One more time (defense against animals)

[Ruark]

This has come up before, but it seem to drift into vague discussions and never reach a conclusive answer. So I'll try again:

Do you have a defense against prosecution if you use a firearm to defend yourself against a dog that is attacking you (i.e. attempting to bite, not just standing off and barking), say while you're taking a walk around your neighborhood?

Similarly, what if you're walking your dog, on a leash, around the neighborhood, say down the street or down a public sidewalk, and a dog comes tearing from out of nowhere attempting to attack it?

[Paladin]

There was once a specific law for dog attacks. Now "necessity" is your primary recourse.

I recommend Pepper Spray for most of those situations, but defending against large attacked trained dogs would be a deadly force situation.

[Paladin]

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.

link

[Pawpaw]

It's complicated.

Here, an attorney explains:

[Ruark]

Thanks for the replies so far.... one source of ambiguity is the code. It constantly makes references to a "person" or implied person, against whom one is using deadly force:

"...a person is justified in using force against another ..." "another" obviously meaning "another person."

"...the person against whom the force is used..."

...and so on.

Nice video from [pre-paid legal] up there. Kinda sad that the laws are so vague. Dealing with a dog could be a real legal Pandora's box. I have 60 years of experience owning and training dogs, and I've found that in general how two dogs will interact is very unpredictable. Sometimes a strange dog will run up to your dog (on a leash) and not bark or growl, but still be threatening in "dog language," standing right in his face, and inch from his nose. Then nothing could happen, or a fight could suddenly explode before you could lift a finger. It may appear to be a friendly encounter at first, and then explode. You just can't tell.

A really violent, savage attack is pretty much unstoppable, without physically disabling the attacking animal. I've read stories of attacking pit bulls getting .223 rounds (55 gr. Vmax) smack in the chest and not even slowing down, so forget pepper spray or sticks.

Other times, a dog can charge right at you or your dog, growling with fangs bared, like a hysterical demon, and then suddenly stop 3 feet away and stand there and bark. So what are you supposed to do when it's coming at you, wait and see if it stops? Wait until it tears a chunk out of you before you shoot it? Granted, it's much more convincing to the dog's owner and/or to a judge to have pictures of you standing there with blood running down your leg....

[buzzkill]

If an animal is a legitimate threat to my life and limb, I will defend myself. My lawyer says it's legal in Texas if it's a legitimate threat but regardless of that, saving my life is more important to me than the alternative.

[rotor]

From what I can gather it is a better defense to prosecution if the animal is attacking your "livestock" (your dog). Ask Rick Perry.

[Ruark]

From what I can gather it is a better defense to prosecution if the animal is attacking your "livestock" (your dog). Ask Rick Perry.

Yeah, livestock isn't a problem, and it's provided for in the law, but I don't know about taking our 20 lb. terrier for a walk in an urban neighborhood when some 80 pound mutt gets out of the yard and charges full speed straight towards us. What am I supposed to do, wait until it mains or kills our dog before I decided it's "dangerous"?

[Alf]

If you're debating whether defending yourself is legal, maybe it isn't a threat that requires deadly force.

[rotor]

From what I can gather it is a better defense to prosecution if the animal is attacking your "livestock" (your dog). Ask Rick Perry.

Yeah, livestock isn't a problem, and it's provided for in the law, but I don't know about taking our 20 lb. terrier for a walk in an urban neighborhood when some 80 pound mutt gets out of the yard and charges full speed straight towards us. What am I supposed to do, wait until it mains or kills our dog before I decided it's "dangerous"?

Technically it is better if your dog is being attacked vs your child from what I can gather. Realistically though you do what you need to do. I was walking our Akita (with one of those spiked choker collars) when a dog broke free from a neighbors house. He yells at me "don't worry, he won't hurt your dog". I yell back "it's not my dog I am worried about". No longer have the Akita but I sometimes walk with a Sjambok.

[flechero]

If you're debating whether defending yourself is legal, maybe it isn't a threat that requires deadly force.

Learning about the specifics of law and discussing it here may remove hesitation on the street (for either shooting or fleeing) which could save his dog or even him. We discuss lots of scenarios here, why suddenly does discussing it dilute the threat?

[Bitter Clinger]

Apparently in Frisco you simply let the attacking animal have it's way with you:

http://www.fox4news.com/news/coyote-att ... -in-frisco

[orangetx]

Yes, the Frisco issue is insane. 5 attacks and NO ONE has thought to run with some type of defense weapon on them. This also tells me if they can't defend themselves from a crazy coyote, then they sure can't defend themselves from a would-be robber.

[Soccerdad1995]

If you're debating whether defending yourself is legal, maybe it isn't a threat that requires deadly force.

Learning about the specifics of law and discussing it here may remove hesitation on the street (for either shooting or fleeing) which could save his dog or even him. We discuss lots of scenarios here, why suddenly does discussing it dilute the threat?

You have a good point. It is also can just be fun to discuss finer points of laws that we care about. The problem is that the correct answer to a lot of situations is "it depends". Real life is fluid and factors are constantly changing. I have seen scenarios where someone has a clear justification for deadly force one minute but not two minutes later when they actually decide to shoot.

Here's my plan. If there is any way to get out of a situation without significant harm to myself or my family (my dog is part of my family) without using deadly force, that is the path I will choose. If that means I need to retreat from a dog / human / whatever, or "lose face" by apologizing when I have done no wrong, so be it. But if there is no other alternative available and I am forced to use deadly force, I pray that I will not hesitate in doing so. If that ever comes to pass, I will gladly face any legal consequences knowing in my heart that the alternative was far worse than anything man's judgment could impose.

[Interblog]

One of those previous ambiguous threads was likely mine, because I had the same question after a loose pit bull was shot and killed about 200 feet from my back porch earlier this year.

By the luck of the draw, the shooter in that case was a LEO who happened to be driving by and saw a screaming woman and an attacking dog. I think the take-away from that case is that it helps your defense to prosecution if you happen to have a terrified witness who can attest to the reasonableness of the shooting. It also doesn't hurt to be a LEO.

https://www.galvnews.com/news/free/arti ... d108a.html

Remarkably, shortly after that event transpired, there were several more dog attacks in our subdivision. If I'm jogging I rarely carry (too heavy), but I never leave the house without a large knife strapped to my leg.