Could you use deadly force to defend an animal / pet?

elmarko · 18 Dec 2012 at 13:53

Humans are animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

(the wiki page is quite odd, almost as if it was written by an alien

)

On a more serious note, I'd use force to defend my pets - but not sure I'd go as far as using deadly force.

Antony101 · 18 Dec 2012 at 13:55

You could defend the pet from someone trying to kill it, the person trying to kill the pet would then understand that they need to take you out of the equation before they can harm the pet.

This then leaves them with the choice of continuing which would mean attacking you, this would allow you to use reasonable force to defend yourself.

JoeF1 · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:01

Craterloads said:
True, but some pet owners, treat there pets as members of the family so to speak.

Then they deserve to go to prison etc.. Theres a pecking order / food chain for a reason.

Voltar · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:01

You would go to prison.

estebanrey · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:03

JoeF1 said:
Then they deserve to go to prison etc.. Theres a pecking order / food chain for a reason.

And that reason has nothing do with our legal system or about 'importance' either.

Antony101 · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:04

JoeF1 said:
Then they deserve to go to prison etc.. Theres a pecking order / food chain for a reason.

Are you saying gun toting, knife wielding maniacs are more important than a family dog? And that when said maniac is done killing my dog I should eat it?

Haggisman · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:04

s2h81 said:
but even on a spur of the moment, you would still get charged, like for example, applying your breaks, so you don't hit a cat/dog in your car, and someone goes into the back of you is classed as your fault (even if the cats mystical and just getting at the twit that is up your ass while driving)

Actually that would be classed as their fault for not leaving sufficient distance

JoeF1 · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:11

Antony101 said:
Are you saying gun toting, knife wielding maniacs are more important than a family dog? And that when said maniac is done killing my dog I should eat it?

We really going to debate this?

First of all why would a 'gun toting, knife wielding manica' be threatening my dog and not myself? I was mearly suggesting that anyone who defends a PET/ANIMAL by murdering a human being deserves to have the book at him.

On the other hand i 100% agree anyone that even hurts a animal needs locking up with them.

This is GD though... So erm, go hug a tree

krooton · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:11

Craterloads said:
True, but some pet owners, treat there pets as members of the family so to speak.

Verily, and if you don't, you have no reason to own a pet.

estebanrey · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:14

JoeF1 said:
First of all why would a 'gun toting, knife wielding manica' be threatening my dog and not myself? I was mearly suggesting that anyone who defends a PET/ANIMAL by murdering a human being deserves to have the book at him.

So you have Hannibal Lecter sat in one electric chair and an old blind man's guide dog in another and you have to kill one of them. Are you saying you'd kill the dog?

I know it's an extreme hypothetical but I'm intrigued by your inference that all human life is more important than all animal life.

Ghosteh · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:16

Probably not, as they'll be seen as property more than anything.

bJN · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:16

Voltar said:
You would go to prison.

/thead.

Judgeneo · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:17

estebanrey said:
So you have Hannibal Lecter sat in one electric chair and an old blind man's guide dog in another and you have to kill one of them. Are you saying you'd kill the dog?

I know it's an extreme hypothetical but I'm intrigued by your inference that all human life is more important than all animal life.

That would be a tough choice to be honest, but I think I would still save Hannibal.

EdGey · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:18

Judgeneo said:
I don't think you could justify attacking another human over an animal.

Lol.

estebanrey · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:19

Judgeneo said:
That would be a tough choice to be honest, but I think I would still save Hannibal.

I hope that is a joke.

wannabedamned · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:20

krooton said:
Whilst I wouldn't try to kill, I would have no problem attacking a human that was attacking my dog/cat.

This is the definitive answer really.

V4NT0M · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:23

krooton said:
Verily, and if you don't, you have no reason to own a pet.

I have owned many pets and they were not part of the family, I did not shed a tear when they died or went.

estebanrey said:
So you have Hannibal Lecter sat in one electric chair and an old blind man's guide dog in another and you have to kill one of them. Are you saying you'd kill the dog?

I know it's an extreme hypothetical but I'm intrigued by your inference that all human life is more important than all animal life.

I would definitely shoot the dog. Time served for shooting a dog = nil, time served for murdering a human = lots.

Even if there was a situation where there we no repercussions and I was legally given the task of deciding I would most definitely still shoot the dog.

And the reason for this is twofold. I do not know that hannibal lecter is guilty or not, I can only choose to believe a verdict which has been come to by someone else.

Hannibal lecter could still have good to give to the world, he is still a thinking intelligent being. The dog's chances of giving much back are pretty limited, afterall, it is only a dog.

The question in the OP (and the lecter question) is simple but the issue is complex. I won't say any more on it.

JoeF1 · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:23

estebanrey said:
So you have Hannibal Lecter sat in one electric chair and an old blind man's guide dog in another and you have to kill one of them. Are you saying you'd kill the dog?

I know it's an extreme hypothetical but I'm intrigued by your inference that all human life is more important than all animal life.

Jay-sus thats a tad more extreme, although id make the dog eat Hannibal. Kinda feels the norm. My point still sticks though. Taking a Human life over a animals (as much as i love them) is undebatable.

Judgeneo said:
That would be a tough choice to be honest, but I think I would still save Hannibal.

LOAM · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:24

I would off Lecter then let the dog eat him. Do I win a prize ?

Richdog · 18 Dec 2012 at 14:25

Realistically, were someone to die as a result of attacking your pet, I think it would go like this:

Person tries to attack pet
You defend pet from person with non-lethal force
Person then realises that they cannot continue to attack pet without getting through you first, so must make a conscious choice whether to stop their actions, or to attack you to get to the pet
It then becomes a case of self-defence, the extent of which depends on how much the other guy is prepared to do to get to your pet
If he killed in the process of attacking you then it could be deduced that it was a clear-cut case of self-defence

You are hardly going to kill someone outright for attacking your pet unless the person happens to kill it with the first strike, in which case then you could potentially see red and lose all sense of rationality (temporary insanity, legally) as someone has killed your pet without reason or provocation. You would still be in trouble in that case, but I wouldn't be surprised if the book does not get thrown at you in the situation that someone willfully (ie: not accidentally) murders your beloved family pet without rhyme or reason.

The only way I see someone attacking your pet to kill it would be if your pet injures or kills either their beloved pet, or even worse their child or family member, in which case it could be argued that their actions are reasonable (more in the case where your pet injures or kills a human being, obviously). In which case, killing them in light of the knowledge that your pet did such a thing would be greatly frowned upon I imagine.

That's my logic anyway.