quote about legalities of defensive dog attack
Kyler Laird
from 100 Ways to Avoid Common Legal Pitfalls Without a Lawyer)...
Siccing a pet on a tresspasser can leave the animal's
owner liable for resulting injuries...even if the
trespasser is committing burglary or some other
criminal act. Legal principle: the violence
inflicted by an animal in the owner's self-defense
can't exceed what was needed to stop the intruder.
This would seem to be a good argument for training a dog for
protection (not attack); the dog should stop when the trespasser
does...
--kyler
David Austin
Here's a relevant comment from a recently re-posted article on
dogs and protection:
E. Legal issues: Suppose that your dog bites someone (a) who's
breaking into the house or (b) who's an assailant on the street.
What legal trouble might you face? State and local laws are
relevant here, but here are some general remarks from a police
officer/lawyer.
The first issue is where canine force falls within the use!of!force
continuum. .... Based on the amount of damage a large, aggres-
sive dog can/will do to a human, it is probably correct that canine
use of force should be considered lethal force ... at about the same
step as an impact weapon, but not as high as a firearm.
Fortunately for [most] folks ..., most lawyers haven't a clue about
use of force and won't analyze it correctly if they are contacted by
someone bitten by your dog. In home defense, the law generally
gives more latitude to the resident, and ... [the bitee] will have a
harder time winning a lawsuit. In the street, you may have a
slightly harder time, depending on the nature of the encounter, and
how well the bitee perjures himself. I think that criminal
prosecution would not be something to worry about, but that civil
litigation might result, and that is where the extra investment in
time and $$ to get a good quality dog is gonna pay off. It will
really pay if you have lots of friends and neighbors who regularly
interact with the dog and will be able to testify as to its peaceful
nature, tolerance for the abusiveness of 4 year old kids, etc.
Ayoob's book has many passages about the possible civil and
criminal consequences of use of force, and you should consider
them in some of your planning. ... If you have a large, aggressive
dog, you will have to walk it on a short lead all the time, just to
keep someone ... from claiming that the dog was loose and came
after them at random, without provocation, no matter how well
trained and tempered the dog is. ... [I]f a dog of that nature chews
on some lowlife, [s/he] ... will have some incentive to try to get
some $$ out of you, and may try, which is why I consider the cost
of a best quality dog to be a minimal investment.... The [bitee's]
ability to collect will also vary with the local legal climate; small
town/rural areas are not good climates for that sort of plaintiff.
Another lawyer believes that the preceding overstates the likely
legal trouble.
Check your homeowner's or renter's insurance policy. Some
companies may restrict coverage if you have certain breeds of
dogs at home.
Michael Sierchio
in a real-life violent encounter.
Get a copy of
_Dog Law_,
Mary Randolph
Nolo Press, Berkeley, CA 1988 & 89
Except where governed by statute, dog bites are covered under Common
Law, which favors the homeowner in the case of a felony burglary
suspect getting bit.
The following states have dog bite statutes, and in some cases they
define strict liability for the owner of a dog that inflicts a bite:
AL, AZ, CA, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, KY,
LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MT, NE, NH, NJ, OH, OK, PA, RI,
SC, UT, WA, WV, WI
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Sierchio 1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123 |
| ku...@netcom.com Berkeley, CA 94707-2116 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Charlie Sorsby
= Here's a blurb from Bottom Line Personal (which is paraphrasing
= from 100 Ways to Avoid Common Legal Pitfalls Without a Lawyer)...
=
= Siccing a pet on a tresspasser can leave the animal's
= owner liable for resulting injuries...even if the
= trespasser is committing burglary or some other
= criminal act. Legal principle: the violence
= inflicted by an animal in the owner's self-defense
= can't exceed what was needed to stop the intruder.
=
= This would seem to be a good argument for training a dog for
= protection (not attack); the dog should stop when the trespasser
= does...
"Using deadly force. A trial jury in Ravenna, Ohio,
recently returned a $200,000 award against a 53-year-old
man whose "warning" shot fired in the darkeness killed an
alleged barn burglar. A grand jury had refused to indict
Gene Davidson for the 1990 slaying, reported the Associated
Press, but the dead man's family brought civil suit. The
trial judge found the alleged burglar 25% to blame and
Davidson 75% responsible for the death."
Reprinted without permission from
the "Random Shots" column,
_American Rifleman_, August, 1993.
Even when you're innocent you may be guilty. I can easily imagine
the same situation with dogs. *Be careful*.
--
Best,
Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby "I'm the NRA!"
c...@lanl.gov
Pam Kernan
> define strict liability for the owner of a dog that inflicts a bite:
>
> AL, AZ, CA, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, KY,
> LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MT, NE, NH, NJ, OH, OK, PA, RI,
> SC, UT, WA, WV, WI
> --
According to one of the dog magazines I get, Colorado just passed
a law stating that dogs could only bite an intruder if they were
committing a felony. This means Colorado dogs are expected to
know the value of the items being taken from the house and must
be able to add, because the cost of what is taken in a burglery
determines whether it is a misdemeaner or a felony. I am NOT
making this up.
From what I have heard with people involved in bite cases with
criminals is that a lot of it depends on how much the owner
cares to defend the dog and the local area where the attack
happened. I know of a case in PA where a dog killed a man
trying to kill its master, the owner was terrified that dog
was going to be taken away for saving his life. When the
police came he asked what was going to happen to his dog. The
policeman patted the dog on the head and said "Good Dog, protecting
your owner, no charges." In another case where a dog either
severely injured or killed an person attacking the owner, the
dog was originally ordered put to sleep, the owner insisted on a
court hearing (which you have the right to have since the human is
charged not the dog), and the judge ruled that a dog can not determine
reasonable force.
In short, it is the owners responsibility to protect their dog from
the legal system. If you do not agree with what you are told or
if you feel the law is unjust, FIGHT IT. There are some attorney's
which specialize in protecting dogs. If your local court rules
against you appeal it.
Kyler Laird
>According to one of the dog magazines I get, Colorado just passed
>a law stating that dogs could only bite an intruder if they were
>committing a felony. This means Colorado dogs are expected to
>know the value of the items being taken from the house and must
>be able to add, because the cost of what is taken in a burglery
>determines whether it is a misdemeaner or a felony. I am NOT
>making this up.
Geez, be a little creative. All you need to do is teach the dog
to attack, then (once the intruder has stopped functioning)
retrieve the necklace in your bedroom for the intruder.
--kyler
Bill Chiarchiaro
Maybe I'm humor impaired regarding this topic. Anyway, there
weren't any smilies. Just to make it clear that this _should_ have
been a joke:
224z
Putting the necklace in the hand of the intruder whom your dog just
killed is another version of the old piece of bad advice:
"If you shoot a burglar outside your house, just make sure you drag
the body inside before the police arrive."
It is possible for the investigators to detect that you have
tampered with the evidence. You would then likely face a charge of:
1) Manslaughter, because you wantonly employed deadly force when
it was not justified, realized your mistake, and then tried to
cover your tracks.
or
2) First-degree murder, because you committed an unjustified
homicide and covered your tracks in a manner which you had
previously recommended to friends, posted to a newsgroup, etc. In
other words, premeditation existed.
Bill Chiarchiaro
w...@ll.mit.edu