Try not to second guess yourself, although it's a perfectly normal reaction to incidents like this. You sensed the right thing to do and had the self discipline to refrain from acting out of blind fear. Good for you.

I was in LE for more than 30 years and never shot a dog, although I was aggressively approached many times. Usually (not always) bites don't occur and the approach is more a bluff to defend his/her territory rather than a determined attack. I'm glad you appear to have recognized this (even on a subconscious level) as unnecessarily shooting the dog would have proved to be traumatic to kids nearby, even if it was justified.

quote:

Originally posted by NoGaBiker:

Well, I didn't realize that. Some kids in our 'hood tied a neighbor's cat to a tree last month for kicks. I bet they had no idea the owner could have legally killed them, reasoning that they could have very easily gone into his house and tied him or his wife up next.

I bet he could have used the "read it on the internet" defense.

[Dang, I'm being a bastard again! Sorry, Hbinger.]


NGB

You know as well as I do that a lawyer can and WILL make any story sound the way they want. That doesn't mean I agree with them, it's just what some of them do (and they make a shit-ton of money at it).

If my dog attacked someone not meaning harm on my property, and they shot him, well it's my damn fault for not being able to control my dog. I wouldn't be happy, but at that point I'd be more upset at myself than the person defending themselves.

Oh, and by the way, you're not being a bastard, just a smartass.

Agreed!

NGB

There's no question in my mind and in the minds of the other responding members that you did the right thing, SGL.

I get the sense, however, that any "second-guessing" you went through had less to do with a dog coming at you and your child in an aggressive manner than how you reacted to a perceived attack. Not so much on a "legal" level but, as you've mentioned, on a "gut" level.

For whatever it's worth, I'd have done the same as you did. Cover and protect your child, and yourself (if possible), first. You did it right.

~Tom

Actually its not only normal, but its a good thing to "second guess" yourself following such incidents. Its part of the learning process. Better to visualize, think out, plan options, then train appropriately for various "what ifs"...all without becoming a paranoid ...

Do what you safely can to avoid having to use deadly force too, even on an animal...it might be your only choice and the right thing to do, but there is no fun involved with such situations...

Keep in mind, people and dogs both don't always do what you might expect, even when well shot...just a fact of life ...

Everything went ok, yet when you got home you second guess yourself.

It's like you totally forget you were on his property, doesn't matter if it's on socially accepted halloween night or not, which I doubt would fly as an excuse in court anyway even if a lawyer said it.

I'm sorry but from reading the lines on your post, the very idea of a "scare off shot" is retarded. Reminds me of my LEO friend, telling me about this kid he busted for shooting off a round in the air to "scare off someone". He got cited for unlawful discharge of a firearm.

I can't believe you told the other guy he scares you because he carries a gun.

I think you sir, are the scary one.

quote:

Originally posted by J__Frame:
Everything went ok, yet when you got home you second guess yourself.

It's like you totally forget you were on his property, doesn't matter if it's on socially accepted halloween night or not, which I doubt would fly as an excuse in court anyway even if a lawyer said it.

I'm sorry but from reading the lines on your post, the very idea of a "scare off shot" is retarded. Reminds me of my LEO friend, telling me about this kid he busted for shooting off a round in the air to "scare off someone". He got cited for unlawful discharge of a firearm.

I can't believe you told the other guy he scares you because he carries a gun.

I think you sir, are the scary one.

I'll leave this response for some clarification, J.

We all know, or should, that sometimes posts don't come out the way they're intended. There are regional differences, even within states, about how we treat folks who come on our property.

I, for example, live in a suburban subdivision. Kids' basketballs/footballs/baseballs flying into my yard are pretty common. Not a big deal (generally). Other folks live on big (by my standards) tracts of land where 'strangers' aren't a damned-bit welcome. (I'd probably feel the same, frankly.)

As to the OP's post, the 'perception' was of a dog attack, on himself and his child. Was it the property owner's dog? Was it 'wild'? We don't know. What we do know, from his post, is that his thought was to scare the animal off. Retarded? I think not. Ill-advised? Perhaps, but not "retarded". Turns out he didn't do that, anyway. He did it right.

Unless I've missed something in this thread, I don't see anything that has been posted that would suggest anything "scary" other than the situation the OP found himself, and his child, in.

Again, I'm open for some clarification from you. Totally possible that I've misinterpreted your meaning.

~Tom

No one lose the right to defend oneself just because the person is on another person's property, as long as the person did not trespass.

I do not think entering a front yard to knock on the door where is not gated and people have free access qualifies as trespass. If that is trespass then I should be able to shoot anyone knocking on my door standing on my front porch just because I feel like it, if I lived in Texas, but that won't make sense does it?

As long as it's not a trespass, the person is even justified in shooting the property owner if the property owner threatens serious bodily injury, so why not a dog?

No trespass, wrongfully attacked, then right to defend oneself remains.

The dog might think it's protecting it's territory by attacking the person who entered the territory, but that is irrelevant.

If someone or some animal is wrongfully threatening me with serious injury or death, I'll shoot it. What if that someone or some thing thinks it acted in good faith?
IRRELEVANT.

quote:

Originally posted by TestPilot:
No one lose the right to defend oneself just because the person is on another person's property, as long as the person did not trespass.

I do not think entering a front yard to knock on the door where is not gated and people have free access qualifies as trespass. If that is trespass then I should be able to shoot anyone knocking on my door standing on my front porch just because I feel like it, if I lived in Texas, but that won't make sense does it?

As long as it's not a trespass, the person is even justified in shooting the property owner if the property owner threatens serious bodily injury, so why not a dog?

No trespass, wrongfully attacked, then right to defend oneself remains.

The dog might think it's protecting it's territory by attacking the person who entered the territory, but that is irrelevant.

If someone or some animal is wrongfully threatening me with serious injury or death, I'll shoot it. What if that someone or some thing thinks it acted in good faith?
IRRELEVANT.

Trespass can occur on any property and against persons. It can have criminal and/or civil implications.
Being fenced, gated or even sign posted may not be required to be a violation. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
It can apply to private residential property, commercial property, government property, public schools, military or nuclear properties for example.
Intent or acts of a person coming onto or into the property is the key.

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...tionary.com/trespass

By "wrongfully", do you mean by your personal standards or by law?

"Good faith" is relevant in law.

The original poster acted responsibly under the circumstances he described and has no reason to second guess his actions.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
...
Trespass can occur on any property and against persons. It can have criminal and/or civil implications.
Being fenced, gated or even sign posted may not be required to be a violation. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
It can apply to private residential property, commercial property, government property, public schools, military or nuclear properties for example.
...
Intent or acts of a person coming onto or into the property is the key.
...

We're not talking about a military base or nuclear plant.

Is there a case where someone just walking up a front porch of a residence to knock on a door convicted as trespassing? Without prior notice of no to enter or restraining order that is.

Intent in this case is clear. "Trick or treat" knocks where the person did not force their way in.

quote:

...
By "wrongfully", do you mean by your personal standards or by law?

"Good faith" is relevant in law.
...

Mixture of both, depending on the details of the circumstances. I'm not claiming "good faith" is not relevant in court room justification, excuse, or defense. I'm stating that it's irrelevant in my defensive measures.

To put it simple. If:
1. I did no legal wrong.
2. Someone or something threatens me with serious injury or death believing the person is acting in good faith.
3. That person's mistaken belief is not a fault of my own.

In that condition, I'll shoot instead of risking my life or limb for someone's mistaken belief.

I'm a mailman, and I have a HUGE problem with people that "think" their dog will be acceptable to anyone who walks on their property.

Sort of like jumping in front of a bus. More than likely the bus will stop. But if it doesn't, in hindsight, maybe you shouldn't have jumped in front of that bus.

I've had dogs I've "known" for years come at me. Whether it's because the owner was outside/inside, kids present, who knows. It's a dog.

I had a guy tell me his dog "won't bite". I told him his dog could speak spanish and I still wouldn't believe him.

IT'S A DOG!!! I ask them once to get their dog, but that never works. As I walk by their house, I just casually mention I'll be back tomorrow with their mail.

This should be more clear, what we need to learn from this thread is that a "scare off shot" is stupid and it's extremely bad form.

I mean aren't we all supposed to set examples? Even thinking about it like the OP did is a very very bad idea and I just hope that is obvious to most on here.

Just like another poster said, your CCW is not a noise maker or a intimidation tool, only use it in defense of your life period!

quote:

This should be more clear, what we need to learn from this thread is that a "scare off shot" is stupid and it's extremely bad form.

I mean aren't we all supposed to set examples? Even thinking about it like the OP did is a very very bad idea and I just hope that is obvious to most on here.

Just like another poster said, your CCW is not a noise maker or a intimidation tool, only use it in defense of your life period!

Perhaps I was not clear enough or perhaps you just did not read all of the response posts from me, either way I'll try to clear this up.

1. At the time of the incident I never thought about making a warning shot, my only thought was protecting my child. Actually drawing the gun never entered my mind, I simply wanted to cover and protect my child.

2. When I was home thinking about the incident is when I began to second guess my actions and thought about "other options".

3. Later that night I was relating the story to a friend of mine who related to me a story of a similar nature in which the child was not so fortunate. This child was bitten severely in the face multiple times and is permanently scarred and emotionally damaged because of the incident. This friend of mine is the one who made the suggestion of a warning shot being fired. I posted this thought and a subsequent poster responded that this would not be a good idea for numerous reasons that I agreed with. I posted my agreement with this in an earlier post on page 1 of this thread.

4. This is a discussion board, a place to voice ideas and opinions in an effort to get to a better understanding of ourselves and hopefully improve ourselves.

Thank you all for your responses, it has been very helpful to me.

quote:

Originally posted by ASKSmith:
I'm a mailman, and I have a HUGE problem with people that "think" their dog will be acceptable to anyone who walks on their property.

Finally, input from the guy who is most qualified to give it, along with utility readers and FedEx/UPS guys.

Going onto someone elses' property does not automatically become criminal trespassing, nor does it automatically entitle the property owner or custodian to go to DEFCON 1 and weapons free. If Mormons doing their mission visits walk up your steps to ring the doorbell and your pet jaguarundi leaps from the shrubbery and starts mauling them, you aren't in the free and clear, and if they strangle it with their plain black ties, they will likely not face any repercussions.

IANAL, but ownership or control of property entails ensuring that the property does not pose a risk to others. An uncontrolled dog or wafting methlab vapors escaping from your house ain't OK.

Smith, I am a full time police officer and without even knowing where you live, I am here to tell you that you did the right thing by not attempting to shoot the dog.
Imagine how dispatch would get the frantic calls and then in turn relay them to the officers responding. You managed to protect your child without drawing your weapon, that is a win anytime.

If you had shot the dog, people would be dressing like you for many Halloweens to come and trick or treating and attending parties as a "dog murderer" or "A German Shepherd's Worst Nightmare".

I'm also an LEO, and I'll say you did fine with how you handled it. I will also say that if you shot the dog you would have been fine too. A dog's life is not worth the serious injury that it could have caused you or your child.

The bottom line is you were legally carrying the gun and then you legally used it to kill an animal who was threatening to harm you. You were not trespassing or committing any criminal act at the time of the shooting.

Walking up to someone's front door is not considered trespassing unless the owner had signs specifically stating that no one is allowed to be on their property. Additionally, I assume in the area you live that dogs are supposed to be confined within the house or back yard and not allowed to be running around wildly in the front yard. Therefore, the owner is actually guilty of crime by letting the dog run free in the front yard.

You did good, acted responsibly, no one was hurt. Kudo's to you sir.

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:

quote:

Originally posted by ASKSmith:
I'm a mailman, and I have a HUGE problem with people that "think" their dog will be acceptable to anyone who walks on their property.

Finally, input from the guy who is most qualified to give it, along with utility readers and FedEx/UPS guys.

Going onto someone elses' property does not automatically become criminal trespassing, nor does it automatically entitle the property owner or custodian to go to DEFCON 1 and weapons free. If Mormons doing their mission visits walk up your steps to ring the doorbell and your pet jaguarundi leaps from the shrubbery and starts mauling them, you aren't in the free and clear, and if they strangle it with their plain black ties, they will likely not face any repercussions.

IANAL, but ownership or control of property entails ensuring that the property does not pose a risk to others. An uncontrolled dog or wafting methlab vapors escaping from your house ain't OK.

LOL! Funny stuff.

NGB

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
IANAL,

I love the acronym! (Beevis voice on): Heh-heh, heh-heh, he said "ANAL"...

Who knew the forums could be so much fun!

Regards,

Kevin