Dog attack

[Werz]

Loose and on my property and acting aggressive toward me or mine makes for one dead dog...

Roger Out..

Quoting your own posts, Carmen?

[Werz]

When my dog was young, we used to take him to the dog park every weekend. I always took a gun, but I also brought a small can of spray. The spray is a better approach, I think.

Yep. The gun is for the dog owner who is enraged that you sprayed his dog and doesn't have as much sense as his dog ... to back down.

[carmen fovozzo]

Loose and on my property and acting aggressive toward me or mine makes for one dead dog...

Roger Out..

Quoting your own posts, Carmen?

Yep.sure am. Just to let everyone know l haven't changed my mind. Roger out.surely you know that call sign.

[catfish86]

I recently had a dog come at me while walking two dogs. I have a 45 lb Australian Shepherd and a little 15 lb glorified hamster that barks. Another small dog was yapping at my dogs from a porch. The owner opened the door to tell the yapper to shut up, like it wouldn't just ignore him. A 60 lb junk yard dog came out ready for action. It went after my smaller dog. The aussie, doing its shepherd snapped at the back end of the attacking dog. I yelled out to the owner, "Come get your dog or I'll shoot it." The owner came and got it and apoligized. I am glad he did, I don't want to shoot someone's pet, but if the dog is in a fight with a dog I am holding the leash to, I am in danger of being attacked.

[Fiveshot]

... was attacked by the neighbors pit bull mix...
... was able to ward off actually being bitten ...

Not to pick nits, but if you weren't bitten, you were barked at.

Well I was not bitten and yes I was barked at, only the dog didn't start aggressively barking until he was on my heals and the hair was standing up on his back. I really believe he did mean business. As I said it would be a tough decision to fire, but if it means being harmed, who knows how it go.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

... was attacked by the neighbors pit bull mix...
... was able to ward off actually being bitten ...

Not to pick nits, but if you weren't bitten, you were barked at.

Well I was not bitten and yes I was barked at, only the dog didn't start aggressively barking until he was on my heals and the hair was standing up on his back. I really believe he did mean business. As I said it would be a tough decision to fire, but if it means being harmed, who knows how it go.

You'll note that I didn't say not to shoot.

Unlike a human to human scenario, If I were in fear of ANY bodily harm (not just 'serious' or 'grave' bodily harm) from an animal, and the owner can not or will not control the animal, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot it.

But that would be 'fear of attack' and I would have to deal with that, if necessary, in front of the police, judge and jury.

[WY_Not]

Might want to check ORC 955.28 again. Any dog that is even approaching a human or livestock in an aggressive manner is a target. Very low bar. No need to be in fear of bodily harm. Simply approaching in an aggressive manner is sufficient.

You'll note that I didn't say not to shoot.

Unlike a human to human scenario, If I were in fear of ANY bodily harm (not just 'serious' or 'grave' bodily harm) from an animal, and the owner can not or will not control the animal, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot it.

But that would be 'fear of attack' and I would have to deal with that, if necessary, in front of the police, judge and jury.

[Curzyk]

Ask the county dog warden to declare the dog a "nuisance dog".

(a) Subject to division (A)(3)(b) of this section, "nuisance dog" means a dog that without provocation and while off the premises of its owner, keeper, or harborer has chased or approached a person in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack or has attempted to bite or otherwise endanger any person.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/955.11

A) The municipal court or county court that has territorial jurisdiction over the residence of the owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog shall conduct any hearing concerning the designation of the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/955.222

This.

[Werz]

Might want to check ORC 955.28 again. Any dog that is even approaching a human or livestock in an aggressive manner is a target. Very low bar. No need to be in fear of bodily harm. Simply approaching in an aggressive manner is sufficient.

That bar may not be as low as you think it is:

Again, we review the trial court's determination under an abuse of discretion standard. In so doing, we find that the evidence adduced at the hearing supports the trial court's determination that Appellant did not have cause to shoot Jackie. Specifically, Appellant testified that on the date that he killed the puppy the puppy had been playing in his pond and yard. Once the puppy jumped out of the pond, Appellant yelled at the puppy, stomped his feet at it, and then the puppy ran to the end of his driveway, back towards its owners' house. Appellant testified that he began throwing rocks at the puppy and then turned back to work on his car because he thought that it was returning home. He testified that during all of this, Jackie was not acting aggressively towards him.
Appellant then stated that the puppy came back on his property and jumped up on his right shoulder, but that it did not do so in an aggressive manner. Appellant backhanded the puppy, and it yelped and then barked and growled at him, but did not charge him or try to attack him.
Appellant then walked away from the puppy, went into his workshop and grabbed his .22 caliber rifle and shot "a couple" of shots, shooting and killing the puppy. Appellant admitted that the dog did not follow him to the workshop nor did it try to attack him before he shot it. Appellant also testified that he could have closed the workshop door and that the dog would not have been able to reach him. After he shot Jackie, he moved it to a ditch on his property line, where it was eventually discovered by Appellee's husband.
***
Appellant also asserts that he did not have a duty to retreat into his workshop in lieu of shooting the dog and that the trial court erroneously concluded that he did have a duty to retreat. The trial court did not find that a citizen has a duty to retreat from a canine attack or a dog approaching in an aggressive manner. Rather, the court found that the dog was not approaching in an aggressive manner when Appellant killed it, thus the affirmative defense was not proven.
Moreover, we are not convinced that Appellant did not have a duty to retreat from this situation. As the Second District has stated in analyzing a similar argument, "A jury might reasonably infer that [defendant] could have retreated into his house without the necessity of killing the dog." Penny v. Fourman (1998), 2nd Dist. No. 98-CA1465. Appellant cites no case law to support his contention that he did not have a duty to retreat or to not shoot the puppy if another viable option (such as walking away from the puppy) presented itself. Appellant did, in fact, walk away from the puppy into his workshop, retrieved a rifle, and then came back out and approached the puppy and shot and killed it.

Meyers v. Sparrow, 2009-Ohio-945, at ¶43-49 (5th Dist.)

[Bama.45]

Might want to check ORC 955.28 again. Any dog that is even approaching a human or livestock in an aggressive manner is a target. Very low bar. No need to be in fear of bodily harm. Simply approaching in an aggressive manner is sufficient.

That bar may not be as low as you think it is:

Again, we review the trial court's determination under an abuse of discretion standard. In so doing, we find that the evidence adduced at the hearing supports the trial court's determination that Appellant did not have cause to shoot Jackie. Specifically, Appellant testified that on the date that he killed the puppy the puppy had been playing in his pond and yard. Once the puppy jumped out of the pond, Appellant yelled at the puppy, stomped his feet at it, and then the puppy ran to the end of his driveway, back towards its owners' house. Appellant testified that he began throwing rocks at the puppy and then turned back to work on his car because he thought that it was returning home. He testified that during all of this, Jackie was not acting aggressively towards him.
Appellant then stated that the puppy came back on his property and jumped up on his right shoulder, but that it did not do so in an aggressive manner. Appellant backhanded the puppy, and it yelped and then barked and growled at him, but did not charge him or try to attack him.
Appellant then walked away from the puppy, went into his workshop and grabbed his .22 caliber rifle and shot "a couple" of shots, shooting and killing the puppy. Appellant admitted that the dog did not follow him to the workshop nor did it try to attack him before he shot it. Appellant also testified that he could have closed the workshop door and that the dog would not have been able to reach him. After he shot Jackie, he moved it to a ditch on his property line, where it was eventually discovered by Appellee's husband.
***
Appellant also asserts that he did not have a duty to retreat into his workshop in lieu of shooting the dog and that the trial court erroneously concluded that he did have a duty to retreat. The trial court did not find that a citizen has a duty to retreat from a canine attack or a dog approaching in an aggressive manner. Rather, the court found that the dog was not approaching in an aggressive manner when Appellant killed it, thus the affirmative defense was not proven.
Moreover, we are not convinced that Appellant did not have a duty to retreat from this situation. As the Second District has stated in analyzing a similar argument, "A jury might reasonably infer that [defendant] could have retreated into his house without the necessity of killing the dog." Penny v. Fourman (1998), 2nd Dist. No. 98-CA1465. Appellant cites no case law to support his contention that he did not have a duty to retreat or to not shoot the puppy if another viable option (such as walking away from the puppy) presented itself. Appellant did, in fact, walk away from the puppy into his workshop, retrieved a rifle, and then came back out and approached the puppy and shot and killed it.

Meyers v. Sparrow, 2009-Ohio-945, at ¶43-49 (5th Dist.)

What are the particulars of this case though?..They're saying puppy..Not full grown dog..And the puppy did not charge him or try to attack him..The devil's in the details.

[pirateguy191]

I've been "charged at" 5 times while walking my dogs so far this spring. All but one have been tiny little barking fur balls. That one, was a decent sized chocolate lab. The lab made me nervous, as he looked and sounded, like he meant business. A couple really loud yells on my part stopped him in his tracks both times he started to charge.

[Werz]

What are the particulars of this case though?..They're saying puppy..Not full grown dog..And the puppy did not charge him or try to attack him..The devil's in the details.

We can't always spoon-feed you. Sometime, ya just gotta click the link. (Hint: ¶2)

[Bama.45]

What are the particulars of this case though?..They're saying puppy..Not full grown dog..And the puppy did not charge him or try to attack him..The devil's in the details.

We can't always spoon-feed you. Sometime, ya just gotta click the link. (Hint: ¶2)

Not asking to be spoon fed..Just figured you might want to post the pertinent parts, considering the animal in question in your case law was referred to as "a puppy"...As opposed to a pit bull mix that by the way was presented in the OP's post was an adult..Kinda like trying to equate shooting an 18 year old thug, with shooting a toddler...I was just wanting the facts of the case law you posted..If in the case cited the person did shoot a puppy, that was uncalled for and the judge was righteous in his ruling..I seriously doubt he would have said the same about a 65lb pit bull...But maybe I'm not qualified to assume that based on common sense as opposed to having a degree from law school...Maybe it's just good ol' boy common sense.

[CroManGun]

Appellant is a moron. He admitted that the puppy was in no way aggressive toward him. Absolutely no reason to shoot the dog.
Appellant managed to find another moron to submit an error-laden Assignments of Error; hope he got paid with a rubber check.

[Werz]

But maybe I'm not qualified to assume that based on common sense as opposed to having a degree from law school...Maybe it's just good ol' boy common sense.

Too often, "good ol' boy common sense" seems to include playing tough-guy with others and their property. Doesn't always work out well.