I'm assuming this is the most appropriate board to post this on?
If some guy for whatever reason decides to attack/assault/try to kill my dog, do I have the right to shoot/debilitate him?
Also, battle buddy thread
However, you can shoot a man who attacked you and your dog might have just happened to bite him out of respect for/in the defense of his master....
Just bash your head against a tree before the cops show up...
I think I heard one time somebody shot someone's dog claiming it was charging him, the other guy drew and shot him and there was a big case over whether the guy shot him out of spite or if he was actually in fear for his life.
I don't have source for it or anything so it might as well be a tall tale but whatever. Take it with a grain of salt.
naw man, Human life > Dogs life
on your property that changes because the allows you to protect your property with force. Now if you hurts your dogs or kills your dog while on the street you can sue him or whatever but not shoot your dog, ie, I'm driving and your retarded dog decided it wanted to make friends with my bumper and bumper doesn't wanna be friends and doggo becomes kill you can't legally decide to shoot to me, you'll just end up in prison being somebody else's dog (bitch) of course you can sue me over it. Now if you are on the street and somebody punches or kicks your dog, you can't just take out your gun and shoot 'em, even if your dog died from the kicks and punches
Yes, but shooting a horse is not abusing a horse. It is a quick and clean execution with little to no suffering of the animal.
Cutting a horses' throat and letting it bleed out, or bashing its head with a stick would be abuse. A bullet is not.
Death =/= abuse
Yes in California.
Charged with doesn't mean it'll stick. If he's dumbass enough to post it to facebook, he's probably gonna end up fucking himself over and lose the case though.
Depends. What state?
nope in my state,
"Intentional Cruelty with “knowing and intentional torture or torment of an animal that injures, mutilates, or kills the animal” carries a
minimum fine of $2500 and completion of a psychological or anger management treatment program. A second conviction of the same
carries a minimum fine of $5,000 and minimum 6 months incarceration, with no parole or early release available. Exemptions are
made for veterinary care."
made for veterinary care.
so no you can't go around shooting animals in the head.
Not really human life vs dog life, but there was a case where a guy who shot a police dog that attack his pet rabbit and was arrested. Not for animal cruelty or anything that would make sense (although it wasn't animal cruelty), but for discharging a firearm within city limits. Shows that if cops and DA want to fuck with you, they will.
Although the mayor dropped all charges, seeing that it was the police handler's fault for not taking care of the dog. Last that was on the news is that the guy is suing the city and cops for whatever reason i forgot.
In CA, you can only shoot someone if you had reasonably fear for your, or someone else, life. Simply being burgled doesn't count.
Yes, you can. How do you think slaughterhouses work you dumb shit? You think the cattle and chickens die of old age?
>torture or torment
Is not the same as blowing its brains out.
Someone breaking in isn't simply being burgled. It's your word against a dead man, he's in your house you have every reason to fear for your life. If you lose that case it's because you're a retard. It is certainly possible to lose that case, but if you have any lawyer and listen to them when they tell you to shut the fuck up, you will win.
Same here in Florida, but when it comes to animals abuse, it's 3rd Degree felony when its meets these requirements.
Intentional Animal Cruelty is defined as: “commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated
infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.” This is a 3rd Degree Felony with a fine up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment up to 5 years.
Also, fun fact. CCW holders can use lethal force to stop treason.
Not in Arizona. A dog is not considered property, nor is it deemed valuable life. Due to that, you can not legally or justifiably use deadly force against a human life to protect this animal.
however, circumstances could allow for mitigation, such as the impact that animals abuse had on you, especially if that animal was a service animal related to PTSD. Hint Hint.
Eh, it'd be very easy to argue you fear for your life because someone attacks/kills your dog, which would make killing them perfectly fine in AZ and almost every state. As long as your dog didn't just randomly attack them, you should be fine.
Now if you're a dumbass that raised a dumbass animal that attacks someone so they put it down, you're rightly fucked.
they are regulated by the state dipshit, you think slaughterhouses use guns to kill cattle and chicken? or do they use tools and practices that the state has deemed legal? lol if you think a normal person in the same realm of legality as a slaughterhouse.
>or kills the animal
yes the same as blowing its brains out.
You'd better hope the fucking DA will listen to your side of the story then. If there's a DA who will prosecute a guy shot a roadrager who followed him home and drove into the guys garage door, then there will be one who will hang you for shooting someone for just breaking in.
dogs are technically property, so no
however you have the right to defend yourself if he should attack you for defending your dog physically
just beat the shit out of him if he's attacking the pooch and when he throws a punch and you fear for your life you can shoot him
>In CA, you can only shoot someone if you had reasonably fear for your, or someone else, life. Simply being burgled doesn't count.
>§ Penal Code 198.5
>"Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."
For the non legalese speakers this means if the person unlawfully enters your home, regardless of what he has, what he is he doing, what he is wearing, if he gives up, you are automatically granted the benefit of being in reasonable fear of your life and can eliminate the intruder.
Don't be mad Cali has based self defense laws.
Not the latest article on it. Guy eventually got out of the charges, but not after having to fight it and having some good luck
>Clear self defense
>DA is on some sort of drugs and charges the guy for man slaughter
>Judge says naw
>DA takes it to grand jury, which says yes, hang this man's ass.
>Judge had to through it out for a second time
This guy was lucky that they judges weren't assholes who pulls shit out of their asses and tell people to do illegal shit (like in pena v cid).
yes, becuase clearly DAs and Judges in CA have been known to actually follow the rule of law
You're reading the legalese wrong dipshit.
It's torture or torment that kills the animal is animal cruelty.
Shooting an animal is neither torture nor torment.
> use guns to kill cattle and chicken?
Well yeah actually, I know for a fact they do. For cattle it's a pneumatic gun that sends a slug right into the brain.
>lol if you think a normal person in the same realm of legality as a slaughterhouse.
Yes, they are, legally. You getting a cow and shooting it is legally no different, except business licensing and bullshit like that, unless you intend to start selling a shitload of beef. Unless there's a codified legal exemption for those slaughterhouses, and there isn't in this case, you're no different from them.
look anon, I know you just really really wanna shoot up horses and chickens and shit, but why not go into service and shoot the real animals, nobody would care if you shot some ISIS niggas up
>yes, becuase clearly DAs and Judges in CA have been known to actually follow the rule of law
I cited my argument, now you cite yours, gives me some examples of cases where they failed to follow the law.
You seem to just be pulling made up shit out of your ass to cover for your btfoing.
>guy in San Francisco last year
>super drunk, gets off on wrong floor
>tries breaking into what he thinks is his apartment
>actual tenant shoots him dead because holy fuck there's some guy bashing my door down
>DA refuses to prosecute
21-5225. Use of force in defense of property other than a dwelling. [Amends K.S.A. 2010
A person who is lawfully in possession of property other than a dwelling, place of work
or occupied vehicleis justified in the use of force against another for the purpose of preventing or
terminating an unlawful interference with such property. Only such use of force as a reasonable
person would deem necessary to prevent or terminate the interference may intentionally be used
so probably, if necessary
Because I didn't just give two examples, one which a DA didn't care about the law and another in which the judge didn't care about the law (pena v cid, judge tells people to straw purchase in opinion)?
Go ahead and trust the CA judicial system if you want though. Sure, the majority will probably follow whatever written law (there's even the case in which the victim who shot the intruder basically executed the person, who claimed the be pregnant), but the case I brought up shows that not everyone is on that boat.
>21-5223. Use of force in defense of dwelling. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3212]
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it
appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to
prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon such person’s dwelling,
place of work or occupied vehicle.
but if he broke in this applies, so yes
I don't get it, Pena vs cid isn't self defense related.
I mean I DO get what you're saying about corruption and what not, but honestly that has nothing to do with the written word of the law, you made the claim it was about proving some kind of reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm, by the law. I showed you that was wrong, by the law. Throwing in speculation on corruption doesn't mean anything.
Kansas has castle doctrine. Anyone unlawfully entering your home, you can shoot.
Nigger is you stupid? Defense of property other than a dwelling? He's talking about shooting someone who breaks into his property.
This goddamn retarded thing
Though I wouldn't trust him to protect me against a wet sack of shit
looks like a Tabby Maine Coon, I got one too, had her for about uh 9 years. Bretty good cat, she'll come over to me from where ever she is in house if I snap my fingers a few times, shes pretty needy in cuddle department too so I feel ur pain
>retractable stealth claws invisible until deployed
>padded feet for extra grip and silent movement
>night vision for midnight those missions
>wears camo 24/7
Battle buddy rating 10/10
Not if he's attacking your dog, and not you. I think animal cruelty is just a misdemeanor, although the dog is technically your propert.
If he sends his dog after you or your dog, you can legally waste that dog.