Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
101 - 111 of 111 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,893 Posts
It's literally the first few sentences.



The dog attacked a guy, as expected. If the guy had died, the OP would have been in some serious trouble because he knew there was someone in the house and he went in with the dog and gun looking for a fight.
While I do not agree with loosing the dog.....

But he was not looking for a fight..... He was going to check the status of his property.....

And I know things are different in different parts of North America......

But in much of the U.S..... If he encountered an intruder inside his property, and felt threatened and shot the guy, he would not have a problem....Well a criminal problem....

In many places there is an intent,ability, and means test for self defense...

Example... if a 90 pound UNARMED 15 year old tells a 250 pound grown man and says they are going to kill the man and makes a move towards said 250 pound man..... 250 pound man pulls his gun and shoots the kid... That is NOT self defense... Because while there might have been intent... The ability and means were not there.
But if the 15 year old had a machete? Now it is self defense....

Conversely.... An unarmed champion MMA fighter approaches the average person, says they are going to kill them... Then makes a move... The person shoots the MMA fighter.... That is self defense... Because said MMA fighter does not have to be armed to have the ability and means.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,893 Posts
Yep. As far as I know, the actions of the OP would be legal in my state. However...

Again I will say that the actions are very likely legal but IMO, are not both sensible & legal.

I bold highlighted a key phrase. Basically, just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Regardless of legality, sending a dog into an area sight unseen is risking the dog and I for one wouldn't want to risk my dog over property damage.
Kentucky? Yep legal...

And again... I have not advocated what he states he did... I am simply stating that it was not illegal in many places... And if it had gone south and he had been forced to defend himself.... He still would have been within the law...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,680 Posts
Kentucky? Yep legal...

And again... I have not advocated what he states he did... I am simply stating that it was not illegal in many places... And if it had gone south and he had been forced to defend himself.... He still would have been within the law...
It's not considered self-defense, though, to attack someone who is attempting to escape, as the person the OP's dog bit was. Moreover, he loosed the dog on the person, clearly with the intent of having the dog do something aggressive, before he saw whether the person was a credible threat. Even in states with a strong castle doctrine, there are potential legal problems with the that second part - castle doctrine doesn't mean you can maim or kill someone just for being present on your property, even in the states with the most extreme versions of it.

And even if something isn't criminal, or doesn't get charged, there is still potential for a ruinous civil lawsuit.

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but I think you're writing off the potential legal consequences a bit too easily.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,893 Posts
It's not considered self-defense, though, to attack someone who is attempting to escape, as the person the OP's dog bit was. Moreover, he loosed the dog on the person, clearly with the intent of having the dog do something aggressive, before he saw whether the person was a credible threat. Even in states with a strong castle doctrine, there are potential legal problems with the that second part - castle doctrine doesn't mean you can maim or kill someone just for being present on your property, even in the states with the most extreme versions of it.

And even if something isn't criminal, or doesn't get charged, there is still potential for a ruinous civil lawsuit.

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but I think you're writing off the potential legal consequences a bit too easily.
He turned a dog loose in his property..... The dog bit someone that was guilty of breaking and entering...

I do not see a problem criminally here.... Even if he did tell the police he knew thought there was someone in there... It is HIS private property....

Criminally anyway....

At least not in Florida..... But dogs are more complicated than guns in most places...

Civilly..... YES I agree with you... Wholeheartedly!!!

I know a woman that shot and killed an attacker in the 1990's.... She spent years mired in lawsuits... And she was 100 percent legal.. The guy she killed would have raped her and probably killed her... Got sued by like three different mothers he had assorted kids.. etc...

I know of a couple of other people, friends or family of friends, etc... That have defended themselves with firearms and they were sued as well.

Every self defense course, every tactical firearms course, etc you take, they will tell you that if you defend yourself with a firearm, you WILL be sued....

A lot of people with concealed permits carry legal defense insurance.... All of them should... And they should carry a high value umbrella....

You can get good rates through gun advocacy and gun owners rights organizations... I have a policy through such an organization. I also have legal defense all perils attached to my Umbrella policy. With a million in liability all perils. Including my dogs. If my dogs bite someone I have up 250k in attorney fees and a million in liability.

I UNDERSTAND why there are WILDLY different opinions on this subject.... Someone that grew up in New Jersey is going to have lived under DRASTICALLY different laws than someone that grew up in Texas and Florida. I am very unfamiliar with Canadian Laws. But I do know handgun ownership is severely restricted there.

There are states in which you are obligated to attempt to retreat in your own home before you defend yourself. And then you have states in which you do not even wait for them to get inside ( which I happen to agree with... If someone is breaking in, you yell at them, let them know you are inside, are armed, they hear the dogs barking, etc and if the person is STILL coming.... NO way I want to have to wait for such a person to get inside. )

So people develop different interpretations of what is legal...

I am NOT an expert on gun laws... But I do have a concealed carry license issued by the state of Florida... I have had one since the carry laws in their current form was enacted when I was about 23 or so.. I had a carry permit issued by a local judge a couple of years prior to that....

With my state issued license, I can carry in 38 states through agreements with other states that offer similar carry permits. IF you are going to carry, and going to travel around.... You dang sure better read and understand the self defense laws in the states you are traveling to.... I get an updated copy of state statutes every year.... I cannot say I read them word for word each year... I probably should. But the organization I get these through highlights and notes any changes....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,445 Posts
He turned a dog loose in his property..... The dog bit someone that was guilty of breaking and entering...

I do not see a problem criminally here.... Even if he did tell the police he knew thought there was someone in there... It is HIS private property....

Criminally anyway....

At least not in Florida..... But dogs are more complicated than guns in most places...

Civilly..... YES I agree with you... Wholeheartedly!!!
I think we're in agreement here overall.

The legality of the gun is --probably-- ok given Oklahoma's strong Castle Doctrine and carry laws. The use of a dog is maybe OK, again given both the OK castle doctrine laws and the response the the OP has received from local law enforcement and such thus far.

Civilly though, it can really turn into a nightmare. The cost of repairing a home is very likely to be much less than the cost of a lawsuit if someone puts forth even a bit of a defense in terms of being in the house.

All that said---

Why risk a dog that is NOT a trained personal defense dog (going by the statement that the OP expected the dog to bay to alert him but instead the dog bit) on something that is not a threat to the OP, not a threat to the OP's family, not a threat to human life, and not a threat to his dog(s) at least until he let one loose on the person or persons that he didn't even know who was inside.

Morally, I have a bit of a problem with it too as the dog bit an unknown (at the time) person. Far too much like shooting at a suspect unseen for my tastes. Identify a target before using force.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,893 Posts
I think we're in agreement here overall.

The legality of the gun is --probably-- ok given Oklahoma's strong Castle Doctrine and carry laws. The use of a dog is maybe OK, again given both the OK castle doctrine laws and the response the the OP has received from local law enforcement and such thus far.

Civilly though, it can really turn into a nightmare. The cost of repairing a home is very likely to be much less than the cost of a lawsuit if someone puts forth even a bit of a defense in terms of being in the house.

All that said---

Why risk a dog that is NOT a trained personal defense dog (going by the statement that the OP expected the dog to bay to alert him but instead the dog bit) on something that is not a threat to the OP, not a threat to the OP's family, not a threat to human life, and not a threat to his dog(s) at least until he let one loose on the person or persons that he didn't even know who was inside.

Morally, I have a bit of a problem with it too as the dog bit an unknown (at the time) person. Far too much like shooting at a suspect unseen for my tastes. Identify a target before using force.
The civil side of it.... Is a BIG reason.... To let the police handle it... All you have to do is call 911 and say I think someone broke into my property located at such and such street.... And I have reason to believe they are still inside... In most places the police will come pretty dang quick... And if you are lucky, they will bring a K9 and you might get a show....

For me... And I am not saying this is right.... I would have a much harder time if it was my actual home... Only way that would happen is if all the dogs were gone.... But that would be very personal for me on the feeling violated side... And even if the dogs were with me, we have a cat, a parrot I have owned since I was 14... I doubt I could resist not going in...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,893 Posts
It wasn't his home, though. It was an empty rental property.
If he owned it... It is still his property.... If not leased to a tenant... He has the right to enter and secure it from intruder 24/7.....

In many places again.... You do not give up any rights on an investment property, your business, etc vs your primary residence...

Again... I see few good outcomes vs a BUNCH of bad outcomes clearing an empty rental property....

But I can see cases in which a person might be compelled or feel the need to go in an clear a property they own aside from their primary residence....

An empty rental house is not one of them? What are they going to do? Take a crap in the corner? if they are homeless squatters.... They have probably already done that..... BTDTGTTS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,680 Posts
If he owned it... It is still his property.... If not leased to a tenant... He has the right to enter and secure it from intruder 24/7.....

In many places again.... You do not give up any rights on an investment property, your business, etc vs your primary residence...
And in many places you do have limits, so I'm not sure why you're actively affirming that what the OP did was legal - correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't specify his location, did he? Many locations which have a castle doctrine limit the affirmative right to use force to the defender's own home, using verbiage like "residence," "domicile," "occupant," "dwelling," etc., rather than one's property more broadly. Moreover, as you yourself stated, many of these laws also state a duty to retreat, and/or the necessity of a credible or imminent threat.

Also, while most of this thread has focused on the criminal law or civil liability, there's been very little mention of regional dog bite statutes. Those vary hugely by municipality, etc. Some are very draconian, requiring action anytime a dog puts teeth on someone, or any time a dog causes an injury. Again, without a specific location, there's really no saying how this applies to the OP's situation. And as that would be unlikely to be handled by the cop on the scene, unless the dog was still presenting an imminent threat, so consequences could easily still be forthcoming as a result of the bite. Depending on how (in)efficient the municipality is, the follow-up could occur days, weeks, even months later.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,893 Posts
And in many places you do have limits, so I'm not sure why you're actively affirming that what the OP did was legal - correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't specify his location, did he? Many locations which have a castle doctrine limit the affirmative right to use force to the defender's own home, using verbiage like "residence," "domicile," "occupant," "dwelling," etc., rather than one's property more broadly. Moreover, as you yourself stated, many of these laws also state a duty to retreat, and/or the necessity of a credible or imminent threat.

Also, while most of this thread has focused on the criminal law or civil liability, there's been very little mention of regional dog bite statutes. Those vary hugely by municipality, etc. Some are very draconian, requiring action anytime a dog puts teeth on someone, or any time a dog causes an injury. Again, without a specific location, there's really no saying how this applies to the OP's situation. And as that would be unlikely to be handled by the cop on the scene, unless the dog was still presenting an imminent threat, so consequences could easily still be forthcoming as a result of the bite. Depending on how (in)efficient the municipality is, the follow-up could occur days, weeks, even months later.

The OP states he is from Oklahoma.... Oklahoma has a stand your ground law..... He could have walked into a public restroom in OK and been under zero duty to retreat... Stand your ground trumps Castle doctrine.... every time...

whether he was okay to loose his dog is more complicated.... I have said that dogs are far more complicated than guns.....

I also said that he would not have faced an issue in my state... He would not have... Heck your dog can escape and kill the lady down the street in Florida and you will not be criminally charged....

That being said... Oklahoma (where the OP states he is from) = Right to carry - shall issue state WITH OPEN carry.... And Castle Doctrine plus Stand your ground state.... entering his property armed with a firearm is a complete non issue as far as criminal law is concerned.

If the castle doctrine does not protect him in OK... The stand your ground will....

As I said... dogs are more complicated.... But I seriously doubt a dog loosed in a building he owned would be a criminal legal issues in OK
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,920 Posts
This thread is five years old, and the original poster is banned, so I'm closing it to further replies. Feel free to start your own thread, though, or join in any of our current discussions!
 
101 - 111 of 111 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top