TexasCHLforum.com

...there's not a person on this forum who loves dogs more than I do, and my usual reaction to a pit if my dog's not with me is to get down on my knees and have yet to find one which didn't come and wallow all over me...leashed or not...dogs know I love them...but the fact is that a dog of any brand with irresponsible owners can get into trouble...I've done a lot of research and share this link with those of you who would like to find out more about how serious dog attacks can become...and how quickly... http://www.dogsbite.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; they document a lot of information that will help us make plans/decisions...

yes you could have and should have ventilated the dog period, yea my moral compass is all messed up, but the dog would have been washed off my drive with a little hydrogen peroxide and water. the reality most areas that are in cities may have some kind of ordinance regulating discharge they also have the same that cover viscious animals and as far as dogs there is and never has been a requirement to retreat. yes I like and maybe even love dogs prolly more than my wife but a dog that is attacking and has a history of attacking needs to be put down. Unfortunatly the owner can't be treated the same, the owner bears ALL responsibility for the actions of the dog, no dog is intrinsically mean regardless of what anyone tells you it is taught to be, or allowed without correction to be. the dog would have gone after you same as it did your dogs should it had been so inclined, and ya I know dog bites hurt like the dickins so, umm the dog gets direct cranial ventillation.

Thanks for all the replies. Especially SpeedSix with the exact code we all needed to read.

Barring the code, at the time I was thinking along the lines of Excaliber. The dog was on the other side of the gate, and I could eventually remove my dogs from there, although I will say it was a hair raising experience. Had I known that one of mine was injured I probably would have gone ahead and dispatched the offending dog. My thoughts were like Excaliber's in that I felt like the powers that be would feel the same way. At one point I was just aboput to step outside the gate and take care of it, (I know, dumb idea) that's why I didn't do it.

To Dan Mosby, I was not concerned with the ability of my bullet to go through the chain link, that was the farthest thing from my mind. I was concerned with the legality of it.

Apostate, if I was still living in the country we would not be having this discussion. However living in the city limits makes me a little more hesitant. Too many witnesses.

Speedsix, having been through similar situations with you dog, you understand how fast these things happen and how disturbing they can be. I myself in addition to trying to protect my dogs have a little issue with dogs that want to bite. When I was 6 I was bitten/attacked by a German Shepard and went through the thrill of 16 rabies shots. There has not been a dog since that has been able to bite me, although many have tried.

JP171, trust me, if this happens again ventilation will occur.

Now, let me tell you the funny things that went through my mind.

First I just thought if I kicked it and yelled it would back down like all the other strays that come around. It didn't. My dogs will normaly "call off" but not with this dog. Something was different, even my Boston that is docile was defending. Maybe they sensed something . They will bark at other dogs that go by, and try to play with some that come to the gate, not this dog.

Second , once I realized we had reached the stage where something had to be done I remembered I was carrying the PF9 first thought was, "that dang thing is louder than my .45,, wish I had it on.

Third, the Pit was between my gate and the front of my truck. My truck has been shot before (not by me LOL), I really don't want that to happen again.LOL

Fourth, my mind went to the thought that I had just had a drink in my hand (just had one) and how that might affect other's thoughts/impressions about what I was fixin' to do.

Funny how fast these things go through your mind, this whole mess lasted maybe 2 minutes.

Now that I have run this through my list of scenarios, if it happens again I will just walk inside and get my "VERY" quiet .22 rifle (the one my buddy reffers to as my sniper rifle) and make it go good night. Nobody will hear it, the victim will disapear and the driveway washed. End of story.

See, this is why we have to think of every scenario we can. It adds to our preparedness.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

Was there enough risk to my dogs to make it ok?

...risk to a dog does not justify the use of deadly force.

Not to pick on you, TDM, but just to illustrate the general point that applies to a lot of people. We spend a lot of time considering the issue of justified use of deadly force in a self defense against 2 legged critters. I have noticed over the years many people have their mindset about use of deadly force on humans spilling over onto the use of deadly force against dogs or other critters in general.

As speedsix pointed out, the law is different for dogs, but I also wanted to point out that people commonly confuse the issue because they are thinking of human deadly force conditions. This question will come up again in these forums (don't they all!), and watch, someone else will be confusing the two.

speedsix wrote:

Excaliber wrote:I wasn't there so I don't know if what I'm about to suggest was viable or not, but I'll throw it out there for discussion.

From your description of the situation, it sounds like the chain link fencing was a sufficiently effective barrier that there was little danger of the pits getting past it. If that's the case, the danger to your dogs came from putting body parts close enough to or through the fence and within the reach of the pits. If that is a correct read, the threat could have been effectively mitigated by pulling your dogs back from the fence so they were out of reach of the pits.

This would have relegated the incident to the "no need to shoot" category, which is much easier to manage than the shoot / no shoot.

...nope...the whole scene was ON his property...NO need or responsibility to drag his dogs back...they were restrained on his property and the attacker was on his property also...dogs can easily clear a 6' fence...the pit wouldn't have a leg to stand on...literally...that's the same as saying if his dogs were in his yard and the pit came up to the fence on the alley side, that he should take his dogs in the house...his dogs were where they had full right to be...it's not his responsibility to do more...he can choose to stop the attack...as he could if he were in the next block walking his dogs on a leash...and the law doesn't even require that his be leashed with respect to this law...though no doubt a city ordinance would require it...this law is written about animals...we tend to try to parallel it to human terms and it doesn't work that way...

I agree that there was no obligation on the OP's part to pull his dogs back, and there was justification to shoot if he had chosen to do so. However, lack of obligation and justification are not the only criteria for good decision making. Just because you have a hammer doesn't mean that every problem you come across should be treated like a nail. If you or I in our LEO careers had fired every time we had justification, we would have left a long trail of bodies behind us. The fact is in most cases we found and successfully used other options.

My opinion FWIW is that if there is another viable alternative that carries fewer risks, complications, and potential costs, that's usually the better way to go. I've gotten a fair way through life doing things that way, and it works for me.

Interesting situation, glad all are okay and even happier it wasn't me. I have owned and bred dogs for 30+ years and never yet seen a dog get into a fight with it's self. It always takes two (regardless of size) for the rumble to begin. I am going to go out the limb and point out a couple of issues. Litlle dogs start more fights than big dogs, and the unethical and immoral breeding of pit bulls to emphasize the fighting attributes have so endangered the gene pool that I can't trust one. Dogs in general have a pretty efficient system for settling dominance and territory issues and it rarely involves serious injury to the participants. Dog parks often demonstrate this. Given your mis-match in combatants I can see where that might not be case here.
I wouldnt shoot the pit bull unless it was chewing through the chain link fence. It was a barrier that was preventing the dog from causing harm. Dogs dont reason and understand the concept of property lines, territory, yes but exact lines plated on a map no. The fact that your dogs were challenging the pit bull reflects that, and as a responsible pet owner you did the right thing in removing your dogs from harms way. To go further and shoot the other dog in this situation, while technically correct would in my book be the wrong thing to do.
Now if it hung around and prevented you from exiting your property and there was no alternative means for having the dog controlled or removed (eg animal control, police, rescue groups, time permitting) or it was actively threatening you then it's a different story.

...I don't try to deny you your choice...but with your choice, a vicious would-be killer goes free to attack again, whether another dog, an elderly person, or a child...I'd rather stick my neck out a little further and solve the problem permanently...the little dogs sensed that this wasn't just another barky-dog, and were fighting for their lives...how about if the OP's grand-daughter opened the gate the next day and the pit just happened to be out there waiting for another chance??? dramatic, I know, but likely...
...as to your comparison between shooting people and dogs...that's too far out there...as far as my hammer...I've never fired a shot at a human being and made dozens of violent felony arrests...many armed...some lying in wait for me with a gun...and only shot one dog in my life...I think I've used much more than a hammer..and know what is and is not a nail...

...I think your post has more to do with dreading all the paperwork more than hurting the offending dog...hating paperwork I can surely understand...but THEY'll have to do the writing on THIS one...not us....
...I believe there's times we have to be willing to be the bad guy for the good of others...and that's a lot different from looking for trouble...and I've lived that way...and, so far, it's worked well...I respect those who wouldn't shoot...but had we been standing there together...you'd have spilled your drink...

...in another viewpoint...a slim, 50ish neighbor lady was out last year walking her chihuahua a block away...on a leash...a large dog rushed them on the sidewalk and their vet bill to save their dog's life was around $3000...paid out of pocket...never got a penny from the poor indigent people the other dog owned...

...I know I rant and rave a lot around here...but you're never confused about how I feel...and nobody's shot me...yet...

speedsix wrote:......in another viewpoint...a slim, 50ish neighbor lady was out last year walking her chihuahua a block away...on a leash...a large dog rushed them on the sidewalk and their vet bill to save their dog's life was around $3000...paid out of pocket...never got a penny from the poor indigent people the other dog owned...

...

Funny you should mention that the person in the case above never got a cent from the dog's owner. Why is this a common denominator. I tracked down the owners. They live in a rent house down the street. I imagine they can barely afford the rent if they pay that. Nothing wrong with renters, I was one for many years, it's the type of renter they are. Their 3 kids are always unsupervised, and they supposedly are the ones the dog got away from. Obviously the dog was very docile with it's owners, however it sure likes looking for trouble.

SO, like the case above I doubt they could afford to pay for any damages.

I agree with you, I will be the one that solves the problem if this happens again. There are many kids in our neighborhood, as well as many small dog owners, it is a bad combination with a dog like this that "gets away". I have the direct line to the lady with the City who can help in these matters. I'll call her on the next office day, Tuesday, to get this dog put on the radar. She helped last year with a similar nuisance. However that will only happen if the dog makes it till then.

There is a nice couple a few doors down that always has their grandkids over, I'll give him a heads up too.

speedsix wrote:...YES...YES...YES, and YES.... http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... /B/822.013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

• (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.
  
  (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.

Interesting read. I could interpret that law as meaning that you or your friend could go hunt the dog down after the fact and kill it. That seems a little odd, but then sometimes there are odd laws. Am I misreading this?

sugar land dave wrote:

speedsix wrote:...YES...YES...YES, and YES.... http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... /B/822.013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

• (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.
  
  (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.

Interesting read. I could interpret that law as meaning that you or your friend could go hunt the dog down after the fact and kill it. That seems a little odd, but then sometimes there are odd laws. Am I misreading this?

I don't think it means we can hunt it down, I take it more like since we have both witnessed it, that dog " has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed".

So as a witness, if this dog was to go on his property, I would think he would be within the law to take care of buisiness.

I hope it doesn't come to that, I will call the city next week and see what they want to do. Meanwhile it is not welcome on my property, and if it returns it will be dealt with in a more deliberate method than throwing a drink in it's face.

It's a long weekend, I'll keep everyone posted.

speedsix wrote:...I don't try to deny you your choice...but with your choice, a vicious would-be killer goes free to attack again, whether another dog, an elderly person, or a child...I'd rather stick my neck out a little further and solve the problem permanently...the little dogs sensed that this wasn't just another barky-dog, and were fighting for their lives...how about if the OP's grand-daughter opened the gate the next day and the pit just happened to be out there waiting for another chance??? dramatic, I know, but likely...
...as to your comparison between shooting people and dogs...that's too far out there...as far as my hammer...I've never fired a shot at a human being and made dozens of violent felony arrests...many armed...some lying in wait for me with a gun...and only shot one dog in my life...I think I've used much more than a hammer..and know what is and is not a nail...

...I think your post has more to do with dreading all the paperwork more than hurting the offending dog...hating paperwork I can surely understand...but THEY'll have to do the writing on THIS one...not us....
...I believe there's times we have to be willing to be the bad guy for the good of others...and that's a lot different from looking for trouble...and I've lived that way...and, so far, it's worked well...I respect those who wouldn't shoot...but had we been standing there together...you'd have spilled your drink...

...in another viewpoint...a slim, 50ish neighbor lady was out last year walking her chihuahua a block away...on a leash...a large dog rushed them on the sidewalk and their vet bill to save their dog's life was around $3000...paid out of pocket...never got a penny from the poor indigent people the other dog owned...

...I know I rant and rave a lot around here...but you're never confused about how I feel...and nobody's shot me...yet...

I wouldn't criticize someone who chose to shoot in the situation described. It would have been a reasonable and defensible option.

For me, shooting is the final option. When another viable solution is available, I'm not at final yet and I choose not to shoot until I get there.

Others may make other choices, but this works for me.

sugar land dave wrote:

speedsix wrote:...YES...YES...YES, and YES.... http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... /B/822.013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

• (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.
  
  (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.

Interesting read. I could interpret that law as meaning that you or your friend could go hunt the dog down after the fact and kill it. That seems a little odd, but then sometimes there are odd laws. Am I misreading this?

...you're reading correctly...and in a rural setting, this might be more commonly done than in the city...in the country, it's reasonable that recently might mean tomorrow or the next day...in the city, where there were animal protection officers, I'd be more likely to call them if I located the offending dog back in his yard...if I met him again on a walk...it might be reasonable to handle it myself...it might seem UNreasonable to a judge or even jury...if he re-offended upon seeing me and my dog...or honestly seemed about to do so...the law would protect me...isn't it odd that the closer we get to civilization and society...the more complicated right and wrong become...

speedsix wrote:isn't it odd that the closer we get to civilization and society...the more complicated right and wrong become...

Right and wrong are the same. The difference is urban areas have an unhealthy concentration of busybodies who pass all kinds of chickenpoop rules and restrictions.

"Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself." - L. Long

...Like that sig line, boba!!!

Woof, woof, woof! Bang, bang, bang...!