Mods: If this thread more IMHO territory feel free to move it, but I think there should be a factual answer to this question.
I believe that it’s justifiable in most jurisdictions to use deadly force to defend your life, or the lives of your your family, from an attacker. If someone comes charging at you, unprovoked, wielding a knife with the intent to kill you, and you happen to have a gun handy, I’m pretty sure you could use that gun to defend yourself from imminent harm. IOW, you don’t have to wait until you have been stabbed multiple times to engage with deadly force.
What’s not so clear is how far you can extend this defense. For example, if someone were to attack your dog with a knife I don’t think you would be justified in shooting that person dead. Someone could certainly argue that your dog’s life, however important it is to you, is not as important as a human’s life, and that using deadly force in that instance would not be justified.
Here’s my question. If you are walking your dog on a leash, and another dog charges your dog and attacks it, would you be justified in using deadly force to protect the life of your dog? You could try using non-lethal force to kick or beat the attacking dog, perhaps putting yourself in danger of being injured, but depending on the breed of the two dogs it might be over in a few short seconds so there may be no time to do anything but kill the attacking dog. What about a bear encounter in the woods?
It’s seems clear that someone can destroy another person’s pet to protect the life of a human, but would it be justified to destroy another person’s pet, or even a wild animal, to protect the life of your pet, or are you legally obligated to use all manner of non-lethal force before ultimately escalating to lethal force as a last resort?
I’ve shot and killed several stray dogs that were attacking my cattle. And in one case, a neighbors dog, whom I had repeatedly warned to keep penned up. Perfectly legal.
It would be much, much easier for me to kill a person attacking my dog/s than another dog, but I would do either.
So far, I have been lucky. I had my Labrador attacked twice. I was able to get in between the scuffle and basically ROAR and scare the hell out of both dogs ending the fights. Works pretty good, but you gotta be fast and REALLY REALLY loud.
I believe that several cattle-raising states have laws permitting this, but I’m not at all sure that this can be extended to all states and to the type of situations the OP asked about.
Of course not. The limits of justifiable force vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So you cannot assume there’s one universal answer.
IANAL, but it seems that a pet is property in the law, so what’s being asked is what degree of force is permitted to defend property, when human health and safety aren’t explicitly at risk.
So you killed a neighbor’s dog for simply straying onto your property and there were no repercussions? Was the neighbor’s dog chasing or otherwise harassing your livestock or just trespassing?
This could vary by state law, but I believe it is legal. You’d probably be arrested and have to defend yourself in court but if you were smart enough to point out that you were protecting your property, you’d likely win. In other words, while we tend to think of our pets as beloved family members, the law considers them property. And I think you are allowed to defend your property.
Anecdotal, but in stories like this I have read the biggest speculated legal risk is if you discharge a weapon within a congested area. YMMV by jurisdiction, greatly so. You are probably better off claiming that you and your pet felt threatened than just the pet.
That attitude seems nuts to me. Humans are more important than animals. I’d hesitate to kill a person in defense of my cat, but a dog I’d put down without hesitation.
May I ask why you find persons more expendable than canines.
Chasing and harassing livestock, including small calves. Strays get a zero tolerance for this behavior. Dogs with a collar and a tag get a call to their owners with a warning. All dead dogs get thrown on the burn pile.
Hmm, actually the OP did say “deadly force”, now that I re-read it. I’m not sure if killing someone who attacks your pet would land you in jail for murder or if it would be considered self defense like defending your home and property. Any attorneys here?
Speaking only for me… not sure I would actually do this and probably won’t know until it happens, but speaking hypothetically… absolutely a person I don’t know and is acting in a threatening manner is more expendable than my dog who I know and love.
The only reason I can see sane person killing someone else’s dog, would be because that dog is attacking them or their property. enipla and JcWoman curious that you would both consider killing another person if you presumed that they were attempting to kill your pet. The most likely explanation the person is attempting to kill your pet is because it was attacking them or their property. Sometimes dogs go off for unexplained reasons. They are animals.
Dogs are teritorial and act on instinct. They might not truly be in control.
A human that wants to hurt or kill my dog for the pleasure of it is garbage, so no loss.
I would of course warn them off first. I doubt they would continue their actions while facing a deadly threat. If I could not get to them, say they where on the other side of a mote, I would shoot to warn, and if I had to, I would shoot the person.
If, on one hand, I have a beloved dog who relates to me with protection, love and loyalty . . .
And, on the other hand, I have a human who is threatening, menacing and murderous . . . and smart enough to understand exactly what he’s doing . . .
Yes, some persons are more expendable than canines. I don’t believe that merely having been born with human DNA gives one carte blanche superiority over those with other DNA.
Gunner the Great Dane and I have a deal between us. He protects me and I protect him. He is a part of our family and will be defended as such. I don’t ever want to hurt another human, but if you attempt to hurt Gunner, you’ll have a very big problem with me.