Return to “CHL use in self defense against a dog?”
Yep. Probably could out run him.G26ster wrote:Why yes!RottenApple wrote:Seen many Dachshunds on bicycles have you?sunny beach wrote:You can probably outrun a Dachshund on a bicycle.03Lightningrocks wrote:1) Why do the dogs have to be Rottweilers ?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_u_AnJIzW4Ns/S ... icycle.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Seen many Dachshunds on bicycles have you?sunny beach wrote:You can probably outrun a Dachshund on a bicycle.03Lightningrocks wrote:1) Why do the dogs have to be Rottweilers ?
03Lightningrocks wrote:I have two questions.
1) Why do the dogs have to be Rottweilers ? If they were poodles, would we make a point of the breed? I suppose Rottweiler or pit bull sounds more threatening. Unfortunately this stereo typing is causing dog discrimination. Yeah, I know, everyone is a dog expert and can spot a rotty from a mile away. Not at all. I'll shoot any animal that threatens me & mine if I have to. BTW, real poodles (not so much the minis and toys) can be very vicious and can do a lot of damage.
2) My second question is real simple and one that relates to many of the questions I see asked in this forum. What if it were illegal to shoot two dogs attacking your dog? Would you stand by and watch little scruffy get eaten? Heck no. Let 'em cart my rear end off to jail. I'd still pull the trigger if I had to. Better to be judged by 12, etc. And I'm willing to bet I'd be acquitted or, at the least, get a mistrial.
This is really bad advice. If you have to use a firearm in self-defense, even against a dog, you really do need to notify the authorities.tbrown wrote:Don't shoot an attacking dog in Austin, but if you do, definitely don't call APD.
I like Perry's stance on 2A issues. That's one man (among several) that I'd like to sit down & have a beer with.JJVP wrote:Gov. Perry had no problems when he dispatched a coyote that treatened his dog.
Oh, I wasn't being critical. Just making a statement. My apologies if I came across otherwise.RJGold wrote:Re: The Lawyer having a field day with the discharge in the city limits charge, I agree. Like I said, this was hearsay (and now it's double hearsay) so I don't know what really happened.
While many of us treat our pets as beloved members of our family, legally they are property just like your car, house, etc. As I'm sure you know, you absolutely may shoot to defend property (depending on the circumstances, of course).RJGold wrote:This actually came up in our CHL course. Our instructor said he would shoot to stop the threat if he felt threatened. He also said that extended to protecting his own dog if his dog were attacked.
Assuming I did everything right, my attorney would have a field day with trying a case like that.RJGold wrote:He said he had heard of this actually happening and based on hearsay, the individual was cited for discharging a firearm in the city limits but no other crimes. He didn't know (or hadn't heard) how it finally ended up (charge dropped, convicted, etc.).
AtkRWC wrote:If a Rot attacked me or my family I would not really question it....Dog goes, its self protection. I'll deal with the legal later. My wife is missing a finger due to a big dog biting her, they can do some serious damage.
