# One of our neighbors shot our dog **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 25, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932 "2005-02-25T21:22:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Black\_Train\_Song](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Black\_Train\_Song](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Black_Train_Song)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/41 "2005-02-27T21:08:17Z")
I can see where some people might be coming from with their legal opinions but the OP said that he/or she was walking the dog when it wandered off. Doesn’t that raise the question : Who stands at their property line with a gun, waiting for a trespasser to shoot? A socially bankrupt person, that’s who. Besides, if that person felt that the law was on their side at the time or that their safety was an issue why didn’t they stick around? Dogs can come off as a threat but most adults can distinguish when the dog intends harm. I’m glad I’m not neighbors with some of you. :wally ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/42 "2005-02-27T22:01:07Z")
Whilst it is not wise thing to allow your dog to do this, the post by **Clayton\_e** shows one of the reasons why the shooter is in the wrong. The dog might have been near children, children are not as responsible as adults, and may also wander into unautherised places. This cannot give the owner of the property the unfettered right to open up. Good gun ownership also means only shooting in either very great need, which this does not seem to be, or at least in an area that is clear range, which would have to be several hundered yards of clear fire zone, which this sems not to have been.If there had been such a large clear field of view, the owner would no doubt have been seen and connected to the animal, thus a warning would have been sufficient. There does not seem to be any report of a yell to chide the dog away either, and a well cared for dog is pretty obvious compared to a feral stray. If there had been signs warning of a particular hazard, such as livestock, maybe with signs stating that dogs must be kept on a lead, this would perhaps be some justification, but still, its not absolute. The shooter would have to also have good reason beside mere presence of the dog, such as the dog being similar to a known problem animal in the area, or attacking or herding and running livestock. ---
**Author:** ![Mdm.President](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@Mdm.President](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mdm.President)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/43 "2005-02-27T22:13:14Z")
Thank you everyone. It was interesting to be reminded of different perspectives. But… This isn’t IMHO so I am not going to talk about leash etiquette and unspoken property rules in the country. This isn’t GD so I am not going to talk about the morality of shooting dogs with or without cause on ones property. And this isn’t the pit so I’m not going to talk about how much I hate when ignorantly righteous mean-wellers (yes I made that word up) with no interpretive skills hijack a thread. And how said mean-wellers can miss HUGE explanatory facts mentioned early on. Since this is GQ and I am here looking for factual experiences with the law I will share some information apparently not understood by some the first time they read it. It is **not** against the law for someone else’s dog to trespass on my property. No, not even if they don’t have complete verbal control of them. It **is** against the law for me to shoot or shoot at any domestic animal without \*\*clear and immanent danger \*\* to me, my property or my livestock. Not a nuisance, a threat. As I said, I did/do not break the law, he did/does. Proving that there was no immanent danger of course would be difficult but that truly doesn’t matter in this post because to answer my questions one has to assume I am telling it the way it happened. Would it have helped if I had stated in the beginning that this was a hypothetical situation, that way one would just have to take it at face value? apologizing for letting my dog sniff around in someones front yard would be like apologizing for beating some one to a parking spot in NY. It’s a part of life out here. However there are of course occasions where I would not allow it, if there are other dogs, children or people visibly present and it is expressed that my dogs attention is unwelcome. However this has never been the case. If the neighbors are out we usually end up sitting on the porch watching our dogs and children play. And my reaction to Nick getting shot was textbook, a perfect exa…well shit, here I am explain myself to people that hijacked my thread. This is totally off topic. If any of you are that interested in the dynamics of living in the country start your own thread and maybe I will post my experiences in it. now back to MY thread… The pinnacle of my effort would have been to converse with a lawyer who has dealt with this type of situation before. But I was happy to hear from any people that may have had similar experiences and how it was legally handled. But now that is all moot. The neighbor called and said he would never have shot Nick but offered to pay for his vet bills. This was a little odd but I said ‘Thank you, but that wouldn’t be right’. So no charges. But maybe whoever did this now knows there are actually people out there that don’t see their dogs as disposable. Thank you again for sharing your experiences with these laws. To those that care about Nick: Just because they couldn’t find the pellet or bullet doesn’t mean they can guarantee it fell out. The only way to know if it is still in there is to take a X-ray. Nick is 12 years old and they believe putting him under in order to take the x-ray is actually more dangerous than allowing it to stay put. We just have to watch for infection. He is a tough ol coot. clayton \> That is horrible thing to have to go through. I am so sorry. Oh and when I called out I said “excuse me!?” then “hello!?”. ---
**Author:** ![Alvis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alvis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alvis)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/44 "2005-02-27T22:22:58Z")
> [@Rooves](#): > > Dogs can come off as a threat but most adults can distinguish when the dog intends harm. Yes, well some of us adults have to assume that every dog is a threat, because we have no way to know what degree of control their masters have over them; that wolf blood doesn’t just go away, and human life will always be more precious than canine. It’s best to assume the dog could attack at a moment’s notice. ---
**Author:** ![Black\_Train\_Song](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Black\_Train\_Song](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Black_Train_Song)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/45 "2005-02-27T22:50:51Z")
Fine, but I’m sure the point is being overstated. How many folks in this thread brandish a firearm just incase they happen upon a loose dog? The threat level, nevermind the mortality rate, doesn’t justify the reaction here. And that’s assuming that each of us has scores of dogs in shouting distance of our houses. That guy is more likely to be threatened by a human, especially with his methods. Just because the law allows something doesn’t mean it’s prudent to carry out that action whenever possible. The OP never stated that there was a bark from the dog or a yell from the neighbor. The law says that people CAN have abortions but it doesn’t mean that everyone SHOULD, although in some cases it might be wiser. A rational person might yell to alert the dog owner first. Then he might let the dog owner know how strongly he feels about dogs. This isn’t the wild wild west here. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/46 "2005-02-28T14:45:55Z")
Okay, yeah, I knew I remembered a previous animal post from you, but I’d forgotten the specifics. Keep us updated on what happens with it, and especially whether you’re able to get any legal satisfaction! Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/47 "2005-02-28T15:17:18Z")
> [@Mdm. President](#): > > Thank you everyone. It was interesting to be reminded of different perspectives. But… > > Since this is GQ and I am here looking for factual experiences with the law I will share some information apparently not understood by some the first time they read it. > It is **not** against the law for someone else’s dog to trespass on my property. Ummmmm . . . cite? > [@](#): > > It **is** against the law for me to shoot or shoot at any domestic animal without \*\*clear and immanent danger \*\* to me, my property or my livestock. Again, cite? > [@](#): > > Not a nuisance, a threat. Wait . . . > [@](#): > > I assume some one has sprayed him with a bb gun, which under certain circumstances I have no problem with. We would do the same to a dog continually causing problems on our property if the owner wouldn’t handle it. ::scratches head:: > [@](#): > > As I said, I did/do not break the law, he did/does. ::Scans previously quoted material:: :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Proving that there was no immanent danger of course would be difficult but that truly doesn’t matter in this post because to answer my questions one has to assume I am telling it the way it happened. Would it have helped if I had stated in the beginning that this was a hypothetical situation, that way one would just have to take it at face value? I’m sorry, what was the question again? It appears that you already know the answer. > [@](#): > > The pinnacle of my effort would have been to converse with a lawyer who has dealt with this type of situation before. But I was happy to hear from any people that may have had similar experiences and how it was legally handled. But now that is all moot. The neighbor called and said he would never have shot Nick but offered to pay for his vet bills. This was a little odd but I said ‘Thank you, but that wouldn’t be right’. So no charges. But maybe whoever did this now knows there are actually people out there that don’t see their dogs as disposable. I am a lawyer, but I’m not your lawyer. I’ve handled dog bite cases before. I doubt many lawyers have seen a case like yours before. Anyway, it seems like you have handled the situation yourself. > [@](#): > > Thank you again for sharing your experiences with these laws. > To those that care about Nick: Just because they couldn’t find the pellet or bullet doesn’t mean they can guarantee it fell out. The only way to know if it is still in there is to take a X-ray. Nick is 12 years old and they believe putting him under in order to take the x-ray is actually more dangerous than allowing it to stay put. We just have to watch for infection. He is a tough ol coot. Hope he is ok. ---
**Author:** ![Mdm.President](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@Mdm.President](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mdm.President)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/48 "2005-02-28T15:54:34Z")
You are most certainly a lawyer! 🙂 to try to be even more clear: “Ummmmm . . . cite?” This is what the police man confirmed when he took my statement. Is there a web site where I could look up my areas laws? “Wait . . .::scratches head. Scans previously quoted material::” It is against the law to shoot or shoot at domestic animals … with intent to cause serious harm (I am assuming it depends on what fire arm, a bb gun? an air gun? a sling shot?). Serious harm would be vet attention worthy. You will have to wait to see it in writing until after someone helps me find it. I’m sorry I should not have even started this thread until I had done my homework and could back up what the police man told me with something in writing I could show you. I feel horrible. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/49 "2005-02-28T16:09:33Z")
> [@Mdm. President](#): > > “Ummmmm . . . cite?” > This is what the police man confirmed when he took my statement. Is there a web site where I could look up my areas laws? That depends: Where are ya? Be specific and I’ll try to help you. Frankly, I doubt the officer knows trespass law. > [@](#): > > It is against the law to shoot or shoot at domestic animals … with intent to cause serious harm (I am assuming it depends on what fire arm, a bb gun? an air gun? a sling shot?). Serious harm would be vet attention worthy. As you point out below, the text of the ordinance or statute may be a good guide here. > [@](#): > > I feel horrible. Stop. You’re fine. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/50 "2005-02-28T16:17:35Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > Ya’ know, I take back my earlier comment about **Machetero** possibly being too harsh. You say you have a one year old and fear for his safety. Well, sweetheart, you’re the one that illegally unleashed the dangerous weapon, not your neighbor. And I’ll tell you that if your dog had illegally been coming around my (hypothetical) one-year old, it would’ve died that day. And then I would’ve sued your ass. > > So, thank your lucky stars your neighbor was so nice. You should probably go send them a card right now apologizing for your inconsiderateness and promising to be a better neighbor in the future. Not to single you Bill, but your reply and others like it scare the crap out of me. The OP moved away from the city to supposely be amongst friendly neighbors, the kind who say good morning, bring cake over, have pets unleased, etc. Your response paints one of WACO bunker mentality, the kind where people treat their property like their own sovereign nation. What ever happened to getting to know your neighbors, knowing their pets, knowing if they’re dangerous, etc. If you’re some sort of recluse who wants no truck with your neighbors, fine, but expect shit when you do uncivilized things, even if they’re within your rights. Hell, I have a 4 year old. He plays in our yard. Our neighbor has a tiny yapping dogs that always seems to get out of his yard, and frequently visits us. I made a point to know who this dog was and who his owner was. According to you and the others, I should have shot this dog for violating my property. I just shake my head at man’s inhumanity to lesser creatures. ---
**Author:** ![Mdm.President](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@Mdm.President](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mdm.President)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/51 "2005-02-28T16:36:27Z")
Gfactor \> You’ve got mail BwanaBob \> “I just shake my head at man’s inhumanity to lesser creatures.” Molly Shannon:: Don’t get me started Molly Shannon:: ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/52 "2005-02-28T16:57:07Z")
Yeah, some of these replies are really over the top. We’re talking about a 12-year-old lab here, not some lunging, frothing-at-the-mouth Rottweiler. All trespassing dogs are not created equal. I grew up in the country where a lot of neighbors’ dogs roamed freely. It was not the norm to shoot a dog the moment it wandered into your yard. Now, if the dog started killing chickens or chasing cows all bets were off. But even then we’d likely contact the owner first (if known) to ask them to control their pet. And if the owner weren’t known and the dog were a first offender and had a collar, we’d likely only pop it in the rump with some bird shot, from a great enough distance not to cause lasting injury. I really don’t understand the phobic/paranoid shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality I’m seeing in this thread. That said, if a dog were a repeat nuisance, it was certainly within the norm in my community to pop it in the rump with a bb or pellet, which may be what happened here. I wouldn’t do it the first time a dog wandered onto my property, but if it came back repeatedly and maybe was causing some damage (digging around, or chewing up things) I’d consider it. ( **Mdm. President** , I assume you’re sure that your dog wasn’t a repeat offender of this type?) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/53 "2005-02-28T16:58:35Z")
> [@Mdm. President](#): > > Gfactor \> You’ve got mail E-mailed you back about a technical issue. ---
**Author:** ![Mdm.President](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@Mdm.President](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mdm.President)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/54 "2005-02-28T17:21:03Z")
Headed your way G. …Can I call you G? spoke \> I’m getting that most of those folks have never lived in the country at all. But they could just be _that_ reclusive. Or maybe lived in those fancy communities… either way, their ideals sure don’t resemble my life experiences. And no Nick has never been a problem that I am even remotely aware of. Twelve years of country livin’, two years of extensive underground fence training and neutered… ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/55 "2005-02-28T18:06:50Z")
**BwanaBob** wrote > [@](#): > > Not to single you Bill, but your reply and others like it scare the crap out of me. The OP moved away from the city to supposely be amongst friendly neighbors, the kind who say good morning, bring cake over, have pets unleased, etc. > > Your response paints one of WACO bunker mentality, the kind where people treat their property like their own sovereign nation. What ever happened to getting to know your neighbors, knowing their pets, knowing if they’re dangerous, etc. > > If you’re some sort of recluse who wants no truck with your neighbors, fine, but expect shit when you do uncivilized things, even if they’re within your rights. For the record, I’ve never shot a dog, even those that have wandered onto my property. Further, if I heard that someone caused serious harm to a dog (or killed it) without serious provocation, I’d be upset about the matter. Also for the record, I like my neighbors and strive to get along with all of them, even the ones that are less respectful of my property. My post was spurred by **Mdm. President** ’s comment that she really didn’t care who was right and who was wrong, but rather how she could get legal revenge, and how everyone who wasn’t here to help her enact that revenge didn’t belong here. My reference was really to **Mdm. President** ’s point that her innocent one-year old was around, and someone else was discharging firearms without consideration for that. In the scope of things, a BB gun or a pellet gun (one of which is what seems to have hit our friend Nick; nothing that I’d consider a “real” gun) is a far less dangerous weapon when used inadvertantly than a dog. Especially since the BB gun was used directly and accurately (at the dog), while the dog was basically out of the control of it’s owner. Frankly, it kind of bugged me that **Mdm. President** called out her concern for her child and her neighbor’s reckless use of a weapon, when she was the one being reckless with a weapon. Anyway, I’m happy the issue is resolved and Nick is ok. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/56 "2005-02-28T18:19:32Z")
> [@Mdm. President](#): > > Headed your way G. …Can I call you G? Sure. Here’s what I’ve got so far: City Ordinances: > [@](#): > > Sec. 6-32. Duty of owners and persons in control; protection. > It shall be unlawful for any person or owner of an animal to: > (1) Fail to prevent any animal running at large from causing damage to persons, property, or any other animals or creating a nuisance to other individuals or animals within the corporate limits. > (2) Perform, do or carry out any inhumane treatment against any animal. The animal control officer may rescue any so mistreated animal. > (3) Keep, possess, own, control, maintain, use or otherwise exercise dominion over any animal which, because of noise, odor or unsanitary conditions, becomes offensive to a reasonable and prudent person of ordinary tastes and sensibilities or which constitutes or becomes a health hazard as determined by the animal control officer. > (4) Keep or harbor any dangerous or vicious animal within the corporate city limits. > (5) Allow any female dog in estrus in his possession to run at large on the public streets. > (6) Fail to prevent any dog from running at large and not confined by the owner or other person authorized by the owner to care for the dog in his home or escapeproof fence or on leash, cord, chain or other device; allow the dog to cause damage to persons, property or other animals; or fail to prevent a dog from creating a nuisance to other individuals or animals within the corporate limits. > (7) Conceal an animal or interfere with the animal control officer or person designated by him in the performance of his legal duties, as provided in this chapter. > [@](#): > > Sec. 6-33. Cruelty. > It shall be unlawful for any person to unmercifully or cruelly beat any animal in his possession or under his control. > [@](#): > > Sec. 6-61. Running at large. > It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of any animal, including fowl and other than a cat, to permit the animal to run at large within the city limits. > [@](#): > > Sec. 70-51. Discharge. > (a) For the purpose of this section, a firearm is defined as any device designed, made or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance, or any device readily convertible to that use. > (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to shoot or discharge any firearm, to include air rifles or BBguns, within the city. > (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to shoot upon or across any public street within the city any weapon, including any firearm, spring gun, slingshot, or similar device, that discharges shot, balls or other missiles. > (Code 1971, §§ 19-2, 19-3) Statutes: > [@](#): > > § 42.09. CRUELTY[0] TO ANIMALS. (a) A person commits an > offense if the person intentionally or knowingly: > (1) tortures an animal; > (2) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, > care, or shelter for an animal in the person’s custody; > (3) abandons unreasonably an animal in the person’s > custody; > (4) transports or confines an animal in a cruel > manner; > (5) kills, seriously injures, or administers poison to > an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, > belonging to another without legal authority or the owner’s > effective consent; > (6) causes one animal to fight with another; > (7) uses a live animal as a lure in dog race training > or in dog coursing on a racetrack; > (8) trips a horse; > (9) injures an animal, other than cattle, horses, > sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal > authority or the owner’s effective consent; or > (10) seriously overworks an animal. > (b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that > the actor was engaged in bona fide experimentation for scientific > research. . . . You can find all kinds of legal stuff for your state and city here: [http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/tx/laws.html](http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/tx/laws.html) Anyway, looks like the officer was wrong. Your city has a leash law. I realize that custom allows dogs to run free. Works the same in my neighborhood, actually. But the law says the dog has to be behind a fence, in a house, or on a leash. As I pointed out earlier, violation of a local ordinance does not deputize your neighbor. The neighbor’s remedy is to conact animal control–not open fire. The animal cruelty provisions are ambiguous. The ordinance only applies to beating an animal, though a motivated prosecutor could argue that beating means hitting the animal with something, including a projectile. The state statute is broader, but only prohibits serious injuries. I’m not sure your dog’s injuries would be considered serious. OTOH, it is illegal to shoot a bb gun within city limits. So the neighbor could be prosecuted for that. Other than that, you can sue the culprit. > **[Trespass to chattels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_chattels)** > > Trespass to chattels is a tort whereby the infringing party has intentionally (or, in Australia, negligently) interfered with another person's lawful possession of a chattel (movable personal property). The interference can be any physical contact with the chattel in a quantifiable way, or any dispossession of the chattel (whether by taking it, destroying it, or barring the owner's access to it). As opposed to the greater wrong of conversion, trespass to chattels is argued to be actionable per s... Hope this helps. I am not a lawyer in your state. I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. You are not my client. This is not a pipe. Ketchup is a vegetable. Etc. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/57 "2005-02-28T18:36:57Z")
Sometimes it pays to read the entire statute: > [@](#): > > **(e) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(5) > that the animal was discovered on the person’s property in the act > of or immediately after injuring or killing the person’s goats, > sheep, cattle, horses, swine, or poultry and that the person killed > or injured the animal at the time of this discovery.** > (f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(8) > that the actor tripped the horse for the purpose of identifying the > ownership of the horse or giving veterinary care to the horse. > **(g) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under this > section that the person had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to > the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by > Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.** > (h) 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) use of an animal if that use occurs solely for the > purpose of: > (A) fishing, hunting, or trapping; or > (B) wildlife control as regulated by state and > federal law; or > (2) animal husbandry or farming practice involving > livestock. > (i) An offense under Subsection (a)(1), (5), (6), (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. A couple of possible defenses for the culprit. Though nothing in the OP suggests that the defenses would apply. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/58 "2005-02-28T18:58:08Z")
**Bill H.** , it may be your insistence on calling a 12-year-old lab a “weapon,” but I’m just not getting your point of view. Dogs in general (and labs in particular) do not tend to be aggressive when they are not in the company of a pack and not in their own “territory.” So the idea that this lab was a risk to attack anyone on this neighbor’s property seems wildly unreasonable to me. ---
**Author:** ![Mdm.President](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@Mdm.President](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mdm.President)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/59 "2005-02-28T19:02:33Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > My post was spurred by **Mdm. President** ’s comment that she really didn’t care who was right and who was wrong, but rather how she could get legal revenge, and how everyone who wasn’t here to help her enact that revenge didn’t belong here. Not true at all. I am sorry you interpreted my spur that way. Of course I think I am in the right and regardless of how wrong I think you are, I’m not going to talk about it here. I stand by that your post, not you, does not belong here. I was concerned that if you and your buddies started posting your not so humble opinion, this would be moved. Please read the sticky Moderator’s Notes: On General Questions - reference sites. > [@Bill H.](#): > > In the scope of things, a BB gun or a pellet gun (one of which is what seems to have hit our friend Nick; nothing that I’d consider a “real” gun) is a far less dangerous weapon when used inadvertantly than a dog. Especially since the BB gun was used directly and accurately (at the dog), while the dog was basically out of the control of it’s owner. First, we didn’t know what Nick was shot with when I called the cops. I stand by that calling the cops immediately was the right thing to do. Second, it is your opinion that Nick was out of control, not mine and not the laws. > [@Bill H.](#): > > Frankly, it kind of bugged me that **Mdm. President** called out her concern for her child and her neighbor’s reckless use of a weapon, when she was the one being reckless with a weapon. Again, asinine but I didn’t ask for your opinion. Please take it else where. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932/60 "2005-02-28T19:02:29Z")
[QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bill H Frankly, it kind of bugged me that **Mdm. President** called out her concern for her child and her neighbor’s reckless use of a weapon, when she was the one being reckless with a weapon.[/QUOTE] Help me out here, I am a little confused. What was her weapon again? Surely you do not mean the dog. Dogs are weapons? 12 year old neutered labs with no history of aggression are weapons? Would you care to elaborate? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-of-our-neighbors-shot-our-dog/291932.md?page=4)