If your dog kills someone while protecting you from death does it need to be put down

[Abrams]

If the dog didn't I would have to love the castle law

[ghostkitteh]

To answer the title of your thread; no. Hell no. If they try to put my dog down for killing someone in my self defense they will have to kill me first.

That sounds about right. I don't believe it'd have to be put down in Pennsylvania though, but I'm not sure.

[Friendlychap]

In the dogs world as a follower, all threats are left for the alpha to deal with. If the alpha dies or becomes weak after an attack a new dog takes over the alpha roll or if it is a rogue dog (or human) the follower will accept the new person/dog as their pack leader.

A dog that defends you, is not literally defending you because it loves you. It is defending you because it considers you it's property. It is the alphas roll to defend against threats, a follower is to stay out of the way.

This is how it works. When a dog takes the "leaders" roll it is automatically considered a dangerous dog. Yeah your dog might have done a great job in those circumstances of defending against an actual threat. But now your dog has a history of taking the alpha roll. What happens next time a little girl on a bike comes past and your dog once again assumes alpha roll and decides the girl is a threat to it's property/territory (property being YOU, and territory being YOUR home)

[jaykaywhy]

Sorry for the extremely long title but my friends and I were having an argument over this!

Say your in your back yard and someone attackes you with intention to kill you(Motive does nto matter) he comes at you with a knife; you push him and he falls down. With the knife out of this hand your dog tears his throat and kills him. So will the country or province/state make you put your dog down?

So I personally think that this should be treated as self-defense as your dog was protecting you from dying. I think the dog does not need to be put down(Unless he tastes blood and for whatever reason starts attacking people at random). So does anyone know if there is a law in Canada or the United States that says if your dog kills someone while defending you from death needs to be put down?

I see you're from Canada, so this may not be the same for you;

but in most US states, if not all, a person is allowed to deadly physical in self-defense of themselves or a third-person if he or she is in reasonable fear that the other person is using, or about to use, deadly physical force.

Some states add a duty to retreat, some states (like Florida!) have no duty to retreat, if the defendant knows for certain it can be made safely. I can't speak for other states, so I'll just speak for New York--

New York, while placing strict liability for dog attacks, also looks at the conduct of the victim, and what the victim did, if anything, to provoke the attack. I don't agree with the assessment that it depends on whether the dog mauled the person or just did the bare minimum. That standard may apply to humans, but animals act out of instinct, not necessarily reason.

Because the victim initiated the attack, and assuming the dog has had no prior violent history, the dog should be given a medal, not a needle.

edit: without reading much case law on the subject, I'd predict the proceedings to hinge on whether the dog has had a violent history or not, and the defendant would bear the burden of proof to show that the dog is not a threat to society. Basically, the owner/defendant would need to show that "but-for" the victim's actions, the dog would not have acted the way it did.

[Sinndra]

something that prolly needs to be considered also.. does your property have a "BEWARE Guard Dog" warning sign on the property? some laws also consider homes without warning signs clearly posted to be similar to that of carrying a concealed weapon. having a sign like this would also help pleading the case.. "Hey Mr Judge.. i posted a sign.. the assaulter failed to regard this sign... his fault not mine (or the dogs in this case). he WAS warned."

[Confirm Deny]

What if the dog was a wolf and the guy it attacked was a prince?

Then who cares, you've got four more.

With the given example? If the dog wasn't pretty much already on the guy in the time frame where you disarmed your assailant then you will probably have problems defending the dog.

I'd say it would actually help the dog's case more if the dog was the one doing the disarming, obviously. Should be more mindful of where you put your trained attack dogs if you're prone to people engaging you in knife fights, mate =P

[wvx]

Nope ,
10 chars

[Taurous]

The dog would most likely be put down because dogs don't know where to draw the line. Your best buddy could punch you in the arm and your dog could go berserk after and experience like that.

[Ironhorn]

Well if the criminal is physically hurting you and the dog has no history of violence the dog may get off but it really depends on the area you live and the breed of dog.

A pit bull for example would have no chance in almost all cases because of bad PR.

[Jodah]

I'm against putting a dog down in the vast majority of bite cases. It's usually caused because some little shithead kid pulls the dog's fur and/or tail because their lazy parents aren't watching them. The dog defends itself and suddenly it is evil and has to be put down. Unless the dog snaps for no reason, I am against putting it down.

---------- Post added 2012-05-02 at 05:03 AM ----------

I see you're from Canada, so this may not be the same for you;

but in most US states, if not all, a person is allowed to deadly physical in self-defense of themselves or a third-person if he or she is in reasonable fear that the other person is using, or about to use, deadly physical force.

Some states add a duty to retreat, some states (like Florida!) have no duty to retreat, if the defendant knows for certain it can be made safely. I can't speak for other states, so I'll just speak for New York--

New York, while placing strict liability for dog attacks, also looks at the conduct of the victim, and what the victim did, if anything, to provoke the attack. I don't agree with the assessment that it depends on whether the dog mauled the person or just did the bare minimum. That standard may apply to humans, but animals act out of instinct, not necessarily reason.

Because the victim initiated the attack, and assuming the dog has had no prior violent history, the dog should be given a medal, not a needle.

edit: without reading much case law on the subject, I'd predict the proceedings to hinge on whether the dog has had a violent history or not, and the defendant would bear the burden of proof to show that the dog is not a threat to society. Basically, the owner/defendant would need to show that "but-for" the victim's actions, the dog would not have acted the way it did.

Actually it would be up to the prosecution to prove that the dog had a history of bad behavior in the US. It falls under their burden of proof. Defendants never have to prove their innocence, prosecutors have to prove guilt.

[Bearshield]

What if the dog was a wolf and the guy it attacked was a prince?

Guess that prince should have been taught better manners than to break into my house!

As to the original question, the dog is defending his person/pack bottom line and should absolutely NOT be killed. I don't know where our society became so screwed up that defending your home and family against an intruder became grounds for legal action against the homeowner but that is apparently where we are today. If someone breaks into your home and points a weapon at you and you hurt them, they can sue. Should they be able to? Hell no, but that's apparently where our legal system is today.

---------- Post added 2012-05-01 at 11:25 PM ----------

I'm against putting a dog down in the vast majority of bite cases. It's usually caused because some little shithead kid pulls the dog's fur and/or tail because their lazy parents aren't watching them. The dog defends itself and suddenly it is evil and has to be put down. Unless the dog snaps for no reason, I am against putting it down.

Agree completely. Convenient how the media always downplays what led up to the dog biting though to make the dog look "dangerous".

[Powerogue]

I'd file that under self defense too. Tweak the situation, make the person who came to your aid your brother. I would presume he wouldn't get murder charges.

[Deleted]

Wait, so you disarm the person from the weapon and THEN kill him? Pretty sure that will get you charged with a crime and your dog put down, as it should.

I don't see nothing wrong with it. If someone comes at you with a weapon and an intention to kill you then the only way to neutralize them is to render them unconscious and tie them up or kill them.

If something like this happened to me and I would somehow manage to temporarily disarm them, what is wrong with me dog attacking him? He'll be up in 5 seconds and then I'd be dead. I couldn't fight a grown man, being a woman.. but even if I was a man, I shouldn't. Since he attacked, my first priority should be to completely neutralize him as a threat and THEN consider hes safety. If he's just knocked down, he's in no way out of the picture yet.

[Deleted]

If something, the dog shoudl be awarded. If it disarms a guy with full intention of killing the dog's owner and then the dog rips the gunman's throat in the process, I don't think it should be killed for that, since it was self defence, not to mention that dog's might not understand what they did.

[Deleted]

I would rather die then let them kill my dog.

[Deleted]

I'm pretty sure in Finland the dog would be put down and you would possibly face charges depending on if it was possible for you to stop the dog from attacking.

[noobadrood]

If a dog kills a person with you in front, you should get convicted and the dog put down. I love animals, had 7 dogs at my country house who i loved like the sons i don't have, BUT there are certain limits to what you can and can not allow them to do. Killing someone and back to the kennel? nope.

[gcsmith]

I would rather die then let them kill my dog.

And this is my problem with society, Im all for people having pets, but becoming so attached to an animal I have seen nothing but bad things come of. Again people in this topic seem to be ignoring the guy with actual dog knowledge.

Also I love how people moan how society is all about defending the assailant, sadly I would of agreed untill I see that unless they defended them, that person would always be dead. I just hope they get rid of the 3rd amendment at some point soon in America, Just because someone has a knife and breaks into your home doesnt mean A) they are going to kill you, and B) they cannot be disarmed safely.

So do I believe the dog should be put down? yep for societies sake. Sorry to say,but that's wats needed so other humans can live in safety.

[Jahosaphat]

And this is my problem with society, Im all for people having pets, but becoming so attached to an animal I have seen nothing but bad things come of. Again people in this topic seem to be ignoring the guy with actual dog knowledge.

Also I love how people moan how society is all about defending the assailant, sadly I would of agreed untill I see that unless they defended them, that person would always be dead. I just hope they get rid of the 3rd amendment at some point soon in America, Just because someone has a knife and breaks into your home doesnt mean A) they are going to kill you, and B) they cannot be disarmed safely.

So do I believe the dog should be put down? yep for societies sake. Sorry to say,but that's wats needed so other humans can live in safety.

There are so many things wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin...

First of all - The third amendment refers to the quartering of soldiers in your home, so I don't see how that applies to this at all. Your entire argument was ruined with that reference.

Second of all - If someone A) has a knife and B) BREAKS INTO MY HOME I feel I have the right to defend myself. If it comes to the point where I feel the need to resort to taking the intruder's life, then so be it; they made the decision to break into my home and threaten not only myself, but the rest of my family with violence.

Third of all - Putting the dog down does not benefits "societies sake" and is not "needed so other humans can live in safety". If the dog doesn't have any past history of aggression, and does not develop any sort of aggression after the incident, putting the dog down would not benefit anyone at all.

[HydroDan]

And this is my problem with society, Im all for people having pets, but becoming so attached to an animal I have seen nothing but bad things come of. Again people in this topic seem to be ignoring the guy with actual dog knowledge.

Also I love how people moan how society is all about defending the assailant, sadly I would of agreed untill I see that unless they defended them, that person would always be dead. I just hope they get rid of the 3rd amendment at some point soon in America, Just because someone has a knife and breaks into your home doesnt mean A) they are going to kill you, and B) they cannot be disarmed safely.

So do I believe the dog should be put down? yep for societies sake. Sorry to say,but that's wats needed so other humans can live in safety.

Just so much failure in this post it's unreal. I agree with Jahosaphat, of course it doesnt mean that they are going to kill you if they do have a knife and break in OR that they are able to be disarmed otherwise but how do you know whether they intend to kill? Do you wait and find out and then realise it's too late with a blade in your neck? Also the majority of people wouldn't be able to disarm an assailant safely. Here in the UK if someone breaks into your home and is armed you can use whatever force you deem to be moral or appropriate. In this case anyone who claims that the victim isn't in fear of their own life is just deluded im afraid.

On topic. If anything the dog has done nothing immoral or unappropriate so why should it be killed? Sure, if afterwards or before it's shown signs of being overly aggressive or 'strange' then steps need to be taken but just to jump to the conclusion it should be killed is ridiculous.