TexasCHLforum.com

Hi, all;

I am trying to find some Texas statutes that discuss when it is legal to defend oneself -- and how -- from an attack by a dog.

So far I've found two somewhat, but not entirely, relevant statutes:

• Penal Code -- sections 9.31 through 9.34, which deal with self-defense, but the law reads that they are against other "persons". Specific wording is always "A person is justified in using [force/deadly force/etc.] against another", which I interpret as meaning against another similar person.
• Health and Safety Code -- sections 822.041 through 822.044, which discuss dangerous dogs and the fact that a dangerous dog's owner commits an offense when their dog attacks someone, but it does not discuss justification for defense.

Can anyone help? Specifically, I am looking for Texas statutes that address the issue, not just personal opinions.

Thanks.

In the first place, an act is illegal only if the statutes prohibit it.

Killing an animal other than livestock without permission of the animal's owner is covered PC § 42.09, Animal Cruelty. That statute has a defense to prosection if the animal that was killed was trying to kill or had killed livestock.

Health & Safety Code § 822.013 also allows killing dogs that attack livestock.

I don't know of a specific statute that allows you to kill dogs that attack people, other than the necessity defense of PC § 9.22.

- Jim

Could have sworn I saw a bill that was passed this session...Or maybe it could have been another state that passed a deadly force condition in regards to using deadly force against an attacking dog...

Maybe it was another state...I'm just going by what just jogged into my mind when I saw this discussion...

But anyway...It does appear to be an effort to help get that issue addressed for the general public...

I want to say it might be California, but nobody there carries guns anyway... But maybe something got introduce this last session here in Texas...Guess I gotta go dig around in the archives this weekend...Ehhh, its a job I guess...

seamusTX wrote:In the first place, an act is illegal only if the statutes prohibit it.

There is a statute that prohibits one from "[displaying] a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm," and that is Penal Code 42.01. Of course, it could easily be argued that if a dog is attacking you, pulling out a firearm will "alarm" the dog's owners. So, it appears to me that there must be a statute that explicitly allows such defense.

seamusTX wrote:Killing an animal other than livestock without permission of the animal's owner is covered PC § 42.09, Animal Cruelty. That statute has a defense to prosection if the animal that was killed was trying to kill or had killed livestock.

Minor correction: the defense is only valid if the animal is defined to be a "dangerous wild animal", which includes lions, tigers, gorillas, and other non-canines. So, I think this is not applicable.

seamusTX wrote:Health & Safety Code § 822.013 also allows killing dogs that attack livestock.

Yes, but persons are not livestock, so this appears to be not applicable.

Possibly this:


§ 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.

pmw wrote:Minor correction: the defense is only valid if the animal is defined to be a "dangerous wild animal", which includes lions, tigers, gorillas, and other non-canines. So, I think this is not applicable.

Let's look at the text:

§ 42.09. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly:...
(5) kills, seriously injures, or administers poison to an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent;...
(c) For purposes of this section:...
(2) "Animal" means a domesticated living creature and wild living creature previously captured. "Animal" does not include an uncaptured wild creature or a wild creature whose capture was accomplished by conduct at issue under this section....
(e) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(5) that the animal was discovered on the person's property in the act of or immediately after injuring or killing the person's goats, sheep, cattle, horses, swine, or poultry and that the person killed or injured the animal at the time of this discovery.

None of this applies to attacks on people. I'm just trying to cover all the legal angles.

A similar legal issue is putting injured wild game (deer hit by vehicles, etc.) out of its misery. No specific law covers it. I think necessity applies.

- Jim

flintknapper wrote:Possibly this:


§ 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.

If a dog is attacking you 9.22 offers a defense to "Cruelty to Animals"

1. KILL THE DOG....don't let yourself get hurt
2. Call 911
3. Call the local news
4. Let public outrage regarding "Viscious" dogs argue your case for you before you ever see the inside of a courtroom. Most would probably be relived the threat was removed before someone's kid was maimed or killed by this vicious "Killing Machine".

With the proliferation of "fighting dogs" as status symbols, and a means of imtimidation for todays "naer-do-wells", people are quickly getting fed up with it. The public outcry would be hard to ignore....especially in a case where everything, legally at least, is so "grey area".

(BTW: I would feel sorry for the dog, because it was probably not his fault that he was taught to be vicious)

Humanphibian wrote: 4. Let public outrage regarding "Viscious" dogs argue your case for you before you ever see the inside of a courtroom. Most would probably be relived the threat was removed before someone's kid was maimed or killed by this vicious "Killing Machine".

I don't know about that. It seems the outrage comes only after a dog kills or injures a child or elderly person. Even then, some animal rights nuts will be weeping for the dog.

- Jim

Humanphibian wrote: With the proliferation of "fighting dogs" as status symbols, and a means of imtimidation for todays "naer-do-wells", people are quickly getting fed up with it. The public outcry would be hard to ignore....especially in a case where everything, legally at least, is so "grey area".

(BTW: I would feel sorry for the dog, because it was probably not his fault that he was taught to be vicious)

Yup, there's plenty of pit bulls where I live. And we have found that pepper spray is effective in warding off attacking dogs. That would be a dog that went for one of our Boston Terriers when out on a walk. Of course, a rabid or otherwise enraged dog would probably take the pepper and keep on coming.
What I see as a potential problem is the way dogs in general act. I find it difficult to tell the difference between a dog that is extremely happy to see me and want to give me a slobbery kiss, and a dog that has an extreme urge to end my life. Usually it's a lack of training that's the culprit, and the responsibility lies solely on the owner of the animal.

And speaking of pit bulls, I can't tell them apart from a full bred American Staffordshire Terrier, so that dog my wife sprayed with pepper might have been "Champion Fluff Puff of Forney" just wanting to say Hi, or one of the local drug dealers' attack dogs.

I guess in the end, self defense from a dog attack is very much like defending against a human attack: it's going to be all about what you perceive is happening and what you decide to do in those critical split seconds. The dog can't verbalize its intentions like a human might.

Sorry about the rant and for providing nothing that has to do with the law.