It's all allowed to hurt a person from self-defense, beat hospital ripe or (if I'm not mistaken) even to kill with any means or your own fist. Now that's why a dog does not apply as a living being but as a thing.
Now such a situation introduces you:
You come from 11 o'clock in the evening in winter from a party Back, the dog was just over 4 hours alone and still has to do his business to the fresh air. When you go through a alley with the dog stings you from behind someone in my back. You scream loudly, try to defend you but it does not work. Now your dog uses, without you asked for him or he ever taught it. The dog tugs in the arm of the TädTers and ultimately shatters the arm. The perpetrator dies on blood poisoning, you yourself come with 2 scars and a 1 monthly hospital stay there.
The dog has never shown a conspicuousness and has passed the essence test with engraving. Nevertheless, this will now be charged despite the fact that you are charged with a chance to give him a chance.
Why? Why is the "thing", which one can use in self-defense but actually as defense funds may now be confiscated and killed, though it is actually clear that this "thing" is no danger to society. You could just have been able to improve a muzzle and can demand another essence test? If any…. After all, the only goal of the dog was his BESItzer to protect, in such a situation would probably hardly stand around a dog only stupid.
How do you see that?
PS: The story is invented freely
The dog does not bother to blame, he should have been able to live on Choose 38%
other choose 38%
He would just have to make an ancestry test choose 19%
The dog was justified as bounded choose 6%
He should have survived under strict conditions Choose 0%
I am unsure Choose 0%
Good So the dog smolderingt was, this beast! Choose 0%
In such a case, the dog is not faulted. There may be a review and the holder gets editions. More should not happen.
Theoretically justifies the self-defense paragraph StGB §32. In that case, that would fall under the right of self-defense, since body and life stood at the game. The dog is one thing and one could argue from right scenes so that you acted in self-defense. Accordingly, he could not blame him in the legal sense, since he was a means of self-defense and in the case of protecting the mild resources to protect the legal property of lifeBrian
the Dog would not be smashed, but just taken away. ADog must never attack, no matter what situation. Even if you have not deliberately made the dog the dog, a dog does not just attack so and may not.
It is forbidden to make a dog sharp. If you know that the dog is aggressive and so responded to other people then he has to wear a muzzle. Otherwise, you can make yourself crimpy in such a situation, as you can not sharpen the dog should not be keen purely by law.
A non-aligned dog will be barked at best.
He can not assess the situation, does nothing or run away.
A dog can not even defend itself ... if someone beats a dog and the dog hard to do this personHurt then he is killed.