If somebody is trying to kill your pet dog or cat ...

[Boojatta]

then do you have a legal right to use violence to protect your pet?

I understand that the right to use violence doesn't imply a right to use an unlimited amount of violence. It's possible to be guilty of using excessive force even though some degree of force may be legally justifiable to defend the pet.

I specified dog or cat because they are the most common pets, and if I were to leave it completely open then somebody might decide to consider a pet ant or even a pet rock.

I ask the question because I presume that if people are physically assaulting, without legal authorization, a human being, then you have a legal right to intervene even if the person who is being violently assaulted is a stranger to you rather than a loved one.

Is this, then, the essential difference under the law between human beings and animals: that human beings have a right to intervene to defend human beings who are strangers, but don't have a right to intervene to defend animals, unless the animals are friends?

If that is correct, then in a sense all foreigners who are living in their own lands are like animals to us. Their governments can violently attack them without any basis and we have no right to intervene. Intervention would violate sovereignty.

[1620rock]

1. If someone was trying to kill one of my cats, I'd return the favor big time...real big time.

[Raine]

2. No one better even think about doing anything to my cats!

[Bandit]

3. Pets are your property and a person has a right to defend their property..

It doesn't matter if it is your wallet or your dog, you have the right to protect that property..

[Boojatta]

10. Money doesn't die.

"Protecting money" is a euphemism for maintaining your connection to your money. Using violence to maintain a connection with a pet (or to maintain custody of a child) is the norm for people who are abusive. They don't want to lose access to their punching bag. Something quite different is at stake when force is used to protect a victim of violence. The goal is to prevent harm to the victim of the violence. The goal isn't to maintain personal access.

[TheWraith]

20. Yes, but not with lethal or potentially lethal force.

There's a difference between your wallet and your dog. If your wallet is on you at the time, then someone attempting to take it by force is committing an assault on you, personally. If you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm--say they have a knife, or they're threatening to strangle you or the like--then it is legal for you to use any means necessary to defend yourself up to and including immediately killing your attacker.

Same principle applies to other people: if you see someone being mugged, raped, beaten up, etcetera, you are legally empowered to do whatever you need to to stop that assault.

Attacks on property, even if that property is your dog, however, don't meet the same standards. If someone's attacking your dog, you can only legally meet them with limited force, nothing that would be lethal or potentially lethal. So for instance you could punch them, swing a baseball bat at a non-vital spot, but not pull out a gun and fire even a warning shot. (Discharging a firearm is considered "potentially lethal force" regardless of what the gun is loaded with or whether a shot is intended to kill.)

[JoeyT]

4. The problem is our interventions often cause more problems than they solve.

It's hard to say "Look! That evil dictator (Usually one we installed and propped up for decades, but ignore that.) is no longer killing your people at will! Instead we're doing it, and our citizens simply don't give a damn." and expect people to welcome you as liberators. *I* certainly wouldn't trust an American occupation of any sort. After all, our government violently attacks random civilians with no provocation and we don't even care about that.

But yes, if someone hurt my dog or cats, I fear I might fall into the "unlimited violence" category.

[LeftofObama]

5. I do NOT tolerate abuse to animals. PERIOD!

Consequences be damned.

That being said, I don't believe that foriegners living in their own land are like animals to us. They are soveriegn and if they need our help they are able to ask for it.

[Boojatta]

8. Under international law ...

it seems that governments are sovereign and that citizens have no rights.

[former9thward]

6. I would use violence to protect my animals.

However your comparison of foreigners to animals is offensive.

[Boojatta]

7. If it's offensive ...

then maybe the law should be changed. My comparison is based on the law. It's not a comparison based on my personal opinion.

Of course, I might be misinformed about the law. That's why I began by asking questions about the law.

[BigDemVoter]

9. I HATE VIOLENCE

But a good bout with a taser would be 100% in order here along with a giant kick in the balls once the perpetrator is down & out.

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. Legal right? I'd take my chances.

[MrSlayer]

12. Whether I have the right or not, I'm using violence.

You try to hurt my family and I'm going to be hurting you. I'm certainly not going to stand there and let it happen.

[Honeycombe8]

13. That is state law, but I would think it's pretty much same in most states...yes, you do.

You have the right to defend your property and person, as well as another person's.

The trick is to use the right amount of violence. If someone is trying to kill your dog, he's not armed, you're bigger and stronger than he is, you probably will get in trouble if you shoot him dead, because you didn't HAVE to go to that extreme to stop him. You have a gun...you could've shot him in the arm or leg. Unless you just shot and didn't aim at his head or heart, in the passion of the moment, and didn't mean to kill him. But if he's armed, then he's a threat to people, too, and you probably can justify shooting him, even if he dies.

It's common sense, really, is the way I think about it. You have the right to use REASONABLE violence to protect whatever you're trying to protect. I've read stories where someone has killed a house intruder, even though it turned out the intruder wasn't armed, and homeowner was not charged with anything. If someone is breaking into your house, you can shoot to protect, without having to stop and find out if he's armed or what he wants. It's assumed he means you harm.

Having said that...I have two dogs. If I found someone in my backyard trying to harm my dogs, I'd do whatever it took to stop him, and worry about the consequences later.

[jsmirman]

14. I will use an unlimited amount of violence

I'm just putting that out there, in case anyone is asking.

And I have a real imagination, so just let the whole "no limits" thing sink in.

I know you are asking some sort of other question, but I like to warn people about this, in case they might be unclear.

[Are_grits_groceries]

15. When anybody hurts pets, children,

the elderly or others who cannot defend themselves, they deserve anything they get. I understand the law and try to abide by the rules.
However, when people are so evil, I want to really hurt them. Most of these people are sociopaths. They can't be cured and need to be locked up a loooooong time.
(BTW I don't use the word 'evil' lightly)

[jsmirman]

16. I really try to abide by the laws

but call this one temporary insanity.

I might try to stop, but I'm not sure I'll be able to.

But when it comes to *my* pet - that is my son. And you come at my son, I know I won't be able to stop.

I have a general imperative to defend the defenseless - and then if you're talking about essentially my flesh and blood, the imperative is just kill.

[Are_grits_groceries]

17. My cats have been with me when I went through a

severe bout of depression. I really don't think I would have made it without them. So if somebody tried to hurt them, my fury would be instantaneous and fierce. Just sayin....

[jsmirman]

18. Precisely

there just really isn't anything I'm more willing to die for.

[Boojatta]

19. Kick to encourage more thoughts to be posted

For example, if you are offended by the idea of a connection between the legal status of non-human animals living in America and the legal status of foreign human beings living in foreign jurisdictions, then why are you offended?