TexasCHLforum.com

Venus Pax wrote:This has always been a major issue for me. Dog fighting rings are common, and I've read that dog fighters train their dogs on smaller dogs and puppies. (I'm watchful of Baxter, as he's a little guy with a big mouth.)
If I were to catch anyone taking him, my fear would be that he could be used for training dogs. I love him too much to allow that.

Charles, correct me if I'm wrong: My understanding is that DF is justifiable if the property cannot be recovered. I'm thinking an individual pet cannot be recovered.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I do think pets are a special class of property -- not in the legal sense, perhaps, but in people's value schemes. My insurance will help me get a new truck or air compressor or what-have-you, but my critters occupy individual niches. While I can get another dog, I can't get the same dog.

I suspect most people realize that messing with someone else's pet is dangerous territory, much more so than vandalizing cars, for example. I don't know what the case law is on this, but it would not surprise me if this is taken into consideration when various disputes end up in court. People feel strongly about their animals, and I am not talking about the PETA lunatics.

Not so long ago I was on a business trip, and I met a lawyer from Atlanta who said he was friends with the judge who had the Michael Vicks/dog fighting case. The judge told the lawyer that he had received more calls about the Vicks case than anything he had ever handled in his career.

Furthermore, it seems to me that efforts to protect pets from a, shall we say, instigator, would rapidly switch from human instigator vs animal to human instigator vs human owner, in which a new set of rules comes into play. This transition might be rather rapid and without clearly defined boundaries (at least as perceived at the time).


elb

In Texas don't we have a law specifically for the protection of animals, horses, cattle, etc? Is this only for livestock, or can you lump domesticated dogs and cats in there as well?

hkshooter wrote:In Texas don't we have a law specifically for the protection of animals, horses, cattle, etc? Is this only for livestock, or can you lump domesticated dogs and cats in there as well?

Yes we do, and no you cannot.

txinvestigator wrote:

hkshooter wrote:In Texas don't we have a law specifically for the protection of animals, horses, cattle, etc? Is this only for livestock, or can you lump domesticated dogs and cats in there as well?

Yes we do, and no you cannot.

And what if you make your living as a dog breeder, trainer, etc?

llwatson wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

hkshooter wrote:In Texas don't we have a law specifically for the protection of animals, horses, cattle, etc? Is this only for livestock, or can you lump domesticated dogs and cats in there as well?

Yes we do, and no you cannot.

And what if you make your living as a dog breeder, trainer, etc?

I would think you would have a case for advanced protective action. course IANAL, either.

I would think animals are a different kind of property since they are living breathing creatures. My fear is that if someone tries to steal my dog, it's not because they want him as a pet. They want to use him to train fighting dogs or to hurt him. With that said, I guess I would take my chances at going to prison. If someone tries to hurt one of my animals, whether a 15 year old or a 50 year old, they better hope they can run faster than my .40 can shoot. Actually, I think I would leave the Glock in my pants and flat out grab the AK.

They way I see it is that my yard is my property and if someone is coming onto my property for illegal actions, then I can defend my home and my animals. Beleive it or not, animal theft is a common crime and I'll be darned if I'll let someone take one of my animals without a serious fight.

Dog Russlers!
Shewt'em!

There are also "bunchers" which go around and steal dogs to sell to labs for testing.

A friend of mine back in the day came home and found a man in his backyard chasing his dog around. He came out and kick the living (insert word) out of this guy. He went out of the yard into the alley and saw the guy had a truck with a cabin thing on it with about 7-8 little dogs. They all had collars and obviously belonged to someone. He found most of the owners and gave the dogs back and kept the 2 he couldn't find the owners of. He also slashed the guys tires, all four of them, and bashed in his windshield with a brick. All while this bloody dude was watching and not doing anything. My friend was "dressed in blue" and the guy knew better than to do anything. He told the guy "Come into this neighborhood again, and you'll be found in a Wal Mart dumpster". God I love that story.
And people think all gang bangers are monsters. This guy was a hispanic, 200 lb. gun toting, drug dealing, blue ragging teddy bear until provoked.

HBO did a documentary called "Dealing Dogs" that talked about bunchers and they interviewed them and all they did all day was drive around neighborhoods stealing dogs to sell.