I would say if you have a witness that can vouch the dog looked as if he was posing a threat you would be ok. Dogs can get through an invisible fence so I am not sure how much that buys the owner. I know there are laws in KY that protect against unleashed dogs.

Fear of being bitten is one thing, fear of being mauled is another. Depends on the dog for me.

Exactly. A little chihuahua coming at you viciously and you turn Rambo on it probably takes you to the slammer.

Walking down the street on the sidewalk. A big dog comes charging at me and gets to within a few feet of me. I'm not sure if he's going to attack me or not. I have my permitted gun with me. I shoot the dog right before he gets to me. The dog is still in his yard by a few feet. No fence.

 

Owner claims the dog wouldn't have gotten to me because of the "invisible fence" mechanism.

 

Am I charged with something?

 

Was the invisible fence marked so passers by know it was there? If not how could you know that the dog had a potential restraint? When I walk I carry a can of pepper spray. Large dog comes running at me it gets sprayed. No way I let it have time to actually attack me before I spray it. And for the record I've said on here before I'm very scared of large dogs. If one come running at me I will assume it's attacking.

And for the record I would never ever want to harm another human being or an animal but my safety comes first.

 

Sometimes I carry a tactical knife when I walk for just that reason but I think All Tell has the best idea of all.

See...that's a slippery slope in my mind. Isn't that what the Trayvon Martin case is about? Whether we can, should we shoot things just because they scare us?

 

I might not be afraid of dogs, but someone else is. Someone else is afraid of youths wearing hoodies...if a person wearing a hoodie runs up to him/her, do they have a right to shoot the person because they are afraid?

 

If you know anything about the Trayvon Martin case you know it's not as simple as you put it in this post.

In many jurisdictions, a dog must be on a leash or in a fenced in area so shooting a dog would be completely in your rights. With invisible fences becoming more common, I don't know if those would qualify.

The real question is, whose dog did you shoot, Clyde?

Was the invisible fence marked so passers by know it was there? If not how could you know that the dog had a potential restraint? When I walk I carry a can of pepper spray. Large dog comes running at me it gets sprayed. No way I let it have time to actually attack me before I spray it. And for the record I've said on here before I'm very scared of large dogs. If one come running at me I will assume it's attacking.

 

I think this is the best way to deal with the situation. As a dog lover (and owner), I still understand your right to protect yourself, but I don't think that shooting what may actually be a loving, big barker is the right thing to do. Legally, dogs may be property, but they can have an emotional connection with their humans, and morally, I think that we have to consider that.

 

With that said, my dog is ALWAYS on her leash outside, unless we are in a yard with a chain-linked fence. I am more scared that she might get injured in a road than I am that someone would think that she was viscious and hurt her, but in this way neither party has to worry.

It's an interesting question, but it's too generic/broad for a legitimate answer.

 

My general response would be that so long as your apprehension was objectively reasonable, you likely would not face criminal charges. Most dog owners would likely bring a civil claim against you, though.

 

In my mind, the type of dog would be very important. For example, if it was a pit bull, Rottweiler, or other dog which is typically considered vicious, then you likely wouldn't be charged. On the other hand, if it was a poodle or some smaller breed of dog, you might have some issues.

I'm trying to find if Kentucky allows for owners to recover for sentimental loss. This is all depending on being found negligent in shooting the dog.

 

I think that's a negative, ghostrider.

A lot of these guys should have went ahead and turned the gun on themselves. That scared of a dog? :isurrender:

If a dog is in its yard and is about to attack the owner is liable so I think you did the right thing. If it was my 6 year old son walking down the street and dog was acting like it was going to attack. The dog and the owner would both be getting attacked by me.

If you know anything about the Trayvon Martin case you know it's not as simple as you put it in this post.

 

In the courts all is made complicated. But why does a neighborhood patrol or anyone else carry a gun? Fear!

 

In the courts all is made complicated. But why does a neighborhood patrol or anyone else carry a gun? Fear!

 

You say fear. I say they want to be prepared.

You say fear. I say they want to be prepared.

 

For what....a gunfight at the OK Corral? OK, but seriously....carrying a firearm is no small matter. If one leaves the house, with a firearm, going into an area, where they believe they may be at risk, then perceive to be at risk, then use the firearm...isn't there some level of premeditation involved? Why not just avoid those areas, unless one has to be there for their job? I guess that could be too off topic, but if there is a dog, in its own yard, just avoiding that yard would seem to be the logical choice. Thus, if I were prosecuting a person who shot a dog, a cat, a horse or anything in its own area, because the person felt threatened, I would first ask, if the person knew of this animal, why didn't the person cross the street, or avoid the house and report the animal to authorities? The person didn't, then why did the person cross in front of the house with their firearm? I would make a case that the act was premeditated.

Edited July 16, 201214 yr by doomer