Dog on Dog Attack? Can use Gun?

[Charles L. Cotton]

At least in theory, pepper spray wouldn't constitute an "injury" and if not, it wouldn't fit the prohibition in 42.09(a)(9).

Have you been sprayed? lol I think ( Actually I know..Hurts like crazy) it causes physical pain, and isn't that injury? It is regarding "bodily injury". ????

No I haven't been sprayed with pepper spray, only "tear gas" years ago and I understand it doesn't compare with pepper spray. Pain does not constitute injury, at least not in the legal sense. An injury usually involves an element of pain, but the reverse is not necessarily true.

Chas.

[KBCraig]

At least in theory, pepper spray wouldn't constitute an "injury" and if not, it wouldn't fit the prohibition in 42.09(a)(9).

Have you been sprayed? lol I think ( Actually I know..Hurts like crazy) it causes physical pain, and isn't that injury? It is regarding "bodily injury". ????

Pain is not synonymous with injury. I can cause lots of pain without injuring someone, as can you, I'm sure. That's what pain compliance techniques are all about. We've been in tussles where the BG was screaming bloody murder, but wound up without a mark on him, and no injury.

Kevin

[Charles L. Cotton]

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. If a big seemingly psychotic dog charges me, I'm not going to pause and weigh possible charges against possible loss of life/limb. I don't want to seem like I don't respect or appreciate the law, I do. But whats the point of carrying anything(knife, handgun, OC) if you're not going to use it to save your life or the life of someone else?

I think it'd still be a clean shot if you shot a dog about to attack someone else. Defense of a third party, just the same as outlined in the codes concerning use of deadly force against another person.


Let me know if I'm way off base, but thats how I see it.

I think GrillKing found the answer in his research. BTW, I agree with you. I wasn't worried about defense of people, but I was concerned that perhaps defending property (i.e. your dog) would be a problem. Thanks again GrillKing.

Chas.

Chas.

[TxFire]

Injury is defined by Merriam-Webster as

1 a : an act that damages or hurts

[ElGato]

This is not legal advice, simply a quote from the HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
CHAPTER 822. REGULATION OF ANIMALS, SUBCHAPTER A. DOGS THAT ARE A DANGER TO PERSONS

I have no idea how this interacts with other statutes.....


Sec. 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 not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.

I knew it was there somewhere but couldn't find it, years ago when I had a 70 acre pasture full of goats my sister found this for me and I kept a copy in my billfold for a while.

[Paladin]

True...that some animals (and humans) would not be effected or would otherwise be able to "fight through" the effects. The vast majority should respond favorably though.

The only "study" I've been able to find is small and inconclusive IMO, but here it is just fun:

Evaluation of Pepper Spray.

Series: NIJ Research in Brief
Published: February 1997
15 pages
31,083 bytes

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief

Jeremy Travis, Director
February 1997

Evaluation of Pepper Spray

by Steven M. Edwards, John Granfield, and Jamie
Onnen



Animal control. Interest in OC's effectiveness in
animal encounters was high because, prior to
project implementation, BCoPD had experienced a
number of incidents where officers were forced to
shoot threatening or attacking dogs. During the OC
field study, dogs were sprayed with OC in 20
incidents where the animals posed a danger to
officers. Ten of the dogs sprayed weighed between
25 and 50 pounds, and 6 weighed more than 50
pounds.

Data showed that officers sprayed the dogs at
distances greater than those from which they
sprayed humans. The majority of dogs were sprayed
from a distance of 3 to 8 feet, whereas most humans
were sprayed from a distance of 1 to 3 feet. The
difference in application distances may account for
the differences in the effectiveness levels for
dogs and humans. OC was effective nearly 100
percent of the time in dog encounters (one officer
was bitten but required no medical treatment). (end quote).


I would hazard a guess that "shooting" is not 100% percent effective either.. unless the shot(s) were very well placed. In the incident recorded above, I believe "good" OC would be the most appropriate means of trying to gain control of the situation.

If OC did not have any effect on the attacking dog, then its use on the owner of said animal would be alright with me. Why was this dog roaming free?

Great info.

After a decent amount of experience dealing with aggressive dogs.... I would recommend palming a can of OC in your hand if a dog appears to be a threat. That way you can deploy the spray quickly. Dogs are VERY fast. You want/need to be ahead of the curve. Verbal commands like "NO", "DOWN", or "GO HOME" will often work. Spray 'em if they get close and you feel you, another person, or your animal is in danger. If the spray doesn't work and the danger is still there, you can always fall back on your gun.

I've had a lot more first hand experience with this than I ever wanted... And this stuff has worked for me.

[cyphur]

I've found that you can punch a good number of dogs in the face hard enough and they will retreat. I've even sent a german shepard running after he tried to attack me(only cause had been beaten by men earlier in its life and did not like men at all). Some breeds respond well to that. Others it just makes them more vicious and irritated. With certain breeds, I'm just not willing to risk my hand.

[WNallG30]

I was once told that if you are attacked, if the dog is going to bite you, try to let it bite your forearm and not your hand. Easier to repair a forearm. And for the most part, that much is actually true. Also, supposedly, it gives you a leverage point to use your other arm to twist and snap the dog's neck. But remember, that was just a story I was told, trust it if you want to. I'd rather have OC or a gun.

[nitrogen]

Tip given to me by a dog handler:

If you have a dog attacking you, and you're unarmed, remember the 3 stooges. You can go after a dog's nose, eyes, or ears and that'll get their attention. A good swat to the nose, or poke in the eyes or ears will suprise most dogs.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Injury is defined by Merriam-Webster as

1 a : an act that damages or hurts

That's not the definition for purposes of the Penal Code. For example, look at TPC §22.04 - Injury to a Child, . . .

§ 22.04. INJURY TO A CHILD, ELDERLY INDIVIDUAL, OR
DISABLED INDIVIDUAL. (a) A person commits an offense if he
intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence,
by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission,
causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual:

(1) serious bodily injury;
(2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or
(3) bodily injury.

If mere pain constituted an injury, then every time a parent spanked their son or daughter, slapped their hand, or did anything to cause pain, they would have violated TPC §22.04. However, the Family Code expressly authorizes the use of reasonable corporal punishment by parents and a few others. (See TPC §151.001(e))

Regards,
Chas.

[txinvestigator]

Injury is defined by Merriam-Webster as

1 a : an act that damages or hurts

That's not the definition for purposes of the Penal Code. For example, look at TPC §22.04 - Injury to a Child, . . .

§ 22.04. INJURY TO A CHILD, ELDERLY INDIVIDUAL, OR
DISABLED INDIVIDUAL. (a) A person commits an offense if he
intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence,
by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission,
causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual:

(1) serious bodily injury;
(2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or
(3) bodily injury.

If mere pain constituted an injury, then every time a parent spanked their son or daughter, slapped their hand, or did anything to cause pain, they would have violated TPC §22.04. However, the Family Code expressly authorizes the use of reasonable corporal punishment by parents and a few others. (See TPC §151.001(e))

Regards,
Chas.

Texas Penal Code
§1.07. Definitions.

(a) In this code:


(8) "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any
impairment of physical condition.

If injury precluded pain, then it would not be assault is someone only slapped me and caused no damage.

Parents who spank their children are allowed by Texas Penal Code chapter 9.


Texas Penal Code
§9.61. Parent - child.

(a) The use of force, but not deadly force, against a child
younger than 18 years is justified:

(1) if the actor is the child's parent or stepparent or is
acting in loco parentis to the child ;and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote
his welfare.

(b) For purposes of this section, "in loco parentis" includes
grandparent and guardian, any person acting by, through, or under the
direction of a court with jurisdiction over the child, and anyone who
has express or implied consent of the parent or parents.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Texas Penal Code
§1.07. Definitions.

(a) In this code:


(8) "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any
impairment of physical condition.

If injury precluded pain, then it would not be assault is someone only slapped me and caused no damage.

Parents who spank their children are allowed by Texas Penal Code chapter 9.


Texas Penal Code
§9.61. Parent - child.

(a) The use of force, but not deadly force, against a child
younger than 18 years is justified:

(1) if the actor is the child's parent or stepparent or is
acting in loco parentis to the child ;and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote
his welfare.

(b) For purposes of this section, "in loco parentis" includes
grandparent and guardian, any person acting by, through, or under the
direction of a court with jurisdiction over the child, and anyone who
has express or implied consent of the parent or parents.

I should have spent more time giving an example. The term "bodily injury" is a defined term that does include pain within the definition. However, the Penal Code section we are dealing with, i.e. TPC §42.09(a)(9) does not use the defined term "bodily injury," it merely states "injures an animal . . ." so that definition does not apply.

Also, pain or bodily injury is not a required element of an assault charge. If someone slapped you and didn't cause any damage, it would still be an assault, per TPC §22.01(a)(3) which requires only that a physical contact occurred and that it was likely to have been considered offensive or provocative. Here is the statute:

§ 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the
person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with
imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical
contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably
believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or
provocative.

As to spanking your children, TPC §9.61 apparently wasn't sufficiently broad and clear to cover corporal punishment, so Rep. Edwards pass a bill in the 2005 Session amending the Family Code to add §151.001(e) to make it abundantly clear spanking your kids is not a violation of the Penal Code.

Chas.

[txinvestigator]

Texas Penal Code
§1.07. Definitions.

(a) In this code:


(8) "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any
impairment of physical condition.

If injury precluded pain, then it would not be assault is someone only slapped me and caused no damage.

Parents who spank their children are allowed by Texas Penal Code chapter 9.


Texas Penal Code
§9.61. Parent - child.

(a) The use of force, but not deadly force, against a child
younger than 18 years is justified:

(1) if the actor is the child's parent or stepparent or is
acting in loco parentis to the child ;and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote
his welfare.

(b) For purposes of this section, "in loco parentis" includes
grandparent and guardian, any person acting by, through, or under the
direction of a court with jurisdiction over the child, and anyone who
has express or implied consent of the parent or parents.

I should have spent more time giving an example. The term "bodily injury" is a defined term that does include pain within the definition. However, the Penal Code section we are dealing with, i.e. TPC §42.09(a)(9) does not use the defined term "bodily injury," it merely states "injures an animal . . ." so that definition does not apply.

Also, pain or bodily injury is not a required element of an assault charge. If someone slapped you and didn't cause any damage, it would still be an assault, per TPC §22.01(a)(3) which requires only that a physical contact occurred and that it was likely to have been considered offensive or provocative. Here is the statute:

§ 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the
person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with
imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical
contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably
believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or
provocative.

As to spanking your children, TPC §9.61 apparently wasn't sufficiently broad and clear to cover corporal punishment, so Rep. Edwards pass a bill in the 2005 Session amending the Family Code to add §151.001(e) to make it abundantly clear spanking your kids is not a violation of the Penal Code.

Chas.

I realize that bodily injury is not a required element of assault, but is is ONE element, and would include pain.

Which brings me to why I brought up the bodily injury thing at all, as it includes pain. The PC does not define "injury" by itself. It only defines bodily injury.

It was my understanding from your correcting me in another thread that if there is no penal code definition then we have to use the normal usage definition.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: in·ju·ry
Pronunciation: 'inj-rE, 'in-j&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Middle English injurie, from Anglo-French, Latin injuria, from injurus injurious, from in- + jur-, jus right -- more at JUST
1 a : an act that damages or hurts :


I am really not trying to be argumentative here, I am just trying to sort this out in my head.

[KBCraig]

It was my understanding from your correcting me in another thread that if there is no penal code definition then we have to use the normal usage definition.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: in·ju·ry
Pronunciation: 'inj-rE, 'in-j&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Middle English injurie, from Anglo-French, Latin injuria, from injurus injurious, from in- + jur-, jus right -- more at JUST
1 a : an act that damages or hurts :

Careful, now... Merriam Webster, as a "modernized" dictionary, often lacks precision. "Hurts" can mean "to harm", or it can mean "to cause pain".

As bad the law is, it's made worse by its reliance upon a very fickle English language.

Kevin

[Charles L. Cotton]

It was my understanding from your correcting me in another thread that if there is no penal code definition then we have to use the normal usage definition.

I am really not trying to be argumentative here, I am just trying to sort this out in my head.

Yep, you're absolutely right; if there is no statutory definition, then we use the common meaning and a dictionary definition is often a good source. However, there is also a common usage in the law with some terms and "injury" happens to be one. This is probably due to the nature of the entire concept of "injury" both in civil and criminal law.

I didn't take your comments as argumentative and again, you are correct about common usage. It's just that some terms, relatively few as a matter of fact, do have a "common usage" in the law. Another example is the phrase "reasonable and necessary" or "customary" when applied to attorney fees, legal expenses and costs. It's not defined and I can promise that most folks looking up those definitions in a dictionary wouldn't find it helpful in deciphering a court's ruling on those items! (Did I really say that!?)

Chas.