TexasCHLforum.com

PC §42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road
or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local
Government Code;(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection
(a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable
fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous
wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

Health and Safety Code§ 822.101. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(4) "Dangerous wild animal" means: (A) a lion; (B) a tiger; (C) an ocelot;(D) a cougar; (E) a leopard;(F) a cheetah; (G) a jaguar;(H) a bobcat; (I) a lynx; (J) a serval; (K) a caracal; (L) a hyena; (M) a bear;(N) a coyote; (O) a jackal; (P) a baboon; (Q) a chimpanzee; (R) an orangutan; (S) a gorilla; or T) any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision.

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?

you didn't read far enough...
here's a link to a thread already that give us this: (http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... ht=822+013 )


§ 822.013. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS.
(a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.
(c) A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal control authority. The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all damage done by the dog or coyote.
(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority.
(e) A person is not required to acquire a hunting license under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or coyote under this section.

kw5kw wrote:you didn't read far enough...
here's a link to a thread already that give us this: (http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... ht=822+013 )


§ 822.013. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS.
(a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.
(c) A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal control authority. The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all damage done by the dog or coyote.
(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority.
(e) A person is not required to acquire a hunting license under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or coyote under this section.

This only offers protection from the sections in red.

I believe this is your defense;

Texas Penal Code

Text
§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.

kw5kw wrote:
you didn't read far enough...
§ 822.013. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS

I just read what you posted, but it does not refer to attacks on humans. It refers to attacks on animals. So I don't thinks that section applies to my discussion.

txinvestigator wrote:

kw5kw wrote:you didn't read far enough...
here's a link to a thread already that give us this: (http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... ht=822+013 )


§ 822.013. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS.
(a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.
(c) A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal control authority. The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all damage done by the dog or coyote.
(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority.
(e) A person is not required to acquire a hunting license under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or coyote under this section.

This only offers protection from the sections in red.

I believe this is your defense;

Texas Penal Code

Text
§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 I might be so bold to quote Charles from the thread that I quoted from:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:While I don't feel as strongly about this as does txinvestigator, I do think we need to be very careful about the video. Some of our members may not handle it very well, so that's why I added the warning.

I've been away from the forum for a week due to moving my law office and I don't have much time now. Here is my short answer, and I have to admit I didn't watch the entire video and don't know if it was only a dog fight or if the dog attacked a person as well.

You can defend your property and if your dog was being attacked, he's your personal property. If you are using a firearm off of your own property (real estate) to preserve your personal property (dog), please remember that while it can be legal, it's fraught with potential trouble if you injury/kill someone or damage their property. If it's not your dog being attacked, forget it! We have to remember that in this circumstance, you're acting to preserve property, not defend a life, no matter how much we may love our dogs.

If the dog is attacking a person, then the laws of self-defense are a good guideline as to the use of a firearm, although they won't directly apply since you are not shooting a human.

I have to add one caveat: Texas may have a statute about harming or killing a domestic animal that could change my answer. I just don’t have time to look for it now.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
If the dog is attacking a person, then the laws of self-defense are a good guideline as to the use of a firearm, although they won't directly apply since you are not shooting a human.
I have to add one caveat: Texas may have a statute about harming or killing a domestic animal that could change my answer. I just don’t have time to look for it now.

I think this leaves my question open because it is not definite on if the self defense law applies.


Also kw5kw,
I think you should read my first post again. I'm talking about a dog attacking your wife, daughter, son etc. Not a dog attacking another animal.

Lucky45 wrote:I think you should read my first post again. I'm talking about a dog attacking your wife, daughter, son etc. Not a dog attacking another animal.

Then you wouldn't even be concerned about whether it was legal.

In those circumstances, who cares!!

IANAL, but in a situation like that, I'd imagine you could charge the dog's owner with assault, or some sort of negligent offense. The dog is not a wild animal, which implies the owner does or should have some measure of control over that animal.

If you're a burglar that gets chewed by Fido, you don't have much recourse, as the dog could be assumed to be there for the protection of the property you were attempting to steal. It could be argued that the owner used force against you to stop the commission of a felony through his dog as a proxy.

But if you're walking down the sidewalk and the dog attacks, then the owner has, through intention or negligence, attacked you by proxy. The person responsible for that animal should be held responsible for it no matter what.

Therefore, in my mind, shooting an attacking dog is not so much you using force against a non-wild animal as it is using force against the proxy of the person who attacked you.

Yeah, I know, dogs sometimes have a mind of their own and sometimes the owner ISN'T at fault, but charging the owner with assault/battery/etc. is a pretty sure way to motivate other dog owners to keep their dogs controlled. When in those doubtful cases, let the grand jury no-bill.



Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television. I'm simply extrapolating how I think things should be, and a possible solution/course of legal action in such a defense-against-dog case. Run this idea past a real lawyer before even attempting to use it. Not for internal consumption. Keep out of reach of children. All warranty claims must be directed to our India division, which shut down last month. Mileage may vary, depending on model.

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.

Thane, I appreciate the input.

I just think it should be cleared up more definitively. because the CHL law is saying in layman term that everything is cool as long as you are following the Health Code. And the health code doesn't address animals we see on a regular basis. But there is going to be some owner that would fight the killing of their dog someday.

We see in this forum where people want the legislature to clear up some letter of the CHL law.

I figure this is an area that they could fix the line that says dangerous wild animal. And just say dangerous animal or something to that effect. Because I haven't seen a law stating specifically to "domestic animal" gone bad attacking a person.

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.

Let me tell you my stupid answer, unless you are trying to understand the legality of this thing, when my loved ones being chased by a pitbull, the legality of shooting the animal and the aftermath ARE of zero concern for me.

I am all for the animal rights. I believe all animals must be treated equally - meaning if it's not ok to kill dogs, it's not ok to slaughter chickens by the millions. NO animal discrimination, please!!!

In the case, dog or human, I'll shoot.

This an interesting scenario. One which I come across every time I venture out with my two beagles. There's a house around the corner from me which has approx three pit bulls. It seems when ever I pass the said house, one out of every twelve times I pass, a dog gets out. Fortunately for me and my dogs, the owner has been right behind the dog to call it back inside. Suffice it to say, I now carry a very potent can of spray http://www.phillyspyshop.com/FOX.htm if all else fails the gun is coming out next.

I think the message here is - carry OC spray for those gray areas.

Having said that, I need to pick some up - replace the ones I bought for wife and daughter. and buy myself one.

I'll say it again.

txinvestigator wrote: I believe this is your defense;

Texas Penal Code

Text
§9.22. Necessity.

Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately
necessary to avoid imminent harm;

if a dog is attacking you or another, this section applies, does it not?

(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;

This means if the desirability of avoiding the harm, which is the dog biting you, outweighs the reason for the law making it illegal to discharge the firearm in a public place. I firmly believe this to be the case with a dog attacking you, don't you?

and (3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

This means it does not appear the legislative intent was to keep you from shooting a dog attacking you. Tha seems clear too, does it not?

How do we suppose that police officers are not prosecuted when they shoot attacking dogs? They are held to the same standards in use of force as citizens, excepting for escapee, etc.