It’s " Cartooniverse ". Remember, as Uncle Cecil said, girls don’t get intimate with boys who are illiterate.
Now then. You can threaten to put me in a " world of hurt " because it’s the Internet and you are safe to threaten someone irrationally and with zero regard for the law. That’s just fine.
However, a perusal of the laws of your town/village/city will very clearly state what lengths a property owner is allowed to go to, including physical force, to defend life and property. I would be very interested in reading cite from the local statutes that gives you free reign to attack someone who is protecting their child while on their own property.
I hate to say this because you just won’t like it one little bit, but it’s not up to dog lovers like you to define local property law. If your dog meanders into my yard and eats my child’s face for lunch, I hardly think it’s up to you to threaten to put a “world of hurt” on anyone whose reasonable, adult and sane response is to protect their human child before being concerned about the safety and welfare of your snugglepuppy.
Then again, maybe you live in a different kind of a town. Please, without giving away your privacy and location, care to cite the code that applies here? I’m ever so curious. Thanks !!!
According to the OP, the dog was 10 yards away, sniffing around in the yard. It doesn’t say that the dog was out of sight. If it was, then the argument becomes more difficult to disprove.
Where did the child with the eaten-off face come from? Make up things, much, Cartooniverse?
If we’re going to change the facts, then let’s make it a pack of rottweilers! That’ve killed whole schoolrooms full of innocent children! That only you and your trusty rifle can stop! Yeah!
Secondly, when I said “world of hurt”, I meant you being arrested followed by me kicking your ass, followed by me being arrested. In my neighborhood (not saying which one in a thread with people who seem intent on shooting anything in their yard), you would have no right to shoot my dog if it was wandering on your property and putting you in no harm whatsoever. Are you going to shoot me if I walk up to your door to sell you something? I mean, maybe I’ll start chewing off the face of your 2 year old, so you better fire off a couple of pre-emptive strikes. Unless you are actually threatened by this dog, killing it because it was on your property makes you a lame excuse for a human being. Not that the standards have been set very high lately. If you would like to hear my true opinion, please take me to the pit. Otherwise, to the OP, I can’t imagine how this guy had any right to shoot your dog. Granted allowing your dog to run free around nuts like this was not a wise choice, but his choice was far worse.
Good thing we have a judicial system. Moral people act correctly. Those that won’t follow moral guidelines on thieir own, we have laws to make sure they act ethically, by force if necessary.
The notion that shooting you is equivalent to shooting your dog may make sense in your world, but fortunately, here on earth the two actions are perceived very differently.
I hope you understand the difference between a human being and a dog, which legally-speaking is not much different than a coffee table lamp.
Sadly in this forum I cannot respond with what I’d like to say. I’ve never really understood why people view animals so differently than humans. To me, a dog is about the same as a baby. Neither can talk or make any kind of decisions, yet you consider one to have full rights and the other to have none. I hope for your sake you never run into any alien that looks down on you and then proceeds to load his gun because you were trespassing on his galaxy. In all fairness though, man doesn’t just treat animals like shit, he treats fellow man like shit as well.
I think we were given (not by anyones fault) a vague description of what happened here, and some of the responses are very telling of those who’ve written them.
There was never a point in which the OP described her dog as agitated, threatening, pissing on a bush and killing it or even barking agressively. She stated that the dog was near-by while on a walk, which indicates that they were not loitering on the neighbors property, but WALKING.
To me this means circumstances were such that the “neighbor” (who fled) was either an unwitting teen-ager or a dangerous adult. Take your pick.
Whether or not the OP is in the legal right or wrong, I would proudly associate myself with her, but I’m sure those of you who think dogs are equal to coffee tables I can do without.
Bill H, Up until now I’ve regarded your opinion very highly but I can’t help but think you’re just acting brutish because it’s acceptable in the eyes of the law.
Oh, simple. From the ambulance call I responded to a few years back. A three year old girl whose parents were visiting friends. The dog did exactly what I said. I refuse to name the childs name because of Chicago Reader legal constraints ( not to mention basic common sense ), so if you refuse to believe me, that’s okay. However, if you do a Search for threads on Dogs, Dog Bites, Leash Laws and the likes and cross-link to my name, you will see that I have shared this story in numerous other threads going back past the year 2000.
The child was the youngest of three, the family close friends of mine. She’s got a hell of a lot of scars, for a kid who doesn’t exist and is a part of a lie. :wally
See, some folks don’t have to make things up. Some folks don’t have to suppose and create out of whole cloth, or make assumptions about strangers without a shred of evidence to back it up. Some folks don’t have to threaten others with, and I do quote directly here, " a world of hurt ".
Some folks, believe it or not, get by with the truth that they have faced in real life.
Cupcake, you are calling the wrong retired Emergency Medical Technician a liar. In fact, I changed no facts.
I was responding directly to the quote I used in my last post, and was accurate. Oh, and I am a devout pacifist. So, whose rifle?..
I’ve seen most of those threads; I’m very much aware that you’ve had many bad experiences with dogs. I can understand the general fear of dogs this can generate, but I don’t understand how you can assume that every single domesticated dog is essentially “bad,” likely to snap at a moment’s notice.
So Cartooniverse, if someone posts a thread talking about the teenager he shot in his back yard, and that poster gets called on it, he gets to defend himself by saying the he once knew of a different teenager (one who had nothing to do with the one he shot) who knifed people?
That’s the logic you are using. No, I’m not saying that dogs are the same as people. What I’m saying is that the dog in this thread didn’t eat anyone’s face off. That’s the kind of situation addressed by Gfloyd13’s post - someone peacefully walking his dog. That’s the post you were responding to. He tells us what his reaction would be if someone shot his dog in a similar situation.
And you start talking about how Gfloyd is wrong, because his dog should be shot because he’s eating some kid’s face off. WTF?
So back to my teenager. If the dangerous dog you’re bringing up, the one that has nothing to with the dogs discussed in this thread, justifies shooting another, different dog, do I get to shoot the teenager? After all, other teenagers shoot and knife people all the time.
And settle down a little. No one accused you of lying about the other dog you once knew. I did accuse you of making up new facts about the situations being discussed in this thread in a lame attempt to support your argument. So leave the putz smilie in the pit.
Don’t be snarky. I believe Floyd ment they are similar in the sence that neither can talk, take up for themselves or make any kind of decisions. Dogs, like babies, are indeed innocent.
Dogs are no more dangrous than most things in life. You drive a car right? They are dangrous and kill thousands of children a year. Dogs are as big a part of my life as cars are of yours. Will some people look down on you for putting your children in the metal cage of death waiting to happen? You bet! They are out there (in Utah I believe).
You don’t shoot first and and then ponder “Well …it was really running more to me than at me”. And the law backs this up. The threat must be pretty damn obvious.
Cartooniverse, would you care to discuss the incident brought up by the OP, or would you rather rationalize shooting dogs based on some random event in your life? And Bill H, since you are obviously appauled by my comparison of dogs and babies, would you care to explain what you see as the difference? I stated my reasons yet you seem unable to do the same. And in regards to your morals comment, you consider letting your dog run on someone else’s grass to be immoral, yet shooting an animal who is of no immediate danger to you moral? Am I missing something here? Now I’m not condoning letting your dog run free on other people’s property, but don’t you think your reaction is a little over the top? Trespassing is worse than shooting and possibly killing a domesticated dog?
Naa, the respect is still there. I just wish that everyone would take the OPs word for how things went down.
I am also a dog owner but when I walk my dog (also a lab with a great disposition) I use a remote shock collar to keep him under “control”. He doesn’t need the collar but he was trained on it, and it’s there for me to know that in the event of any random circumstance I could bring him under complete control if need be.
So I have no stake in this other than the idea that people should respect eachother as much as possible. That means if my dog bothers you, give me a chance to straighten that out before you shoot him. If that doesn’t work, then shoot him by all means.
The same goes the other way around. If your dog threatens me I’ll try to warn you first if possible, then I’ll shoot.
The whole world would be better off this way and so many laws wouldn’t be needed.
He was quite clear; he said dogs and babies were equivalent, then followed “you consider one (babies) to have full rights and the other (dogs) to have none.”
Yes. That is what I (and the law) believe. I believe babies are human beings with “full rights” and dogs are property, not much different from a dining room chair.
Now, I treat dogs kindly, but that’s because I’m a kindly person.
Oh, and now on preview, I see that friend Floyd13 has confirmed my suspicion:
(to which I say, “no; if you can’t tell the difference between a human and a dog in terms of rights and responsibilities, there’s very little I can do will fix you.”)
Mdm. President wrote
Not to be harsh, but this isn’t the first time in this thread where you’ve claimed to have knowledge of relevant law that was incorrect. Care to provide a cite where it’s illegal to shoot an animal that you believe is attacking?
I’m really surprised that the “it’s just an animal” argument hasn’t shown up yet. You know, some people consider their dogs to be more than disposable furniture. Why does this attitude need “fixing?”
Did you miss that middle part of my quote? I hope excluding that part was an honest mistake and not an attempt at manipulating my statement. Hopefully you just had a lapse of reading comphrehension there and nothing more.
If you consider dogs to be nothing more than property and shooting them is a kind act, then I’m afraid I cannot continue this discussion any further with you.
It’s not harsh. I assumed you had read the above laws Gfactor so graciously looked up and posted. And don’t worry, I’m thick skinned.
(g) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under this
section that the person had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to
the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by
Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.
In other words,
“It’s commin right for us!” …sorry
If no one else that saw agrees that the fear was reasonable, cuff 'em (ok, they probably wouldn’t cuff them but a girl can dream)
One can’t use self defense just because one is bored and puts no more importance on a dog then one would a piece of furniture. Or even if one has an unhealthy, unreasonable fear of dogs.
It has to be a reasonable fear… this time. Not last time. Not years ago. It doesn’t matter that you’ve had bad experiences with other dogs in the past. It has to be a reasonable fear of a dangerous animal this time.
I understand some people have been seriously negatively effected by dogs. I don’t understand not working past it, expecting everyone to keep their dogs far far away. Especially out in the country. It’s one of those fears that is irrational to have. You just can’t avoid dogs out in the country.
I’m tired and I don’t think I’m being very clear or poignant in this post, but here it is anyway.
It’s lullaby time.
Um, your quote backs my point, not yours. The cited statute says that if a person fears for their safety or for the safety of another human, that they are not prosecutable.
Not only that, but the statute is pretty mild in the amount of injury that it considers acceptable. It says “reasonable fear of bodily injury”. Which means if you feared being scratched, then blaze away without fear of prosecution.
However, I do wonder if this law is applicable, as it refers to “dangerous wild animal as defined by section 822.101”. Perhaps this law is pertaining to mountain lions and such. I’d have to read the relevant statute to know for certain if it applies.
