bosstornado
New member
First off, let me begin by stating I love pooches (and cats) and wouldn't want to hurt one in a million years. I do however, value my own life and limb over that of an animal any day.
I live in Texas, and as far as I know there is no specific law justifying the use of force against a domestic animal. The only sections applicable are 42.092(d) which relates to "dangerous wild animals" only and (e) which only applies if the animal is injuring livestock or damaging crops. The only section I see that could be relevant is Sec. 9.22:
Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.
My question is, what exactly would constitute enough evidence to surmise that a dog was imminently going to cause serious injury? My concern has to do with dogs roaming at large (i.e, not restrained), would the mere fact that said dog approached an individual cause enough to deploy gunfire at the animal? I am aware that canine aggression typically manifests as barking, snarling, bearing teeth, etc. I am also aware of cases where unrestrained dogs approach a victim at a walking pace and then without warning begin an attack.
I live in Texas, and as far as I know there is no specific law justifying the use of force against a domestic animal. The only sections applicable are 42.092(d) which relates to "dangerous wild animals" only and (e) which only applies if the animal is injuring livestock or damaging crops. The only section I see that could be relevant is Sec. 9.22:
Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.
My question is, what exactly would constitute enough evidence to surmise that a dog was imminently going to cause serious injury? My concern has to do with dogs roaming at large (i.e, not restrained), would the mere fact that said dog approached an individual cause enough to deploy gunfire at the animal? I am aware that canine aggression typically manifests as barking, snarling, bearing teeth, etc. I am also aware of cases where unrestrained dogs approach a victim at a walking pace and then without warning begin an attack.