[alexosnasos2]

First of all...these would both fall under a civil suite, and have nothing to do with actual crime law. For example, the guy that broke into the house and got cut by a knife he fell on would still have been charged and tried for breaking and entering, and most likely found guilty.

He simply sued for injuries. (Even though in that particular story, I wonder how true it is considering it came straight from the Jim Carry comedy "liar, liar.")

Basically what it means is yes, someone could sue you for injuries or "emotional trauma" in civil court even if they were the perpetrator of a crime against you at the time they were in jured...but this would hold no standing on the law as far as you or the dog is concerned.

It would be a seperate matter. A case in a civil court can't order your dog to be considered dangerous or order him put down, because, by law...he is NOT aggressive...he was protecting you.

But they CAN ask for monetary compensation for "damages".

Still BS, but not really dangerous for your dog.

Is that where it came from? I could've swore I read it in a local news paper, because it happened here. I'll try to find a link or something when I'm not falling asleep at my keyboard, ha.