[QUOTE=spoke-]
I suggest fighting the urge for angry confrontation, strong though that urge may be. Such a confrontation would only lead to a hardening of positions and perhaps a long-term feud, which would be unpleasant for both sides.
If you can somehow quietly let him know of the extent of the cat’s injuries (maybe through his wife, or through a letter–calm and even in tone), you might get the contrition and compensation you deserve. He might surprise you.
I really suspect he only meant to sting the cat, not seriously injure it.
[/QUOTE]
Your first two points we agree with: neither NC or us want a confrontation, nor do we want a long-term feud to develop or bad blood to linger. To our knowledge, he still does not know how bad he hurt the cat. It may sound a little high-and-mighty and political, but I want to see if they come over and apologize first. Nawth mentioned earlier they hadn’t even stopped by yet to inquire as to the cat’s condition. However, when they do (and I expect the mortified wife to approach first), we will quietly let them know the extent of her injury and ask them to pay the bill. When they responded, the police asked us if we wanted to prosecute, and at the time I didn’t think it was necessary–still don’t. But the polite and responsible thing to do, I think, would be for them to reimburse me for the Vet bill.
I see both sides of the fence on the barrier argument (pun intended). There is a natural, reasonable expectation that one could erect a bird feeder with some degree of safety–but it is not implicitly guaranteed. Nature is nature after all (it ain’t always kind, cuddly Bambi-esque). There is also a reasonable expectation that one could allow a cat or dog outdoors with a reasonable degree of safety (whether restrained or not is dependent on the nature of the animal, in that I would argue cats will always be the ‘social roamers of the neighborhood’, but a dog can be more effectively restrained. . . a side argument for another day)–but again, absolute safety is not guaranteed: cars hit and kill pets, dogs and cats get loose accidentally and injure themselves through other ways. The issue of the fence, I feel, is immaterial. . .
My problem is that my neighbor used disproportionate, overwhelming force on a problem that I feel wasn’t a problem at all. He may not have thought so, but to actually draw a weapon and fire at an animal when there is no threat (especially to him, his wife, or any other person) is completely unacceptable and irresponsible. Had Squeak metamorphasized into a cougar and began attacking small children, different story. But a cat, sitting below a 3-foot feeder is not a direct threat to either the birds or the people in the home. Further, because of his original statement to me, I believe he did shoot because he didn’t realize it was our cat he thought he could get away with it. I’m not defending shooting any animal in a case like this–I think he just got carried away with himself.
By letter of the law, the state of GA defines a ‘firearm’ as a weapon designed to fire projectiles by an explosive force (paraphrased). The city ordinance indicates that:
So, while he didn’t discharge a firearm, he did an air rifle. As I mentioned before, it sucks, but I don’t care to prosecute yet.
My bottom line: the guy irresponsibly fired a weapon when there was no threat. They have not come to apologize or even stand and take responsibility. But, I am not wanting to hang this over all of our heads: I want two things, an unconditional “I’m sorry”, and a reimbursement of the vet costs.
Tripler
We’ve still got each other as neighbors, but they unfortunately, have lost my trust.