Laws Regarding Defending One's Dog

Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
5
Likes
0
Location
Framingham, MA
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
My mother lives in a suburban neighborhood and owns a 75lb dog which is very docile, well trained, and almost never barks. There is a neighbor two houses up, who has deliberately caused problems in the past, including a confrontation with my mother's boyfriend in which he (the neighbor) became irate and was threatening in his body language, though he issued no verbal threat.

A few weeks ago my mother's boyfriend was doing work on the house in the front yard. My mother's dog (Jake) and his dog (Emma) (which is also peaceful, but occasionally barks and is less well trained) walked across the street and Emma barked a few times. Her boyfriend recalled the dogs and they returned to the lawn. Seconds later the neighbor walked down, stopping a few feet short of the driveway, standing in the street. He issues a threat, saying something to the effect of, "I'm so sick of those g-ddamn dogs. If I hear them running around barking one more time I'm likely to kill them!" This man had never said a word about the dogs to my mother or her boyfriend in the past. He is clearly an aggressive man with irrational tendencies and a grudge which seems to be baseless. Though I told her off for it afterward, my mother, nor her boyfriend, reported the neighbors actions to the police.

My fear is that, aside from possibly taking action against my mother or her boyfriend, this man may be likely to attempt to kill one of the dogs. I'm frequently at the house and will be beginning to CC sometime in the next two months (pending the outcome of my LTC-ALP application in January, which I had planned on long before this neighbor first caused a problem). What I want to know is this: If I were to witness the neighbor attempting to take violent action against one of the dogs (assuming that they are not trying to take any action against him), what am I legally allowed to do to defend them?
 
I'm no lawyer, but I'll try to make it easy for you. Using deadly force against a human to protect a domesticated animal is a sure way to win a one-way ticket to Walpole.

It would also give the antis reason to tighten the screws on the rest of us CCWs. Please don't.
 
What I want to know is this: If I were to witness the neighbor attempting to take violent action against one of the dogs (assuming that they are not trying to take any action against him), what am I legally allowed to do to defend them?

Unfortunately, not much. You might be on safe ground saying "Sir, please stop", but even that is iffy in this state if he construes that as a thread of violence and reports it as such.
 
For real guy? This and and just about every other state in this nation have LEASH LAWS.

That means as a responsible owner you keep your dog(s) under control at ALL TIMES.

It doesn't matter how "nice" you think your dogs are, they can be a threat to someone, not to mention the little "gifts" they deposit on someone else's lawn.

Tell them to keep the dogs tied up and YOU keep your gun in it's holster unless you are being attacked and didn't start it!

I can't believe someone that just took a gun safety class would even ask a question like this. [rolleyes][angry]
 
Last edited:
For real guy? This and and just about every other state in this nation have LEASH LAWS.

That means as a responsible owner you keep your dog(s) under control at ALL TIMES.

It doesn't matter how "nice" you think your dogs are, they can be a threat to someone, not to mention the little "gifts" they deposit on someone else's lawn.

Tell them to keep the dogs tied up and YOU keep your gun in it's holster unless you are being attacked and didn't start it!

I can't believe someone that just took a gun safety class would even ask a question like this. [rolleyes][angry]

Leash laws in MA are not at the state level but local. You will find that once you are outside 495 many (most?) towns have no leash law. The cities will have them but not the towns. This means dogs can be loose and if someone has an issue they can complain to the animal control officer and ultimately the Select Board. Having served on the Select Board for two terms, I can tell you nothing is less pleasant than a dog hearing. Nuisance dogs will end up with orders restricting them to their property or to being on a leash, but it is on a dog by dog basis not by default.

Under control at all times? No, just not being a nuisance. Subjective? Yes. But outside of the high population areas we expect to have animals running around. I have 20+ chickens that free range. Sometimes into my street. Sometimes into my neighbors yard. No one cares. It's the country.

It is only as we try and live on top of one another that we start making laws trying to control how everyone and everything around us behave. Noise laws, lawn laws, dog laws, cat laws, gun laws, paint color laws. Move out of the damn cities and learn to live free.
 
Crackpot, wouldn't your job have been easier if your town had a leash law? I for one am not worried about me or my family getting bitten by a chicken, but dogs? Yes.
 
When town officials make laws to make their jobs easier and not to better serve the residents, they should be summarily executed. Ok, not executed, but voted out of office. Sure, it is a pain as a selectman to deal with stupid dog owners. But when you live in a small town it is a community and people need to be reasonable neighbors and get along with one another. Making specific laws dictating how people live together is indicative of over crowding and big brother as far as I am concerned.

My dogs are well trained and 100% reliable on recall. Not 99.99%, 100%. We walk on public land, conservation land, snow mobile trails, etc all the time off lead. REAL walks. If they see people they great them and if people are scared they are called and they come. If you are scared of dogs that don't bite, then too bad. If they bite, then they get put down. Don't make rules that punish those that behave, dogs or people, because sheeple get scared.

EDIT: autocorrect did not like sheeple.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe someone that just took a gun safety class would even ask a question like this. [rolleyes][angry]

There are gun safety instructors out there who would spend couple of hours talking cars, politics,sports,etc., and then you "pass" the test. I personally know couple of recent LTC licensees who don't have a clue about gun laws.
 
There are gun safety instructors out there who would spend couple of hours talking cars, politics,sports,etc., and then you "pass" the test. I personally know couple of recent LTC licensees who don't have a clue about gun laws.

Some of the official gun safety courses don't have any official "test", but issue a certificate stating the individual "attended". That is no excuse, however, for not covering the required material.
 
There are gun safety instructors out there who would spend couple of hours talking cars, politics,sports,etc., and then you "pass" the test. I personally know couple of recent LTC licensees who don't have a clue about gun laws.

And sadly, I know that most firearms instructors know very little about MA gun laws too! Per MSP, an instructor can legally get away with handing the student a packet of print-outs and not even discuss any MA gun laws. We all know that everyone reads literature they pickup in a class/seminar/trade show, right? . . . NOT!
 
Some of the official gun safety courses don't have any official "test", but issue a certificate stating the individual "attended". That is no excuse, however, for not covering the required material.

Exactly. A lot of courses/instructors do not cover legalities of self defense, although they cover everything from safe storage, transport, transferring, etc.
 
If you use a weapon to do anything but STOP THE THREAT when you or a person around you is in IMMINENT DANGER of physical assault or death, you will be SCREWED.

Even when you legally use the weapon to stop the threat, chances are you are going to be dragged through the courts, the ones of law and public opinion. The outcome of the proceedings in those courts are unpredictable, but the costs are steep.


If I were retrieving the dogs after they ran off, and I was confronted by someone with a weapon who was threatening me with death or imminent severe physical injury , I would respond WITH THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF FORCE to stop the threat. Someone screaming at me is not a valid reason to display or use a weapon. Would I survey the area just in case, you bet. That is part of situational awareness.

If you are unfamiliar with the concept of escalation of force, you better learn.

I would strongly suggest you drop 10 dollars and buy a copy of Massad Ayoob's book " In The Gravest Extreme".
 
Last edited:
I would mind leash laws and keep the dogs on their property. But IMO a dog at its core is a persons property if a threat was made to somebody over a piece of property I would call the police. First call tends to get first priority. If a guy tells you he's going to smash your windshield are you going to wait till he does or call the cops?
 
If you use a weapon to do anything but STOP THE THREAT when you or a person around you is in IMMINENT DANGER of physical assault or death, you will be SCREWED.
You generally can't use deadly force if you are facing a simple physical assault. You have to be in danger of death or grave bodily injury, and simple physical assault likely does not rise to that level of threat.
 
You generally can't use deadly force if you are facing a simple physical assault. You have to be in danger of death or grave bodily injury, and simple physical assault likely does not rise to that level of threat.

Which is why I referenced escalation of force further down the post. I guess I should have mentioned it closer to the statement you quoted. But your use of "danger of death or grave bodily injury" is a better way to convey what I was trying to say.
 
As an owner of a very friendly 75lb Boxer. I will say that it is MY Responsibility to make sure MY dog doesn't scare or threaten or assault anyone. If someone shot my dog because my dog ran at them (to say hi) I couldn't and wouldn't blame that individual if they actually felt scared or threatened.

We always say "There are not laws that allow things" well here is an exception.

MGL Chapter 140
Section 156. Any person may kill a dog which suddenly assaults him while he is peaceably standing, walking or riding outside the enclosure of its owner or keeper; and any person may kill a dog found out of the enclosure of its owner or keeper and not under his immediate care in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, and if any person shall kill or attempt to kill a dog so found, and in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, he shall not be held liable for cruelty to the dog unless it shall be shown that he intended to be cruel to the dog, or that he acted with a wanton and reckless disregard for the suffering of the dog. Prompt killing of a wounded dog, or a prompt report to the owner or to a dog officer of the wounding of the dog, shall be considered evidence of sufficient regard for the suffering of the dog.
 
As an owner of a very friendly 75lb Boxer. I will say that it is MY Responsibility to make sure MY dog doesn't scare or threaten or assault anyone. If someone shot my dog because my dog ran at them (to say hi) I couldn't and wouldn't blame that individual if they actually felt scared or threatened.

We always say "There are not laws that allow things" well here is an exception.

MGL Chapter 140
Section 156. Any person may kill a dog which suddenly assaults him while he is peaceably standing, walking or riding outside the enclosure of its owner or keeper; and any person may kill a dog found out of the enclosure of its owner or keeper and not under his immediate care in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, and if any person shall kill or attempt to kill a dog so found, and in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, he shall not be held liable for cruelty to the dog unless it shall be shown that he intended to be cruel to the dog, or that he acted with a wanton and reckless disregard for the suffering of the dog. Prompt killing of a wounded dog, or a prompt report to the owner or to a dog officer of the wounding of the dog, shall be considered evidence of sufficient regard for the suffering of the dog.

Hmm, you learn something new everyday! Thank you for posting.
 
I would mind leash laws and keep the dogs on their property. But IMO a dog at its core is a persons property if a threat was made to somebody over a piece of property I would call the police. First call tends to get first priority. If a guy tells you he's going to smash your windshield are you going to wait till he does or call the cops?

This.

Last I heard, in Massachusetts, pets are legally considered property. This means that, Mr. Nutjob just threatened to destroy property. It may be priceless property, but it is property nevertheless. It also means that whoever he may hire as an attorney will, with some success, argue that it was no different than threatening to throw a rock through some window. Unfortunately, you can't shoot him for that kind of crime. The crying shame is that it is probably next to impossible to get him to repeat proposing that kind of criminal act in front of a LEO. That, at the very least, would get him screwed over if he ever decided to get an LTC.

Hopefully he is just some blowhard, and his threats of violence are nothing more than annoying sounds.
 
Mike-Mike is right.

BUT keep in mind that dogs are not "livestock" and thus it does not apply to try using this exemption to protect your dog! [thinking]

Actually BFS courses really don't cover this stuff.

Those concerned/untested should consider taking NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home, an excellent 2 day course (with ~7 hrs on the range) teaching about this and many other facets of law wrt protecting people, animals and other property. [Two things to note: I will be teaching this course in Mansfield, probably in April and NRA mandates that you have taken NRA Personal Protection in the Home first - that's a 1 day course I will also offer in the Spring.]
 
MGL Chapter 140
Section 156. Any person may kill a dog which suddenly assaults him while he is peaceably standing, walking or riding outside the enclosure of its owner or keeper; and any person may kill a dog found out of the enclosure of its owner or keeper and not under his immediate care in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, and if any person shall kill or attempt to kill a dog so found, and in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, he shall not be held liable for cruelty to the dog unless it shall be shown that he intended to be cruel to the dog, or that he acted with a wanton and reckless disregard for the suffering of the dog. Prompt killing of a wounded dog, or a prompt report to the owner or to a dog officer of the wounding of the dog, shall be considered evidence of sufficient regard for the suffering of the dog.

IIRC, the banned barrister defended a man who killed a dog that was harassing his livestock. I believe he won, but the fact remains that he was charged and prosecuted.
 
I have a 75lb golden retriever. I love my dog more than most of my family. My dog is always well behaved never barks or runs off, she is 100% reliable on call back and often walks off leash with my wife and I. She is always by my side and has never hurt a flee.
I know this is a very touchy subject but I for one have thought this thru and already decided the out come from such a scenario.
Should anyone ever attempt to do harm to her I would empty my gun into their MF head and piss on their still bleeding out body! I do not care what is "legal" I know what is "right"
 
MGL Chapter 140
Section 156. Any person may kill a dog which suddenly assaults him while he is peaceably standing, walking or riding outside the enclosure of its owner or keeper; and any person may kill a dog found out of the enclosure of its owner or keeper and not under his immediate care in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, and if any person shall kill or attempt to kill a dog so found, and in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, he shall not be held liable for cruelty to the dog unless it shall be shown that he intended to be cruel to the dog, or that he acted with a wanton and reckless disregard for the suffering of the dog. Prompt killing of a wounded dog, or a prompt report to the owner or to a dog officer of the wounding of the dog, shall be considered evidence of sufficient regard for the suffering of the dog.

Very interesting! This law could actually be used by the aforementioned "bully" to justify harming your dog... and would work against you even more strongly if you used deadly force to stop him from doing so.

The best alternative I can see if you actually caught him harming your dog (or keying your '67 Ferrari, or harming any other property with strong sentimental value) would be to call 911, then get between him and the property, try to de-escalate and protect the dog, and if he tries to come *through* you to the dog then you're defending yourself.

Remember that you do NOT want to entrust your fate to a jury, but if you do make that choice, you'd best make sure that a "reasonable person" would have feared for his/her life in the same situation. (You don't have to prove that there WAS a danger to your life, only that a reasonable person could have concluded that there was.)

I doubt anyone on this forum would advocate that you simply stand by and let him harm the dog as it happened, but as noted previously... responses to a threat/theft/destruction of property, etc, are typically protected by law only if commensurate to the situation.
 
The best alternative I can see if you actually caught him harming your dog (or keying your '67 Ferrari, or harming any other property with strong sentimental value) would be to call 911, then get between him and the property, try to de-escalate and protect the dog, and if he tries to come *through* you to the dog then you're defending yourself.

Unless you are in your own home you have an obligation to distance yourself from any threat of grave bodily injury or death, and only if unsuccessful in distancing yourself from the threat would the use of deadly force be justifible.

I dont think you want to recommend anybody setps into the path of grave bodily injury or death, and if you choose to do so I dont think a jury would view your use of deadly force as justifiable.

Sincerely,

Todd S.
 
Personally, I know what I'd do. And so do those of you who know me.

A few years ago, my Rottie, Ursa (God Rest her soul), was out in the run I built in the yard. Some idiot was walking his dog in the woods, off lead. His dog came down to my fence line and the 2 dogs were barking at each other. His wife/girlfriend was scared sh!tless of my "big, bad, Rottweiler" and told him so. So, mister tough guy yells to her "Don't worry, I'll shoot that dog if it even tries to jump that fence!"

I heard this from inside the house as I was heading outside to get Ursa.

Hearing this, I grabbed the nearest rifle (an AR15) and stepped out onto the porch. I told him that if he pulls a gun, I was going to drop him where he stood. Any shot he would have taken at Ursa, would also be directly at the house. Then he grabbed his cell phone and told me he was calling the cops. I said "They're already here! Let me get one for you! OH HONEY!"

Luckily for me, my wife was home for lunch, in uniform. The look on his face was priceless!
 
As an owner of a very friendly 75lb Boxer. I will say that it is MY Responsibility to make sure MY dog doesn't scare or threaten or assault anyone. If someone shot my dog because my dog ran at them (to say hi) I couldn't and wouldn't blame that individual if they actually felt scared or threatened.

We always say "There are not laws that allow things" well here is an exception.

MGL Chapter 140
Section 156. Any person may kill a dog which suddenly assaults him while he is peaceably standing, walking or riding outside the enclosure of its owner or keeper; and any person may kill a dog found out of the enclosure of its owner or keeper and not under his immediate care in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, and if any person shall kill or attempt to kill a dog so found, and in the act of worrying, wounding or killing persons, live stock or fowls, he shall not be held liable for cruelty to the dog unless it shall be shown that he intended to be cruel to the dog, or that he acted with a wanton and reckless disregard for the suffering of the dog. Prompt killing of a wounded dog, or a prompt report to the owner or to a dog officer of the wounding of the dog, shall be considered evidence of sufficient regard for the suffering of the dog.

hrrmmmm...... now to deal with the neighbor's f****** little rat-dog..... YAP! YAP! YAP! *click* YAP! BANG!
 
Back
Top Bottom