« Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights" | Main | Some serious horse_____ »
California case on self defense against dogs
Via Don Kates and Paxton Quigley--
On August 16, the California Court of Appeals handed down People v. Lee, No. B175291.
Facts: Defendant, a retired deputy, was walking her dog when two other dogs approached and refused to pull back when she shouted at them to go away. She testified that she had been attacked by dogs three times in the past in the area and was afraid they were attacking. She fired a shot at them which hit a parked car. [This case is NOT a lesson in good gun handling -- and it certainly sounds like LA County Sheriff's Dept could use a lot more training in safe use of firearms]. Witnesses to the incident (most of whom were at a distance of 50-60 yds, and disagreed quite significantly on how close the dogs were to her) said they didn't think the dogs were preparing to attack. She was tried and convicted on charges of discharging a firearm with gross negligence.
The trial court refused to give a jury instruction on self defense. The prosecution argued that the California law on self-defense only pertained to defense against humans, and that when animals attacked the only defense was necessity (which is considerably narrower than self-defense, and puts the burden of proof on the defense). Apparently the uniform California jury instructions on self-defense refer to defense against a "person."
The Ct of Appeals reverses and concludes
The focus is on the nature of the threat, rather than its source. It serves no public policy, and is neither logical nor fair, to deprive appellant of the defense of self-defense because the threat of imminent harm came from a dog and not from a person. The use of force in defense of oneself should be legitimate, whether or not the source of the threat is a human being. In other words, the use of force in self-defense should not be illegitimate because the source of the threat is not a human being.
The opinion also has an interesting survey of cases on self-defense against animals.
Comments
Surely Americans have every Right to preserve their lives whether threatened by man or animal. If I were the judge I would find her not guilty by reason of necessity. However, I would lecture her on her shootin abilities and expect her to pay for the damage. Mayber 30 days of pistol target practice would be reasonable.
Posted by: Steve Noe at September 29, 2005 03:15 PM
Dear Steve
Please send me another email about self defense from dogs. because i'm scared of dogs. when i go to school many times they come and i ran away. e-mail me on oraib_p0p0@yahoo.co.uk
Posted by: Oraib at August 4, 2006 04:24 AM
Mr Orib,
Please don't run from a dog unless you are sure of escape. If it bites while you stand the hooked tooth makes a hole. If the hooked tooth catches you running it will rip muscle.
Most dogs 95% want you to pet them and nothing more. It's just the crazy few we have to watch out for. Try making some friends with dogs and that will make it easier for you to know the difference. Go slow.
55 years of dog ownership...German Shepard's and Rottweilers. I have been bit four or five times not too badly, by dogs I didn't know.
Best
Scott
Posted by: scott robinson at June 1, 2012 04:31 PM