TexasCHLforum.com

IANAL, but in a situation like that, I'd imagine you could charge the dog's owner with assault, or some sort of negligent offense. The dog is not a wild animal, which implies the owner does or should have some measure of control over that animal.

If you're a burglar that gets chewed by Fido, you don't have much recourse, as the dog could be assumed to be there for the protection of the property you were attempting to steal. It could be argued that the owner used force against you to stop the commission of a felony through his dog as a proxy.

But if you're walking down the sidewalk and the dog attacks, then the owner has, through intention or negligence, attacked you by proxy. The person responsible for that animal should be held responsible for it no matter what.

Therefore, in my mind, shooting an attacking dog is not so much you using force against a non-wild animal as it is using force against the proxy of the person who attacked you.

Yeah, I know, dogs sometimes have a mind of their own and sometimes the owner ISN'T at fault, but charging the owner with assault/battery/etc. is a pretty sure way to motivate other dog owners to keep their dogs controlled. When in those doubtful cases, let the grand jury no-bill.



Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television. I'm simply extrapolating how I think things should be, and a possible solution/course of legal action in such a defense-against-dog case. Run this idea past a real lawyer before even attempting to use it. Not for internal consumption. Keep out of reach of children. All warranty claims must be directed to our India division, which shut down last month. Mileage may vary, depending on model.