste]

Correct answer: don't leave a barking dog alone outside for hours on end.

[Chimera]

I would not trust alot of those animal documentaries alot of the time they exagerate things :/ and alot of the times they do go to the owner but alot of the times said owner is the jerk.

but the fact there are people who do take it out on the pet rather then the owner still stands, even if its not as common as i perceive it to be

[Bonita]

Im not sure if its legal here and I know I wouldnt shoot the person though. Id try to scare them off and if they touched my animal Id be calling the cops and everything.
My aunts dog got stolen by neighborhood kids who held him down and cut his leg off with a lawnmower and I know even since then she'd do anything to protect her pets from people she thinks going to harm him. If something like that happened to one of my pets I might possibly change my mind though.

[zedxrgal]

Yes this is a bit of a disturbing question but to answer it no I wouldn't shoot. Whether the person is trying to kill your pet (dog or otherwise) or not I have no doubts if you shot someone they could very easily press charges against you in CA for assault with a deadly weapon and /or attempted murder. You would be tried for murder if you happen to kill this despicable human being simply because the laws state & federal do value human life over an animals. Plain & simple. Yes you can legally shoot someone in that instance but you can also very legally be prosecuted for doing so.

And all the documentaries I've seen regarding angry neighbors abusing animals have been 100% dead on. Only because as a former vet tech ................ I've seen it happen. The victims etc. F-ed up crap like a pissed off neighbor tossing poisoned ground beef over the fence to kill a dog because it barked to much. Poisoning like that is the most common. Flat out hitting /kicking the animal does happen to. And yes ............... pet-knapping to get rid of it by either death or dumping happens to. Sadly I do not blame the animals. I blame their owners for not bringing them up properly or attempting to train.

Out of curiosity Redith. What happened to Napa PD????

[cowmuflage]

It's allways best to call the cops then do anything yourself as then you yourself can't get charged too. Unless you are doing something bad yourself like being a shit owner.

I only said that thing about the docos as in alot of them they take only one side when alot of the time both side is at fualt.

[Turgus]

Just remember that cops are not there to protect you, they are there to protect society.
It is your duty to protect yourself. (trust me, I have had a long and heated discussion about this with my brother a federal cop)

However it must be proportional to the threat, and in many states it is your duty to try to escape first (unless you are in your home) before you can respond with force. (It varies between states a bit of course)
But deadly force is always the last resort.

This pet owner would definitely be charged with at least manslaughter, or assault with a deadly weapon (if they fired and missed) as in the above scenario it is the First and Only response to the threat. Not only that, the threat is to just property (yes, pets are "just" property) and not to the person him/herself.


So in spite of what this instructor told your class, he/she is very likely wrong.

[Redith]

So in spite of what this instructor told your class, he/she is very likely wrong.

He told us to run between the dog and the bad guy. If the bad guy keeps charging Its now no longer defense of animal, its self defense, and you can shoot. If he stops...well you can't shoot and you should call the cops lol.

[Wain]

Correct answer: don't leave a barking dog alone outside for hours on end.

I would certainly agree with you there. There are bad pet owners like there are bad parents. People who never stop to consider whether they have the right to impose on others for the sake of their own convenience.

However it's not always the case. I have good friends whose dogs *only* barked (in fact they howled and made quite a racket) after they left for the day. They had no idea and were horrified and embarrassed when a neighbour finally told them. So please never assume the neighbour is a villain in this situation (and in re-reading this I realized it sounded like I was addressing this part directly to Gorm, but I wasn't ). Even if you don't want to tell them directly, a polite note in their mailbox could be all that's needed. Though when they let them roam (and that includes cats!), or bark continuously then it's pretty obvious they don't give a flip if affects someone else. But even then, a polite anonymous note is the best first step and can have an effect.

But, sorry, that was a big departure from the original hypothetical. I'd never own a gun, but when my old dog was alive there wasn't much I wouldn't do to defend her if I had to. I do like Redith's instructor's response. Get in the way so it makes them have to choose to attack you and thus puts them in a lot more trouble if they continue. That is if you're willing to risk injury.

[GormanGhaste]

Yeah, my response had more to do with me not liking the question, I think.

[Turgus]

He told us to run between the dog and the bad guy. If the bad guy keeps charging Its now no longer defense of animal, its self defense, and you can shoot. If he stops...well you can't shoot and you should call the cops lol.

This could be very bad advice depending on the actual situation so the instructor (he/she) should not have answered the question until it was a very specific situation with distances and everything explained in detail. Or he/she should have explained that it is entirely dependent on the totality of the situation.

How much distance is there between you and him? Him and the dog?
How large is he compared to you? Is escalation of force reasonable or unreasonable?
What if the guys momentum takes him into you? How do you expect him to suddenly come to a stop?
What is the dog doing? If it is moving towards the man in an aggressive and threatening manner then he may be justified in defending himself, even though he is on your property.
If there is enough time and distance for you to grab your dog and retreat you might be legally responsible to do so.

This all depends on the totality of the situation, which couldn't be more emphasized.
Of course after you shoot and kill your neighbor you can make whatever story you want up (like we have seen before), like he attacked you with a bottle of Poweraid and since he is dead he can't contradict your story.

This question makes me wonder about the person that asked the question.
Are they thinking about doing this?
Why are they taking this class?
What kind of person are they?
Are they mentally sound?

[Lupis]

Taking this question for face value…
No way in fel. NEVER.
Guns have a horrible tendency for making people die. You can confront your neighbor with the gun, yes. The neighbor would probably stop once he or she saw that you had a handgun pointed at them. Then you could call the police and tell them your psychopath neighbor tried to kill your dog with a shovel. But I would never, ever, EVER promote shooting him or her. That's ridiculously over violent and unnecessary, when a simple scare or threat can work.

[Silivren]

I'm in the domain of threaten but dont shoot unless you have to. My friend had a neighbor who was convinced that my friends cat was going into his garage at night and upsetting his paint cans. This wasnt true as the neighbor ALWAYS had the garage door down and it was a known fact he hated cats. My friend had let his cat out one morning to sit in the tree in the front yard and watch birds(he loved to do that) when he heard a yowling scream and ran outside to find his neighbor holding his cat by the neck strangling it with a bicyle chain. This neighbor mind you is a 300 or so pound man and very strong. My friend rushed into the house and got his beebee gun and screamed at him to stop. He didnt listen and told my friend he had enough of that cats sh*t. My friend fired and hit him in the arm with the beebee gun and he dropped the cat and fled to his house. Police were called, charges were pressed and now hes serving jailtime. The cat was rushed to the vet and miraculously survived. the vet said that if my friend hadnt have stopped his neighbor when he did his cat would have died. So my opinion threaten first, if that doesn't work open fire imo. Harsh? Maybe, but I know that there are giant a-holes out there who will hurt an animal unprovoked.

[Fievre]

Yeah, it's really going to depend. Sure, guns are violent or whatever, but owning a gun doesn't make you a psychopath, and neither does using it. It's the people who use it incorrectly. Pets, to most people, are like family. If threats don't work, what are you going to do? Sit there and watch until the cops finally arrive and your pet is dead or too far gone to be brought back? Because in the case of people who are so willing to hurt an animal, especially one that someone loves, it's probably not the first time they've done it or wanted to, and it will certainly not be the last.

Other than not being humanoid, pets are a lot like children. They aren't inherently evil, they don't do things to specifically press someone's buttons. Can you imagine if that guy had been choking a toddler because he thought it was sneaking into a sealed-off garage? Would you still just sit there and watch?

It really just comes down to a lot of people being kind of insane; they blow things out of proportion, completely overreact in an entirely unacceptable way, and see nothing wrong with that so they never change. It's their mental state. You don't adopt that mindset by owning a gun, threatening with a gun, or firing it. Not to mention, nobody said you have to aim to kill. Distractions work just as well, a shot to the leg would probably do all you needed it to.

Firearm or no, crazy people are still crazy. If they want to hurt you or any other living thing, they're going to do it. That doesn't mean by protecting yourself or your loved ones, you become just as bad. It isn't terrible.

[TygerDarkstorm]

Guns have a horrible tendency for making people die.

See, this is a horrible misconception people have about firearms. A gun is an inanimate object; it can't do anything without human interaction and yet it's labeled by a lot of people as being inherently evil. Yes guns get used for great evil sometimes, but the gun itself is just a tool, if we didn't have them it would just be some other object that humans found/created.

Also, I see a lot of people thinking you have to shoot to kill. A shot in the air or to the ground is enough to scare most people. And if you're in a dire situation that would require you to fire in self defense, a shot to the arm could be enough to make them stop since, if you do it right, it won't kill them. I don't necessarily think the question is right, but I have seen a few misconceptions and extreme cases in here.