TexasCHLforum.com

i personally cant blame the guy. yea he shouldve acted a little bit more professional but im sure the adrenaline was pumping when he went over there. personally if happened to me after she ignored to put the dog in the house id have put it in the ground. the sad thing is now pits get more negative rep for this. my mom has a female pit and i honestly dont think there is a mean bone in its body. i also think it may be mildly retarded but all the pits ive ever encountered were very loving and playful(not in any sort of aggressive way)

In my opinion Pit Bulls rightfully deserve the negative publicity. I used to work as a paramedic and then worked in the E.R. after that and 98% of the dog bite victims were from pit bulls, the other 2% came from chows. Pit Bulls should are a totally unstable breed of dogs. You can't trust a pit bull, if you have children, please do not let them around that dog.

02transam wrote: the sad thing is now pits get more negative rep for this. my mom has a female pit and i honestly dont think there is a mean bone in its body. i also think it may be mildly retarded but all the pits ive ever encountered were very loving and playful(not in any sort of aggressive way)

Its too bad a few THOUSAND bad apples spoil the whole barrel.

Stories like http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/ ... 3330.story make me so angry. They are always so predictable, with the owner of the wild animal declaring their shock that this animal attacked, especially since "he never growled or ever showed signs of aggression." It's always the exact same story. There should be consequences to owners of hateful animals.

If a pitbull or chow ever shows up on my property, I promise you I will kill it immediately without asking questions.

drw wrote:Stories like http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/ ... 3330.story make me so angry. They are always so predictable, with the owner of the wild animal declaring their shock that this animal attacked, especially since "he never growled or ever showed signs of aggression." It's always the exact same story. There should be consequences to owners of hateful animals.

If a pit bull or chow ever shows up on my property, I promise you I will kill it immediately without asking questions.

I have seen pit bulls or chows that are NOT aggressive. Our neighbor has one that is the sweetest dog and has the best disposition you could ever ask for. Just because a dog has a stigma of being vicious, does not mean they are. If they are not being aggressive and coming to attack, you are really opening yourself up for a lawsuit IMO. I used to have a Great Dane. While he was capable of killing you, unless he was provoked or protecting his own property/owner, he would just want your attention and want to be petted.

It reminds me of the story of the lady who had taken her husbands boat out on the lake to sit in the sun and read a book. The Game Warden came up and asked for her fishing license. She stated she didn't have one. He said, 'Well, have all the right equipment, so I am going to right you a ticket for fishing without a license.' The lady responded, 'In that case I am going to have you charged with sexual assault.' The Game Warden says, 'But I never touched you!' The lady responds, 'No, but you have all the right equipment.' The Game Warden left.

While I might go into condition orange if a strange dog came on property, I would not go to red immediately unless there was provocation.

Killing an animal that you do not own is a felony now, unless you can prove one of the exceptions or defenses to prosecution. Those would be that you had the permission of the owner (this is meant to apply mainly to vets and slaughterhouses), the dog is attacking livestock or poultry, or a defense of necessity, which is the hardest to prove.

- Jim

As a "reasonable person" and potential juror, I think it would be much easier to prove a "defence of necessity" for shooting a pitt bull, than it would for say, a beagle. A lawyer would have a hard time finding 12 people who believe pitt bulls are not dangerous animals. Google "Pitt Bull Attack", search for pitt bulls on this forum and read the responses, listen to the radio, or watch the evening news. Start asking your family and friends their opinions. My personal, anecdotal experience has shown that the large majority of people fear them and think they are dangerous animals. They have been banned by communities all over the country.

They are hard wired to be aggressive. It is in their genes, even the "sweet" ones.

If I have to choose between the hastle of a trial, and having my children attacked by a pitt bull, I'll pick the trial every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

dustyb wrote:As a "reasonable person" and potential juror, I think it would be much easier to prove a "defence of necessity" for shooting a pitt bull, than it would for say, a beagle. A lawyer would have a hard time finding 12 people who believe pitt bulls are not dangerous animals.

In the first place, if you get to the courtroom in a felony trial, your life is already messed up. You'll have spent upwards of $20,000 by that time.

I can see this prejudice (which I agree exists) working against the defendant. If a potential juror indicates that he will act on his prejudices rather than the facts and the law, he will not be chosen for the jury.

Circumstances are going to be very important in a case where someone kills a dog and the dog owner wants to press charges. If the dog has already bitten someone before being shot, the necessity should be obvious. At the other extreme, someone who shoots a dog from the porch with a rifle because it was on his property could be looking at legal trouble.

BTW, I really wish that when the legislature made it a felony to kill an animal, they had made the fact that the animal was attacking a person an affirmative defense. That needs to get fixed next session.

- Jim

I have lost an entire flock of chickens on two separate occasions from neighbor dogs.

I've also had my goats attacked, and one newborn calf killed and torn apart by neighbor dogs.

My son was attacked by a neighbor dog when he was 3 years old (thankfully it worked out fine).

Self defense and defense of your family, property and livelihood is a right that trumps any new law making it a felony to kill an animal.

seamusTX wrote: In the first place, if you get to the courtroom in a felony trial, your life is already messed up. You'll have spent upwards of $20,000 by that time.

I agree, but not nearly as messed up as having a child killed or mauled. How do you put a price on that?

The fact that the dog is a pitt bull, is a big circumstance. They were bred to fight, they look threatening when they are sleeping. When was the last week you did not hear a story about a pitt bull attack? I don't believe it would be hard for a lawyer to convince jurors (those without prejudices either way) that pitt bulls are powerful dogs, who are aggressive by nature (tons of pitt bull attack stories), and that the defendant felt it necessary to defend theirself.

All I'm trying to say is that you need to be sure that shooting the dog is the only way to stop an attack. The way the law is written now, you are better off defending yourself from an armed human criminal than an animal.

- Jim

drw wrote:

Code: Select all

	§ 822.013.  DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS.  (a)  A 
dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently 
attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:
		(1)  any person witnessing the attack;  or                                    
		(2)  the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on 
behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the 
attack.
	(b)  A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this 
section is [b]not liable[/b] for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in 
control of the dog or coyote.
	(c)  A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or 
coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic 
animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return 
it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal 
control authority.  The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all 
costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all 
damage done by the dog or coyote.
	(d)  The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or 
coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, 
or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the 
local animal control authority.
	(e)  A person is not required to acquire a hunting license 
under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or 
coyote under this section.

As stated in the statute 'is attacking', 'is about to attack' or 'has recently attacked'. Your earlier statement was you would shoot a pit bull or chow that came onto your property, no other reasoning.

Until such time as that dog is about to attack or is attacking YOUR animal, you know they previously attacked YOUR animal, or you are acting on behalf of another animals owner, you can't shoot it without potentially facing felony charges. No mater what you will have to prove to the animals owner and the law enforcement that there was justifiable reason to shoot it.

You are correct, and I'm glad for this thread so I can solidify it in my mind.

When seeing a dog on my property, I will need to determine its intentions before opening fire.

§ 822.013. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS. (a) A
dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently
attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:

Since humans are not livestock, domestic animals, or fowl, are you legally required to be attacked, about to be attacked, or recently been attacked?