Nothing in the law allows people to execute dogs for these violations. Dogs are indeed put down in Hawai'i after attacks, but by order of the court.
Looking at Obie's post, I am not sure if a chicken qualifies as an "animal" or not. I don't know what their legal status is. There are a lot of wild chickens in this state. I'm not saying that chickens or any other critters don't matter to their owners, or to the law, but I don't know if birds meet the animal definition.
I've had a pet killed by people's dogs that got loose, and it traumatized me for years, so my sympathy is with the victims of the attack, don't get me wrong. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to think you can just go and shoot a dog and take your own revenge.
Posts: 2,653
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent...2-0074.htm
quote:
Quote from HRS 142-74
§142-74 Liability of dog owner; penalty. (a) If any dog, while on private property without the consent of the owner of that property, injures or destroys any sheep, cattle, goat, hog, fowl, or other property belonging to any person other than the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable in damages to the person injured for the value of the property so injured or destroyed. The owner of the dog shall confine or destroy the dog, and if the owner of the dog neglects or refuses to do so, the owner of the dog, in the event of any further damage being done to the person or property of any person by the dog, in addition to paying the person injured for the damage, shall pay the costs of the trial together with the penalty imposed under section 142-12, and it shall be lawful for any other person to destroy the dog.
(b) Each county may enact and enforce ordinances regulating persons who own, harbor, or keep any dog that has injured, maimed, or destroyed an animal belonging to another person. No ordinance enacted under this subsection shall be held invalid on the ground that it covers any subject or matter embraced within any statute or rule of the State; provided that the ordinance shall not affect the civil liability of a person owning, harboring, or keeping the dog. Upon enactment of an ordinance, whether enacted on, before, or after June 30, 2001, the ordinance shall have full force and effect; provided that the ordinance is consistent with this section. [PC 1869, c 23, §9; RL 1925, §667; RL 1935, §252; RL 1945, §1094; RL 1955, §20-73; HRS §142-74; gen ch 1985; am L 1986, c 64, §1; am L 2001, c 222, §1]
Case Notes
Under charge of malicious injury, facts shown that dog was trespasser and seen carrying off something were justification for attack on dog. 8 H. 115.
A couple of areas worth highlighting but I'll let the readers figure them out.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 1,839
Threads: 48
Joined: May 2007
"and it shall be lawful for any other person to destroy the dog."
That is pretty radical
Posts: 2,653
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
A bit off topic but I found this interesting: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent...D-0065.htm
quote:
Quote from HRS 183D-65 ("Department" means the department of land and natural resources):
§183D-65 Posting; destruction of predators. (a) On any game management area, public hunting area, or forest reserve or other lands under the jurisdiction of the department, predators deemed harmful to wildlife by the department may be destroyed by any means deemed necessary by the department.
(b) Where the predators are dogs and the methods of destruction may endanger pets or hunting dogs, all major points of entrance into the area where the predators are to be destroyed shall be posted with signs indicating that a program of predator destruction in the area is in progress. Any predator may be destroyed in a posted area without claim or penalty whether or not the predator is the property of some person. [L 1985, c 174, pt of §4]
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Thanks for finding that statute, oink, great information.
So, chickens do count, and it is possible that the injured person may take steps to deal with the dogs -- but only after certain steps.
1) The owner of the dogs must have the opportunity to confine or dispose of the dog first.
2) The dogs have to cause damage a second time, to the same person -- as I read it.
3) At that point the dog owner is in deep ****.
Of course one still should consider who the dog owner is, the attitude, how much family they have in your area, and their attitude. Sadly, there are some groups of people who can make your life hell if you cross them, even if they are in the wrong.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by KathyH
Nothing in the law allows people to execute dogs for these violations. Dogs are indeed put down in Hawai'i after attacks, but by order of the court.
In an after the event situation, the statutes does prevent retaliation against the dog. But Hawaii laws also address as it's happening scenarios as well. Hawaii laws does have a Principal of Justification, and Hawaii common and case laws supports Necessity and even Choice of Evils. So as it was happening, actions up to and including killing the dog could be justified.
Posts: 2,653
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
I wouldn't offer an interpretation of the statutes as I'm no lawyer other than that it seems to coincide with common sense rather than the understanding of the laws expressed earlier in this thread. I was also interested in the case reference under the case notes: quote:
Under charge of malicious injury, facts shown that dog was trespasser and seen carrying off something were justification for attack on dog. 8 H. 115.
It implied to me that you are authorized to take action if you see the incident in progress and I assume (yeah I know) that in such instances it wouldn't have to be the second incident. However, I couldn't locate the case, if it can in fact be accessed via the web, so I wouldn't act based on my assumption. Of course if I see an attack in progress my assumptions regarding the statute will be irrelevant.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 311
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
quote:
Originally posted by KathyH
Bottom line, if you shoot anything the law doesn't allow you to shoot, and you don't have ohana on the police force, you're asking for trouble.
KathyH is wise haole. Heed her advice...
oink, I believe that statutes can be read by non-lawyers and comprehended with respect to the black letter law.
As to the case cited, yeah, I would not give any opinion on that without reading the case for the facts it references. The language of the statute is where I got that it must be a second offense.
quote:
if the owner of the dog neglects or refuses to do so, the owner of the dog, in the event of any further damage being done to the person or property of any person by the dog, in addition to paying the person injured for the damage, shall pay the costs of the trial together with the penalty imposed under section 142-12, and it shall be lawful for any other person to destroy the dog.
The last clause where it states it shall be lawful to destroy the dog is predicated upon two subsequent conditions:
1) the owner failing to confine or destroy the dog,
2) further damage to person or property.
Posts: 2,898
Threads: 488
Joined: Mar 2006
Thanks Again everyone for your opinions and options. It turns out that the owner of the dogs did the right thing and contacted the chicken coop owner and apologized and said it would never happen again. Also and most important... they settled on an amount for damages to be payed by the dog owner so it won't have to go to court.
|
