Perhaps we should pit animals’ owners who let their animals wander around in other people’s yards and expect everyone else to bear the burden of their pets.
I understand that in this case the release of the animal was accidental, so my ire isn’t exactly directed at you. It seems, more than anything, that this was a case of you making a mistake and the neighbor over-reacting. However, I strongly believe that if an animal is on your property without your permission, you have the right to use a BB gun to scare it away. If it is actively destroying your property (and you live out in the country, with no or few neighbors), then I’d even go so far as to say shooting it with a real gun is proper. People should control their animals; if they don’t, other people have every right to use force to keep them off their property.
The BB gun seriously injured the cat. That’s what the pitting is about.
The cat was not a predator, and was recognized as a neighbor’s pet. A simple solution would have been to shoo it away and ask the neighbor to keep it inside. At the very least a shot about two feet beside the cat would have sufficed. The shooter was an asshole. You are defending an asshole.
If this were an ongoing problem, with no apparent resolution, he could have trapped the cat. He chose the nuclear option as his first option.
So you have read the mind of the neighbor and know he knew it was the neighbor’s cat before he shot it?
Perhaps, if he recognized it as the neighbor’s cat. However, maybe the neighbor was tired of random cats roaming around his place.
Why? To have the cat return in a minute or two?
Maybe, but so what? The shooter was justified in trying to keep what he perceived as a pest off his property.
And then do what with it? Take it out in the woods and leave it? Take it back to the neighbor (assuming he knew whose cat it was) to have the cat return to his property as soon as the neighbor lets it out again? No, shooting it with a BB gun gives the cat the signal that “neighbor’s yard=pain.”
Again, you assume he knew this cat was the neighbor’s. He may well have had numerous cats over there destroying his crap. Getting tired of his neglectful neighbors, he decided to try and keep the cats away by the BB gun route. That makes perfect sense to me.
This particular cat posed no threat as a predator to the birds.
Although you have claimed to have read the thread, this is at least the second time your ignorance of what it contains is showing. Read it again, and while you are at it, answer the question I posed in post #128?
Contrapuntal, I preferred not to let this thread get bogged down in a debate about my own views on morality, so I chose to ignore your questions in post #128.
As far as the neighbor knowing about the cat’s ownership, I read where the owners of the cat asserted that the neighbor should have known, since they and the cat were outside at the same time as the neighbors. This does not presume that the neighbor knew who the cat belonged to when he shot it. A lot of cats look alike, for one. Also, the neighbor may not have paid that much attention to the cat when they were outside together. Our neighbors have a dog that I see fairly often when I’m outside or looking out my window. If I saw that dog outside its fence, however, I’d have a hell of a time placing it.
If you are going to dismiss testimony from the principals concerning the incident there probably is not much to discuss. **NC **said he should have recognized the cat. That’s good enough for me.
The pertinent question in post 128 concerned where in the thread you saw evidence that the cat was about to destroy his property.
Why? He’s obviously biased. We do not have “testimony” (as if this were a court of law) from the neighbor. Why don’t we invite the neighbor to give his two cents? We’ve only heard one side of the story. I’m trying to lay out a plausible scenario for the shooter’s view of things.
Again, it’s quite likely he’s had other cats there tearing shit up. That’s what cats do. My folks own cats and they are destructive creatures.
Let’s just look at what’s more likely:
Your scenario: the neighbor is a sadistic asshole who kept track of the neighbors’ cats and knew them by sight. He was waiting for the day when the indoor cat would escape and come over to his property so he could try and kill it with his powerful BB gun. As soon as he saw his opportunity (since he was sitting, watchign what the neighbors do), he rushed out and took dead aim for the cat’s head, trying to murder it to satisfy his heart’s sickest desires.
Or
Realistisc scenario: the neighbor, having a bird feeder, had a number of cats who came over and destoyed his property and killed the birds he was trying to feed. One morning he sees yet another cat on the feeder and he assumes it is getting ready to do what so many cats had done before. The cat looks familiar, but he can’t really place it. He gets a BB gun, pumps it four times, aims for the cat’s ass, and shoots. As soon as he hits it and it runs to the neighbors’ house, he realizes who it belongs to. When the neighbor confronts him, he admits what he did.
Nah. I doubt that would have even startled the cat. It’s not like BBs explode on impact. A BB landing two feet away would make very little noise, if any. Nor does an air gun make much noise when firing- just a dull “foop!”
Again, you’ll have to ask the shooter. I’m saying that it would be logical, in his mind, to assume that property was about to be destroyed. Even if he didn’t think this, he was well within his rights to use a BB gun to scare off what he regarded as a pest from his property.
Yes, in retrospect, we can all probably say the cat that was shot wasn’t going to destroy or kill anything. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that. However, at the time I’m sure the shooter had a much more logical reason for doing what he did apart from your preferred “he’s an asshole.”
Sorry, I’m just describing the scenario that seems likely from the way you view the situation. You think the shooter is some evil guy who gets his rocks off trying to kill cuddly kitties that just want to come over to his property and play with him. I’m just trying to suggest a scenario that seems a wee bit more realistic.
She, presumably. One wold think you as well, as you claim to be familiar with the particulars of the thread.
That’s not what you said before. You said nothing at all about what was in his mind. See here --* “The cat is on his property, either destroying it or getting ready to destroy it. While I think it may be a bit of an over-reaction, the property owner is well within his right to kill such a pest.”*
And, for the third time, what property is about to be destroyed? Can you name it? His house? His car? His lot? What was about to be destroyed?
I did not say he did it because he is an asshole. I said he is an asshole because he did it. Can you see the distinction?
You have progressed from making shit up to making shit up out of whole cloth. It may seem that way to you, but you would be hard pressed to find any justification for your belief. At any rate, the false dilemma still stands.
Considering that contrapuntal seems unable to grasp the difference in range and accuracy between a toy water pistol and a bb gun, it’s not likely she’ll understand the above either.
In any case, you’re absolutely correct, a tiny bb landing in the grass 2 feet away would hardly even be noticed by a cat, much less “scare it away”.
He, actually. And maybe you and **renob **could tag team on some kind of career in fiction. Where have I made reference to a toy water pistol? (Hint: Nowhere. Thanks for playing.)
This is quickly turning into a game of semantics; or a bunch of dog poop and gasoline stuffed into a giant old tire, lit aflame, and rolled down a hill towards a busy intersection–I’m not sure.
