Austin: man charged shooting dog in his own backyard

[A-R]

Man who police say shot dog in his own backyard is charged with deadly conduct

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/ ... weapo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Teamless]

Video from a camera mounted toward both backyards shows a man shooting the animal and later dragging the body outside of the yard’s chain-linked fence, the affidavit said.

I wonder if he would have left it where he killed it, if it would have been a different story.
Moving it seems like a cover up.

But if

Thomas told police shot the dog with a shotgun in the backyard of the home in the 6700 block of Colony Park Cove after it threatened his girlfriend and child, the affidavit said.

really happened, he should be justified in shooting the dog.

I wonder if the video shows just a completely different outlook, would be interesting to see.

[speedsix]

...here's the law on the charge...does he fit this???

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:(1) one or more individuals; or(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[Teamless]

does he fit this???

Thinking about

if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:(1) one or more individuals; or(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.

, then yes, he does.
However, when I think about the size of a full grown German Sheppard or Rottie, I would think he was shooting at a down angle (of course, I am assuming he is a man of 5'7" or taller) and if he is shooting at a down angle, is he really shooting in the direction of?
Really, I could go into an field of 2 miles across, and shoot a shotgun in a direction towards a house, when the rounds have no possible way of getting there, and I am still shooting in that direction as well. So is there EVER any way to shoot around that law?

[MasterOfNone]

does he fit this???

Thinking about

if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:(1) one or more individuals; or(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.

, then yes, he does.
However, when I think about the size of a full grown German Sheppard or Rottie, I would think he was shooting at a down angle (of course, I am assuming he is a man of 5'7" or taller) and if he is shooting at a down angle, is he really shooting in the direction of?
Really, I could go into an field of 2 miles across, and shoot a shotgun in a direction towards a house, when the rounds have no possible way of getting there, and I am still shooting in that direction as well. So is there EVER any way to shoot around that law?

For that matter, is there any place in a city that firing at a threat would not involve firing "in the direction of" a building? Could the original intent be to cover shooting at a building, not shooting at a threat with a building behind it.

[A-R]

So is there EVER any way to shoot around that law?

I'm no lawyer, but I believe the justifications under PC Chapter 9 would be a defense to prosecution for anything in the Penal Code (someone please correct my misunderstanding if I'm wrong) ... problem is once you're charged you then have to PROVE your justification, correct? And justifications for shooting a menacing dog are not spelled out as "clearly" (as if any of it is crystal clear) as for shooting a menacing person.

I'm also wondering what the video shows and why the man could not take his wife and kids back into the house to avoid the harm? I know I know Castle Doctrine and all that. But the fact he was charged means something wasn't as clear cut as he's saying, at least cloudy enough for the police to say "let the court sort it out."

Sec. 9.02.  JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.

Sec. 9.22.  NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1)  the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2)  the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3)  a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

[A-R]

This article from local TV claims video shows no people in backyard until man steps out and blasts dog with shotgun. If true (cameras don't capture full 360-degree field of view, endangered persons may have been outside camera view), this would, IMHO, negate any justification because the necessity element had not been met - if wife and kid are inside then dog is not an imminent threat requiring immediate use of force. Best to call 911 and request immediate police/animal control response

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/austin/man ... d-his-yard" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[E.Marquez]

1: It's Austin. The ability TO charge someone who owns a gun, uses a gun, has read a magazine article about a gun is enough reason for them to charge. The actors reason , intent and justification has nothing to do with it. They cannot outlaw privet citizen ownership of a fire arm, but they can make it prohibitively expensive to do so.
2: We don’t know what the video shows, and BTW. why is the guy next door videotaping what goes on at this house?
3: Not sure the taking the dead dog out of the yard is germane to the charge, but it might be.. I would have stated.. “Officer my child and girlfriend were hysterical, and it was a continued emotional trauma to my child to see or know that dog that attacked her was still in our back yard… Officer I did it for the child”

If in doubt as to why he was charged,, see item #1