Judge: Man who shot dog attacking his son doesn't have to pay dog's vet bill

From the Golden State:

A man who shot and wounded a dog that threatened the safety of his 4-year-old son does not have to pay a $2,156 veterinarian bill, a Yuba County Superior Court judge ruled Monday.

"The Second Amendment does apply in this country," Judge Julia Scroggin said in court. "You don't have to put up with somebody else's growling dog on your property."

Anthony Moua, 37, was sued in small-claims court by the dog's owner, Ernest Williams Harris, who said Moua didn't call Animal Control first to pick up the dog after it entered his property when getting out of the his yard two houses away in the 2100 block of Erle Road on Feb. 5.

Moua said after the judge's ruling that the animal, which he described as a large black dog, had his teeth on the 4-year-old's shirt and was pulling the boy.
...
[Judge] Scroggin said when making her ruling that Moua isn't responsible for the dog's vet bill and that "any parent would think about protecting their child."

"He lawfully could protect himself and his child," the judge said. "The dog should not have been on the property in the first place."

Article here. The article says Mr. Moua used a .22 rifle, and first first a warning shot. Warning shots are generally a bad idea. You're accountable for every bullet you fire, and you can't always predict where they will end up, particularly in urban areas (this case seems like it occurred in a more rural area). In addition, a .22 (rimfire) rifle probably isn't the best choice for defensive purposes, although it obviously worked in this case.