EASY with the gun idea , quick draw

the dog lives there, you do not

i vote with the dog on this one

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin228:
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.

If your a LEO, your one of the dumber cop's i've encountered. It's the owner's fault because HIS dog was in HIS yard? I don't recall the OP stating that the dog was running "wildly" anywhere. There are no statute's in my area about a dog being confined to the house or backyard. What if the backyard isn't fenced in, can I not own a dog? Not let my dog outside? I don't think so pal.

quote:

If your a LEO, your one of the dumber cop's i've encountered. It's the owner's fault because HIS dog was in HIS yard? I don't recall the OP stating that the dog was running "wildly" anywhere. There are no statute's in my area about a dog being confined to the house or backyard. What if the backyard isn't fenced in, can I not own a dog? Not let my dog outside? I don't think so pal.

Do you not read the posts prior to spitting out your own gibberish? THE DOG WAS IN A FULL BLOWN CHARGE AIMED DIRECTLY AT MY CHILD!!! THAT IS RUNNING WILDLY MORON! Where I live there are statues that state that the dog must be on a leash or confined when outside.

quote:

What if the backyard isn't fenced in, can I not own a dog?

Sure you can if when you take it outside it is on a leash, under control.

Let me ask you this brain-dead, how was I to know that this was even my neighbors dog? It was dark!!! The animal was charging!!! What if it turned out to be a Coyote or Wolf??? Would it have been okay to shoot then!?!?

Read the whole thread before making asinine comments and calling a LEO "Dumb"!!! Save yourself the trouble of having people think you are an idiot. Idiot!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SmithGunLeather,

WOW! Real sensative aren't we? That was one hell of a 13th post. In your OP you said the dog was half way across the propery, not in a full blown charge aimed directly at your child. You obviously knew it was his dog and not at wolf or coyote. You asked for opinion's, just because you don't like mine doesn't mean you gotta be an ass. Generally that's not good for business. And do you think the other guy is the only LEO on this forum?

quote:

"A couple of "fact" questions:
Where was the dog owner? What was his reaction? How far did the dog charge, and how far away was he when he stopped?"

1. Dog owner appeared from around the corner too late to control the situation.
2. Tried to control situation and then issued multiple apologies.
3. Dog charged to within 5 ft.
4. 3 ft.

Like I said, read the FULL thread, why not try it because you are not making yourself look any smarter.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SmithGunLeather,

Forgive me for my "13th" post. Perhaps it was a bit heavy handed. I just take offence to people making derogatory statements about LEO's. Especially when it appears that you were in the wrong.

UP1911fan-
"If your a LEO, your one of the dumber cop's i've encountered. It's the owner's fault because HIS dog was in HIS yard? I don't recall the OP stating that the dog was running "wildly" anywhere. There are no statute's in my area about a dog being confined to the house or backyard. What if the backyard isn't fenced in, can I not own a dog? Not let my dog outside? I don't think so pal."

I'm not a legal expert, but as part of my college curriculum I took about 9 credits worth of law classes (most dealing with my major of engineering). My law professor (a criminal defense attorney ) stressed property, ownership, patent, and other engineering related laws. As the owner of the House and property in question it is the homeowner's duty to ensure that his property is safe for all visitors and residents, whether those visitors are invited or not. In this case HIS dog was on HIS property, but he failed to ensure that any visitors to his property were protected and reasonably safe from danger. HIS dog charged a child that was on his property, and had his dog injured the child be would have been liable for damages. The property owner was not cleared of any liability just because the tricker-treaters were not explicitly invited onto his property.

Here's an example. A property owner may put up no trespassing signs and a fence around his yard. If a teenage tricker-treater/prankster went onto the owner's property he would be trespassing and could be arrested/charged/sued. But, say this owner decided to dig a trench and fill it with punji sticks as a booby-trap for would-be intruders. If the teenage prankster climbed the fence and fell into the booby trap and was injured, the owner would likely face criminal and civil lawsuits for negligence and disregard for public safety.

In the case presented by the OP, the charging dog can be likened to the punji stick pit. He presented a clear and present danger to the father and son, and the dog had attacked the OP would have been fully justified in shooting the dog (if he had drawn and shot the dog in mid-charge he probably would have been cleared of any liability too).

As per the comment made that a homeowner felt he had the right to shoot any intruders onto his property; in PA and most other states there is no castle law. The homeowner would likely go to jail for manslaughter if he shot and killed an intruder who presented no immediate danger.

quote:

Originally posted by UP1911fan:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin228:
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.

If your a LEO, your one of the dumber cop's i've encountered. It's the owner's fault because HIS dog was in HIS yard? I don't recall the OP stating that the dog was running "wildly" anywhere. There are no statute's in my area about a dog being confined to the house or backyard. What if the backyard isn't fenced in, can I not own a dog? Not let my dog outside? I don't think so pal.

Are you seriously calling me dumb? Why must you jump in here with insulting comments and contribute nothing to the thread. I know the laws of my jurisdiction well, but I'll save you the embarrassment of posting my resume here. Read Pinky's 4th post above, it contributes much more to this thread than your 188th post did.

quote:

Originally posted by SmithGunLeather:

quote:

No offense, but you shoot my dog on my property your getting shot too. You handled the situation the right, what if you did shoot and the owner felt the same way I do?

It frightens me that people like you are allowed to have guns. If that dog attacked me or my child and I shot it, you would shoot me!!! You insane mf’r! Get a life!!!

I wouldn't shoot you for shooting my dog...but I'd damned sure kick your ass. If you presented deadly force from there...then you can guess where that'd go. Chances are, you'll be lucky to wound a trained GSD or Mal, and he'll still bite the crap out of you. My Mal pup has more fun the harder you hit him.

Generally the rule about trick or treating is...if the lights are on, and decorations are out...then the house is inviting kids to come to the door. Was that the case for this house? Not everyone celebrates Halloween.

I really can't figure out how you would be justified in shooting someone else's dog on their property when you were there uninvited...even if you were getting bit.

Firing a warning shot...has a lot of legal no-no's attached to it. If I was the property owner, I'd file charges against you if you discharged your weapon on my property.

quote:

I wouldn't shoot you for shooting my dog...but I'd damned sure kick your ass. If you presented deadly force from there...then you can guess where that'd go. Chances are, you'll be lucky to wound a trained GSD or Mal, and he'll still bite the crap out of you. My Mal pup has more fun the harder you hit him.

This response looks like a big juicy worm! This little fish is not biting though...

quote:

Generally the rule about trick or treating is...if the lights are on, and decorations are out...then the house is inviting kids to come to the door. Was that the case for this house? Not everyone celebrates Halloween.

Lights on, front door open, pumpkins on the front steps with candles burning inside... This house was open for business.

First, everyone got to go home safe, no one got shot, no one went to jail, call it a win. Second with a 4 year old daughter, I understand that the safety of your child comes before everything else. Third, it sounds like the dog owner did not control his dog. Fourth, as a dog owner as well, I can pretty much gaurantee if anyone shot my dog on my property, they would be looking down the barrel of my own gun.

Everyone came out relatively unscathed. Firing a gun would have escalated the situation and had serious sonsequences. Sounds like you effectively handled the situation. Replaying and questioning after the fact is normal. Keep in mind, that everything this time worked out. Sometimes a reserved response is much more effective than an aggressive one.

quote:

Lights on, front door open, pumpkins on the front steps with candles burning inside... This house was open for business.

OK. That means in my book, you were invited on the property. It clears up a vital point about justifiable shooting of a dog.

I do think it's important to note however...the dog turned friendly you stated. So in reality...the dog was just greeting you. You were scared because it was a big GSD, not because it was aggressive.

Barking does not equal aggression. Had you shot, even a warning shot...you would have been in the wrong.

I didn't see where you stated what the owner's response was. What did he do after all of this transpired?

quote:

I didn't see where you stated what the owner's response was. What did he do after all of this transpired?

He muttered an apology. What else could he do really? I hope he felt bad after seeing my 3 year old crying because of his irresponsibility! Who knows in this day and age? I try to approach life with the attitude that people are generally good and have good intentions as well. I know this is not always the case hence I CCW. I'm walking away from this scenario considering it a win for all involved. I think that's the consensus here as well. Maybe this situation was a learning experience for the guy down the street; I'd like to think so.

Well, the bottom line is that everything turned out OK, so you did the right thing in this circumstance. I do have several concerns and comments.

A "warning" shot might have not only failed to stop the dog, but could have ricocheted into someone. While you might be cleared criminally and civilly on that one, you might not.

I wonder about this "full-blown" charge thing. Some dogs look a bit meaner than they really are, charging and growling, and then transforming into playful pups upon making contact. I am a big-city LEO, and probably could have justifiably shot several dogs by this point. I have thus far been successful at reading the dog, and responding correctly, without force. Usually the dog has become friendly; others have remained hostile, but aborted the charge, and remained at a distance. Believe me, in every case, I was VERY glad that I did not shoot! I may have won legally every time, but the legal aftermath of shooting a dog, on his owner's property, is NOT a battle I want to fight. I may win the legal battle, but not the PR battle.

Then, there is the issue of what would happen right after one has shot a dog on the owner's property. It is VERY logical to assume that if a homeowner hears his dog growling/barking, and then gunfire, the homeowner will arm himself and investigate. While a reasonable man may realize that a visitor has just used justifiable force against his dog, a homeowner may NOT be so reasonable in this scenario, and there will be two armed and alarmed men facing each other. Things could get very interesting right quickly.

What would I have done in this scenario? Well, except for NO warning shot, I can't say. Obviously, protecting a child is paramount. Every charging dog is different.

Being armed with a pistol might well have played a part in defusing the situation, even though it was not drawn/presented. Having the option of a weapon can affect one's demeanor, which can be reflected in one's body language. Dogs read body language very well. A noted Alaskan guide has written much the same thing regarding bears.

I once pointed my gun into the face of two pitbulls charging at me while I yelled at them to "Get the F*#$ away!" The pitbulls ran away from with their tails tucked between their legs. This was in the ghetto, so I think the dogs understood what a gun meant!

quote:

Originally posted by kjdoski:
Item 1: you protected your child, no one got bit, no one got shot - I call that a win!

One observation/opinion: I'm generally against the idea of ever discharging a firearm to "scare off" or dissuade an attacker. It's not a noise-maker - it's a lethal self defense tool. If you need to shoot, make sure you shoot to stop the threat through the most effective means.

A couple of "fact" questions:
Where was the dog owner? What was his reaction? How far did the dog charge, and how far away was he when he stopped?

Some judgmental questions:
Did it appear to be an attack, or was the dog simply over-excited by all the Halloween goings on? What's you general level of handgun skill? Could you have drawn and fired an aimed shot into a rapidly closing small target one handed while moving your child out of the line of attack? Would your kid have suffered hearing damage or burns from the discharge?

Some legal questions:
If you made the shot, could you have justified to the responding officers (and potentially to a jury) that you were in fear of death or grave bodily harm to you or your child? If you shot into the ground, are you sure the bullet wouldn't have ricocheted and hit a bystander? What kind of area do you live in, and is it a generally gun friendly, or anti-gun area? I'll work on the assumption that CCW is legal in your area...

All in all, I'll go back to my initial comments. No injuries to anyone, and you didn't have to interact with the police or make a potential long-term enemy of your neighbor. Don't beat yourself up!

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin,
Excellent analysis. Thank you.

The below is my opinion on the OP's original post, and it isn't short. This is partly because I wanted to be clear about my take on this situation, as well as partly how I feel about the seeming direction of the thread--thanks in no small part to misleading comments and/or lack of certain details provided earlier. I doubt most will bother to read all of the below (I wouldn't blame many, given the length...lol), but for those who do there is hopefully something they find helpful.

I'm not going to try to defend nor comdemn the comments made by a few others in this thread, on either side of the fence, as those are the very opinions for which the OP asked. I think people too often forget that laws in various cities/states/countries are likely rather different from other places in certain regards (dogs must be on leashes versus no such law, for example), and logically that has an impact on how they feel a situation could be handled properly/legally, etc. In any case, the OP asked for opinions, and he got them, and they were based on the responders' experiences, knowledge, mood and such--as they would so obviously be, given that they're "opinions".

While I don't intend to suggest anyone should be calling anyone else any names, the opinions offered on whether the home/dog owner would/should/could have produced his own firearm and shot the "dog-shooter" (or, for that matter, just smacked him around with his hands) in the case the OP or another had fired on the dog in a similar situation, I *do* feel such opinions--again, excepting the name-calling bits--fall well within the opinions so clearly asked for by the OP. If the OP just doesn't "like" some of those opinions, then perhaps he would be happier asking only those, by name, who he knows are likely to agree with him? That would defeat the purpose of asking on a forum such as this one, though...

As to my mention above of misleading comments and/or lack of certain details, I find it amazing that the OP--who left out certain details and made markedly misleading comments that would have gotten possibly faster/more complete/more detailed replies to his thread--would leave out some parts and then be upset that someone supposedly hadn't "read the FULL thread" when the bigger obstacle might very well be that they had, in fact, read the entire thread and were misled by comments made by the OP or simply didn't understand. It's possible, I should think, such misunderstandings are better cleared up by clear statements rather than overreactions, namecalling, immature "internet yelling", freaking out over a given person's opinion as it were personally directed, etc.

Because I'm not going out of my way to type more than I feel a need to here, and I have faith in the basic intelligence of others reading this thread to find other exmaples on their own, I'll only give one of what I consider to be an easily misunderstood, misleading comment by the OP:

quote:

Originally posted by SmithGunLeather:

quote:

I didn't see where you stated what the owner's response was. What did he do after all of this transpired?

(snip...)He muttered an apology.(/snip...)

The above, in what I take as marked contrast to his original response to this same question is found here:

quote:

Originally posted by SmithGunLeather:

quote:

"A couple of "fact" questions:
Where was the dog owner? What was his reaction? How far did the dog charge, and how far away was he when he stopped?"

1. Dog owner appeared from around the corner too late to control the situation.
2. Tried to control situation and then issued multiple apologies.
3. Dog charged to within 5 ft.
4. 3 ft.

Not keeping the story/situation straight makes it very easy for others to misunderstand the words, and the intent, of the OP. If the OP wants the best replies to his post he can get, it seems to me he'd be better served by not putting out misleading information (and this is not the only example where I, personally, felt the differing details of the story as the thread progressed had changed the thrust of the situation, and to a degree my understanding--and therefore my "opinion"). Posting in a wonderously flaming manner in response to someone else's post he didn't like (and which involved a name "called" not at him, but suggested as toward someone else) isn't the best way to impart information when asking for opinions. At that point, you're far more likely to start getting another person's opinion on YOU rather than your situation; and, you would deserve it, IMHO. The namecalling, etc. wasn't (IMHO) "right", but the OP's *way* over the top responses to such things aren't the fault of the other people involved. Whatever anyone else ever does to you, it is only YOU who are responsible in the end for your actions/reactions.

What the OP has accomplished with his own suggestive insults/namecalling, and again *way* over the top reactions, is only to make me think it VERY likely the situation involved other details unflattering to the OP's position, and which he might have left out of his account here. His behavior also suggests to me that if he acts in public like he did so easily and quickly in a thread on the internet that he might one day very well earn himself one of the reactions he so forcefully denounced when others suggested them as possible reactions by a home/dog owner in the example situation. What he has *certainly* also accomplished is the loss of ANY possibility of future business for his advertised gun leather company from me or anyone I ever speak to about where to find such products. His posts suggest to me that if I were ever to order a product from him and were not happy with it that his reaction in such cases might be every bit as unprofessional and immature.

As to the original question/situation, I actually agree to a degree that he was right in not shooting the dog (and also right for not trying the idiotic "warning shot" idea). I feel the home/dog owner was at fault for letting his dog outside off-leash, however trusting he may have been of the dog's usual behavior around strangers, as the dog could also have gotten hurt or killed by running out into traffic (not looking after the dog's wellbeing in that case) or endangered other people in various ways. I also feel, given the description of this situation, that the OP should learn a bit about when to be as concerned as he seems to be about dogs running about off-leash. Sometimes a firearm is certainly a wise answer to such situations, but FAR more often there are much better ways to deal with a dog...Even the type who actually *do* intend harm.

As I mentioned up above, before the start of my wee novel...lol, I sincerely hope this post helps someone in some manner. The above is not intended to insult anyone.

I have turned notifications off regarding this post. For me this issue has been resolved and is in the past. I think I should have consulted my attorney or local PD regarding this issue. So many opinions, distortions, misunderstandings, emotions etc., yikes! I should have known better. This type of issue has been debated since dogs were domesticated and brought into homes. Thank you everyone for your very valuable contributions. SGL has left the room.