Posted on 01/09/2015 3:33:50 AM PST by marktwain
As a general rule, people have the right to protect themselves from animals that attack them. As might be expected, they have more leeway to use deadly force against animals than against other humans. Most states also allow property owners to protect their property from marauding animals, whether the animals are wild or property of another person. Damage caused by domesticated animals can be grounds for a civil suit.
This situation occurred in New York. From thedailynewsonline.com:
ALEXANDER — The man who shot and killed his next-door-neighbor’s dog as it attacked him last week will not face any charges, according to a Genesee County Sheriff’s Office investigation of the incident.Comment from the site:
The sheriff’s department probe determined that the neighbor did not violate any law when he shot the animal, a bullmastiff named Pepper. The neighbor had the right to shoot the canine with his .357 magnum pistol because he was on his own property when the dog attacked him, the report concluded.
“He was within his rights. The law is very clear,” said Gordon Dibble, chief deputy of the sheriff’s office.
I'm glad the other half of the story has now come out. It is clear the neighbor was fully justified in shooting the dog. Surveillance tape and another neighbor as witness confimirming the story makes this case clear and simple. To all the people commenting on this case in previous articles saying the neighbor should "go to jail" for shooting the dog and this "justice for pepper" stuff should be ashamed of themselves. Why does today's society place guilt on someone before ALL the facts are heard?? This is the equivalent of a Michael Brown case, except with a dog. I guess people in this area are not much different than those from Ferguson, MO. I expected more from WNY'ers..Property owners are not under any obligation to care for a dog that has intruded onto their property. In many states feral animals can be legally shot without a hunting license; they are not game animals. Rural landowners in prime locations quickly become hardened with having to deal with unwanted pets that people from more urban areas drop off, deluding themself that the dog or cat is more likely to "find a home" than at the local shelter.
Bullmastiffs are strong, powerful but sensitive dogs. For a bullmastiff to become a well-behaved family member, consistency is needed. Training and socialization is of high importance as the breed can be independent.[2] Dogs of this breed are natural guardians of their home and owners. No special guard training is needed for a bullmastiff to react appropriately if his family is endangered.All dogs tend to be territorial, and need to be trained about territorial boundaries. Fences can be a natural boundary. I have owned dogs. I grew up with dogs; I see myself as a dog person. But dogs have their limitations. They depend on people to keep them in proper bounds. In most cases where dogs are shot, it is because their owners did not take proper precautions in their training and care.
Ag & Markets Law Section 123-a states that someone on his own property who is attacked by a dog is exempt from civil liability if the animal, “without justification, attack a person, or behaves in a manner which a reasonable person would believes poses a serious and unjustified imminent threat of serious physical injury to a person, when such person is peaceably conducting himself in a place where he may lawfully be.”Note that the ability to defend against animal attack is extended beyond one's property to "a place where he may lawfully be." That section is not as common, but will likely become more so. A Washington court has ruled that the right to self defense intrinsic in the second amendment applies to defense from animals as well as defense from humans.
Section 123-a continues that such a person, or any other individual witnessing the attack or threatened attack “may destroy such dog while so attacking, and no liability in damages or otherwise shall be incurred on account of such destruction.”
The next time my neighbor’s 4 lb. Yorkshire Terrier ankle-biter comes running up to me while I’m setting trash tubs by the curb—said little rat yapping non-stop and acting tough—I can drop-kick him back across the street into his own yard?
I love dogs. I currently own 2 Brittanies. And I would have done the same thing if a large dog attacked me.
I worked part time as a house painter in the 70s and 80s. In a well to do home owned by obnoxious snobs they had an ankle biter that would do just that (bite ankles) and the owners refused to put it in another room. I accidentally launched it across the room with the side of my foot. Oooooopsie. It still barked but kept its distance.
Physically I would think you are
Morally -- perhaps
Legally -- definitely if this was on your property
BS! Mastiffs and corsos are gentle giants and not deserving of this level of hyperbole. I've owned both mastiffs and cane corsos, and I've not had a single one act aggressive to another person or animal without presenting a threat. EVERY dog is going to be territorial and protect their home turf. My 15 year old half-blind, deaf, mini-dachshund will nip at your pant legs if she doesn't know your smell, and my 5 year old border collie will howl at anyone who comes knocking at the door. It's what they do.
Pits are a breed that, while maligned, have been interbred into what the public now perceives. They used to be gentle dogs used to protect house and human but are now considered, by and large, mentally unstable due to poor breeding habits and a pop culture desire for "fighting dogs." Mastiffs are still, in general, a loyal, stable breed capable of great affection and act as exceptional home protectors.
Do your research before you spout off at the lip, FRiend. The word ‘mastiff’ is a descendant translation of the Latin “mansuetus,” meaning “mild,” “gentle,” or “tame.” They are NOT aggressive breeds, they are just massive.
Ok, so this didn’t happen. ok. Good to know.
My argument is with the author’s contention that the breed is more aggressive than pitbulls. That’s a hyperbolic accusation and completely unwarranted.
I am not arguing any of the FACTS in the article, just the assertions made by the author.
And, if he goes between the gateposts, you might be picked up as a place kicker...
I don’t care what kind of dog anyone has. Dogs can be a man’s best friend and can be sociable animals. Dogs need to be trained to know what they are allowed and not allowed to do. they need to be trained as to where their territorial boundaries are. They can easily be trained, they want to please their masters. People who won’t take the time to train, teach and love their dog(s) shouldn’t have them.
Pit Bulls were bred as dogs to fight other animals.
Cane Corsos were bread as Roman war dogs.
Bullmastiffs were bread to catch and hold humans.
Bullmastiffs and Cane Corsos are both twice the size of Pit Bulls.
I think that make Pit Bulls look tame by comparison.
All three breeds need special care in socialization.
Cane Corsos and Bullmastiffs have a reputation of being particularly protective and suspicious of strangers, do they not?
Any dog not under physical, verbal, electronic, or other CONTROL is deemed feral/wild and may be shot. Welcome to Arizona.
bread should be bred... got it right the first spelling...
“Corsos are the breed that almost ate that woman in San Francisco.
I think that was the Canary Island dog - a preso
Oops!
Small dogs do less damage, but can be just as ferocious as big dogs.
I don’t hate small dogs, but I hate most small dog owners. Because their little darlings can’t kill people, they are terrible about discipline. They allow the little brats to become absolute terrors.
Remember that Cane Corsos are actually “Italian” Mastiffs. For the purposes of this discussion, I’m using mastiff universally for the large breed.
Mastiffs were bred for Roman bloodsport, and even then, it was their predecessor, not the actual breed we know now, that acted in that manner. Mastiffs were also used for baiting due to their size.
Mastiffs are NOT overly suspicious and will only attack if their masters are threatened. They were bred to be literal guard dogs: they put themselves between their master and the attacker to act as a shield. They do not generally attack unless directly provoked. They do not have the physiology to “catch” a human, esp. if that human is on the run, but they will pin down a person trying to harm their master. That is an advantage to their size.
Mastiffs are generally docile and will be passive around strange dogs, again, unless provoked. Mastiffs are docile around strangers, however, they will put themselves between their master and a stranger unless and until they are told otherwise. As a child, we had mastiffs who would come right up to a stranger to sniff them and then maneuver between the stranger and us as a matter of instinct. We would tell them to go “lay down” or otherwise get out of the way, and they were compliant.
Mastiffs, as with ANY breed, no matter the size, require socialization and should be taken through obedience training at a young age. There’s nothing unique about the mastiff that makes them any more “dangerous” if they’re not socialized. They are not a sprinting breed or otherwise intended to act as an aggressor in protective services. They are deterrent dogs meant to make someone think twice about attacking you.
I’ve been around thousands of dogs in my lifetime. I’ve felt physically uncomfortable around pits on numerous occasions, but I’ve never met a mastiff that felt “off” to me. It’s not in their DNA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.