Many people here have (or desire) a dog that ca - Page 5

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Trailrider

by Trailrider on 02 March 2008 - 21:03

I was just reading through this thread and found it interesting because it seems most of us would like to think our dogs would protect us if we needed protecting and what the ramifications would be if  your dog did bite while in the act of protecting you or yours (property). So I looked up the MCA (Montana Code Annotated) and came up with these two laws. I am curious if you think under these Codes in my state a person would have the right to send their dog to protect themselves or their property? (I don't have a PPD). Laws are so hard to interpret...

45-3-101. Definitions. (1) "Force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm" within the meaning of this chapter includes but is not limited to:
     (a) the firing of a firearm in the direction of a person, even though no purpose exists to kill or inflict serious bodily harm; and
     (b) the firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which a person is riding.
     (2) "Forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

45-3-104. Use of force in defense of other property. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than an occupied structure) or personal property lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


by Speaknow on 02 March 2008 - 22:03

Interesting Trailrider - interpretation and definition is the key all right. Presumably, one needs to be under threat of violence or physical force before one is entitled to retaliate in kind - bringing one right back ... Healthy attitude, Agar and policemom. Mine aren’t PPD but when strangers express concerns, I quickly tell “they only want to love you to death”! Neighbors can be a real curse though. Had terrible ongoing and quite surreal friction for years with one right next door till they moved elsewhere – sheer bliss since!





 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top