Jackbooted Thugs!!

[Benny]

I was going to respond to lashicoN but then I read:



I give up...

Yeah, after all of this debate, he kind of proved your point.

I still stand behind my statement that I would have broken some fingers the second he threatened me and reached for my property.

 

[Benny]

Very interesting situation. It sounds to me like the OP made the best decision he could make given what he knew at the time of the situation. I can't say if it was the best decision, but it was the one he felt was best at the time. Just to play devil's advocate, OP I have a question for you. Let's say the dogs had bitten them, or even charged them aggressively enough to make them fear they were being attacked. Let's also say one of the kids pulled a knife or gun or other weapon and defended himself from the dogs, which would be a reasonable reaction from someone being attacked by two large dogs. What would you have done? Would you have shot to protect your dogs? Do you think that, given the behavior of the children, you were justified in defending yourself via your dogs? How do you think that conversation would have played out to responding officers?

Officer: Why did you shoot that kid?
You: He was trying to kill my dog.
Officer: Why was he trying to kill your dog?
You: I let him loose/he got away from me and was attacking the kid.
Officer: So the kid was defending himself from an attack by your large dogs and you shot him?

OP: Officer, these punks were threatening my family and my dogs were protecting us.

I still don't like the idea of releasing my dogs anywhere but in my house, but the conversation with the officer didn't have to end there.

 

[lashicoN]

How do you think that conversation would have played out to responding officers?

Officer: Why did you shoot that kid?
You: He was trying to kill my dog.
Officer: Why was he trying to kill your dog?
You: I let him loose/he got away from me and was attacking the kid.
Officer: So the kid was defending himself from an attack by your large dogs and you shot him?

This is an interesting question. Can one claim self defense after initiating offense?

What would you do if you were patrolling a park with a K9 (completely hypothetical) and these three teens came up to you and told you that you better leave...NOW. And then after you replied with kindness, one of the teens approached you, and flicked open the retention strap on your holster, and your K9 bit his hand, and he responded by trying to kill your K9, claiming he was defending himself.

I know this is not quite the same set of circumstances, but it still comes down to a dog defending his handler's personal space from a perceived threat.

 

[Benny]

This is an interesting question. Can one claim self defense after initiating offense?

What would you do if you were patrolling a park with a K9 (completely hypothetical) and these three teens came up to you and told you that you better leave...NOW. And then after you replied with kindness, one of the teens approached you, [STRIKE]and flicked open the retention strap on your holster[/STRIKE] knocked over your huge pile of donuts, and your K9 bit his hand, and he responded by trying to kill your K9, claiming he was defending himself.

I know this is not quite the same set of circumstances, but it still comes down to a dog defending his handler's personal space from a perceived threat.

That's closer to the situation.

 

[Josh Ward]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The OP was unwilling to give up his personal liberty (ie sitting at a public area and having a picnic with his family) for TEMPORY safety. Good for him.

Burnsy, hate to say it, but with your way of thinking you deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

[jsharmon7]

An alternative reality:

OP: Officer, these punks were threatening my family and my dogs were protecting us.

I still don't like the idea of releasing my dogs anywhere but in my house, but the conversation with the officer didn't have to end there.

To continue devil's advocate:

So you felt in fear of imminent physical attack because the kid threw a piece of your chicken on the ground after telling you to leave the picnic area? Did he make any direct threats? Did he touch you in any way? Did he make any aggressive moves toward you personally? What made you feel like you were in imminent danger of physical attack? Were all three teens behaving this way, or only the one? What made you think that all three would attack you? If the dog had bitten one of the other two, what would their offense toward you have been, that they were friends with the other guy?

Remember, INGO members may not be on your jury. So, will Suzy Soccer Mom feel you were justified in letting two large dogs loose on the kids? Will your child's teacher? The nosy old lady down the road?

Also, would you consider two large dogs to be deadly force? If so, would you be justified in using deadly force given the behavior of the kid?

Again, I'm not second-guessing the OP because I don't know what he knew. But, I think this is a great scenario to think through.

 

[jsharmon7]

This is an interesting question. Can one claim self defense after initiating offense?

What would you do if you were patrolling a park with a K9 (completely hypothetical) and these three teens came up to you and told you that you better leave...NOW. And then after you replied with kindness, one of the teens approached you, and flicked open the retention strap on your holster, and your K9 bit his hand, and he responded by trying to kill your K9, claiming he was defending himself.

I know this is not quite the same set of circumstances, but it still comes down to a dog defending his handler's personal space from a perceived threat.

If they touched the retention strap on my holster, or the OP's in this case, it would have been a completely different story. I would interpret that as an attempt to remove said firearm and would respond to that threat appropriately. The OP would be justified also. Also in your scenario, they are initiating physical contact. Had the kid touched his dog and gotten bit, that would have been different. Had the kid physically touched the OP it would have been a different situation as well. I think an important question in this scenario is whether one believes unleashing two large dogs on the kid is an appropriate level of force given the psychological intimidation on the kid's part. One could claim that they did not command the dogs to attack, they merely unleashed them and they acted on their own. I believe that would take away the OP's claim to self defense though and the kid would have been justified in defending himself from the dog. Anything the OP did to defend his dogs would have escalated things.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Very interesting situation. It sounds to me like the OP made the best decision he could make given what he knew at the time of the situation. I can't say if it was the best decision, but it was the one he felt was best at the time. Just to play devil's advocate, OP I have a question for you. Let's say the dogs had bitten them, or even charged them aggressively enough to make them fear they were being attacked. Let's also say one of the kids pulled a knife or gun or other weapon and defended himself from the dogs, which would be a reasonable reaction from someone being attacked by two large dogs. What would you have done? Would you have shot to protect your dogs? Do you think that, given the behavior of the children, you were justified in defending yourself via your dogs? How do you think that conversation would have played out to responding officers?

Officer: Why did you shoot that kid?
You: He was trying to kill my dog.
Officer: Why was he trying to kill your dog?
You: I let him loose/he got away from me and was attacking the kid.
Officer: So the kid was defending himself from an attack by your large dogs and you shot him?

Again, I won't second-guess your decision because only you truly know the facts and feelings at the time. I'm just curious as to what would have happened had the dogs acted differently, or the kids took their behavior differently. I think these are always things we need to think about when assessing a situation and our response to it. Fortunately the kids beat feet, but it could have just as easily turned out very differently for all involved.[/QUOTEI

I reserve the same rights as a cop does, legal or not. My dog is my partner. Is it reasonable for a criminal to defend himself while involved in a crime? If so then they should TRY to hurt my dog. I may very well of acted to defend the dogs. If a person threatens a member of my family then they take their chances. I protected these kids from the meanest threat in the woods, ME. That is the point I was trying to make, They didn't seem to know that they were playing a game that could end very badly. They didn't even seem to care. I needed to respond Quick before I let it get to the point where it would be NECESSARY for me to employ deadly force.

Don't forget that I am also a factor. I knew that I would not comply with their demands. I knew that if they took me together then they would have a gun for themselves, unless I used it first. I knew that my wife was in danger and the boxer was helplessly tied to a post. I knew that brandishing my gun could of been taken as false bravado and a bluff, resulting in an immediate attack. They could of possibly made me so angry that I could of left their bodies in the woods to be eaten by coyote dogs instead of mine. How did I know these things? I have thought about them before. At the time I Just decided the least dangerous path for everybody and followed it.

As far as consequences of my actions goes, I weighed the risks and followed what I thought was the safest course. Sometimes other people put you in a position where you can't win, life is not fair.

 

[malachi_s]

I think you handled it better than I would of.....

Ditto!

 

[lashicoN]

If they touched the retention strap on my holster, or the OP's in this case, it would have been a completely different story. I would interpret that as an attempt to remove said firearm and would respond to that threat appropriately. The OP would be justified also. Also in your scenario, they are initiating physical contact.

I contend that they also initiated physical contact in the OP's case. They initiated contact by verbally instructing him to leave. They initiated physical contact by touching his property, and ultimately destroying it.

In this scenario, you interpreted a threat based on the flick of his finger. He didn't verbally threaten you or touch your person, he just touched your property with the tip of his finger. Just as a plate with chicken is not a part of your body, neither is a holster.

I'm getting hung up on the details though. The question I meant to ask is if a person invades your personal space, and touches/destroys your personal property and your dog bites him as a direct result of the violation of your space/property, can he (the instigator) claim self defense and try to kill your dog after he initiated the entire situation by 1. Telling you to leave public land. 2. Invading your personal space and 3. Destroying your property.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

For goodness sake, they were having a picnic and these butt heads interjected themselves in a very unsavory and, most would say, threatening manner.

Maybe if he had offered them some chicken they would have sat down with him and had some meaningful conversations about what Obama's second term will accomplish!

Maybe he shoulda punched the kid in the face for trying to choke his dog on a chicken bone!

Theres alot of worse ways this could have ended for those kids. Burnsy's argument is weak and his reaction would have reinforced their threatening behavior. The way it was handled would deter them from that behavior .

 

[AndersonIN]

Very interesting situation. It sounds to me like the OP made the best decision he could make given what he knew at the time of the situation. I can't say if it was the best decision, but it was the one he felt was best at the time. Just to play devil's advocate, OP I have a question for you. Let's say the dogs had bitten them, or even charged them aggressively enough to make them fear they were being attacked. Let's also say one of the kids pulled a knife or gun or other weapon and defended himself from the dogs, which would be a reasonable reaction from someone being attacked by two large dogs. What would you have done? Would you have shot to protect your dogs? Do you think that, given the behavior of the children, you were justified in defending yourself via your dogs? How do you think that conversation would have played out to responding officers?

Officer: Why did you shoot that kid?
You: He was trying to kill my dog.
Officer: Why was he trying to kill your dog?
You: I let him loose/he got away from me and was attacking the kid.
Officer: So the kid was defending himself from an attack by your large dogs and you shot him?

Again, I won't second-guess your decision because only you truly know the facts and feelings at the time. I'm just curious as to what would have happened had the dogs acted differently, or the kids took their behavior differently. I think these are always things we need to think about when assessing a situation and our response to it. Fortunately the kids beat feet, but it could have just as easily turned out very differently for all involved.[/QUOTEI

I reserve the same rights as a cop does, legal or not. My dog is my partner. Is it reasonable for a criminal to defend himself while involved in a crime? If so then they should TRY to hurt my dog. I may very well of acted to defend the dogs. If a person threatens a member of my family then they take their chances. I protected these kids from the meanest threat in the woods, ME. That is the point I was trying to make, They didn't seem to know that they were playing a game that could end very badly. They didn't even seem to care. I needed to respond Quick before I let it get to the point where it would be NECESSARY for me to employ deadly force.

Don't forget that I am also a factor. I knew that I would not comply with their demands. I knew that if they took me together then they would have a gun for themselves, unless I used it first. I knew that my wife was in danger and the boxer was helplessly tied to a post. I knew that brandishing my gun could of been taken as false bravado and a bluff, resulting in an immediate attack. They could of possibly made me so angry that I could of left their bodies in the woods to be eaten by coyote dogs instead of mine. How did I know these things? I have thought about them before. At the time I Just decided the least dangerous path for everybody and followed it.

As far as consequences of my actions goes, I weighed the risks and followed what I thought was the safest course. Sometimes other people put you in a position where you can't win, life is not fair.

Honest officer these dogs attacked those kids and I tried to defend them! Man am I sorry I'm missed the dogs and hit the kids multiple times. But you see I used to work for the NY police department!!!

Wasn't there a song about Burnsey? I think it went.....
"Burnsey, put my guns in the ground. I don't need them anymore. Long black train is coming round. And I'm knock, knock, knocking on Burnsey'd door!"

 

[jsharmon7]

OP,

Please understand that I am not attacking the decision you made, or second-guessing you. The real value of you sharing this situation is for others to learn from it. I think plausible "what-if" scenarios are an important tool for self defense and situational awareness. So, your situation worked out as well as you could hope, but what if the dogs had behaved a little differently? We should always try to approach things with a mindset of "Am I justified in doing this? Is it reasonable for me to do this? Is this action the best and safest route?" I also think it's important to ask whether two large and aggressive dogs (not that yours are, but if they went after the kid they would have fit that criteria) are an appropriate force response to psychological intimidation by a lone actor who has made no direct physical threats or touched you physically. I wasn't in your shoes so I can't answer that, but a jury would have had to answer that if things had changed slightly. Thanks for sharing your story though, and allowing us to discuss it.

 

[jsharmon7]

I contend that they also initiated physical contact in the OP's case. They initiated contact by verbally instructing him to leave. They initiated physical contact by touching his property, and ultimately destroying it.

Touching me vs. touching my property are different actions with different responses.

In this scenario, you interpreted a threat based on the flick of his finger. He didn't verbally threaten you or touch your person, he just touched your property with the tip of his finger. Just as a plate with chicken is not a part of your body, neither is a holster.

A piece of fried chicken has no immediate ability to kill me. My firearm does.

I'm getting hung up on the details though. The question I meant to ask is if a person invades your personal space, and touches/destroys your personal property and your dog bites him as a direct result of the violation of your space/property, can he (the instigator) claim self defense and try to kill your dog after he initiated the entire situation by 1. Telling you to leave public land. 2. Invading your personal space and 3. Destroying your property.

I understand what you're saying, but I think it was a little more complex than that. It appears to me from reading the subsequent responses that the OP was trying to de-escalate the situation rather than defending himself from an attack. How immediate would you consider the threat? The OP had time to glare at the kid and issue a short speech before unleashing the dog. The kid was also sitting across a picnic table from the OP, hardly within reach of immediately assaulting him.

Again, his actions caused the kids to leave and nobody was injured, that's a positive outcome. Had the teen or the dogs responded differently though would a jury be on his side? Is that a consideration when deciding how to de-escalate a situation?

 

[hopper68]

What kind of idiots threaten someone who has 2 large dogs with them??? Obviously the punks picked the OP because they thought he was an easy target. But how could they miss 2 large dogs???
To the OP. Be careful. The words most often heard after a dog bite are "But my dog has never bitten anyone BEFORE."

 

[El-Cigarro]

you were in danger of neither death or great bodily harm.

Are you sure of that???

 

[El-Cigarro]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The OP was unwilling to give up his personal liberty (ie sitting at a public area and having a picnic with his family) for TEMPORY safety. Good for him.

Burnsy, hate to say it, but with your way of thinking you deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Right On! Last I heard, Indiana was a "Stand Your Ground" State!

 

[Burnsy]

Are you sure of that???

Wow, is this still rocking? First I want to apologise to everyone for providing controversy into these forums. Next I want to state that I was not in fear for my life.

Yes

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Yes

You said that you gave up! Why are you still arguing? and while you are still here, give me my guns back!

 

[Burnsy]

You said that you gave up! Why are you still arguing? and while you are still here, give me my guns back!

I gave up on communicating with you about your shared experience. When you shared that you used a possibly deadly force that was not in your control in a situation in which by your own words you felt you were in no danger that would denote the use of deadly force and then said "I am easily able to manipulate children so as to create an opportunity To LEGALLY Kill all three of them". I came to understand that logic in the context of self defense is lost on you.

Those statements proved my whole point in my opinion, I understand that many others who have posted do not share that opinion. That is of course fine, free speech and all, but I see no further value in discussion on the topic between yourself and I.

I commented because the poster that I quoted clearly didn't read the 14 page mess that this has become (I don't blame him or her) and I felt compelled to make sure he or her understood that you had already answered his or her question about your life being in danger and that you felt it was not.

I do not have your guns nor do I personally have the power to take them from you, please use logic and stop asking me for them.