-snort- I wanna live in your county.
Actually, I wouldn’t mind a middle ground somehow.
Then again, as we are slowly proving, there is zero middle ground here. Either dogs are babies/humans/rational, or…um…they’re…animals. I suppose that a pack of feral dogs is a lot like a bunch of 2 year olds at the playground… :rolleyes:
I have to second this. I don’t think there is ANY place where dogs are allowed to roam free on someone else’s property. How little the local police care is a good indicator. Why, exactly, should they care about the OP’s dog if it was unleached and on someone else’s property?
There is another possibility, which is that your dog was hit by a spent bullet fired from far away OFF your neighbor’s land. If that happened, your neighbor may not even have been home, and really might have had nothing to do with it.
ooooooooo you’ve got me mad. I almost like it. :wally
your posts are so rough, ignorant and painfully false…you make my neighbor look like Stephen Hawkins.
I suggest you go back through this thread again and count (use your fingers if you have too) how many people have stated that they think dogs are the absolute equivalent to babies. Dogs are LIKE babies i-n s-o-m-e w-a-y-s. Please stop putting words in peoples mouth.
Lizard > Maybe you haven’t read this thread all the way through. Besides what I’ve been raised believing and what the policeman told me, Gfactor found and posted the literature stating that there are indeed places where dogs do not have to be on a leash.
Mdm. President, you keep making claims to laws, and you keep being wrong. Lizard said (correctly) that laws prohibit you from letting your dog roam free on someone elses property pretty much everywhere. You keep insisting you did nothing wrong. You keep insisting Gfactor posted laws stating you did nothing wrong. This is not true. You are wrong, and Gfactor posted zero that backs up this position that everything is fine with you letting your dog go out of control on other peoples property.
Mdm. President, I’m sorry I was harsh earlier, I’m happy that Nick is ok, and I’m happy you and your neighbor are on good terms again. But all that doesn’t change the fact – both legally and ethically – that you were in the wrong by not keeping your dog under control. Did your dog act in such a menacing way that he deserved to be shot? It doesn’t sound that way to me. But that’s irrelevant. The bottom line is that you did the wrong thing first.
Just to jump into the middle of a discussion here. I’ll probably come off harsher than I intend, so don’t take it too personally:
A) Was shooting your dog an overreaction?
Probably. But if the shot was intentional, count youself lucky it wasn’t a lethal shot? And as was stated previously - you might know your dog is the sweetest dog in the universe, the person who shot might have percieved it differently - there is no way one can accurately read a dog one doesn’t know.
B) Could you have done anything to prevent it?
Yes - you could have kept your dog on a leash - you say that people who live in an area like you do should expect to find dog poop in their gardens - well, yes, but not because it’s right, but because a lot of people don’t really care where their free-roaming dogs shit - and THAT is quite annoying.
C) What should you take away from this?
Some people are wackos, some people are justified. But if you want to make sure it never happens again or, if it does that you have the law firmly on your side, then keep your dog on a leash and off other peoples property.
-Tikster
A doglover who hates removing other people’s dog poops from her front yard. YMMV.
Don’t be obtuse. Please justify the statement “a dog is a weapon.” Use baby talk if it seems appropriate.
Bill. H.
I apologize for calling you obtuse. I know you are a smart guy and it seems to me you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I suppose a dog can be a weapon, in the sense that a rolled up magazine, or a pencil, or a chair, or a can of WD-40 can be a weapon. If you meant it in this sense then it is clear that you are equivocating. Would you shoot someone who walked on your property with a rolled up magazine? I think not.
Can you find a dictionary that defines a dog as a weapon? Is a dog legally defined as a weapon? Is a dog generally understood to be a weapon?
In short, I think you are talking through your hat, much as you were in this post when you conflated the OP’s one year old with an imaginary one being threatened by a dog.
I can’t take sides here – I have a dog that I wouldn’t want anything to happen to, and I take steps to that end. But, I also trap fsck’ing trespassing cats and let animal control kill them – yes, even if I know who the owner is. So not having all of the facts… I can offer some perspective.
(1) I don’t know how to tell how old a dog is. A four year old lab looks like a twelve year old lab to me. So I think the age is indefensible.
(2) I’m currently living in a country where dogs (other than ankle-biters) live outside all the time. We’re looked at kind of funny for letting our immigrant-dog live inside the house with us. Everybody that enters the house is scared to death of the dog until we take great pains to show how friendly she is. I’m talking a 20kg whippet, a small “Santa’s L’il Helper,” not a big dog. I guess the point is, it’s not unreasonable for people to think that dogs are, by default, viscious. Right here, it’s the whole culture, practically.
No, it says if you have a “reasonable” fear, and that term (while it’s been debated heavily) does not give carte blanche to every dogophobe who is terrified by them to kill them. There is a distinction between a “reasonable” fear and an unreasonable one. Even though legally, in most respects, dogs are treated as property, you don’t have the right to arbitrarily destroy another person’s property. Nor do you have the right to kill another person’s dog if your fear of it attacking is unreasonable.
I doubt that’s true. Does anyone in the thread actually know anything about the law? Because there’s probably a specific definition of “bodily injury” or another test of some sort that can be applied to this.
Um, are you on drugs or something? You think the law cares whether Nick is a “good dog”? A dog (obviously!) can’t commit a crime, so the application of terms like “innocent” and “guilty” is nonsensical.
And if a dog is liable to run onto another person’s property to “greet” them, you oughta put it on a leash. I just plain don’t like them much, so I wouldn’t be in terror, but I wouldn’t be happy to see the creature approach either. That said, it’s not really a legal defense to be scared due to a past dog attack. That’s not a reasonable fear; the “reasonable man” that is occasionally discussed in these matters does not have an irrational fear of dogs. There is very real legal discussion of exactly what “reasonable” means, and this does not fall under “reasonable”.
That said, if your dog is gonna wander on someone else’s property, put a goddamn leash on it.
Judging by your writing skills and the things you’ve been posting in this thread, after multiple instances of dog attacks, you seem to have been left kind of empty-headed. It doesn’t matter if other dogs, in other places, have attacked children. If you don’t have a reasonable basis to believe that someone is about to be attacked, then you don’t get to shoot.
If indeed this is the custom in your area, than how fortunate we are that the customs of Rednecksylvania are not laws. Why do people keep discussing what the guy down the street sitting on the porch of his doublewide with a gun does? It’s not germane to the discussion, as it’s not the law, and it sure as hell ain’t civilized behavior.
Because we want to, because it is germane to the discussion, and because I believe that more people are on the side of the country dwellers I have described (although probably in a bit more muted form) than are on the side of the expect to have your property damaged by wandering dogs side.
It’s good that you ascribe those who disagree with you as being rednecks. It must have taken a large leap to get there. I see those people as people who believe that dogs are animals and like other animals, once they move to a point where they are beyond a minor nuisance (such as damaging or routinely trespassing on property), they need to be dealt with.
Just for the heck of it, how is this germane to the discussion? Where was it stated that what happened was routine, or that property was damaged?
I don’t think someone has the implicit legal right to retaliate in any way they choose simply because someone wrongs them first. Mdm. President, we mostly seem to agree, should have kept Nick (the YELLOW 
Lab) off of someone else’s property. But the property owner should still be bound by law to respond in a reasonable fashion, shouldn’t he?
(No, seriously, shouldn’t he? If not, I’m really disturbed, and I’m really gonna’ watch my step around property lines.)
You’ve seen the criminal laws (update, btw, the county does not have a leash ordinance–or any other relevant ordinances, as far as I can tell), and read what I and other lawyers had to say about civil law. I won’t repeat it. Bottom line, whether or not the shooter committed a crime, if the shooter damaged the dog without a good reason, the shooter will answer in damages if sued.
You are right. I responded to thin air. Conversations and discussions never branch out from the strict interpretation and discussion of the specific facts of the original question. This one clearly did not, and I made up all of the intervening conversation and discussion (that might be considered normal on a message board).
Seriously, come on.
So a hijack justifies a hijack? Nice.
What are you doing right now?
Trying to get this thread back on track.
It never went offtrack. It was not hijacked. It instead has developed into an interesting conversation that is still clearly connected with the original post.
You think those signs that read,
**POSTED : NO TRESSPASSING. VIOLATORS MAY BE SHOT AT ** is only a function of Hollywood? Think again.
Yes, it might be a really good idea to watch one’s step around property lines. Since when is it legal and acceptable to let your "property (dog) " run into someone else’s property? You want me parking my car on your lawn? No? Why not? Oh. It’s your lawn. My property, your lawn. You get to forceably remove it, because it’s on your property.
-shrug- Ya’ll that are regarding a dog as legal property, might want to inquire as to what property really is seen as in the eyes of the local law. Might be in a world of trouble the next time your property runs into someone else’s property.
Then again, might not. Might be that a homeowner has zero rights in terms of controlling what happens on their land and in their home. Me, I got my doubts… this is what this thread is really about, harkening back to the O.P.
It’s about who had what rights at the moment the dog was shot. And once again, I am incredibly glad that no humans were injured by the putz with the gun.
The factual question seems to have been answered, so I’ll close this thread. Those who don’t like the answer may rant to their heart’s content in the BBQ Pit fourm. Those who wish to debate the similarities of dogs to babies or the morality of killing dogs or any other topic are invited to do so in the Great Debates forum.
bibliophage
moderator GQ