Man charged in dog shooting - Cedar Park

[A-R]

http://m.statesman.com/statesman/pm_224 ... d=tOikQVil" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GunNewb]

You can't just shoot at anyone or anything that you want to... Wow people just dont think... A good kick would have probably done the job.

[Reds45ACP]

*facepalm* Doesn't look good for other CHL holders.

[C-dub]

You can't just shoot at anyone or anything that you want to... Wow people just dont think... A good kick would have probably done the job.

It might have, but how many people here have said if they see a pit bull coming at them they're taking it out? This dog was not a pit bull and they guy also knew the dog according to the owner. We also don't know what kind of dog he was walking or if the dog he killed was dog aggressive and really was attacking his dog. That all happens just as fast if not faster than an attack on ourselves and there are many folks here who have said they would shoot a dog attacking them or their dog or another family member. They are only charging him with the injury to the woman, so shooting the dog may have been justified and this could have been any one of us.

[ClarkLZeuss]

The father of the dog’s owner, Conrad Rodgers, said the dog that was killed was a vizsla named Rusty. “He was a beautiful copper-colored friendly dog,” Rodgers said.

Rodgers said Yee had previously played before with Rusty.

Something doesn't seem right in this situation. If Yee knew the dog, then why would he shoot? The dog must have been charging him or his own dog. But as others have said, it seems the charge against him is for using his weapon improperly such that he caused injury to another person.

[A-R]

[Jumping Frog]

it seems the charge against him is for using his weapon improperly such that he caused injury to another person.

Any of us who ever needs to use a handgun in self defense run the risk of injuring bystanders.

Note that PC §9.05 specifies the standard for injuring an innocent third party is "reckless", which is a higher culpability threshold than "negligent".

However, PC §9.05 applies to using reckless injury to an innocent while in the act of using justified deadly force against another person. I wonder if a defense can argue that it should also apply to self defense against a dog causing reckless injury to an innocent.

PC §9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON.
Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or
using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly
injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded
by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or
killing of the innocent third person.

[BigGuy]

The link doesn't identify Lee as a holder of a CHL. Do we know for sure he is?

[dave_in_austin]

APD Now says that the woman's injury was caused by her own dog.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/ ... he_blotter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MoJoeWrkn]

The story says that Hayes stated that Lee has his concealed handgun licence.

[C-dub]

They might find that he was being threatened and was justified in using the threat of deadly force to keep from being attacked himself.

[A-R]

Been researching laws surrounding shooting a dog and I'm a bit stumped:

This section of the Health & Safety code would seem to give justification to kill a dog that is attacking another dog:

Health & Safety Code 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.(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.

But this section of the Penal Code seems to expressly prohibit killing a dog without owner's permission:

Penal Code 42.092. CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS. (a) In this section:(1) "Abandon" includes abandoning an animal in the person's custody without making reasonable arrangements for assumption of custody by another person.(2) "Animal" means a domesticated living creature, including any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured. The term does not include an uncaptured wild living creature or a livestock animal.(3) "Cruel manner" includes a manner that causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering.(4) "Custody" includes responsibility for the health, safety, and welfare of an animal subject to the person's care and control, regardless of ownership of the animal.(5) "Depredation" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.001, Parks and Wildlife Code.(6) "Livestock animal" has the meaning assigned by Section 42.09.(7) "Necessary food, water, care, or shelter" includes food, water, care, or shelter provided to the extent required to maintain the animal in a state of good health.(8) "Torture" includes any act that causes unjustifiable pain or suffering.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(1) tortures an animal or in a cruel manner kills or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;
(2) without the owner's effective consent, kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;
(3) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, water, care, or shelter for an animal in the person's custody;
(4) abandons unreasonably an animal in the person's custody;
(5) transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner;(6) without the owner's effective consent, causes bodily injury to an animal;(7) causes one animal to fight with another animal, if either animal is not a dog;(8) uses a live animal as a lure in dog race training or in dog coursing on a racetrack; or(9) seriously overworks an animal.(c) An offense under Subsection (b)(3), (4), (5), (6), or (9) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a state jail felony if the person has previously been convicted two times under this section, two times under Section 42.09, or one time under this section and one time under Section 42.09. An offense under Subsection (b)(1), (2), (7), or (8) is a state jail felony, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the person has previously been convicted two times under this section, two times under Section 42.09, or one time under this section and one time under Section 42.09.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:(1) the actor had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the actor or to another person by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code; or
(2) the actor was engaged in bona fide experimentation for scientific research.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (b)(2) or (6) that:(1) the animal was discovered on the person's property in the act of or after injuring or killing the person's livestock animals or damaging the person's crops and that the person killed or injured the animal at the time of this discovery; or(2) the person killed or injured the animal within the scope of the person's employment as a public servant or in furtherance of activities or operations associated with electricity transmission or distribution, electricity generation or operations associated with the generation of electricity, or natural gas delivery.
(f) It is an exception to the application of this section that the conduct engaged in by the actor is a generally accepted and otherwise lawful:(1) form of conduct occurring solely for the purpose of or in support of:(A) fishing, hunting, or trapping; or(B) wildlife management, wildlife or depredation control, or shooting preserve practices as regulated by state and federal law; or(2) animal husbandry or agriculture practice involving livestock animals.(g) This section does not create a civil cause of action for damages or enforcement of the section.
Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 886, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

And the only defense to prosecution for a non-public servant specifically applies only to a "dangerous wild animal" as defined:

Health & Safety Code 822.101. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(4) "Dangerous wild animal" means:(A) a lion;(B) a tiger;(C) an ocelot;(D) a cougar;(E) a leopard;(F) a cheetah;(G) a jaguar;(H) a bobcat;(I) a lynx;(J) a serval;(K) a caracal;(L) a hyena;(M) a bear;(N) a coyote;(O) a jackal;(P) a baboon;(Q) a chimpanzee;(R) an orangutan;(S) a gorilla; or(T) any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision.

And the standard Penal Code Chapter 9 justifications do not apply to using deadly force against animals:

Penal Code 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary ...

Penal Code 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code:
(5) "Another" means a person other than the actor.

So where is the legal justification to use force or deadly force against a dog that is attacking a person? Obviously common sense says you can, but common sense doesn't beat the ride nor the rap.

Anyone know the answer?

[A-R]

Just searched for my above answer and found this thread http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 9&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But the general "Necessity" justification there still troubles me in the circumstance of using deadly force against a dog (just a dog, not "dangerous dog" or "dangerous wild animal) because of clause 3

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and (3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

The "legislative purpose" would seem to be the prohibition on killing a dog in Penal Code 42.092. CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS (see text in previous post).

So still

[C-dub]

Been researching laws surrounding shooting a dog and I'm a bit stumped:

This section of the Health & Safety code would seem to give justification to kill a dog that is attacking another dog:

Health & Safety Code 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.(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.

I think this is your answer and covers what you are concerned about. I'm guessing that all that other stuff applies when this does not.

[A-R]

Above says you can kill a dog that is attacking another animal but doesn't say anything about a dog attacking a person.