I disagree slightly in your assessment: Yes, it might be difficult to "justify" shooting the dog attacking the puppy but it also wouldn't be hard to justify a legitimate concern for your own safety when trying to rescue the puppy, especially if when doing so the dog exhibited any hint of aggression toward you. That concern for your safety could reasonably be assumed to justify the use of a firearm against the attacking dog. Furthermore, the dog who cornered your mother presented a credible and legitimate threat and could have, IMHO, been shot then. As the Supreme Court said in Brown, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." The dog, in light of its history of violence, and the actions of the other dog, was clearly a threat. And while the police at the scene may have taken exception to a mere peon having the audacity to protect his family, in his home, with a firearm, I doubt a jury would have come to the same conclusion.

Wrong, you cannot claim self-defense when you put yourself in danger. Remember the court makes judgements based on the reasonable person test. What would a reasonable person of average intelligence do when faced with the same situation. A reasonable person would not get a gun and start pumping lead into the dogs. A reasonable person would not put themselves in grave danger to protect a puppy. 

Wrong, you cannot claim self-defense when you put yourself in danger. Remember the court makes judgements based on the reasonable person test. What would a reasonable person of average intelligence do when faced with the same situation. A reasonable person would not get a gun and start pumping lead into the dogs. A reasonable person would not put themselves in grave danger to protect a puppy.

If said dog broke through a door to kill the puppy, then I would argue the person has the reasonable assumption that they are next.  With a dog in this predatory mode, you run, you might be the next target. IMHO it would be justified.  You aren't running away from the dog, it's too fast........and you aren't hiding, because it's smelling you out.

If said dog broke through a door to kill the puppy, then I would argue the person has the reasonable assumption that they are next.  With a dog in this predatory mode, you run, you might be the next target. IMHO it would be justified.  You aren't running away from the dog, it's too fast........and you aren't hiding, because it's smelling you out.

If said dog broke through the door you leave the puppy and get the fuck out before you are next.

If said dog broke through the door you leave the puppy and get the fuck out before you are next.

+1. Then all you gotta do is out run the puppy.

According to this new line of argument, if an armed burglar broke into your home in the middle of the night and you directly encountered him, you have no choice but to throw down your arms and flee for your life because that's what a "reasonable person" would do.

I can't go along with that. I would say these attacking dogs were like burglars armed with knives. In some ways, they are even more dangerous, because they can't be reasoned with and they were already in the process of killing something when found. A burglar, when found, would only be digging through your stuff looking for something to steal.

Furthermore, let's imagine that we were not talking about 2 attacking dogs here, but one day you come home and a tiger is in your house. Maybe you could run and make it. But maybe you couldn't. If you somehow managed to get to a shotgun and kill the tiger in this unlikely scenario, I doubt you'd have to worry afterwards.

So how are the dogs different than a tiger? The only difference is their size, and whether or not you give a damn about someone else's dog. I think a "reasonable person" could make the decision to shoot the attacking dogs.

All I can picture is you running from pitbull, being chased by puppy getting chased by pitbull.
Hahahahaha

Gotta remember now.....my mom did run out but the other dog was outside waiting!  Basically....she was surrounded!

 

If said dog broke through the door you leave the puppy and get the fuck out before you are next.

Again, one you aren't outrunning a dog, and two you never run from predators as it can trigger their predatory response........in other words you are the next chew toy.

It's the frickin owner of the dogs that should be shot.

It's the frickin owner of the dogs that should be shot.

I Agree   

Wrong, you cannot claim self-defense when you put yourself in danger. Remember the court makes judgements based on the reasonable person test. What would a reasonable person of average intelligence do when faced with the same situation. A reasonable person would not get a gun and start pumping lead into the dogs. A reasonable person would not put themselves in grave danger to protect a puppy. 

Wrong. I can use what force deemed necessary to intercede on behalf of securing my property. I could try to prevent a thief from running off with my TV by tackling him and attempting to wrest the item away from him. I couldn't immediately use deadly force, but assuming I tried to just stop him from taking my stuff, I could justifiably use force. If while exercising that right, the actor decided to fight back and produce a knife or gun, I could, quite justifiably, escalate my level of force to deadly force. Same for the dog.

Remember the court makes judgements based on the reasonable person test. What would a reasonable person of average intelligence do when faced with the same situation.

You might have to factor in how low  that average is compared to 20 or 30 years ago!!  Just saying ...   

A reasonable person would not put themselves in grave danger to protect a puppy. 

If you think a "reasonable" person would not get their dog, being mauled or attacked by another dog, and put themselves into harms way to do so- you are so far off the planet it's not even close.  Please remember, these are people's "children" i.e. they sleep in their beds, they feed them, they clothe them, medically care for them.  We have raised them, invested into them (training, education, security for home etc.), come after my dogs and you will likely not enjoy the outcome.

If you think a "reasonable" person would not get their dog, being mauled or attacked by another dog, and put themselves into harms way to do so- you are so far off the planet it's not even close.  Please remember, these are people's "children" i.e. they sleep in their beds, they feed them, they clothe them, medically care for them.  We have raised them, invested into them (training, education, security for home etc.), come after my dogs and you will likely not enjoy the outcome.

Nick Memphis:
          You can hire a good lawyer, and I'll call the Bureau.
          They can work out some kind of deal.
           This is explainable. You can prove that you didn't shoot the Archbishop.

Bob Lee Swagger:
         I don't think you understand.
         These boys killed my dog.

-from the movie Shooter-

"Deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the intent of causing or which the actor knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.  Intentionally firing a firearm in the direction of another person or in the direction which another person is believed to be constitutes deadly force.  A threat to cause death or serious bodily injury, by the production of a weapon or otherwise, so long as the actor's intent is limited to creating an apprehension that the actor will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute deadly force.

Deadly force pertains to people.  Dogs are not people, and are afforded much less protection under law.  Ergo, if you could take the life of a human being for committing some act, you can damn sure take the life of a dog.  The only question is whether or not you'd get hung up for recklessly discharging a firearm, which is a distinct possibility in this lovely state.  Personally, I'd shoot that mutt first and then figure out how much trouble I was in. 

(Maybe I'd put the pistol away and stick a big old lineup bar in one of the bullet holes.  "Shoot him?  Not me, Officer, I stabbed that sumbeetch with a prick bar!")

Kentucky has their dog bite laws with this:

Any person, without liability, may kill or seize any dog which is observed attacking any person.

http://dogbitelaw.com/statutory-strict-liability-state/kentucky-dog-bite-law.html

 As usual, Hawaii law is silent on self-defense against dog attacks.  It only addresses the AFTERMATH of legal rights and responsibilities.

http://dogbitelaw.com/mixed-dog-bite-statute-states/hawaii-dog-bite-law.html

If while exercising that right, the actor decided to fight back and produce a knife or gun, I could, quite justifiably, escalate my level of force to deadly force. Same for the dog.

Last I checked, dogs don't carry knifes or guns... But I guess in your world anything is possible.

If you think a "reasonable" person would not get their dog, being mauled or attacked by another dog, and put themselves into harms way to do so- you are so far off the planet it's not even close.  Please remember, these are people's "children" i.e. they sleep in their beds, they feed them, they clothe them, medically care for them.  We have raised them, invested into them (training, education, security for home etc.), come after my dogs and you will likely not enjoy the outcome.

Who cares if that person thinks their dog is their child. It's not what that persons perception is. It's what the court recognizes as a person that matters. I would love to see you try to explain to a judge how you negligently fired your handgun in a populated area, at a dog that was attacking your puppy. I'm pretty sure you can say bye bye to your guns because 1st degree reckless endangerment is a felony.

Last I checked, dogs don't carry knifes or guns... But I guess in your world anything is possible.

Who cares if that person thinks their dog is their child. It's not what that persons perception is. It's what the court recognizes as a person that matters. I would love to see you try to explain to a judge how you negligently fired your handgun in a populated area, at a dog that was attacking your puppy. I'm pretty sure you can say bye bye to your guns because 1st degree reckless endangerment is a felony.

RECKLESS ENDANGERING

Discharging a firearm toward a populated area or on or toward a street or road is reckless endangering. This can apply to private ranges, plinking, negligent discharges, and self-defense use.

Last I checked, dogs don't carry knifes or guns... But I guess in your world anything is possible.

Who cares if that person thinks their dog is their child. It's not what that persons perception is. It's what the court recognizes as a person that matters. I would love to see you try to explain to a judge how you negligently fired your handgun in a populated area, at a dog that was attacking your puppy. I'm pretty sure you can say bye bye to your guns because 1st degree reckless endangerment is a felony.

Truth is none of us know what would happen until it happens.

I realize that in your mind in no way should you be able to defend yourself from a dog with a firearm.  I will say that you have never seen the pit bull that my uncle raised to hunt pigs.  That thing was nasty.  As a little puppy, it was cool and I played with it.  After it grew up it was huge.  I remember hearing a story where it got in a fight with another dog and ended up ripping the dog's tail off.

Remember that one does not need to fear for death to use deadly force.  It's a reasonable assumption + maiming and to me that's enough.

Hopefully none of us has to find out.