Dangerous animal scenario with CHL holder

[kauboy]

I'm not sure that everybody else is understanding the Necessity section TXI.

Guys, the purpose of the Necessity section is to give a kind of weight ratio to the law. If you must break a law in order to protect yourself(i.e. discharging your firearm to protect yourself from an attacking dog), then this allows for the legal support for that. Is that a little clearer guys?

[Lucky45]

hey txinvestigator and kauboy,

I saw your post last Night Tex and was reading the law over and over to make sure I was interpreting correct.
my question, on the necessity definition, are they referring to any general scenario. Because I notice beyond that text they had sections applying to persons , then sections applying to property. i'm at work on my pda so can't copy and paste. just going from memory.

[kauboy]

The necessity section allows for an infraction of the law to be waived in lieu of a more pressing matter. Its like choosing the lesser of two evils. With the sections that follow it, they state what you may due to defend yourself, property, and other property. The Necessity section is more general and covers more than just the use of a firearm.

For example, lets say you're carrying your gun, and a man out in the street begins driving on the sidewalk, or shooting at random people, and the only way for you to get out of the way is to duck into a local bar. Well, if that bar meets 51%, you just broke the law. But thankfully, the Necessity statute protects you from prosecution because of the circumstances.

Is that a valid example TXI?

[Lucky45]

sidebar.......just saw online that harris county dept constable shot himself in the foot when he was attacked by a pitbull. isn't that perfect timing!



Also, Txinvestigator ,

I think that cops have different rules to citizens because when in uniform he has authority to carry out certain duties. We don't because we are not peace officers. so if a dog is obstructing him from performing his duties, then he can dispatch them however he feels. I just can get mad and stomp off to my house. I can't shoot someone's dog just because I have to enter their property.

[Lucky45]

thanks kauboy and everyone for engaging in this discussion. I try to read the CHL law weekly and see if there is any area I might be a little fuzzy on. those of us who have been in organizations that have rules and regulations know what i'm talking about. you could read it a hundred times and find something new.

that is why I have these discussions, because some people practice the draw for muscle memory. i'm practicing these scenarios for "memory memory." LOL!! So, if it does happen, then I wouldn't have to use my "common sense". it would be automatic , no thinking involved.

[Lucky45]

thanks kauboy and everyone for engaging in this discussion. I try to read the CHL law weekly and see if there is any area I might be a little fuzzy on. those of us who have been in organizations that have rules and regulations know what i'm talking about. you could read it a hundred times and find something new.

that is why I have these discussions, because some people practice the draw for muscle memory. i'm practicing these scenarios for "memory memory." LOL!! So, if it does happen, then I wouldn't have to use my "common sense". it would be automatic , no thinking involved.

[kauboy]

I think that cops have different rules to citizens because when in uniform he has authority to carry out certain duties. We don't because we are not peace officers. so if a dog is obstructing him from performing his duties, then he can dispatch them however he feels. I just can get mad and stomp off to my house. I can't shoot someone's dog just because I have to enter their property.

I don't think this is right at all. I'll leave it to TXI for the final say on it since he is a LEO, but I don't think an officer has any authority to shoot a dog simply because it is blocking his path. Thats a lawsuit waiting to happen. Officers must adhere to the law in the same manner that we do. And even more constricting in some cases. There are certain sections of the law that ONLY pertain to officers and we aren't afforded those avenues as "civillians", but none of them give free reign to the officer to handle the situation as he wants to.

[rspeir]

Does anyone know the purpose behind this statute? Why name specific animals but leave off the wolf, alligator, crocodile, and elephant? Even a deer can be a "dangerous wild animal" in certain circumstances. Doesn't make much sense to me.

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?

[kw5kw]

thanks kauboy and everyone for engaging in this discussion. I try to read the CHL law weekly and see if there is any area I might be a little fuzzy on. those of us who have been in organizations that have rules and regulations know what i'm talking about. you could read it a hundred times and find something new.

Yeah, Kinda like the Bible! Every time you read It you understand more.
Russ

[txinvestigator]

Also, Txinvestigator ,

I think that cops have different rules to citizens because when in uniform he has authority to carry out certain duties. We don't because we are not peace officers. so if a dog is obstructing him from performing his duties, then he can dispatch them however he feels. I just can get mad and stomp off to my house. I can't shoot someone's dog just because I have to enter their property.

Negative. The same use of force laws apply to peace officers. The only exception is that there is an added section for LE in chapter 9 and it have to do with Arrest and search, Prevention of escape from custody and Maintaining security in correctional facility.


And a Peace Office is a peace officer regardles of if he is in uiform or not.

[KRM45]

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.

You have changed the scenario from what was presented in the initial post. The initial post had the dog actively mauling someone. In that case I kill the dog.

In this new case you have presented I draw and prepare to fight the dog. If it makes contact with me I shoot.

[Lucky45]

hey KRM45,
I think we have come to a concensus on what to do in this scenario. Obviously if there is no other alternative like escaping, then you can use deadly force to stop the dog if you are in fear of serious harm. So by firing your weapon in a public place (and it doesn't matter where), then you "should" have a defense to prosecution due to the necessity clause.

Did I get it right?

I just don't like that Health Code being there because I would hope nobody get the short end of the stick because of it by another's lawyer.

[txinvestigator]

hey KRM45,
I think we have come to a concensus on what to do in this scenario. Obviously if there is no other alternative like escaping, then you can use deadly force to stop the dog if you are in fear of serious harm. So by firing your weapon in a public place (and it doesn't matter where), then you "should" have a defense to prosecution due to the necessity clause.

Did I get it right?

I just don't like that Health Code being there because I would hope nobody get the short end of the stick because of it by another's lawyer.

I agree. The health code part is in regards to shooting those listed wild animals, and is for the ranchers and farmers, mostly.

[KRM45]

hey KRM45,
I think we have come to a concensus on what to do in this scenario. Obviously if there is no other alternative like escaping, then you can use deadly force to stop the dog if you are in fear of serious harm. So by firing your weapon in a public place (and it doesn't matter where), then you "should" have a defense to prosecution due to the necessity clause.

Did I get it right?

I just don't like that Health Code being there because I would hope nobody get the short end of the stick because of it by another's lawyer.

I concur.

I don't have the book in front of me, so this is not word for word, but remember section 9 of the Penal Code states "It is a defence to prosecution that the actor's actions were justified under this code."

[Glockamolie]

If you need to shoot the dog, just be sure to hit him and not your foot. From the Houston Chronicle...

A deputy constable shot himself in the foot Thursday morning while trying to fend off a pit bull attack, authorities said.

Deputy C. Menefield was in the process of evicting a tenant from a residence in the 13900 block of Wrigley when the man opened the door and allegedly ordered a dog inside the home to attack, said DeAnn Collins, a Precinct 7 spokeswoman.

She said the pit bull lunged at Menefield's leg. As the deputy tried to kick the dog away, he fired his gun, shooting himself in the left foot, Collins said. The dog ran back inside at the sound of the shot and was later taken to the city pound.

Menefield, a five-year veteran, was transported to Memorial Hermann Hospital. He was released in good condition and was recovering Thursday night at home, Collins said.

The dog's owner, 41-year-old Alan Trevino, was charged with making a terroristic threat, a Class B misdemeanor, she said. Collins said Trevino had been notified of the eviction date.

The deputy had arrived with a locksmith and a moving company.

Trevino, who has a "very lengthy criminal history," was inside, refusing to leave when he allegedly ordered his dog to attack, Collins said.