TexasCHLforum.com

KRM45

Here is a link to a story of a pack of dogs attacking a young man:

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player. ... .wtvc.wtvc

KRM45

Lucky45 wrote: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.

I concur.

I don't have the book in front of me, so this is not word for word, but remember section 9 of the Penal Code states "It is a defence to prosecution that the actor's actions were justified under this code."

KRM45

Lucky45 wrote:
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.

You have changed the scenario from what was presented in the initial post. The initial post had the dog actively mauling someone. In that case I kill the dog.

In this new case you have presented I draw and prepare to fight the dog. If it makes contact with me I shoot.

KRM45

Lucky45 wrote: 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?

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

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.

Of course the owner of the dog would be able to file a suit in civil court for damage to his dog, however if his dog has just mauled your family member you probably have grounds fot a suit of your own.

I would not hesitate for a second before shooting an animal that was attacking one of my family members, assuming I had a shot.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 4 matches

Re: Dangerous animal scenario with CHL holder