TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:Now to the totally irrelevant part....guess what, the crime you're defending yourself against doesn't have to be a crime people are executed for in order to defend yourself with lethal force --people aren't executed for rape, aggravated robbery, or home invasions either, but the law allows the use of lethal force in such situations.

BINGO! KingofChaos, look up the word "reasonable" in the use of force and use of deadly force statutes. In Texas, you don't have to KNOW that someone is trying to cause you "death and/or serious bodily harm" (the filter under which use of lethal force is justified under Texas law) in order to respond with deadly force. You only have to reasonably believe that someone is trying to cause you death and/or serious bodily harm in order for you to use deadly force against them.

If I am walking down the street, with my substantial (58 lb) dog on a leash, and some fool comes raging up with a bat and starts to attack US, it really doesn't matter if he starts with me or with my dog. He is, at that point, an existential threat to me, and if I am able to, I will shoot him if he does not immediately cease and desist. Either way, I'm involving the cops, and he'll have some justifying to do—either before God, or from his hospital bed to the local DA.

This is not an issue having anything to do with how I perceive the value of another human being, and everything to do with how much I value my own life and the life of my much beloved dog, who also happens to be my property—which the state also allows me to defend with deadly force—of which the attacker is attempting to deprive me by beating it to death.

And remember, about 80% of gunshot people survive their injuries, so shooting a person, while it may result in their death, is not a guaranteed death sentence.

If you can't shoot another person to defend your own dog from either an unprovoked attack or an attack for unsubstantiated reasons, then you don't deserve the dog, and the dog deserves better than you. Do the dog world a favor and stick to cats.

speedsix wrote:...no offense, TAM, but the law I quoted gives authority for a person to shoot the dog who's done the wrong...in that case, you'd be breaking the law to try to keep him from KEEPING the law...and he's NOT a vigilante, following that law...

I see our misunderstanding..... I'm assuming an innocent dog, because my dogs are innocent. A) I don't ever give them the opportunity to be guilty; and B) I don't adopt mean predatory dogs.

BTW, I wouldn't exactly be preventing him from "KEEPING" the law. The law doesn't place a legal burden on him requiring him to shoot my dog. It merely makes that a lawful avenue of pursuit should he choose to pursue it. In other words, he won't be in trouble with the law if he doesn't shoot my dog. That said, I would still likely insert myself between the other person and my dog. Don't really care what the law says about it, precisely because he can equally choose NOT to shoot it, and he's not required to do so. I just feel very strongly about it. If I get arrested for protecting my do, so be it.

speedsix wrote:...no offense, TAM, but the law I quoted gives authority for a person to shoot the dog who's done the wrong...in that case, you'd be breaking the law to try to keep him from KEEPING the law...and he's NOT a vigilante, following that law...

If my dog got out and attacked his chickens, then he would have the right to shoot my dog........if he did so then and there. But that is not an issue in my life. None of my dogs have ever gotten loose or terrorized anybody. If I have no knowledge of a previous problem with my dog, I will defend my dog as if I think it is innocent. Period. If that gets me tossed in the hoosegow, so be it. I don't take offense. I did say that I don't care what the consequences are, and I'll bear them if need be.

Like I said, my dogs have never gotten out where any of them could ever cause a problem for somebody. I am a responsible dog owner. On top of that, my dog is not so inclined. He's a sweetheart who gets along with everybody. So if someone comes charging up with mayhem on his mind, I seriously don't care what the letter of the law says. He is most likely mistaken, and my dog simply looks like the dog he's angry with. Again, I'm talking about after the fact....say half an hour later or the day after the alleged attack by some dog. What if he's got the wrong dog? Is he allowed to shoot all the dogs that look like the dog he's looking for until he finds the one that is actually guilty? Do you see my point?

So really, I don't give a hoot what his "rights" are. He won't exercise them after the fact, at my dog's risk, without there being law enforcement present, and without my rights as a property owner being respected. My dog never leaves my property unless it is inside my vehicle. In fact, it tends to stay indoors most of the day, and when we let him out, he goes to our backyard, which is completely fenced in with a high fence and beware of dog signs. Nobody would have an opportunity to be harmed in person or property by my dog unless he were trespassing in my back yard, or had forced his way into my home. So if some some other guy comes to my house, after he alleges some problem with my dog, he's going to have to get into my house to get to him. If he comes into my house uninvited, with attitude and waving a gun, I don't care what his problem is, he'll get shot, and there isn't a cop in the state of Texas who is going to arrest me for defending me and mine from an armed intruder inside my own home.

Period. No offense meant. I simply am not going to have any of it. I'm only talking about me and mine. If I were the kind of oaf who lets his vicious pitbulls run loose down the block, then of course my neighbors have a right to use deadly force to defend themselves. But even then, they may not force their way into my house to extract revenge after the fact. That's when it becomes a law enforcement issue versus vigilanteism.

My dog is a member of my family, hang the consequences, and I wouldn't do any less for him than I would for my wife or son. If a human attacked my dog, it would very quickly become an attack on me, as I would insert myself between my dog and the attacker in order to protect my dog. From that point on, whether the other guy get's shot depends very much on whether he pursues the attack against me or he backs off. Ditto for another dog attacking my dog. But no man or dog is going to attack my dog without either backing down, or suffering the consequences. Nowhere in the law is it written that I have to submit to someone attacking either me, or my dog. Whether or not use of deadly force becomes necessary is entirely dependent upon the attacker.

I leave no wiggle room there. I don't care if my dog first bit somebody (he's not like that). If my dog is the problem, then the authorities will deal with it. But I won't permit vigilante justice to be used against anyone in my family. Period.