TexasCHLforum.com

hey KRM45,
I think we have come to a concensus on what to do in this scenario. Obviously if there is no other alternative like escaping, then you can use deadly force to stop the dog if you are in fear of serious harm. So by firing your weapon in a public place (and it doesn't matter where), then you "should" have a defense to prosecution due to the necessity clause.

Did I get it right?

I just don't like that Health Code being there because I would hope nobody get the short end of the stick because of it by another's lawyer.

thanks kauboy and everyone for engaging in this discussion. I try to read the CHL law weekly and see if there is any area I might be a little fuzzy on. those of us who have been in organizations that have rules and regulations know what i'm talking about. you could read it a hundred times and find something new.

that is why I have these discussions, because some people practice the draw for muscle memory. i'm practicing these scenarios for "memory memory." LOL!! So, if it does happen, then I wouldn't have to use my "common sense". it would be automatic , no thinking involved.

thanks kauboy and everyone for engaging in this discussion. I try to read the CHL law weekly and see if there is any area I might be a little fuzzy on. those of us who have been in organizations that have rules and regulations know what i'm talking about. you could read it a hundred times and find something new.

that is why I have these discussions, because some people practice the draw for muscle memory. i'm practicing these scenarios for "memory memory." LOL!! So, if it does happen, then I wouldn't have to use my "common sense". it would be automatic , no thinking involved.

sidebar.......just saw online that harris county dept constable shot himself in the foot when he was attacked by a pitbull. isn't that perfect timing!



Also, Txinvestigator ,

I think that cops have different rules to citizens because when in uniform he has authority to carry out certain duties. We don't because we are not peace officers. so if a dog is obstructing him from performing his duties, then he can dispatch them however he feels. I just can get mad and stomp off to my house. I can't shoot someone's dog just because I have to enter their property.

hey txinvestigator and kauboy,

I saw your post last Night Tex and was reading the law over and over to make sure I was interpreting correct.
my question, on the necessity definition, are they referring to any general scenario. Because I notice beyond that text they had sections applying to persons , then sections applying to property. i'm at work on my pda so can't copy and paste. just going from memory.

KRM45 wrote:
Common sense tells us to do what needs to be done to protect the individual from harm.

First thing, COMMON SENSE IS NOT COMMON.

Next, I didn't write the law but only trying to interpret it.

KRM45 wrote:
If you are legally in possesion of the firearm, and you are justified in your actions (ie. defense of a third person) I would be very surprised to see someone press charges on the discharge of firearms issue.
I would not hesitate for a second before shooting an animal that was attacking one of my family members, assuming I had a shot.

If you are walking down the sidewalk and see a pitbull running towards you angrily growling (fangs showing) with the owner yards behind it. What do you do?
1. Let it bite you.
2. Hope the owner can call it off and gain control.
3. Out of fear shoot the dog because you thought you were in harm.
4. Let the owner tell the cops you didn't give them a chance since they were about to..........yada yada.

Thane, I appreciate the input.

I just think it should be cleared up more definitively. because the CHL law is saying in layman term that everything is cool as long as you are following the Health Code. And the health code doesn't address animals we see on a regular basis. But there is going to be some owner that would fight the killing of their dog someday.

We see in this forum where people want the legislature to clear up some letter of the CHL law.

I figure this is an area that they could fix the line that says dangerous wild animal. And just say dangerous animal or something to that effect. Because I haven't seen a law stating specifically to "domestic animal" gone bad attacking a person.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
If the dog is attacking a person, then the laws of self-defense are a good guideline as to the use of a firearm, although they won't directly apply since you are not shooting a human.
I have to add one caveat: Texas may have a statute about harming or killing a domestic animal that could change my answer. I just don’t have time to look for it now.

I think this leaves my question open because it is not definite on if the self defense law applies.


Also kw5kw,
I think you should read my first post again. I'm talking about a dog attacking your wife, daughter, son etc. Not a dog attacking another animal.

kw5kw wrote:
you didn't read far enough...
§ 822.013. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS

I just read what you posted, but it does not refer to attacks on humans. It refers to attacks on animals. So I don't thinks that section applies to my discussion.

PC §42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road
or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local
Government Code;(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection
(a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable
fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous
wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

Health and Safety Code§ 822.101. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(4) "Dangerous wild animal" means: (A) a lion; (B) a tiger; (C) an ocelot;(D) a cougar; (E) a leopard;(F) a cheetah; (G) a jaguar;(H) a bobcat; (I) a lynx; (J) a serval; (K) a caracal; (L) a hyena; (M) a bear;(N) a coyote; (O) a jackal; (P) a baboon; (Q) a chimpanzee; (R) an orangutan; (S) a gorilla; or T) any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision.

My question is suppose you are faced the scenario where you or a family member is attacked by a vicious pitbull and being mauled. If your decide to draw your weapon and use it due to the animal's death grip , what would you face as a CHL holder? Since this mauling scenario happens on a regular basis.

1. According to the above Health Code, a pitbull is not considered a dangerous wild animal.

2. Therefore, according the penal code, you could be charged with disorderly conduct because you wouldn't have any defense to prosecution.

3. Doesn't this open up a loophole for a determined dog owner who pursues this further if they claim you killed their dog when you had no authority?