Last Friday evening at 6pm I rushed two dogs at the end of my 300 ft driveway that were mauling one of my cats. They continued the attack as I approached not being scared away until I was within 30 ft. As they pulled away, I saw that my cat and their mouths were bloody. I quickly pulled my revolver and fired one shot at the closest dog. I missed and they ran up the road. Better aim next time maybe. Would you have shot? ...Part of the reason I did was a past incident where a neighbor was killed by 3 loose pitbulls when they could have been stopped by another neighbor.

If it had been my cat, you damn right I would have shot that dog. In my area (not sure about anybody elses) if a dog is attacking an animal that belongs to you or a person you're allowed to shoot.

But yes, I would have. How is you cat doing now?

I like cats.....

ALF likes cat juice.

One of the basic tenets of proper firearm use is that you only shoot to stop an immediate threat. You say that the dogs had let go of your cat and were pulling away, so the answer is "No", I wouldn't have fired. Had they not stopped on my approach, then yes.

Shooting them after they stopped is simply revenge and anger.

After its all said and done, who's gonna know? :lildevil:

I would have fired the second I saw the dogs mauling the cat. I've shot to protect a pet before.

Definitely.

One of the basic tenets of proper firearm use is that you only shoot to stop an immediate threat. You say that the dogs had let go of your cat and were pulling away, so the answer is "No", I wouldn't have fired. Had they not stopped on my approach, then yes.

Shooting them after they stopped is simply revenge and anger.

Under Alaska law you are under no obligation to retreat from a threat if it is lawful for you to be where you are. Even if the offender is moving away from you but is still perceived as a threat such as going for help, going to a vehicle for a weapon, or circling for an atack from another direction you can still nail them, even in the back. All that's required is for you to feel threatened. The state legislature made damn sure that we were'nt going to have these lawsuits and prosecutions where a criminal is suing somebody because they got themselves shot in the commission of a crime. On top of that even before the current law was passed it was impossible for a DA to get a conviction from a jury trial against somebody defending themselves. I was on a jury where a guy was on trial for ADW and we turned him loose because he was doing a public service. The only thing we were unhappy about was that he didn't kill the SOBs.

Under your theory if the bear stops chewing on you to take a breath you've got to stop shooting at him.

How about one shot fired in the air? If that doesn't work, start aiming.

Under Alaska law you are under no obligation to retreat from a threat if it is lawful for you to be where you are. Even if the offender is moving away from you but is still perceived as a threat such as going for help, going to a vehicle for a weapon, or circling for an atack from another direction you can still nail them, even in the back. All that's required is for you to feel threatened. The state legislature made damn sure that we were'nt going to have these lawsuits and prosecutions where a criminal is suing somebody because they got themselves shot in the commission of a crime. On top of that even before the current law was passed it was impossible for a DA to get a conviction from a jury trial against somebody defending themselves. I was on a jury where a guy was on trial for ADW and we turned him loose because he was doing a public service. The only thing we were unhappy about was that he didn't kill the SOBs.

Under your theory if the bear stops chewing on you to take a breath you've got to stop shooting at him.

Florida is the same way, but I was referring to proper use of a firearm, not local law.

There are so many things that can go wrong when you fire a weapon (ricochets, innocent bystanders, etc) that you should only pull the trigger if it's your only choice. Making the decision to fire once the immediate threat is gone simply increases the possibility that an already defused situation will get worse again.

If a bear stopped to take a breath while chewing on me the threat is still there, therefore I shoot. If a bear roars at me but then backs down and walks away there is no reason for me to empty a clip at him, especially considering the bullets could hit a nearby camper or ricochet back at me.

How about one shot fired in the air? If that doesn't work, start aiming.

That bullet will come down somewhere. Better for it to end buried in your target.

In this case I firmly support gun control: Use both hands.

Been there, done that. Exact same scenario, except one dog is now dead, the other had a large hole through both lungs but took off. I can only assume the thing died on the run. Both dogs were strays, dumped by some city idiot that didn't need the animal any more.........

BUT, not in closely packed housing or without a clear view of what's behind the target. A shot into the ground at close quarters is enough to get attention quickly, but if the dog charges you, shoot it.

I despise cats, but you have to protect your pets.

I don't think cats should be left to run around off a leash any more than dogs should in neighborhoods.

I will not say I would not shoot a dog who was attacking my pet, it would depend upon the situation. But there are other alternatives before the firearm. I would probably use the shotgun though.

Out by my grandparent's house in Rochelle, IL if a predator animal is seen attacking livestock or a personal pet you are required to shoot it by law. You then have to take the body into town and they test it for diseases such as rabies.

I don't think cats should be left to run around off a leash any more than dogs should in neighborhoods.



Ive never heard of someone being mauled by a cat unless they were teasing it pretty bad, but even then its a 10 pound cat not a 75 pound dog. people get mauled by dogs becuase a lot of dogs can be very protective or just plain mean and don't like people.

Ive never heard of someone being mauled by a cat unless they were teasing it pretty bad, but even then its a 10 pound cat not a 75 pound dog. people get mauled by dogs becuase a lot of dogs can be very protective or just plain mean and don't like people.


Have you ever heard of free roaming cats getting into fights with other animals and causing injury, digging through peoples garbage and leaving messes, unregulated breeding generating large populations of feral animals, or damaging their automobile paint jobs with scratch marks ?

Almost any "pet" left to roam free can cause problems, it just depends upon the animal as to what they can do.

A bunch of loose p***y running around can ruin any town.

Wolves pretty much take care of the stray pets.

A bunch of loose p***y running around can ruin any town.


Well if that's the issue, I know who to call...

oxBo3zKY01M&feature=related

[quote=I~LUV~Caddys8792;1561260]Well if that's the issue, I know who to call...

This should have been followed up with a picture of me.

Wolves pretty much take care of the stray pets.

Yeah, in California the coyotes take care of strays and pets in yards too! In Virginia rabies is a constant threat from feral cats and dogs and natural wildlife, so letting your pets run free is not advisable under any circumstances. Also in Virginia a pet owner who lets his pet run free and it attacks someone is subject to a jail term once the dog has been cited as a vicious animal.

Well I have varying thoughts on the issue myself. I fired while it fled due to previous dog attacks / human death on my block. I wish I hadn't beacause (as Tony Show mentioned) there was a small touch of anger & revenge involved. Nevertheless, both dogs are still alive, my cat isn't, and the dog owner just brought a card and payment for the Vet bill. In all irony, both of my Great Danes greeted her outside of the fence when she came up the driveway. Next time I'll have my pistol in hand as a last resort as I kick the Dogs half to death.

What some people don't realize is a loose dog has the potential to do whatever it wants to you. My friend and I were walking once and a big ass dog fiercly barking at us decided to hop the shitty fence that failed to restrain it, and came charging at us. This thing was growling, bared teeth, and was about to leap judging by it's movements. Split second decision, I kicked it in the face (mouth?) with my boot and we bolted.

I'm not into kicking dogs, but I'm very much into the intact state my limbs are in. After we slid back into my friend's house, she and I both agreed my reaction was justified. That dog wanted blood......

.................................................. .....................Part of the reason I did was a past incident where a neighbor was killed by 3 loose pitbulls when they could have been stopped by another neighbor.

Were they the same animals attacking your cat that had attacked and killed humans in the area ?
Im guessing not. Im guessing that those pit bulls are no longer there.
If thats the case, then the justification for shooting at someones roaming pet because they are in conflict with your roaming pet, really doesnt wash. (Cats and dogs are natural enemy's. Always were and always will be).

But if they were the same dogs (pit bulls) that you had mentioned. Then you should have killed them on the spot.

Many people let there cats roam. Many in the neighborhood dont appreciate cat feces and urine in there gardens and kids sand boxes.
Some people let there dogs roam and many dont appreciate the same as mentioned above.

Do you know where the confrontation originated ? Did the dogs chase the cat from there territory to back to Its .....Or did the dogs find your cat already on its home ground ?

If one individual is willing to let its pet roam free within the neighborhood; then they should not be upset when others do the same.
Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

I will ask again....was it the same dogs that killed a human that was attacking your cat ?
I dont understand why some feel its okay for them to do and or allow certain things but get quite upset when others also believe they should be able to do the same.

Why is it, that If I attempt to bring my Boxer into a department store, Im "immediately" told to leave......Even though Ive seen others in the same store with Terriers and such ? There is no difference. My dog is as passive, if not more, then most of any size (larger or smaller).

When I was younger, when I was a child; We had a Siamese Cat that used to kick the crap out of the German Shepard that would continually infiltrate our yard/ Its property.
But on the same note...many of the neighbors hated that cat because it was always roaming and doing what it did on there property.

I have cats and dogs now. And I dont let any of them roam. I have neighbors though that dont have the same respect.
Trust me when I tell you....Its very very irritating to be woken up in the middle of the night because someones cat is out side ones yard howling. Or to find cat feces in your garden. To smell the urine, and come to the conclusion, that the reason for all the time and money that you have invested in a flower garden is dying...is because of an irresponsible pet owner.

Your cat is allowed to roam free. But I do not appreciate your cat on my property. So I put tainted bait on my property to kill your cat.
I will ask you...Seeing as you also have no control over your pet..would it not be ok for me to also attempt to kill yours if on my property ?

Your question is missing some info for anyone to give the correct answer. And that info is whether or not the dogs that attacked your cat were the same ones that you said already killed someone.

Cats against dogs is natural. Almost sounds like though that you are a person against dogs..... PERIOD......

Tell ya what....If a dog is attacking your wife, child, friend, neighbor, or total stranger for that matter.....just rampaging and unprovoked viciousness.......then by all means shoot the thing..................
..........................
But if its your roaming pet thats against anothers roaming pet...I dont feel that its right to say that its ok for mine to be natural and free but not yours.

The answer to this question is really rather simple and obvious. Instead of reacting with violence (remember, violence begets violence), you must try to understand the misguided actions of these poor dogs through kindness and respect. Perhaps, they come from deprived backgrounds without benefit of both parents. They could have been sent on the wrong path in life by video games, music,TV or movies. They may not have been able to afford proper nutrition and were simply looking for food for their families. As youths, they probably fell in with the wrong crowd and might have become members of some lawless gang because they did not have the advantages that your pet was given. By capturing the dogs and dealing with their problems with understanding and compassion you will rehabilitate them rather than kill them. Giving the poor things a chance at a better life through mentoring is the obvious way to handle this.
Don't call me a bleeding heart liberal. If everyone would use reason and do what is good and right for all living creatures, the world would be such a happy place....How could anyone disagree?

The answer to this question is really rather simple and obvious. Instead of reacting with violence (remember, violence begets violence), you must try to understand the misguided actions of these poor dogs through kindness and respect. Perhaps, they come from deprived backgrounds without benefit of both parents. They could have been sent on the wrong path in life by video games, music,TV or movies. They may not have been able to afford proper nutrition and were simply looking for food for their families. As youths, they probably fell in with the wrong crowd and might have become members of some lawless gang because they did not have the advantages that your pet was given. By capturing the dogs and dealing with their problems with understanding and compassion you will rehabilitate them rather than kill them. Giving the poor things a chance at a better life through mentoring is the obvious way to handle this.
Don't call me a bleeding heart liberal. If everyone would use reason and do what is good and right for all living creatures, the world would be such a happy place....How could anyone disagree?

You keed....you keed....but srsly this is symptomatic of what's wrong with this country nowdays. :suspect:

How about one shot fired in the air? If that doesn't work, start aiming.

Firing rounds into the air is reckless discharge, and extremely unsafe. Each bullet that leaves your gun has big time liability attached to it. It's best to know exactly where each round ends up. Legally speaking, you are not obligated to fire warning shots or use less-than-lethal force against an attacker (regardless of species) when you are in fear for your life or the life of another.

Of course! Poor cat.

Always save the last round for yourself.

I have 3 children. Two dogs on my property IS a threat. Attacking a cat I own or a tree I own or one of my children it doesn't matter. I would have made sure of the area I am firing into and beyond and fired until the "threat" was removed. IF I missed and they retreated for an attack another day you ask? I maneuver to a better firing position and finish the job. If the animals retreated to property I could not fire into safely? I would wait until I have secured where these animals live and kill them seriptitiously. Threat removed from my children/animals/property and the entire roaming range of these two obviously dangerous animals who belong to careless/equally dangerous owners. owners. The carcasses would be placed in an easy to see vantage point for said idiot owners. GOD help the owners of ANY animal who attacks and injures or kills a family member of mine. A similar fate would surely not be far away.

Go ahead and raise/buy/own one of these attack animals. Let it get loose and hurt one of my kids? I promise said owner shall regret thier lapse in judgement.

Alot to read, will read tomorrow.:alchi:

Wow X, if I lived next to you the only pets I would have are fish.:yup:

Wow X, if I lived next to you the only pets I would have are fish.:yup:
Sharks in your moat?

With laser beams on their heads.

Damn fish! They better be freshies or they pose a THREAT!


Dude, the dogs were on his property attacking one of his pets. Not defending themselves after they had harmlessly wandered into another dogs territory. These were dangerous animals, that roamed freely into his yard and wantonly attacked a tiny creature with obvious intent to do grievous harm or worse. The owners should not have allowed this situation and are COMPLETELY liable.

I would also like to state that a dangerous individual I caught on my property doing grievous harm or worse would recieve the very same treatment. Much like the stepfather and uncle of that 12 year old little girl you see in the news. They are a threat to the safety of my children and should be put down and removed from society. They and ALL others like them are a threat to everyone's safety and have NO place in a free society. I would happily provide the bullets, gun and donate my time to put these animals down like they should be. How a free society can sit back and allow these pigs to walk freely among us is beyond my comprehension. Then everyone is shocked and stunned that another innocent child is missing and found raped and killed. Who could have done such a thing? Geee I wonder? Society is shocked and stunned yet stands there and does nothing. I propose death by public stoning. Yes, I will cast the first stone and likely the second and so on...

Never fire into the air. :thepan:

It comes down somewhere.

I would have shot them and said they growled and turned on me.

OT, hat's off to the guy in Texas for protecting his neighbors property.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5291506&page=1

Scratch a couple of low lifes.:highfive:

Never fire into the air. :thepan:

It comes down somewhere.



How am I supposed to take dove, quail, grouse, pheasants, ducks and geese with my shotgun then? How am I supposed to take that squirrel that's up in the tree or the deer on top of that ridge?

It's not about shooting into the air, its about knowing what's behind it and being smart about it. Shooting into the air isn't a bad thing if there's nothing within range to hit. If you're in the middle of the f'ing desert and you can see five miles and you shoot a couple of magazines in the air for S&G, no harm, eh.

(just being :devil: advocate here...in the OP's situation, it would most likely have been a poor idea)

The context was firing into the air as a warning shot.

I always thought the warning is your gonna shoot if they don't comply.

Ok if your hunting (DUH) and you know your backdrop and the fact that birdshot doesn't go a mile or more.

c'mon, give me some credit Spy.

Hey, ya never know! The place I'm moving to in a week or two, I COULD fire a warning shot towards about 315 degrees of the 360 available. I'm going to have a 200 yard shooting range off of my front porch. I would be able to safely fire a warning shot into the air in that situation, if the neighbors dogs were attacking my cat.

Sure, go on and tell us about how you would fire a warning shot.......:rolleyes:

Yea, but I spelled would with a C. And it'd probably be a half inch in diameter, since that is my most accurate quick-to-fire by the door rifle that is out of the safe and ready to go...

Bye bye doggie.

I would shoot the dog for sure.

Never fire into the air. :thepan:

It comes down somewhere.

I would have shot them and said they growled and turned on me.

OT, hat's off to the guy in Texas for protecting his neighbors property.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5291506&page=1

Scratch a couple of low lifes.:highfive:

You gotta love Texas. :D

I have personally told my neighbors NEVER to risk their lives for my personal property. It's wiser to get a description of the perps, their vehicle, and be a good witness to the police. I don't own anything worth getting killed over.

Eh...MOST of what is mine isn't worth getting killed over...and the things that are can't be carried away in a perps vehicle. So, yea, I guess I agree with what you're saying...

This is the text of an email I sent to this clown in regards to his article.:

"I would like to tell you that I have held a person at gunpoint (twice), and the reason I didn't pull the trigger (it was the same person and he returned) was that I live in Calif and I would have been charged because the police in the area I live are worthless.

I would have felt no problem at all if I lived in Missouri or Texas.

My point is that you make the incident a national conscious quandary when it is really a matter of which state you live in.

Researching the law, I found that if his neighbor had requested him to look after his property while he was away, he is treated the same as the owner with a right to defend the property IN TEXAS.

I would assume that his neighbor did the same for him when he was away.

Did the guy get lucky because he blew up a couple of low lifes?

I will bet it would have been different had it been a couple of neighborhood teenagers, but it wasn't."

Link to article:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/01/roland.martin/index.html?iref=newssearch

I have 3 children. Two dogs on my property IS a threat. Attacking a cat I own or a tree I own or one of my children it doesn't matter. I would have made sure of the area I am firing into and beyond and fired until the "threat" was removed. IF I missed and they retreated for an attack another day you ask? I maneuver to a better firing position and finish the job. If the animals retreated to property I could not fire into safely? I would wait until I have secured where these animals live and kill them seriptitiously. Threat removed from my children/animals/property and the entire roaming range of these two obviously dangerous animals who belong to careless/equally dangerous owners. owners. The carcasses would be placed in an easy to see vantage point for said idiot owners. GOD help the owners of ANY animal who attacks and injures or kills a family member of mine. A similar fate would surely not be far away.

Go ahead and raise/buy/own one of these attack animals. Let it get loose and hurt one of my kids? I promise said owner shall regret thier lapse in judgement.

Ive seen cats attack children as well.
Again I will ask....who's to say that the cat wasnt on the dogs property first ?
Who's to say the dogs didnt chase it back home ?

To say it is ok to shoot some ones pet that is roaming free while attacking yours that you also let roam free ?!?!?!

Just for the fact that they are roaming free and the owners are irresponsible ? If its ok to let your kids and pets roam free but its not ok for me to do the same ?????

This guy has his pet roaming free.
That other guy does it too.
Its ok for me but not ok for you ?????

If you dont like roaming pets then that is fine. But no way can you get pissed of if your letting yours roam.
Talk about The Pot calling the Kettle Black. That is just sooo dumb.

BTW: Ive actually woken up in the morning to others children at my back patio door teasing my dog. Ive even had my dog tied up in the back yard on a very short lead and noticed children teasing her from a short distance.
And when talking to the parents about it they seemed to think that I had a problem. So does that then give me the right to let my 130 lb dog roam free through the neighbor hood. Would that then give them the right to shoot my dog if on there property.

And if so...would that then not give me the right to shoot there freaking kids during the same situation on my property ????

Put down the freakin gun and get a grip on reality. We havent yet gotten to the point of Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority. I at least hope that were not LOL

This guys roaming pet gets into a scrap with other guys roaming pet..............So now people want to start pulling out guns ?????

I dont get it.
It sounds like there is something seriously wrong with what we call the structure of the civilized world.

Ive seen cats attack children as well.
Again I will ask....who's to say that the cat wasnt on the dogs property first ?
Who's to say the dogs didnt chase it back home ?

To say it is ok to shoot some ones pet that is roaming free while attacking yours that you also let roam free ?!?!?!

Just for the fact that they are roaming free and the owners are irresponsible ? If its ok to let your kids and pets roam free but its not ok for me to do the same ?????

This guy has his pet roaming free.
That other guy does it too.
Its ok for me but not ok for you ?????

If you dont like roaming pets then that is fine. But no way can you get pissed of if your letting yours roam.
Talk about The Pot calling the Kettle Black. That is just sooo dumb.

BTW: Ive actually woken up in the morning to others children at my back patio door teasing my dog. Ive even had my dog tied up in the back yard on a very short lead and noticed children teasing her from a short distance.
And when talking to the parents about it they seemed to think that I had a problem. So does that then give me the right to let my 130 lb dog roam free through the neighbor hood. Would that then give them the right to shoot my dog if on there property.

And if so...would that then not give me the right to shoot there freaking kids during the same situation on my property ????

Put down the freakin gun and get a grip on reality. We havent yet gotten to the point of Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority. I at least hope that were not LOL

This guys roaming pet gets into a scrap with other guys roaming pet..............So now people want to start pulling out guns ?????

I dont get it.
It sounds like there is something seriously wrong with what we call the structure of the civilized world.



I doubt you'd care, but the OP was defending his pet from vicious attack, and would have been justified in using deadly force to protect his pet. His grip on reality is quite firm, as are that of those of us who would have fired. Thank you for yet another unwanted sermon.

So does that then give me the right to let my 130 lb dog roam free through the neighbor hood?

No

Would that then give them the right to shoot my dog if on there property?


Yes

And if so...would that then not give me the right to shoot there freaking kids during the same situation on my property ????


If their kids posed a credible threat, yes.

And if we're still voting - In the OP's situation, with a clear sightline, I'd have ventilated both dogs and dumped the bodies in the street to keep the mess off my property. Without a clear sightline I'd be hooking them up with a Prestone cocktail on their next return trip.

I doubt you'd care, but the OP was defending his pet from vicious attack, and would have been justified in using deadly force to protect his pet. His grip on reality is quite firm, as are that of those of us who would have fired. Thank you for yet another unwanted sermon.

Forgive Murphyg, there is nobody more sanctimonious than a reformed whore.

Forgive Murphyg, there is nobody more sanctimonious than a reformed whore.

koz, good to read your posts again.:alchi::bonkers:

Ive seen cats attack children as well.
Again I will ask....who's to say that the cat wasnt on the dogs property first ?
I dont get it.
It sounds like there is something seriously wrong with what we call the structure of the civilized world.

I'll say the cat wasn,t on the dog's property first. The dogs live 1/4 mile away. My neighbor witnessed the entire attack as it began in my driveway. And, if her husband was home, he might have killed the dogs from 500 yds before I knew what was up.
Of course you don't get it, you're from Canada. I'll be in Ontario this week, what other common sense do I need to leave at home?
BTW, I love dogs. I have two rescue dogs at the current time and have taken in others previously.

Cats attacking children and the dogs retaliated?...dogs chased the cat back after first being attacked?(I am assuming this was an unprovoked and savage attack) I will tell you I was in tears from laughing at the first few lines but then saw it was meant to be serious...well, to tell you the truth. I had not thought of that possibility. Then again the cat could have been verbally assaulting the "two" dogs to the point where they had lost thier ability to restrain themselves.

Again. If "you" as an owner of an animal. Allow said animal to roam freely and it harms another person/child? "You" WILL be held responsible. "IF" it happens to be a child of "mine" "You" will be held responsible directly to "me".

Kids taunting your dogs? A beating offence for sure but sadly not allowed in this day and age. Were I to find out one of "my" children harmed or taunted "anyone's" animal? They would be cleaning up after said animal and taking care of it's yard or pen for an undetermined amount of time.

...after a beating.

Just think what F would have done to those dogs...I shudder to think. LOL

Shudders or joy, anticipation or fear?