Animals Like This Deserve To Be In Cages

[CharlotteLace]

While I can't speak for Violet's region, I highly doubt my state would shrug off a fatal mauling, even though we also have laws protecting guard dogs and sheepdogs doing their job. I know we kind of have "cowboy law" here, but I find it hard to believe a jury in my state would consider a protection dog killing a person to stay in the realm of self-defense. (I don't mean if the dog happens to crack the guy's skull on the ground, but more along the lines of a drawn-out "time to eat you" sort of attack).

That being said, I'm actually looking into training our future big dogs to bite and hold the intruder (as a police dog would). That way I know the attacker is secure and contained while I wait for police/other witnesses to arrive. All joking about dog food aside, I'd rather have my dogs bite an intruder and hold him down, rather than watch a person get his throat ripped out. As long as I'm sure the threat is contained, I really don't see needing to add more violence to a hostile situation.

This makes me wonder, though... Where do we draw the line between adequate defense, and excessive or vigilante violence? How should we define "excessive," since it's so subjective? How should the courts decide what's an appropriate response and what's overkill? Should somebody shoot for the knee, or take greater action to make sure the threat is completely eradicated? Here's another thought- if you lean towards disabling an attacker instead of killing him, would you be worried he'd sue you later for his injuries?

 

[BlueViolet]

While I can't speak for Violet's region, I highly doubt my state would shrug off a fatal mauling, even though we also have laws protecting guard dogs and sheepdogs doing their job. I know we kind of have "cowboy law" here, but I find it hard to believe a jury in my state would consider a protection dog killing a person to stay in the realm of self-defense. (I don't mean if the dog happens to crack the guy's skull on the ground, but more along the lines of a drawn-out "time to eat you" sort of attack).

I don't know my state's law on a fatal mauling, but I do know that the law is very clear here that if a person trespasses on private property (that is adequately gated, protected, etc.) that the trespasser cannot hold the owner liable at all. Now, if my gate was unlocked, I'd be liable 50% of the damages, I believe, but if my gate is locked with signs, I will not be liable for an attack.

I've also considered training for detaining as opposed to outright attacking, we'll see. Hopefully the trespasser can run fast back over the fence.

This makes me wonder, though... Where do we draw the line between adequate defense, and excessive or vigilante violence? How should we define "excessive," since it's so subjective? How should the courts decide what's an appropriate response and what's overkill? Should somebody shoot for the knee, or take greater action to make sure the threat is completely eradicated? Here's another thought- if you lean towards disabling an attacker instead of killing him, would you be worried he'd sue you later for his injuries?

My concern would not be them suing so much as revenge, to be honest.

Maybe I am a bit callous, but if I am a female living in the middle of nowhere with another female, our safety is #1. I am planning on getting into security dog training as well as service dog training and I would make sure that my dogs could distinguish against say a child and a large man most likely wielding a gun.

I wouldn't necessarily wish for my dogs to fatally maul anyone and I would like to train them to give ample warning, preferably running them back to the fence so they could make a jump, but I can't say that I would have much sympathy regardless. If there intentions are to trespass, it is most likely to hunt on my land or worse, and if they plan on hunting they could easily end up shooting my children or nephews who like to play in the wooded trails. Or myself and wife.

Things like that happen. And dogs are shot all the time on their owner's land by hunting trespassers and I won't have that either.

 

[Brad]

I want to point out that none of what I have discussed has anything to do with any newer type of stand your ground laws. I don't even think we have that in our state. This is an old and basic principle of law that if you are threatened by an intruder on your property then you can legally use deadly force. This is nothing new at all. People have legally killed in self defense for ages. And there is a ton of misinformation out there too. As I said before, just last year I sat on the grand jury and cleared a couple. They shot the guy in their house but he died on the front lawn. So that old "drag him back in the house" crap is total BS too.

As are most "cases" of an intruder hurting himself and suing. Yes I am sure it has happened once or twice (no need to race to Google) but so has people dieing from falling into volcanoes. Logic does prevail in most instances and also many times a suit is brought and gains media attention because it's outrageous but then it's never discussed when a judge later tosses it out of court due to lack of legal merit. That part usually isn't so news worthy.

Now as far as gun use goes there is no such thing as shooting to wound. That is something shown on TV and movies just like asking if anyone objects during a marriage ceremony. There is a reason that the shooting range targets are not pictures of peoples knees. This isn't TV where you just grab a gun and start shooting either. IF, and this is a huge IF, I shoot at someone it is because I or my family is in immediate danger. It's him or me and I will make damn sure it isn't me. If you are in close range then it will be a head shot. If not then a chest/belly shot is most likely.

If you know one, ask a policeman about this. They are not trained to shoot to wound and many laugh when you even suggest it. (if you know them well you may learn a lot more too) But none of this matters if you don't break into someone's house and try to harm them. In the end I will always want the bad guy to lose and the good guy to win. And if that costs the bad guy their life then so be it.

 

[CharlotteLace]

I want to point out that none of what I have discussed has anything to do with any newer type of stand your ground laws. I don't even think we have that in our state. This is an old and basic principle of law that if you are threatened by an intruder on your property then you can legally use deadly force. This is nothing new at all. People have legally killed in self defense for ages. And there is a ton of misinformation out there too. As I said before, just last year I sat on the grand jury and cleared a couple. They shot the guy in their house but he died on the front lawn. So that old "drag him back in the house" crap is total BS too.

As are most "cases" of an intruder hurting himself and suing. Yes I am sure it has happened once or twice (no need to race to Google) but so has people dieing from falling into volcanoes. Logic does prevail in most instances and also many times a suit is brought and gains media attention because it's outrageous but then it's never discussed when a judge later tosses it out of court due to lack of legal merit. That part usually isn't so news worthy.

Now as far as gun use goes there is no such thing as shooting to wound. That is something shown on TV and movies just like asking if anyone objects during a marriage ceremony. There is a reason that the shooting range targets are not pictures of peoples knees. This isn't TV where you just grab a gun and start shooting either. IF, and this is a huge IF, I shoot at someone it is because I or my family is in immediate danger. It's him or me and I will make damn sure it isn't me. If you are in close range then it will be a head shot. If not then a chest/belly shot is most likely.

If you know one, ask a policeman about this. They are not trained to shoot to wound and many laugh when you even suggest it. (if you know them well you may learn a lot more too) But none of this matters if you don't break into someone's house and try to harm them. In the end I will always want the bad guy to lose and the good guy to win. And if that costs the bad guy their life then so be it.

I was asking more hypotheticals than anything else, as everybody has different limits for their self defense, and I was curious.. Without giving too much info about myself, let's say there's quite a few police in and around my circle of friends and family, and I've grown up with them. Personally, I'd rather use my dog as my first defense to a trespasser, but if I have to draw, I will take out my attacker.

Just wanting to see where others stood.

 

[Jupiter551]

While I can't speak for Violet's region, I highly doubt my state would shrug off a fatal mauling, even though we also have laws protecting guard dogs and sheepdogs doing their job. I know we kind of have "cowboy law" here, but I find it hard to believe a jury in my state would consider a protection dog killing a person to stay in the realm of self-defense. (I don't mean if the dog happens to crack the guy's skull on the ground, but more along the lines of a drawn-out "time to eat you" sort of attack).

I don't know my state's law on a fatal mauling, but I do know that the law is very clear here that if a person trespasses on private property (that is adequately gated, protected, etc.) that the trespasser cannot hold the owner liable at all. Now, if my gate was unlocked, I'd be liable 50% of the damages, I believe, but if my gate is locked with signs, I will not be liable for an attack.

I wasn't referring to the dog and the intruder randomly meeting out in a field somewhere alone, I was assuming you would be there either ordering the dog(s) to keep going or ordering them to stop. As I said, I've no idea about your laws but in MANY places the difference between ordering your dogs to kill him, and ordering them to stop (and the dogs ignoring you) would be the result: in the first instance you'd likely be charged with something and the dog would be destroyed as dangerous, in the second you might not be charged, but the dog would certainly be destroyed. In the second instance you might be able to claim the dog was defending you (in fact I'm sure you could, and I'm glad), but if you're present and able to control the dog it is presumed that perhaps you were able to judge when the intruder was subdued enough to call the dog into a guard mode?

But that said, if your dog did run into an intruder out in the fields alone and killed him or her do you honestly believe that wouldn't be considered a dangerous dog and destroyed? HAHAH!

 

[BlueViolet]

I wasn't referring to the dog and the intruder randomly meeting out in a field somewhere alone, I was assuming you would be there either ordering the dog(s) to keep going or ordering them to stop. As I said, I've no idea about your laws but in MANY places the difference between ordering your dogs to kill him, and ordering them to stop (and the dogs ignoring you) would be the result: in the first instance you'd likely be charged with something and the dog would be destroyed as dangerous, in the second you might not be charged, but the dog would certainly be destroyed. In the second instance you might be able to claim the dog was defending you (in fact I'm sure you could, and I'm glad), but if you're present and able to control the dog it is presumed that perhaps you were able to judge when the intruder was subdued enough to call the dog into a guard mode?

But that said, if your dog did run into an intruder out in the fields alone and killed him or her do you honestly believe that wouldn't be considered a dangerous dog and destroyed? HAHAH!

I never said that I believed the dog wouldn't be put down as dangerous. Unfortunately, that is a risk I know I will have to take with the dog being an actual guard dog and not just a house pet. I was bringing up the point about whether or not I would be held liable for the death of an intruder on my property at the hands of my dogs.

I would most likely not know if my dogs had run off or killed an intruder, to be honest. I plan on buying at minimum 100 acres, the more I can afford at the time the more I will get, and well over half, if not at least 80% will be wooded. The intruder is most likely trespassing by jumping the fence to hunt. My dogs will most likely smell him or take notice of him soon after that fence is jumped and I will not be aware of what those dogs decide to do. I'd imagine the only time I'd find out if something like that actually happened was if the intruder's car was parked by my property and he was assumed missing and police went through my property to try to find him or something.

But the probability of my dogs actually killing someone on my property is small, most likely they would injure or even gravely injure the intruder, but even injuring the trespasser wouldn't get them deemed as a dangerous dog if it's on my property.

 

[AedanRayne]

I started to respond with how pig headed many of you are being but decided it's just not worth my time. It's a damn shame that this forum is constantly a war zone these days but I suppose that's how all forums evolve... you get your cliques and then they butt heads, to the hardest degree. It's sad, really. I feel for Amber because it must not be easy to keep the peace when so many are this stubborn. Good luck, Amber. I really don't know how you deal with all of these tantrums.

EDIT: My apologies... I read Amber's post *after* writing this one and will leave ya'll to your regularly scheduled program. G'day.

 

[Jupiter551]

I started to respond with how pig headed many of you are being but decided it's just not worth my time. It's a damn shame that this forum is constantly a war zone these days but I suppose that's how all forums evolve... you get your cliques and then they butt heads, to the hardest degree. It's sad, really. I feel for Amber because it must not be easy to keep the peace when so many are this stubborn. Good luck, Amber. I really don't know how you deal with all of these tantrums.

EDIT: My apologies... I read Amber's post *after* writing this one and will leave ya'll to your regularly scheduled program. G'day.

Please stick around the public forum Aedan, your presence makes it a better place.

 

[bawksy]

It's a damn shame that this forum is constantly a war zone these days

I challenge anyone to find two male members of these forums who are at war with each other. And I don't mean the occasional bickering or snarky debate.

 

[southsamurai]

im at war with jupe, but he just ignores me so thats okay lol, its a war of attrition on my part. eventually i will wear him down and lull him into a false sense of security with multiple thanks to his posts and then... FLAME ON! ill go all human torch on his hind end while he stumbles around struggling to find a witty retort or two in his back pocket, only to discover i picked that pocket, took his retorts, wallet and a test tube. and then, then when he least expects it GIANT BRO HUG! boom! i run out the door, leaving him flabgbergasted, confused and feeling slightly molested from the quick pinch on his ass before i let go.

cuz thats how i roll.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I was in a war of sorts with LeonTrotsky. But he finally annoyed enough other people to get banned.

By 'war' I mean I told him I hated his fucking guts then put him on ignore status. Short lived war in reality.

 

[Brad]

Hell, I can agree and disagree with the same person, at the same time, but on different threads. The few people I haven't liked have been banned so others didn't like them much either. Other then that I like everyone here even if I don't agree with you. I am just passionate about my beliefs and can be a stubborn SOB. But I do come from a long line of bastards if that helps.
:lol:

 

[BlueViolet]

Hell, I can agree and disagree with the same person, at the same time, but on different threads. The few people I haven't liked have been banned so others didn't like them much either. Other then that I like everyone here even if I don't agree with you. I am just passionate about my beliefs and can be a stubborn SOB. But I do come from a long line of bastards if that helps.
:lol:

100% how I feel.

 

[Bocefish]

Happy to report the animal was caught and faces charges of attempted murder, robbery, burglary and child endangerment.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/caug ... 1PGjYdVzgP

 

[Red7227]

It's a damn shame that this forum is constantly a war zone these days

I challenge anyone to find two male members of these forums who are at war with each other. And I don't mean the occasional bickering or snarky debate.

Exactly. We have fundamental disagreements about really important shit that will tend to flare up fairly regularly, but i believe that everyone on this forum are good people, many of whom have exceptionally nice tits and epic asses.

 

[AedanRayne]

It's a damn shame that this forum is constantly a war zone these days

I challenge anyone to find two male members of these forums who are at war with each other. And I don't mean the occasional bickering or snarky debate.

Exactly. We have fundamental disagreements about really important shit that will tend to flare up fairly regularly, but i believe that everyone on this forum are good people, many of whom have exceptionally nice tits and epic asses.

:lol: People of the forum being good human beings was never in question. I believe the majority of people on this forum have good hearts. I only wish that people were more understanding of each other and less stubborn.

BUT heeeeeeyyoooooo Aedan, welcome to the Internet.

My other point being... Amber is awesome, incredibly patient and puts up with a lot of shit. She should be given a million dollars and a helicopter.

 

[Bocefish]

Go figure... NEWARK, N.J. – The man charged in a northern New Jersey home invasion and beating that were captured on a nanny cam has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder, robbery, burglary and child endangerment.

 

[Red7227]

Go figure... NEWARK, N.J. – The man charged in a northern New Jersey home invasion and beating that were captured on a nanny cam has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder, robbery, burglary and child endangerment.

Seems fair if only he walked in her open front door, beat her senseless and didn't take anything. There is a really big WHY? that has not been answered yet.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Go figure... NEWARK, N.J. – The man charged in a northern New Jersey home invasion and beating that were captured on a nanny cam has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder, robbery, burglary and child endangerment.

Always the best bet. If the lawyer can get the tape thrown out of evidence on some technicality there's half the battle won already.

 

[Bocefish]

It's not as if he has anything to lose by pleading "not guilty." Prisons are full of people who said they didn't do it. Scary part is a rare few of them are telling the truth.

 

[lexmark402003]

While I'm fine with having guns in the house, I much prefer to depend on our dogs for alarm and protection. We have one small dog that barks at anything he hears outside, and one large shepherd that's quiet, unless he's pissed. I know the big guy would defend us in a dangerous situation, and while our gun is loaded, it's in our bedroom in the gun safe, making it less accessible than a dog who knows how to maneuver to get to an attacker.

Not only that, but in my state, dogs are actually a more legal form of home defense than a firearm. Colorado has a "stand your ground" law, meaning it's within your legal right to shoot an intruder if they've broken into your dwelling and you believe they intend to do you harm.

The laws vary widely by state. Here in Texas, you have the right to shoot any creep who breaks into your home without having to ascertain his intent. Criminals know the law. If they are breaking into your house at 3 a.m., whether to commit rape, murder, or to rob the place, they know the homeowner has the right to shoot them.

Seems pretty reasonable to me. If you don't want to get shot, don't break into other people's houses.

I have an alarm system, locks, security lighting, and dogs. If, for some reason, those don't deter the creep, I have a compact shotgun that will prove an extremely effective deterrent.

It seems to me that if a criminal breaks into your home at 3 AM, that criminal should lose the right to complain if the homeowner harms him as he's committing a crime.

 

[Rose]

It seems to me that if a criminal breaks into your home at 3 AM, that criminal should lose the right to complain if the homeowner harms him as he's committing a crime.

This seems like common sense to me. :lol:

If you violate someone else's rights like this, you lose your right to piss and moan.