I was charged by a growling dog today!

[Cain71]

If your dog stays in the fence, and another dog is coming in the fence, find the hole.
I dont care if you fix it or not, but it would give you the perfect place to ambush said dog......if you are so bent on shooting it.
that aside,if any dog is really attacking or becoming aggressive to the point of bodily injury,its dead.
My grand pa had a saying"good dogs listen, bad dogs die."

 

[bstewrat3]

I have had trouble with several dogs on my bicycle commute from Beech Grove to downtown Indy. I started calling animal control and making reports on the dogs which didn't seemed to get rid of some of them. I'm not bashing animal control because I think it is more an owner problem, but after the third documented call on one dog I decided to retrain him. I shot him in the face the next time he chased me using my Walther PPK shaped water pistol filled with lemon juice. Very effective and very non lethal unless the car behind me got him.

 

[Chase515]

I'd just like to know how your dog outran a dog with all of it's limbs.


Crazy as it might sound he is actually faster than before the amputation! The fence is fixed!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

FIX the fence, and you won't have to be asking if you can shoot the dog next time.

Your life is only in danger if you can't get away to safety. You were able to get away. Therefore, you were right in NOT shooting the dog.

No duty to retreat. The other part will be answered below.

Fix the fence!!!

+1 to the fence fix.

+1 to fix the fence.

BTW, fix your fence so you can avoid asking this question again.

To the above. Why should he spend the money to "fix his fence" when it works for his pet. His hasn't gotten out in three years. This dog has gotten in. I've seen a dog jump a 5' fence, should he have to make his 8' to make sure that doesn't happen? Hell I've got an unfenced front yard, my wife and kids play out there at times, sometimes even with my dog. Should I have to fence it in(against zoning ordinances) to prevent aggressive dogs from coming in? Or should I expect their owners to control them? And if they fail to control them and they come on my property after my family (and yes that includes my dog).....

Best not to use deadly force unless it's absolutely necessary. You take a good chance of setting yourself up for expensive legal battles.

It'd be a shame if someone shot my dog because they thought he was "charging them"; when in reality, he was being friendly. I'd most certainly not be happy and may take legal action against the shooter.

I agree with the first part. But not entirely with the second. I've got a big mutt, very very friendly off the property. He has gotten out a time or five, the nipsco person failed to latch the gate behind them(that has been solved). Once or twice were our fault(that has been solved as well) and once because he figured out how to open the gate (that has been fixed also). If someone shot them, I most definitely wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't sue. Because I know how I would react to my dog coming at me if I didn't know him.

Just follow the letter of the law.

IC 35-46-3-12
A person who knowingly or intentionally kills a domestic animal without the consent of the owner of the domestic animal commits killing a domestic animal, a Class D felony.
(e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the accused person:

(B) protect the property of the accused person from destruction or substantial damage;

QFT If my dog is on my property and is about to be attacked, well....

Thread title failure

Keep your guns put away until your life is really in danger.

See above.

I'd just like to know how your dog outran a dog with all of it's limbs.

My step mother had a three legged dog, that thing could run like the wind.

I'd much rather shoot a deserving human being than a dog.

I knew there was a reason I liked you Frank. If I could rep you again I would.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

Shoot, shovel, and shut-up. Simple as that.
I like that " Good dogs listen, bad dogs die! "
I'd be in trouble if I lived in the city.

 

[OWGEM]

Why should he spend the money to "fix his fence" when it works for his pet. His hasn't gotten out in three years.

Uh, to prevent a strange dog getting in and attacking his family and/or dog? He will not be there all the time to protect them.

 

[Benny]

To the above. Why should he spend the money to "fix his fence" when it works for his pet. His hasn't gotten out in three years. This dog has gotten in.

You answered your own question.

Let's say the dog gets in again and he has to discharge his firearm w/in city limits.

How will wasting 10-30 minutes to fix the fence NOT pale in comparison to what he will have to legally go through if he shoots the dog?

Have you read Liberty Sanders' thread?

 

[lovemachine]

I'm starting to believe people are just wanting to shoot something. This is driving me crazy.

 

[Andre46996]

At least it wasn't a kitten!!!!

Talk about fearing for your personal safety!!

 

[HandK]

Gangsta Kitty says go ahead and pop a cap in dat dog!!!!

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

 

[finity]

Best not to use deadly force unless it's absolutely necessary. You take a good chance of setting yourself up for expensive legal battles.

It's not considered "deadly Force" if it's used on an animal. Just like killing an animal is not "murder".

There are many other ways to take care of it besides possibly shooting somebody's family pet. Call the police/animal control every time you see the dog roaming around if you feel it is a danger to the public.

Those other ways you suggest are all well & good but what he's asking is "can I legally shoot the dog if the dog acts aggressively toward me, my family or my dog?" What if he doesn't see the dog running around before that happens? The answer to the OP's question is "yes" as long as you/your are in reasonable fear of injury from the aggressive dog.

(To anyone - please don't talk about how the OP should have better situational awareness in that case. No one can be "turned on" all the time.)

I've got a basset/fox terrier mix who absolutely must roam around. Luckily, I've got an underground fence that he is trained on that keeps him in my yard. Every once in a while the fence stops working, he figures it out and off he goes. Now he wouldn't harm a thing, but I know he'll run up to people and say "hi." It'd be a shame if someone shot my dog because they thought he was "charging them"; when in reality, he was being friendly. I'd most certainly not be happy and may take legal action against the shooter.

It may be a shame but if the person could show a reasonable belief that he or his was being threatened then there really wouldn't be any legal recourse you could have.

If you don't control your dog then it's not the responsibility of the other person to 'know' what your dog's real intentions are. If your dog gets killed or injured then that's completely on you.

Thread title failure

Keep your guns put away until your life is really in danger.

You don't only have to be in fear of death before you use deadly force on a person or kill an animal that is attacking you. You just have to reasonably be in imminent danger of "serious bodily injury" which is quite a lower standard than "death". I am pretty sure that being mauled by an aggressive dog counts as serious bodily injury, even if you lived afterward.

+1 to the fence fix. If you end up shooting the dog, even if the dog his running at you with his mouth agape spitting fire, be prepared for a lawsuit. Even a pitbull named satan is always some 5 year old girls pet. The dog will be shown as sweet and lovable and you will be portrayed as a dog hater who most likely sawed the 4th leg off your own dog out of disdain for canines everywhere. They will then seek media support and portray you as an insane itchy trigger fingered gun owner who shot a dog that just wanted to be friends with your dog (that you hate).

So, here we go...

This is the doggie equivalent of the standard "don't use deadly force to defend yourself because you'll absolutely, positively, without a doubt be sued by the dead guys family & even if they lose you'll be financially ruined & you'll lose your wife & kids & house in the process because it happens every single time that a GG kills the BG" mantra.



Just follow the law & let the cards fall where they may. You can't defend yourself against a rogue prosecutor or an ignorant jury. All you can do is follow the objective criteria set forth in the IC. MOST of the time you'll be OK.

You answered your own question.

Let's say the dog gets in again and he has to discharge his firearm w/in city limits.

How will wasting 10-30 minutes to fix the fence NOT pale in comparison to what he will have to legally go through if he shoots the dog?

Have you read Liberty Sanders' thread?

So what if the guy didn't even have a fence & the other dog came in his yard & attacked him/his dog? Would he still be responsible? He's not required by law to have a fence around his yard to protect himself from stray dogs. Does having a hole in the fence that he's not required to have in the first place somehow legally change the responsibilty from the stray dog owner to the homeowner?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Uh, to prevent a strange dog getting in and attacking his family and/or dog? He will not be there all the time to protect them.

You answered your own question.

Let's say the dog gets in again and he has to discharge his firearm w/in city limits.

How will wasting 10-30 minutes to fix the fence NOT pale in comparison to what he will have to legally go through if he shoots the dog?

Have you read Liberty Sanders' thread?

Yes I've read his thread, and know of a situation similar to his in my own town years ago.

Also how do you know his fence is broken? He never said how the other dog got into his yard, it could of jumped the fence. Again it works to keep his dog in the yard, which is the only thing he should be concerned with. It's the responsibility of the other dog owner to keep his pet contained. Not the OPs. How about a dog that comes in my front yard which I can't fence because of zoning ordinance?

So what if the guy didn't even have a fence & the other dog came in his yard & attacked him/his dog? Would he still be responsible? He's not required by law to have a fence around his yard to protect himself from stray dogs. Does having a hole in the fence that he's not required to have in the first place somehow legally change the responsibilty from the stray dog owner to the homeowner?

QFT

 

[Chase515]

Again the fence is fixed. My wife still has to enter the fence from the drive way or street. The dog that came charging at me and my dog is still around here somewhere Everyone who thinks I just want to kill something is just way off base. Pete my dog and I are bestfriends we talk and play catch and share cheese! Not sure which guy said it but what if the fence wasnt there? Because she parks on the street and has to walk to the house!

 

[Cpt Caveman]

I have 3 words for you: Buy a suppressor!
Blast problem pooch, neighbors hear nothing, insert into trash bag, problem solved.

 

[snowman46919]

#1 Your subject line is misleading. You were not chased your dog was.

#2 Why shoot the dog when you can chase it out of your yard?

#3 Fix your fence.

QFT

I was charged and that is what the subject line said. Why is my fence the problem? In 3 years Pete has only been outside the fence when I opened the gate. This dog should not be out free roaming the neighborhood! I have the right to protect my family including the family pet. Put yourself between a growling dog and your dog what would you do.

Your original story never once has the dog charging you, in fact it seems it retreated from you. I for one would never put myself between two dogs it's a good way to get hurt. You are correct the dog should not be out free roaming but if your intent for the fence is to keep animals in and out it is not doing its job.

I am sorry but I simply didn't see any human aggression behavior in your story I am sure it is a possibility you missed some details. Oh and if you shoot the dog prepare for a legal defense because the responding LEO may or may not cite you if it is reported.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

This is the doggie equivalent of the standard "don't use deadly force to defend yourself because you'll absolutely, positively, without a doubt be sued by the dead guys family & even if they lose you'll be financially ruined & you'll lose your wife & kids & house in the process because it happens every single time that a GG kills the BG" mantra.

No, this analogy is not correct. What most people seem to be saying is: Don't use deadly force to defend yourself unless you MUST - because the chances of consequences and repercussions exist. Some are just saying, do not do it unless you have to - because it is not always the reasonable thing to do when other options exist.

Nobody is saying not to shoot a dog that poses an immediate threat. What it seems like people are saying, is other actions that can prevent that immediate threat will always be the better course of action. If you HAVE to shoot the dog, shoot the dog - but from the OP story it does not seem that this dog must be shot. The dog left when yelled at the first time, and ran off with a boot to the head the second time.

Befriend a K9 cop. Tell him you will help with his bite training, and volunteer to wear the suit. Once the dog is given the command to attack, yell at it to go away. When it doesn't comply, kick it once. Do you think it will go away?

So what if the guy didn't even have a fence & the other dog came in his yard & attacked him/his dog? Would he still be responsible? He's not required by law to have a fence around his yard to protect himself from stray dogs. Does having a hole in the fence that he's not required to have in the first place somehow legally change the responsibilty from the stray dog owner to the homeowner?

You are not required by law to carry a gun to protect yourself or your family. If someone breaks into your home trying to kill you, are you responsible for defending yourself and your family? I believe people are responsible for their own defense...

Responsibility does not stop at what is legal - it has to do with the way we handle ourselves and take responsibility for our actions.

Having a fence is a responsible part of dog ownership, even if it is not a legal requirement. Many places will not adopt out dogs to people that do not have a fenced in yard - because it would not be responsible. Fences are good to not only keep your dog in - but to keep your dog protected from things such as stray dogs...

Make it a point to close the gate, since stray dogs seem to be a problem. If you see the animal again, contact animal control. Problem solved.

 

[Benny]

So what if the guy didn't even have a fence & the other dog came in his yard & attacked him/his dog? Would he still be responsible? He's not required by law to have a fence around his yard to protect himself from stray dogs. Does having a hole in the fence that he's not required to have in the first place somehow legally change the responsibilty from the stray dog owner to the homeowner?

What if? What if I could fly and shoot laser beams out of my eyes?

He DOES have a fence, so why not take just a few minutes to fix it to keep a dog out of his yard?

Yes I've read his thread, and know of a situation similar to his in my own town years ago.

Also how do you know his fence is broken? He never said how the other dog got into his yard, it could of jumped the fence. Again it works to keep his dog in the yard, which is the only thing he should be concerned with. It's the responsibility of the other dog owner to keep his pet contained. Not the OPs. How about a dog that comes in my front yard which I can't fence because of zoning ordinance?

Because, silly, if it wasn't broken he wouldn't have needed to fix it.

The fence is fixed!

(Posted yesterday)


And yes, Chase that is weird that he's faster post-amputation.

 

[finity]

No, this analogy is not correct. What most people seem to be saying is: Don't use deadly force to defend yourself unless you MUST - because the chances of consequences and repercussions exist. Some are just saying, do not do it unless you have to - because it is not always the reasonable thing to do when other options exist.

Please don't lecture ME about the need to be reasonable in your response to a self-defense situation. You need to read some of my other posts in this section.

The thing I have a problem with are those who say (imply, etc) what vitamink stated which prompted my post:

If you end up shooting the dog, even if the dog his running at you with his mouth agape spitting fire, be prepared for a lawsuit.

as if it is ALWAYS a foregone conclusion that you will be arrested, have your gun confiscated, convicted & you WILL be sued to financial ruin no matter the circumstances.

Those kinds of statements do nothing but produce an irrational fear in people who would otherwise be completely justified (like the OP) in defending themselves with lethal action. It only serves to maybe make them hesitate at the wrong time "what-if'ing" the situation & because of it they could end up seriously hurt.

Could it happen? Sure. Anything CAN happen. Is it likely? Probably not. As long as you aren't acting all Rambo & Wyatt Earp & you are truly in danger of being seriously injured (like being mauled by a charging dog).

Nobody is saying not to shoot a dog that poses an immediate threat. What it seems like people are saying, is other actions that can prevent that immediate threat will always be the better course of action. If you HAVE to shoot the dog, shoot the dog - but from the OP story it does not seem that this dog must be shot. The dog left when yelled at the first time, and ran off with a boot to the head the second time.

Sorry I'm not going to ASSUME that I can kick the dog in the head & get him to run away. IMHO, the OP left himself open to being seriously injured if he let a dog that was acting aggressive towards him get close enough to kick him.

So, using your logic when WOULD be the time when you would feel the dog HAD to be shot? When he's got ahold of your throat & you can no longer yell at him to stop because you no longer have a voice box left? Have you actually ever seen how fast a dog can attack someone & do serious major damage to a person? Why do you think cops & soldiers use them in the first place? If it's reasonable to use DF against a PERSON armed with a weapon who is closer than 21ft then I sure as HELL am not going to give an aggressive dog any more leeway than I would that person.

Do you also think that it's reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to the home invader who promises that he won't hurt you if you just cooperate? If you wouldn't put yourself at the mercy of a human who (generally, arguably) uses intellect & rational thought before attacking you because they are too unpredictable, then why would you give a dog more credit than that when they only act on instinct & are even more unpredictable?

The OP MAY have gotten lucky & the dog decided to leave rather than attack but, again, that was not a foregone conclusion either. He could have just as easily been posting from his hospital bed after the reconstructive surgery he required from the dog attack.

Befriend a K9 cop. Tell him you will help with his bite training, and volunteer to wear the suit. Once the dog is given the command to attack, yell at it to go away. When it doesn't comply, kick it once. Do you think it will go away?

Nope.

So why should I assume a dog of unknown intent & temperment WILL miraculously let go if I kick at it. Just because it ran away once? Sorry I'm not going to put my well-being on the line because SOME of you care more about the dog than you do the human that the dog could easily kill.

You are not required by law to carry a gun to protect yourself or your family. If someone breaks into your home trying to kill you, are you responsible for defending yourself and your family? I believe people are responsible for their own defense...

True but if I choose not to carry a gun does that mean that it's MY fault that the guy who broke in injured me? Is it the womans fault for being a woman & being raped because a guy decides he can't control himself? Why are you blaming the victim?

The OP wasn't doing anything wrong. The person whose dog it was that entered his yard is FULLY responsible for the dogs actions. I'm sorry that the dog may have had to suffer for the irresponsibilty of the owner but that IN NO WAY can be put on the OP if he ended up shooting that dog. Fence or not. Fence in disrepair or not.

Responsibility does not stop at what is legal - it has to do with the way we handle ourselves and take responsibility for our actions.

Sure but why should we also have to take respoonsibilty for someone elses actions?

If the guys dog never leaves his yard then why should it be HIS responsibility to do ANYTHING to keep the other guys dog out?

Having a fence is a responsible part of dog ownership, even if it is not a legal requirement.

That may be your opinion but that's not necessarily true for everyone.

What if someone has a dog in an apartment? No way to put up a fence there. Are the dog owners being irresponsible?

What if? What if I could fly and shoot laser beams out of my eyes?

Would it make you feel better if I would have started out my hypothetical with the words "let's say" (like you did) instead of "what if"?

Same meaning, different words.

He DOES have a fence, so why not take just a few minutes to fix it to keep a dog out of his yard?

I'm not saying he shouldn't but that's NOT my point. You are acting as if it's completely HIS fault that the stray dog is in his yard. It's not. It's the other dog's owner that is completely to blame because of their failure to properly control THEIR dog.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

I can't believe this evil, puppy murdering thread is still going on!
Think of the puppies! Install 10 ft fence, razor wire, and a moat!