chickenlaw vs. doglaws or out-laws??

Date sort Score sort
I just wanted to point out that I don't think the OP literally meant the swat team was at her door. I think she meant it to describe the seemingly excessive number of officers rather than a special unit.

Unfortunately, the animal cruelty laws are such that you are pretty much guilty of cruelty if you use tactics that cause pain as a deterrent (aside from an electric fence). So shooting the dog dead for harassing/killing livestock is perfectly legal. Shooting a dog with a bb or pellet gun, not so much.
 
Im sorry but your wrong. I was holding a gun inside of my house today which is 100% legal nothing at all wrong with that, but if at that moment a swat team came through the door they would have killed me without any hesitation, there trained to kill not to negotiate.
 
Well, I am technically a lawyer since I went to law school way back but don't practice law.

I have read quite a few animal cruelty cases so I know what to do to minimize the chances of being in a situation such as yours.

The first thing I would do is edit your posts/profile so there isn't enough information to give your identity away. Use a different name/location, leave out some details...enough so you have plausible deniability.

In all the animal cruelty cases I read, the two overwhelming reasons people ended up being charged were 1) admitting what they did to the police (or a witness) and 2) being seen by a witness committing the act.

In #1, most of the people don't realize how ridiculous animal cruelty laws are and that their actions were technically illegal. The police will often tease a confession out of them by being sympathetic.

They'll say something like, "Those cats sure can scratch the hell out of your truck" or "My dad use to shoot dogs that chased livestock on our farm" to get them talking about what they did.

Don't EVER confess to the police. You'd be surprised how many people fold when the police tell them they have a witness or physical evidence.

Here, they may tell kimberly that ballistics has linked the BB to her BB gun and expect a confession. Really? Let my lawyer see that ballistics report.

In one case I read, two roommates were having a domestic dispute regarding their cats. The police were called and the roommate that called them went down to the ground level to talk to them. While they were talking, that roommate's cat goes splat on the pavement in full view of everyone. The police go upstairs and arrest the other roommate. It's clear from the geometry of the building that the cat most likely didn't jump of its own accord. The police ask him if he threw the cat but he just smiled and said nothing. He was acquitted because even though he was the only person in the apartment and it was highly unlikely the cat jumped, no one actually saw him throw the cat. He also didn't confess to the police. The overall conviction rate would probably drop by something like 50% if people simply didn't confess to police on the scene.


Personally, I believe the best strategy is not to confront people about their nuisance animals. People these days are just not rational about their pets and if they let them roam it's because they believe their pet has a "right" to be free or that it's too difficult to contain them effectively or containing them would mean that they would have to put up with more of their nuisance behavior and would rather have the public deal with their pet's noise, feces, and property destruction. So few pet owners will actually effectively contain their animals that it's not worth talking to them and putting yourself on the radar. As for the law, you have to make a decision whether to play it by the book or SSS. Often, SSS is the only effective option and when you've complained to the pet's owners or animal control, you're automatically a person of interest if anything bad happens to the pet. In this situation, the dog's owners knew who to report to the police--most likely because she complained to them about their dog.

I think this case is a good example of why complaining to the pet's owners accomplishes nothing other than making you the prime suspect.


Regarding this specific case, there are apparently no witnesses and if the gun was in fact a BB gun then it most likely was shooting a steel ball out of a smooth steel barrel which means it'll be next to impossible to get any forensic evidence. With a pellet rifle, the lead pellets will have rifling marks that may be unique to the barrel but I've heard of cases where the pet's owners were told that they don't do air rifle pellet forensics. Any findings might be subject to scientific/statistical challenge since there's only one bullet forensics paper that even mentions air gun pellets that there really isn't an established method for pellets.
 
and i was quite serious about a swat team. of about 8 "eight police officers" searched my home!!!
 
I just watched the news video. It seems quite clear who's side the media is taking.
sad.png
Hopefully most people will see how irresponsible the dog owners have been. Their claims of previous shootings, poisoning, and relocation of the dog clearly shows it has been outside of their control/property multiple times.

You are very fortunate that you were not charged for animal cruelty. Next time, document every incident and report them to animal services, the police, and maybe the news station (since they are already involved). If you need to deal with the dog again, follow the law. Shoot to kill as required.
 
The requirement to use deadly force sounds like some kind of urban legend. It's probably spun off of the notion that shooting to wound a person in defense of a person implies one wasn't really afraid for one's life. As far as I know, this is no more than armchair legal speculation that's been bandied about concealed carry forums on the 'net for years. Remember, the law is much different when dealing with taking a human life to save another human life than when dealing with property.

You really have to look at the state's animal cruelty laws. The Texas statute, for example, has a definition of animal cruelty that would include shooting-to-wound but it also states that protecting livestock is a defense to charges of animal cruelty. There's no requirement to use deadly force. I'm a bit too busy to look up CA's statute but if they have a protecting livestock exception it's probably similar to Texas.
 
Quote:
No, the law actually states that the intent must be to kill the animal "killing or worrying" your livestock. It allows for accidental wounding while attempting to kill but is very specific about requiring intent. The wording varies from state to state so it really is a good idea to look up the law where you are.

I can't find find the link I saved on Florida law right now.
hmm.png
 
Last edited:
If Charger was their beloved pet they would make sure he was at home.
JMHO.
I have eight dogs and none of them have been shot with a BB gun. Because I make sure they stay on my property.
We did have a stray show up (he now lives here) with two BB's in him (seen them on x-rays).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

annabobbob717
    • Like
What killed my hen?
Replies
2
Views
710
McChooky
McChooky
L
    • Like
    • Love
Cornbread rat cure
6 7 8
Replies
72
Views
5K
MROO
MROO
alwaystj9
    • Sad
lost a brown leghorn hen & 4 chicks to a snake (warning, dead hen pix)
Replies
9
Views
737
Betsy57
Betsy57
M
    • Sad
    • Like
4th of july masacre
2 3
Replies
22
Views
1K
afarhat
afarhat
P
    • Sad
What has attacked my chicken?
Replies
2
Views
513
NewcoopNewpoop
N

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom