united-states criminal-law animals
Do I have the legal right to kill an animal preventing my exit when I burglarize another house?
<p>If I break into a house with the intent to burglarize it, and suddenly any animal (for instance, a large German Shepherd) prevents my escape and starts to attack me, do I have the legal right to shoot it?</p>

<p>I'm not actually contemplating committing a crime, I was just curious. A google search revealed a couple of stories, but it isn't clear if you have the right to kill an animal to get away.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Do I have the legal right to kill an animal preventing my exit when I
  burglarize another house?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. I'll respond on the basis of Michigan law. Other jurisdictions in the U.S. very likely have similar statutes in this regard.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ngh4veyz0hmmxgkl45323zzu))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&amp;objectname=mcl-750-50b" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MCL 750.50b(2)(a)</a> prohibits to knowingly and kill an animal <em>without just cause</em>. The act of committing burglary precludes the defendant from alleging that he or she had a <em>just cause</em>.</p>

<p>Likewise, <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ngh4veyz0hmmxgkl45323zzu))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&amp;objectname=mcl-324-43103" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MCL 324.43103</a> states: "<em>A person shall not knowingly and willfully kill [...] or injure <strong>any</strong> fur-bearing animal owned by another person without the consent of the owner</em>" (emphasis added). Once again, the context of burglary indicates that the defendant did not have the consent of the owner. And the argument that a <a href="http://www.pawculture.com/pet-wellness/pet-grooming/dog-hair-or-dog-fur-is-there-a-difference/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dog is a <em>fur-bearing animal</em></a> can be established by an expert witness if the burglar's lawyer resorts to vexatious "defenses".</p>

<p>The statutory language "<em>any fur-bearing animal</em>" obviously encompasses domestic fur-bearing animals, notwithstanding that <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ngh4veyz0hmmxgkl45323zzu))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&amp;objectname=mcl-324-40102" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MCL 324.40102(1)</a> defines <em>animals</em> as "<em>wild birds and wild mammals</em>". In fact, <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ngh4veyz0hmmxgkl45323zzu))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&amp;objectname=mcl-324-40110&amp;query=on&amp;highlight=domestic" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MCL 324.40110(1)(a)</a> evidences the intent of permanent protection of domestic animals. It would indeed be absurd if the <em>legislative intent</em> (apropos of the subchapter's subtitle "<em>Wildlife</em>") sought to exclude domestic animals and protect wildlife only.</p>

<p>There might be additional, applicable statutes from that legislature.</p>
