Man Uses His Second Amendment Rights After His Neighbors Pitbull Came Running Towards Him In His Front Yard – Was This Justified? (Video)
Guns, guns, and more guns. These days the complexity of gun ownership in this country is just that, complex.
To me, the Second Amendment is pretty straightforward. The question I have is when is it appropriate to get the gun out? When is the right time?
Is it the right time to shoot a dog during a dog fight, or if a dog attacks you?
A video from Oregon today shows a man who guns down his neighbors’ pitbull after it came running towards him in his front yard.
The homeowner had an Oregon Concealed Carry license and he decided to use his second amendment rights!
Video below:
This video means that the shooter will probably walk free because it was obvious that the dog entered his property and tried to attack him.
However, I discovered several cases where people have shot vicious dogs, but then were prosecuted criminally for crimes such as animal cruelty, discharge of a firearm within city limits, or negligent discharge of a firearm. When a dog bites a person, the person usually (not always) can recover full compensation from the dog owner’s homeowners insurance policy, the renter’s insurance policy, or from the dog owner, if no insurance.Of course, the legal liability varies by location because of statutes, ordinances (e.g. leash laws), court decisions, and circumstances.
The One-Bite Rule, Negligence, and Statutory Liability
Although I am not an attorney, I found in all the states I researched that a dog owner will be held liable if he knew before the biting incident that his dog had the tendency to bite people without justification. It is called the “One-Bite Rule.” It provides GENERALLY that the dog owner is protected from liability as to the first injury caused by the dog, unless liability can be based upon other grounds. Fifteen states (the “one-bite rule” states) do not have dog bite statutes. The 15 “One-Bite Rule” States are: AK, AR, ID, KS, MS, NV, NM, NC, ND, OR, SD, TX, VT, VA, WY. Some court decisions have said the “One-Bite Rule” name is a misnomer and that the rule applies to any injury, whether or not it was caused by a bite, and that proof of the dangerous propensity of the animal does not require the existence of a prior bite even in a biting case. Confusing, subjective, and open to interpretation!
But, in almost every state, I found a dog owner will be held liable to some extent if his negligence causes a biting incident. I understand that general negligence is the doing of an act without due care, or failing to do something that due care requires. In cases where the dog owner knew that his dog was dangerous or vicious, he faces the very real possibility of having to pay punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages. Because the purpose is to punish the wrongdoer, the dog owner himself, and not his insurance company, must pay the punitive damages. However, some states have not enacted dog-bite statutory liability. If the victim was trespassing or provoking the dog that bit him, he can’t use the “statutory action,” but can still use the One-Bite Rule. In these states, usually it is the victim who must prove that the dog previously bit a person or acted like it wanted to bite a person, and that the owner knew or should have known of the dog’s propensity to bite. So a “bite” is not necessarily required. It could be a knock down, a trip, or physical contact. The states having a dog-bite statute are referred to as “statutory strict-liability states.” There are 35 of these statutory liability states and their laws vary CONSIDERABLY. Some of these states are: AL, AZ, CA, CO, CN, FL, IL, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, NJ, NY, OH, SC, TN, etc. In these states, the usual prerequisites for compensation are that the victim was bitten, and the defendant owned the dog. The victim does not have to prove that the dog previously bit anyone or acted like it wanted to bite anyone. So read and understand your applicable statutes closely because some have limits, different definitions, or additional requirements. I found that they vary like night and day. A few states, like HI, GA, NY, and TN, have statutes that combine principles of negligence and the One-Bite Rule, but primarily rely upon the One-Bite Rule. They are called “Mixed Dog-Bite” statute states and are confusing to me. They have statutes that combine strict liability with elements of the One-Bite Rule, leaning toward the One Bite.
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author’s opinion
Reminder: The purpose of the articles that you will find on this website, are to EDUCATE, not to disinform or grow hate and anger!
Mark Van der Veen offers some of the most analytical and insightful writings on politics. He regularly opines on the motives and political calculations of politicians and candidates, and whether or not their strategy will work. Van der Veen offers a contrast to many on this list by sticking mainly to a fact-based style of writing that is generally combative with opposing ideologies.
Pit bulls don’t just bite. They rip people to pieces. I’m glad the dog is dead.
This Video is several months old, why now? What’s the narrative?
Although the home owner has insurance and you can be compensated, is the stupidest statement made in this article. How many months will it take you to recover? Did you bother to include the recent dog attack that occurred several days ago of a young woman who was so viciously attacked that part of her face and scalp was ripped off. Oh but the owner has insurance you say? Now of course the circumstances were slightly different because she was called there by the owner to come walk the dogs.
Getting bitten by a dog is no simple flesh wound, Dogs can maim in an instant and the scars are permanent and it may require multiple surgeries.
No sir I will not take my chances I have seen what dogs can do and it’s either me or the dog and I choose me.
what if instead of a fully grown adult with a gun, it had been that mans 4 year old daughter????
This man had every right to shoot the dog . The dog owner is at fault for not keeping his animal properly constrained . No how no way is a person obligated to suffer injury because his neighbor cannot properly maintain his animals.
I’ve shot vicious dogs dead before and would do it again. Pit bulls are the worst, everyone knows it, and when you own them it’s because you like feeling like a badass dangerous dog owner, you like having people afraid of you. You’re a bully.
That stuff about letting the dog bite you first is nuts, what if it goes for your crotch? Most large dogs do exactly that. What if it rips out a main artery, or leaves you permanently disabled? SHOOT IT.
“…running towards him in his front yard…” Not quite. The confrontation between man and dog ended in the front yard, but it began elsewhere. If it began on his neighbor’s property, than I’d say the shooter is in the wrong.
He was justified. Never give a vicious attacking Pitbull the benefit of the doubt. While a DA can usually get a grand jury to charge anyone with anything, I don’t see how one could be convicted for discharging a firearm in city limits in a self defense case. Without the right to discharge a firearm the right to keep and bear arms would be meaningless unless the Founders intended for them to be used as clubs. So any such city ordnance would be in direct contradiction with the Constitution and be null and void.
A Pitbull can easily kill a man. There is no question that this dog was going to attack the homeowner/gun owner. He was justified as the alternative outcome could have been a dead man from a dog bite on his throat.
Would have done the same. My next door neighbor had a pit and it ran into my yard and bit me. If I would’ve had a gun
Fuck the pit bull and fuck it’s owner.
100% justified. I would have done the same thing.
That dog should have never been loose. I fully support the man’s right to shoot it.
The dog was out of control, no leash, not under voice command, and unfenced. It came into another persons yard and acted in an aggressive and hostile manner. The dog owner is fortunate to not join his dog after releasing a dangerous animal that threatened the home owner.
….dog didn’t sound friendly. You can usually tell when they approach, friendly or menacing. That one did sound menacing. I had a similar dog run up to me in the street late the other night. I knew he was not menacing, even though he wasn’t wagging his tail, or any other overt friendly behavior. I spoke to him as he closed on me, he licked my hand. His owner turned up a minute later in his car, he had been out looking for him. I have been approached by the menacing kind …you know.
Wife and I were in an Airbnb in Scottsdale AZ waiting for our new house to close. The neighbors had two huge Pits and one gigantic pot belly pig. I was out washing the car one afternoon and the neighbor opened the garage and out came his two pits running at and growling at me like no tomorrow. They both were in a fit!!! They ran across their lawn and into my yard, very similar to the video, but these dogs were 70-90lbs. Not quite as large as bull mastiffs, but big. I had no gun, although frequently carry them, and was in flip-flops so I could not kick them in the throat, had I been armed I would have no option but to kill both of them. As it were I simply came at them and gave it my best scream/growl, got big in their faces so it stopped their movement. They still growled and barked, but I was able to keep them at bay. The owners came out and finally took the dogs and I made it very clear to them, if they come at me again I will kill both of them, and then sue them for their negligence forcing me to kill them. This poor dog in the video was killed because the owners did not train what is a vicious and potentially dangerous animal. Remember the woman who was killed after being mauled by the neighbor’s pits in SFO. What a tragedy.