What right of self defence do you have against a police dog? It is in the news that an Uber driver was mauled by a police dog despite not initiating violence or attempting to avoid arrest. He has suffered life changing injuries. It seems the self defense recommendation in this situation is to go for the dog's eyes, which would obviously cause life changing injuries to the dog. If one found oneself in such a situation, what is legal self defense? Does it matter if the attack is unprovoked such as in this case, rather than if you initiate violence, or if you try to escape a legal arrest? Any jurisdiction would be interesting, I care most about the UK but as this incident and most readers are in the US this would also be a good jurisdiction to answer for.
england-and-wales The law on this point in England and Wales has recently changed. The main statute here is section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, amended in 2019 to add an exception relevant to police dogs. Under subsection (1), you commit an offence if you cause a dog (as an example of a &quot;protected animal&quot;) to suffer unnecessarily. The necessity conditions in subsection (3) include the example of protecting yourself or someone else, in (3)(c)(ii), but this list is not exhaustive. Nonetheless, that specific defence is excluded by the new subsection (3A) in the case when the dog is a police dog being used by an officer &quot;in a way that was reasonable in all the circumstances&quot;. This exception was added precisely to cover the example of a police dog being used to apprehend a suspect, to stop people from claiming self-defence; it's known as &quot;Finn's Law&quot; after a police dog who was stabbed in those circumstances. If this came up in practice, for the scenario you suggest, then the court would have to deal with (among other things): Was the officer's conduct reasonable in all the circumstances? Could the person have avoided harming the animal? Was the level of harm to the animal proportionate? The answers would depend on the exact facts involved, so it's not possible to say in a vacuum whether the elements of the offence could be proved. Note that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which might otherwise apply to the officer in charge of the dog for letting it be &quot;dangerously out of control&quot;, actually does not by virtue of section 10(3) so long as it is being used &quot;for a lawful purpose&quot;. Meanwhile, as a civil matter, there is a strict liability provision in the Animals Act 1971 which might catch police dogs. That Act distinguishes between animals of a dangerous species, where the liability always applies, and others where it only applies if the animal meets certain conditions. These have attracted some criticism by senior judges over unclarity in their drafting - see for example Ford v Seymour-Williams [2021] EWCA Civ 1848 and Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16 - but on the basis of those decisions, one could argue that the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to characteristics of the animal which are not normally found in animals of the same species in the case of a police dog specifically trained to attack on command. However, on the other side, whether the claim is under the Animals Act, or for battery, etc.: The police may argue that the damage was due to the suspect's own fault. An example I found cited in Street on Torts is Dhesi v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2000] WL 491455. A claimant bitten by a police dog was held to have accepted the risk of sustaining damage when he refused to come out of his hiding place, after being warned a dog would be sent in to flush him out; this engaged section 5(1) of the Animals Act and defeated strict liability. The police can argue that their use of force was reasonable for the purpose of preventing crime and/or arresting a suspect. (The same argument by which human officers can use force.) The police can argue that the dog was no more dangerous than an ordinary dog, that the officer did not know it could cause such severe damage, etc., thus removing it from the category of animals where strict liability applies. The police have some protection from civil suit, known as &quot;Hill immunity&quot; after the case Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [1988] UKHL 12, which is not absolute but is very likely to defeat claims where officers were not unusually negligent, not acting outside the bounds of their duties, exercised reasonable care and skill, or did the best they could in a fast and confusing situation. See the recent judgements in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, a case where officers arresting a suspect accidentally hurt an elderly lady, for a very thorough discussion of duty to bystanders and police negligence in general. So again, it all depends on the fact pattern in the specific case, but you may or may not be able to win a civil claim against the police based on the harm done to you by a police dog, even when you didn't hurt the dog.
There was a case like that in 2010 in germany tl;dr synopsis of the German article: The police raided the private home of an alleged member of a criminal gang. This was performed as a no-knock raid. The police officers did not announce themselves as such when they started to break open the door. The suspect had reason to believe that a rival gang was planning an attempt on his life. So the suspect believed that the people trying to break into his home were actually members of said gang trying to murder him. The suspect used a firearm to shoot at the intruders through the door, lethally injuring a police officer. When the police officers then identified themselves as such, the suspect surrendered immediately. A court later ruled that killing the police officer was self-defense, because they were reasonably convinced that the defendant was unaware that he was dealing with police officers, believed to be in a situation where his life was in danger and where lethal violence was the only way to save his life. Here is the verdict. [In German, of course]
The 5th amendment protects you from self-incrimination. If by possessing a firearm you are in violation of the law you cannot be compelled by law to reveal this information. If the police discover you have a gun in violation of the law you can be arrested and prosecuted for that offense. They cannot additionally prosecute you for not telling them about a gun. I thought there was a supreme court case about this specific situation, but the closest I can find for now is Haynes v. United States. The 7-1 majority held that people prohibited from possessing firearms cannot be compelled to register their firearms that they are possessing illegally. They are stopped by the police and asked this question. They answer truthfully. Then they can be arrested and prosecuted for the illegal possession of the gun. How does this square with the right not to self-incriminate? Or is asking the question considered to be a search? Police can generally ask whatever they want. If you choose to waive your 5th amendment rights, that's your mistake. Can the state prosecute this person for carrying the illegal weapon? The state can generally prosecute crimes it knows about. So yes, in this case they can. Suppose that next to the weapon a stash of illegal drugs is discovered, which was only found due to the action taken to secure the weapon. Can the state prosecute for that? The state can generally prosecute additional crimes it uncovers during investigations or other lawful actions. So yes, this can be prosecuted.
The law on such matters within the US varies from state to state. In general a dog owner is responsible for taking &quot;reasonable&quot; measures to control the dog and prevent harm. What measures are reasonable will depend on the detailed facts. particularly important will be the previous history and actions of the dog. If a dog has a history of attacking people, then the owner is expected to know this, and to take measures which are reasonable in light of that history. The page &quot;Strict Liability Dog-Bite Laws&quot; from Nolo documents states in which an owner may be responsible for any bite. As that page says: When a dog hurts someone, the injured person is likely to sue the animal's owner for medical costs and other damages. In more than half of the states, those lawsuits may be based on laws that make the owner automatically liable for most dog-bite injuries. These laws are often called &quot;strict liability&quot; statutes, because the injured person doesn't have to prove that the animal's owner knew the dog was dangerous (often called the &quot;one-bite rule&quot;) or that the dog owner was negligent (legalese for &quot;careless&quot;). That page goes on to say: Also, dog owners may have legal defenses to avoid liability for dog bites. Most dog-bite laws include exceptions—typically when the injured person was trespassing or provoked the dog. And many of the laws don't apply if the dog was performing its duties as a police dog when the bite happened. The page lists details on the laws for holding dog owners liable in the listed states under a &quot;strict liability&quot; theory. The page notes that even when one of the listed exceptions applies, so a strict-liability suit cannot be brought, a suit under a negligence theory (failure to take reasonable precautions) may still be possible. A plaintiff may cite both theories in a single suit where the law permits. The page lists 36 states and the District of Columbia as having some sort of strict liability statute for dog attacks as of December 2020. In a number of states that the person attacked was trespassing is considered an exception to the strict-liability rule. The page &quot;Brief Summary of Dog Bite Laws&quot; published by Michigan State University in 2004 says: Liability can be based on a common law theory of negligence of the owner where recovery is based on the action or lack of action by an animal owner /keeper. Common law is the law derived from court decisions and historical traditions rather than explicit statutory provisions. Recovery at law under this concept requires a showing by the injured party that there was a legal duty owed to the injured party by the animal owner /keeper and that the injury arose because of a breach of that duty. This duty can arise from a failing to properly secure an animal or entrusting the animal with someone unfit to restrain the animal. It can also arise independently from violating a local ordinance, such as those ordinances that prohibit dogs running at large or mandatory muzzling provisions. It has been said that one who keeps a vicious dog, with knowledge of its savage and vicious nature, is presumed to be negligent if he or she does not keep the animal secure from injuring others. ... States may also impose a more stringent standard of fault called strict liability . In those states, liability automatically arises when a domestic animal has a known vicious propensity attacks, bites, injures, or even chases someone. There is no necessity to show that the owner was negligent in his or her actions in proving liability. ( Click here for a summary of states that impose strict liability). In addition, owners may face liability based on the legal category of the dog him or herself. Nearly all states have some laws that govern what can be termed “dangerous dog” or “vicious dog” laws. These laws outline what constitutes a “dangerous dog” or even a “potentially dangerous dog” and under what circumstances an owner will be liable for the actions of such dogs. Moreover, some states impose what is called “strict liability” on dog owners for any injury resulting from a dog deemed dangerous regardless of any knowledge of the dog’s tendencies. These strict liability laws may also limit the ability of the owner to claim a defense to the action. In other words, the law may state that the owner is liable regardless of whether the person who was bitten was trespassing on the owner’s property or whether the owner knew the dog was vicious. Regardless of whether you are dealing with a strict liability state or not, provocation will be an important factual issue. Provocation simply refers to a situation where a dog is incited, encouraged, or provoked into biting a person. In states where there is strict liability, an owner may use provocation as a defense to the dog bite. This will either reduce the owner's liability based in part (comparative or contributory negligence on the part of the victim) or bar the victim's claim completely. A court will either determine provocation from the perspective of the injured party (i.e., did the person intend to provoke the animal or have knowledge that his or her actions would provoke the animal) or from the perspective of the dog. The page &quot;State Dog Bite Laws: &quot;One-Bite&quot; vs. Strict Liability&quot; from AllLaw says: Prior to the twentieth century, a dog owner was usually only held liable for injuries when their dog bit someone if the owner had reason to know the dog might bite. This was known as the &quot;one bite&quot; rule because it generally meant that a dog was allowed &quot;one free bite&quot; before the owner would face legal trouble. In modern times, the one bite rule does not necessarily allow a dog one free bite. If an owner knows the particular breed is dangerous, or if the particular dog might be prone to biting because of its general character or some other factor, he or she could face liability for the dog's first bite. The focus is on whether the owner knew or should have known that the dog might bite, and whether the owner took reasonable precautions based on that knowledge. For example, if a relatively aggressive dog recently underwent surgery and the owner did not warn a house guest not to pet the dog, the owner might be held liable if the house guest is subsequently bitten. As a fault concept, the &quot;one bite&quot; rule has much in common with (and often overlaps) the personal injury liability rule of negligence. Many states have enacted &quot;dog bite&quot; statutes that create a form of &quot;strict liability&quot; for dog bites. Strict liability means that the defendant is held liable if a certain event occurs, regardless of whether the defendant could have done anything to prevent the event. The typical strict liability dog bite statute says that a dog owner is liable if his or her dog bites someone, regardless of whether the owner did anything wrong, as long as the injured person: was not trespassing or otherwise breaking the law at the time of the incident, and did not provoke the dog. If a strict liability dog bite statute applies, what the owner did or did not know about the dog prior to the bite is usually irrelevant. Note that strict liability dog bite statutes are not the same in every state that has one of these laws on the books. ... In short, the particular law of the state or locality, and the particular facts of the case will both be important in the case of any dog attack. By the way, nothing an animal does on its own can be classed as self-defense, although where a human orders an animal to attack that might be self-defense by the human (using the animal), depending on the facts. Actions that would have been self-defense by a human will probably not be grounds for finding an animal's owner liable.
Although the assailant (or their estate if they are killed) could lodge a claim for damages it does not necessarily follow that they would win - they would have to show that the shooting was not legitimate self-defence but rather was unlawful by, for example, negligence or use of excessive force - say by shooting them when they didn't pose an immediate and unjustified threat. The Federation rules, as far as I can see, are not actual legislation. Although they should be adhered to in normal circumstances, this shooting would be, in the given circumstances, legitimate self-defence according to Article 122-5 of the Code Pénal which says: N'est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, devant une atteinte injustifiée envers elle-même ou autrui, accomplit, dans le même temps, un acte commandé par la nécessité de la légitime défense d'elle-même ou d'autrui, sauf s'il y a disproportion entre les moyens de défense employés et la gravité de l'atteinte. N'est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, pour interrompre l'exécution d'un crime ou d'un délit contre un bien, accomplit un acte de défense, autre qu'un homicide volontaire, lorsque cet acte est strictement nécessaire au but poursuivi dès lors que les moyens employés sont proportionnés à la gravité de l'infraction. Which Google translates to English as: The person who, in the face of an unjustified attack on himself or others, performs, at the same time, an act ordered by the necessity of the self-defense of himself or of others, is not criminally liable, except 'there is a disproportion between the means of defense employed and the seriousness of the infringement. The person who, in order to interrupt the execution of a crime or an offense against property, performs an act of defense, other than intentional homicide, when this act is strictly necessary for the aim pursued, is not criminally liable. provided that the means employed are proportionate to the gravity of the offense.
You face two legal perils when you use a firearm against a wild animal: Most wild animals are protected or regulated as game by state and/or federal law. Unnecessarily discharging a firearm is forbidden in many jurisdictions. With respect to both charges, self defense is almost always a justification (assuming the possession of the weapon used was lawful). The specifics vary a little by jurisdiction, but this Utah rule is pretty typical: R657-63-3. Self Defense. (1) A person is legally justified in killing or seriously injuring a threatening wild animal when the person reasonably believes such action is necessary to protect them self, another person, or a domestic animal against an imminent attack by the wild animal that will likely result in severe bodily injury or death to the victim. (2) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors: (a) the nature of the danger; (b) the immediacy of the danger; (c) the probability that the threatening wild animal will attack; (d) the probability that the attack will result in death or serious bodily injury; (e) the ability to safely retreat; (f) the fault of the person in creating the encounter; and (g) any previous pattern of aggressive or threatening behavior by the individual wild animal which was known to the person claiming self defense. (3)(a) A person shall notify the division within 12 hours after killing or wounding a wild animal under Subsection (1). (b) No wild animal killed pursuant to Subsection (1) or the parts thereof may be removed from the site, repositioned, retained, sold, or transferred without written authorization from the division. (4)(a) A person is not legally justified in killing or seriously injuring a threatening wild animal under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if the person: (i) has the ability to safely retreat from the threatening animal and fails to do so, except when the animal enters a home, tent, camper, or other permanent or temporary living structure occupied at the time by the person or another person; or (ii) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly provokes or attracts the wild animal into a situation in which it is probable it will threaten the person, another person, or a domestic animal. Federal law is a little more terse: The Endangered Species Act includes the following: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no civil penalty shall be imposed if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered or threatened species. Defense of property One can be fined for killing threatened or endangered animals in defense of property or livestock (see, for example, Christy v. Hodel). These instructions from the Missouri Department of Conservation are typical: If wildlife is damaging your property, you ... may shoot or trap most damage-causing wildlife out of season and without a permit to prevent further damage. Note: Wildlife you may not shoot or trap under this provision are migratory birds, white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, turkeys, black bears, mountain lions, and any endangered species. For conflicts with these species, contact your local county conservation agent or nearest Department office. Control action may be taken only on your property. Wildlife you take under this provision may not be used in any way, and you must report it to the Department within 24 hours, then dispose of it in accordance with Department instructions. Check with local city or county authorities regarding the use of traps and firearms in local jurisdictions.
I interpret the sentence &quot;intruder enters your home using the internet&quot; in the question as not as physically entering the home but as virtually entering the home, in other words hacking into the victim's home network remotely. When that interpretation is incorrect, please comment. Note that an action can only be considered self-defense when the self-defense prevents a crime currently in progress from being completed. When A hacked into B's computer and then B punches A in the face later, that's not self-defense, that's illegal vigilante justice. The self-defense argument would only work if it actually prevents the completion of the crime. For example, if A and B were in the same room, A sees B hacking into A's computer right now and uses physical force to prevent B from completing the hack (like yanking the keyboard out of B's hands). Also keep in mind that the intensity of self-defense must be appropriate for the severity of the crime. What is and is not appropriate is for a court to decide in each individual case, and the guidelines that are to be applied vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But causing bodily harm to people when the crime they are committing does not cause bodily harm is often not considered within the limits of self-defense. For further information about what is and is not allowed in self-defense, I recommend the series about self-defense by Law Comic.
canada The defences of &quot;self-defence&quot; and &quot;defence of another&quot; are available defences to any act that would otherwise constitute &quot;an offence&quot; in Canada. Section 34 simply says: &quot;A person is not guilty of an offence if... [and then goes on to list the elements of the defence].&quot; Your question seems to ask about the scope of actions that might be justified or excused by the defence. If it wasn't clear before 2012, amendments in 2012 to the self-defence laws in Canada made it absolutely clear that any offence may be justified or excused by self-defence or defence of another. As the Supreme Court describes in R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37: The accused’s response under the new law is also no longer limited to a defensive use of force. It can apply to other classes of offences, including acts that tread upon the rights of innocent third parties, such as theft, breaking and entering or dangerous driving. The substantive elements of self-defence and defence of another are described two other Q&amp;As, so I will only state them briefly: (a) reasonable belief of a threat of force; (b) the act constituting the offence is for the purpose of protection; (c) the act committed is reasonable. For details see: Is it legal to use force against a person who is trying to stop you from rescuing another person? Is self-defense allowed when there are objectively reasonable grounds but it is actually done subjectively for improper reasons?