united-states self-defense animals
Lethal force to defend killer dogs?
<p>Let's consider the following scenario, taking place in an American state where self defense in defense of property and castle laws are in effect.</p>
<p>An intruder onto a man's property is mauled to death by his dogs. The man promptly lodges an application for an emergency injunction against the local/state animal control services, seeking to prohibit the confiscation and destruction of his dogs.</p>
<p>Prior to this application being heard by a judge, an animal control officer arrives at the property and is then shot dead. During the ensuing police standoff, the man declares that he was acting in self defence, that he will peacefully surrender if the emergency injunction he applied for is approved and a copy of the approval is delivered to him by his lawyer, and that he is willing to die fighting to protect his dogs. In the interests of preventing unnecessary bloodshed, the judge approves the injunction, and the man does surrender peacefully.</p>
<p>At the resulting trial, he advances the following arguments:</p>
<ol>
<li>Any intruder on his property has unknown intentions, and must be assumed to be there to murder him and his family. If he had been present, the initial intruder would have been shot dead by the man, and it would have been self-defense. As such, the intruder being killed by his dogs was self-defense - the dogs were simply the weapon he used to defend the lives of his family, no different than an autonomous killer drone.</li>
<li>The dogs should not be destroyed because they were acting in accordance with their training to defend the property from intruders, and once you cross the property line, you have forfeited your right to continue living - and they pose no additional danger to the community beyond that he himself does.</li>
<li>The animal control officer was there to kill his dogs. His dogs were members of his family, and he was acting in self-defense to protect the lives of his family.</li>
<li>Even if that argument doesn't fly, he was still acting to defend his property (his dogs), so it was still self-defense.</li>
<li>Once the threat to the lives of members of his family (and/or property) was averted, he peacefully surrendered.</li>
</ol>
<p>What would likely result at trial? Would he be able to successfully argue self-defense? Would he be able to save the life of his dogs?</p>

<ol>
<li><p>That is not a valid assumption. Many states have laws that let you presume someone is a threat to your life if they <em>forcibly</em> enter your <em>house</em>. Simple trespass on your land does not let you reasonably presume someone is a murderer. An autonomous killer drone is not a comparison you want to make: those may be illegal entirely, and are likely to seriously hurt any claim of justifiable force.</p>
</li>
<li><p>“You forfeit your right to live when you set foot on my property” is not justifiable. If the dogs are trained to be a hazard to the community, that’s an argument <em>in favor</em> of having them confiscated and destroyed.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Dogs are not people. Under normal circumstances, they cannot be protected under self-defense or the defense of others. Those doctrines only apply when a <em>person</em> is in danger.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Deadly force is sometimes allowed to protect property, but this tends to be strictly limited. To start with, you can only ever use force to prevent <em>illegal</em> damage to property. If your concern is “this animal control officer will destroy my dogs within the scope of their duty,” that’s not protecting against an illegal use of force. Deadly force in defense of property is also normally limited to particular crimes that are inherently dangerous, like arson, robbery, or burglary. Even in Texas, simple theft only justifies deadly force during the nighttime. Deadly force is also not justifiable if there were reasonable other options. Shooting an animal control officer is unlikely to be the only way to temporarily stop them from destroying a dog.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Threatening violence in order to influence a judge’s decision is <em>terrorism</em>. This hypothetical man is a terrorist. He may well find himself on death row for murder, but he’s also going to face separate charges for terrorism.</p>
</li>
</ol>
