Jump to content

Dog on Dog attack


taekwondotony34

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

 

I am new here so I apologize if this is not the right form to post this question, but I was wondering what the law is on defending your dog from another dog, as well as yourself from a dog while in public. I was recently in my first situation that I ever even had to consider pulling my gun in public.

 

Here is the situation that I was recently in:

 

I was dog sitting/house sitting for a friend of mine and was taking dog for a walk in the local neighborhood (carrying my firearm and spare mag as I typically do when in public and legally allowed to do so) when a mother and her daughter were walking two other dogs across the street (both larger then the dog I was caring for). The dogs lock eyes with each other, bark at each other, etc. I am able to get the dog that I am caring for to break off it's attention on the other two dogs and continue to walk the dog away from the other two dogs.

 

As I continue to walk I hear a loud barking coming from the other side of the street (it sounds much closer this time) and I look over to see that the daughter has lost control of the dog that she was walking and this dog is now heading right toward me (lease in tow) and the dog I am caring for, barking at the dog I am caring for. The dog I am caring for notices the other dog coming towards us and stands her ground. The other dog approaches, sniffing the dog I am caring for and they both then begin to bark aggressively towards each other at which point I attempt to maneuver the dog I am caring for away from the situation unsuccessfully. The other dog then bit the dog I am caring for at least one time. I shout out something along the lines of "Hey!" and successfully get the other dog's attention off of the dog I am caring for and the dog then looks at me, approaches me, and begins to show its teeth, growling at me. At this point I place my hand on my firearm, but do not unholster it. The dog I am caring for then regains the other dog's attention and they continue to be aggressive towards one another.

 

I continue to attempt to maneuver the dog I am caring for away from the situation which then causes the dog I am caring for's collar to come off and she then runs away from the other dog, taking shelter between some bushes and a house across the street from where we were. The other dog pursues the dog I am caring for when she runs away, and I then follow after them, attempting to regain control over the dog I am caring for. Luckily the other dog respected the barrier that the dog I am caring for placed between them (the bushes), but then approaches me. I place my left hand out so it can sniff (as when it is approaching me it no longer appears aggressive) but I have my hip turned and right hand on my firearm, the dog sniffs my hand and stands near by me until the mother arrives. A bystander was able to take the lease of the dog that the mother was still holding on to so that she could come and gain control over her dog. She did apologize for the incident and explained that her dog had never done anything like this before and had never bitten another dog before.

 

Luckily the dog I am caring for was okay, no bleeding or tissue damage.

 

What I am wondering about this situation is a few things:

 

1. If the dog had attacked me at either point would I have justified in using my firearm?

2. While the other dog was attacking the dog I am caring for would I have been justified in using my firearm to protect the dog I am caring for provided that I had a clean shot in that situation?

3. Would I have justified while the other dog was attacking the dog I am caring for to have shot in the grass next to me in hopes that the sound would have scared the other dog away from the dog I am caring for and hopefully from me as well?

4. If I had been carrying a baton at the time of this incident (something that I am going to be adding to my EDC soon) would I have been justified in using it against the other dog while it was attacking the dog I am caring for?

 

I apologize for such a long post but wanted you all to have the information about the situation as it happened and I want to thank anyone who responds in advanced!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Yes, you may use lethal force to defend yourself against a threat of imminent death or serious harm.
  • No, dogs are property. You cannot use lethal force to defend property in Illinois.
  • No, not only would that be an unjustified use of lethal force, most DAs would want you charged with attempted manslaughter. You're responsible for every bullet that leaves your muzzle. If you're not trying to stop an aggressor, you couldn't guarantee the bullet or a ricochet wouldn't kill someone unintentionally. Plus discharging a firearm within city limits would be another criminal charge against you (depending on the location and city ordinances). "Warning" shots are illegal virtually everywhere in the US. More bizarre is that warning shots are actually required in some other countries. Welcome to America. Don't pull the trigger unless you intend to destroy whatever is located where you're aiming (including paper targets).
  • Maybe, but probably not. Lethal force is lethal force. It doesn't matter if it's not a gun. Failure to control an animal may be a criminal violation in your city. Otherwise, damage to the dog is a case for a civil suit.
There was an extensive discussion of this issue recently. Digging through old posts will reveal a spectrum of answers. If there are actual lawyers among us, they're keeping it quiet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with Euler on this one. The Justified Use of Force statute has a provision for using lethal force in protection of persons, abode, and property other than abode. You can use lethal force in protection of a pet but must take in consideration the risk of firing an errant shot, ricochets, etc. and of course the random exuberant state attorney who might be looking to prosecute someone for using a firearm in defense of property.

 

You do not have to standby and watch a helpless pet be mauled or killed.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19429&page=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with Euler on this one. The Justified Use of Force statute has a provision for using lethal force in protection of persons, abode, and property other than abode. You can use lethal force in protection of a pet but must take in consideration the risk of firing an errant shot, ricochets, etc. and of course the random exuberant state attorney who might be looking to prosecute someone for using a firearm in defense of property.

 

You do not have to standby and watch a helpless pet be mauled or killed.

The statute for defense of property (other than dwelling) still has the requirement for protecting someone (a human someone) from commission of a forcible felony. Is a spontaneous dog-on-dog attack a forcible felony?

720 ILCS 5/2-8. "Forcible felony".

"Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molly and Euler bring up good points that you'd be justified using deadly force in defending yourself or another person from an animal attack to prevent great bodily harm or death.

 

Defending your dog (property) against another dog (someone else's property) opens up a lot of gray area. However both seem to agree the stakes may not be in your favor depending on the state's attorney that gets your case if you use deadly force to defend your property against someone else's property.

 

That being said, my honest opinion is to carry pepper spray/gel for dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So after a little digging, I found the Illinois Animal Control Act, parts of which are:

510 ILCS 5/16. Animal attacks or injuries.

If a dog or other animal, without provocation, attacks, attempts to attack, or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself or herself in any place where he or she may lawfully be, the owner of such dog or other animal is liable in civil damages to such person for the full amount of the injury proximately caused thereby.

 

510 ILCS 5/18.

Any owner seeing his or her livestock, poultry, or equidae being injured, wounded, or killed by a dog, not accompanied by or not under the supervision of its owner, may kill such dog.

 

510 ILCS 5/18.1.

The owner or keeper of a dog is liable to a person for all damages caused by the dog pursuing, chasing, worrying, wounding, injuring, or killing any sheep, goats, cattle, horses, mules, poultry, ratites, or swine belonging to that person.

Most of it had to do with licensing dogs and testing them for rabies. Despite the Act having an extensive definition section, it does not define "livestock." Personally, I doubt "livestock" includes family pets. I suspect it would be limited to the sheep, goats, cattle, etc. listed in section 18.1.

 

BTW ratites are ostriches and emus. I find it a little bizarre that Illinois ostrich ranchers made sure their livestock was protected from dog attacks by statute. So if you're out walking your ostrich around the neighborhood and an unleashed dog attacks, feel free to defend your ostrich with lethal force. It still seems to me your pet dog has no such statutory protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a dog were to viciously come after my dog with me walking it, I would definitely have reason to believe that dog would cause great bodily harm to myself.

 

However in your situation or even a version of your situation where it was escalated further, I don't think I would have. I'm a dog person so it's tough to envision.

 

The question I would have is does any action you take cause your legal standing to change. Like in your situation because the two dogs went at it and you tried to stop them which resulted in the dog coming after you. Would you still be justified? Or did you escalate a dispute between two pieces of property?

 

Everyone always says their dog never does that. My dog got bit when I lived out on the west coast, lady said the same thing, but didn't offer to drive me and my bleeding dog to the vet or provide information. A run home and $500 later he's fine, but man was I pist when I found out from others this was the second time that dog had done it at that park. Keep your dog on a leash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molly and Euler bring up good points that you'd be justified using deadly force in defending yourself or another person from an animal attack to prevent great bodily harm or death.

 

Defending your dog (property) against another dog (someone else's property) opens up a lot of gray area. However both seem to agree the stakes may not be in your favor depending on the state's attorney that gets your case if you use deadly force to defend your property against someone else's property.

 

That being said, my honest opinion is to carry pepper spray/gel for dogs.

On the bold, this is equivalent to cops using a taser on someone high on PCP. Entirely ineffective. I once hit a pitbull in my car at 50+. Had a kid with me and figured it would be a good teaching moment to call police and let them know. When they showed up they had to put him down due to having no tags and being between two corn fields. The pit took 3 rounds from the cops .40 before expiring. Pepper spray I doubt would have had much effect on a mad dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the the discussions in this thread which focus on the use of deadly force are misapplying the Illinois use of force saute. The provisions of ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION apply to the use of force against another person not against an animal.

 

I am not a lawyer. There got that out of the way. Let's see the case history in Illinois of the courts ruling against someone using deadly force against a dog attacking a person or another animal.

 

To say the law protects the use of force when the attacker is a person but says one must stand by and watch another dog viciously attack and possibly kill one's pet does not seem to be proven in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's property vs property regardless of the statute one wishes to use to justify the destruction of one or the other.

 

I have since the last time this came up, had another thought on the matter.

 

While one cannot apply "deadly force" per the statute to property, the act of discharging a firearm may be construed to be a use of force in that if the force is inadvertently applied to a person, the act would most assuredly be considered a UoF, and unjustified at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you "heel" you dog while walking it your dog will be next to you. I would find it hard to know when a dog is charging the two of us which one of us is the intended target of the attack. Fearing I'm about to experience great physical harm I think I would be justified in shooting the attacking dog. The biggest issue I have with shooting the dog is hitting a moving (bouncing) target that is closing on me at speeds up to 30 mph may not easy. If the attacking dog got loose from someone odds are that dog is making a straight line from its handler to me. In which case rule #3 comes into play and I would be hesitant to shoot out of fear of missing Fido and hitting Dumbo (the person behind the dog). Not that the person that lost control of a mean/vicious dog doesn't deserve shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think the the discussions in this thread which focus on the use of deadly force are misapplying the Illinois use of force saute. The provisions of ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION apply to the use of force against another person not against an animal.

 

I am not a lawyer. There got that out of the way. Let's see the case history in Illinois of the courts ruling against someone using deadly force against a dog attacking a person or another animal.

 

To say the law protects the use of force when the attacker is a person but says one must stand by and watch another dog viciously attack and possibly kill one's pet does not seem to be proven in court.

 

Not at all what I was saying. The use of force statute as it is taught and applies to to concealed carry is an "exoneration" or guilt of certain crimes against persons i.e. murder or aggravated assault. The first sentence of each sections contains the phrase "use of force against another." I am simply suggesting that since shooting a dog is not a crime against a person, the exoneration provided by the use of force statute does not apply.

 

I believe that shooting a dog or other animal that is attacking a pet or livestock as referenced above simply does not constitute "use of deadly force" as it applies under the statute. The issue in the scenario as was originally posted is the proximity of people. Shoot an miss striking a person may result in criminal and/or civil charges.

 

Dog attacking my dog in my back yard with no person around I am going to shoot the attacking dog. Dog attacking my dog and the attacker is on a 3' lead with a 5 year old on the other end is a completely different issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a lawyer. There got that out of the way. Let's see the case history in Illinois of the courts ruling against someone using deadly force against a dog attacking a person or another animal.

 

To say the law protects the use of force when the attacker is a person but says one must stand by and watch another dog viciously attack and possibly kill one's pet does not seem to be proven in court.

It's true that I don't know of a case in Illinois that went to court, but I know of one in California that I think we could extrapolate. (Yeah, I know: California....)

 

A concealed carrier was walking around his neighborhood. He came upon a mother and small daughter. The daughter was being attacked by a pit bull. The mother, daughter, and dog were all unknown to him. The mother was trying to get the dog off the daughter, but the dog wasn't having that. The concealed carrier shot and killed the dog. The dog owner was nowhere to be seen.

 

Under Illinois law, use of lethal force is justified to defend yourself and others. In California, use of lethal force is justified to defend yourself, close family members, and invited guests in your home. The little girl was none of those things. The concealed carrier was charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits.

 

The prosecutor eventually dropped the charges (probably to save himself the negative press), but dropped charges are not an acquittal or a ruling of justification. The dog owner sued the concealed carrier for the replacement cost of the dog. Because the concealed carrier was guilty of a crime (unlawful discharge), he was not immunized against the civil suit. The lack of a conviction was irrelevant. The dog owner won.

 

Also, because the concealed carrier was guilty of a crime, USCCA did not cover his legal expenses in either the criminal or civil proceedings, nor did it cover the civil liability judgment against him. Again, dropped charges are neither an acquittal nor a ruling of justification.

 

This guy was saving a human life not covered by justified use of lethal force and he got jammed up. I have to believe saving a dog's life could get you at least as jammed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This very question was asked in the class portion of my CCL training and both instructors agreed that shooting the attacking animal was justifiable and they were both ISP retired officers, I think anytime a

 

Person uses a firearm to protect themselves or their loved ones ( in this case a dog ) opens themselves up to being sued in civil court, question is are you going to be thinking about getting being sued or

 

protecting yourself . I don't think there is any difference between shooting an attacking person or an attacking dog, using my firearm could put me in a jam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a lawyer. There got that out of the way. Let's see the case history in Illinois of the courts ruling against someone using deadly force against a dog attacking a person or another animal. To say the law protects the use of force when the attacker is a person but says one must stand by and watch another dog viciously attack and possibly kill one's pet does not seem to be proven in court.It's true that I don't know of a case in Illinois that went to court, but I know of one in California that I think we could extrapolate. (Yeah, I know: California....)A concealed carrier was walking around his neighborhood. He came upon a mother and small daughter. The daughter was being attacked by a pit bull. The mother, daughter, and dog were all unknown to him. The mother was trying to get the dog off the daughter, but the dog wasn't having that. The concealed carrier shot and killed the dog. The dog owner was nowhere to be seen.Under Illinois law, use of lethal force is justified to defend yourself and others. In California, use of lethal force is justified to defend yourself, close family members, and invited guests in your home. The little girl was none of those things. The concealed carrier was charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits.The prosecutor eventually dropped the charges (probably to save himself the negative press), but dropped charges are not an acquittal or a ruling of justification. The dog owner sued the concealed carrier for the replacement cost of the dog. Because the concealed carrier was guilty of a crime (unlawful discharge), he was not immunized against the civil suit. The lack of a conviction was irrelevant. The dog owner won.Also, because the concealed carrier was guilty of a crime, USCCA did not cover his legal expenses in either the criminal or civil proceedings, nor did it cover the civil liability judgment against him. Again, dropped charges are neither an acquittal nor a ruling of justification.This guy was saving a human life not covered by justified use of lethal force and he got jammed up. I have to believe saving a dog's life could get you at least as jammed up.
In Illinois, the justification of Necessity should have protected the shooter from Unlawful Discharge in the example above. It was necessary to violate a lesser law (unlawful discharge in city limits) to prevent a greater injury (the child being mauled/disfigured/potentially killed).

 

A dog is not a person. Shooting a dog is destruction of personal property, possibly cruelty to animals. If you are protecting yourself or another person, or your personal property (your dog), shooting the attacking dog should be justified.

 

Of course you must do so safely, without placing others in danger. Otherwise you could be charged with Reckless Discharge or Negligent Discharge of a Firearm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Illinois, the justification of Necessity should have protected the shooter from Unlawful Discharge in the example above. It was necessary to violate a lesser law (unlawful discharge in city limits) to prevent a greater injury (the child being mauled/disfigured/potentially killed).

Doctrine of necessity is a criminal defense, not a civil defense, and even then not a guaranteed one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Illinois, the justification of Necessity should have protected the shooter from Unlawful Discharge in the example above. It was necessary to violate a lesser law (unlawful discharge in city limits) to prevent a greater injury (the child being mauled/disfigured/potentially killed).Doctrine of necessity is a criminal defense, not a civil defense, and even then not a guaranteed one.
Correct, it is an affirmative defense to the criminal charge of discharging a firearm in city limits. Usually that is just a city ordinance violation around here, but it's still a criminal charge.

 

The fact that the shooter lost a civil case brought by the owners of the aggressive dog is a pity. But it is hard to believe that he lost a civil suit because of criminal charges that were never proven, of which he was not convicted. But I'd believe almost anything coming out of California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you may use lethal force to defend yourself against a threat of imminent death or serious harm.No, dogs are property. You cannot use lethal force to defend property in Illinois.No, not only would that be an unjustified use of lethal force, most DAs would want you charged with attempted manslaughter. You're responsible for every bullet that leaves your muzzle. If you're not trying to stop an aggressor, you couldn't guarantee the bullet or a ricochet wouldn't kill someone unintentionally. Plus discharging a firearm within city limits would be another criminal charge against you (depending on the location and city ordinances). "Warning" shots are illegal virtually everywhere in the US. More bizarre is that warning shots are actually required in some other countries. Welcome to America. Don't pull the trigger unless you intend to destroy whatever is located where you're aiming (including paper targets).Maybe, but probably not. Lethal force is lethal force. It doesn't matter if it's not a gun. Failure to control an animal may be a criminal violation in your city. Otherwise, damage to the dog is a case for a civil suit.There was an extensive discussion of this issue recently. Digging through old posts will reveal a spectrum of answers. If there are actual lawyers among us, they're keeping it quiet.
Try this one...use of deadly force is against another person. Is shooting a dog that is attacking you, or even attacking your dog (or a dog in your care) even considered using deadly force? If you kill the dog, you wouldn't be facing murder charges.

 

The justified/unjustified thing is a whole different question, but I thing arguing about the use of deadly force statutes here is wrong-headed.

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After digging around on the Internet for a while, here's my latest take on killing a dog attacking another dog.

 

Illinois law provides a privilege to kill any dog that is worrying, wounding, or killing certain other animals.

510 ILCS 5/18.

Any owner seeing his or her livestock, poultry, or equidae being injured, wounded, or killed by a dog, not accompanied by or not under the supervision of its owner, may kill such dog.

There is no explicit definition for livestock, but it seems likely to me that it would be limited to the animals listed in the accompanying section.

510 ILCS 5/18.1.

The owner or keeper of a dog is liable to a person for all damages caused by the dog pursuing, chasing, worrying, wounding, injuring, or killing any sheep, goats, cattle, horses, mules, poultry, ratites, or swine belonging to that person.

DogBiteLaw presents the following argument based on California law.

If a dog comes into your backyard and is killing your pet rabbit, you cannot kill the dog and claim a privilege under [the California statute that lists types of livestock], because rabbits are not listed. However, your fault (if any) for killing the dog would be compared with the fault of the dog owner. While you would not be entitled to claim a privilege to kill, a jury might decide that you nevertheless acted reasonably, or that the dog owner was principally at fault.

In other words, it would still come down to a jury trial, but the jury might decide in your favor. I still don't think Illinois has any case law on point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dealt with a similar situation 3 weeks ago. A 70 year old neighbors 110 lb Pit Bull knocked the latch off the gate right after we passed by their house. Before we knew that it had opened the gate, it came up from behind us and latched onto my dog's neck. After repeated kicks to its head and the trading of bites, I could not get it off of my dog. The dogs owner was useless at getting control of his dog and at that point, I drew my G19 and raised to fire. The only reason I didn't fire was because the owner stepped in between the dog and I and dropped himself onto the dog as I kicked it again and it finally stopped. After I got home, I called 5 Chicago Police Officers that I know and explained what had happened. They all said that if I had fired, they wouldn't have taken me into custody and that the Crook county States Attorney hasn't filed charges against a few people that have shot dogs for attacking their dogs. I know that my experience sets no precedent but just throwing what happened out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the the discussions in this thread which focus on the use of deadly force are misapplying the Illinois use of force saute. The provisions of ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION apply to the use of force against another person not against an animal.

^this

 

The bar for using lethal force against an animal is much lower. Basically just make sure you don't put people or property at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...