# What legal recourse against someone who deliberately killed your dog? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 29, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-recourse-against-someone-who-deliberately-killed-your-dog/648720 "2013-01-29T17:25:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-recourse-against-someone-who-deliberately-killed-your-dog/648720/21 "2013-01-30T18:34:05Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > (Of course there’s a million varieties depending on city, county, state, or country) > Dogs are property. You can buy or sell them. The fact that they can be given freely doesn’t change that (the same can be said about cars, books, or condoms). > > You can [adopt a highway](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adopt_a_Highway) > > You replace a dog by buying another dog, you don’t do that with a kid. > > Animals don’t deserve justice, they don’t have that right. > Animals don’t have humans families. Dogs have families that own them. While I am not disputing the law considers dogs “property,” bear in mind the law considered human beings legally property 150 years ago. The bar is not so fixed as you pretend. And your “adopt a highway” example is pure sophistry. Everyone understands that’s a cutesy use of the term to generate public interest. And as I stated, you _very much do_ replace a kid with another kid most of the time in most societies in human history. Your argument here is local only to your time and place, like saying “it’s Wednesday, so Saturday never existed.” _Why_ do you feel animals don’t deserve justice? Justice is blind; justice is about the right thing, not about the wealth and power of the complainant. And animals do have human families, dogs at least are very much aware of family dynamics. I can’t help it if it bothers you that this is true. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-recourse-against-someone-who-deliberately-killed-your-dog/648720/22 "2013-01-30T18:46:07Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > While I am not disputing the law considers dogs “property,” bear in mind the law considered human beings legally property 150 years ago. The bar is not so fixed as you pretend. > > And your “adopt a highway” example is pure sophistry. Everyone understands that’s a cutesy use of the term to generate public interest. > > And as I stated, you _very much do_ replace a kid with another kid most of the time in most societies in human history. Your argument here is local only to your time and place, like saying “it’s Wednesday, so Saturday never existed.” > > _Why_ do you feel animals don’t deserve justice? Justice is blind; justice is about the right thing, not about the wealth and power of the complainant. > > And animals do have human families, dogs at least are very much aware of family dynamics. > > I can’t help it if it bothers you that this is true. I’m not even sure it matters whether dogs are property or not, or whether pets deserve justice (since, really, only people deserve justice). We have special laws for trespassing and breaking and entering, both of which relate to crimes against property. Grand theft auto is a different crime from other kinds of thefts. Not so long ago, horse and cattle thefts were capital crimes. So we could very easily draft a law with additional penalties for crimes committed against someone’s pet, whether or not pets were still considered property. Since a pet has a different relationship with the owner than a working animal, this kind of law isn’t much of a reach at all. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-recourse-against-someone-who-deliberately-killed-your-dog/648720/23 "2013-01-30T21:30:19Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Your comment about replacement is also wrong. Many, many stories abound of parents having another child to replace one who died. Until the development of antibiotics, the normal course of most of human history was to replace children. We’re talking billions of cases over tens of thousands of years across all cultures. We don’t “replace” pets any more than we “replace” a lost child. Getting another is not replacement: they’re not fungible. I’m sure that any family who lost a child and went on to have more children would be deeply offended to hear the subsequent children “replacements”. I had a dog. She died; even our cat mourned her loss. Years later, we adopted a rescue pup. He’s not a replacement for the dead dog, he’s a new family member with a different personality. The cat is not amused, however. A beloved pet is rightly considered property, but is wrongly considered “mere property”. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Animals don’t deserve justice, they don’t have that right. Animals don’t have humans families. Dogs have families that own them. I agree that animals shouldn’t have the legal status of people. However, people who have beloved pets deserve justice. Justice would not be “replacement cost”, since a pet is irreplaceable. You can’t torture a sofa, but you can torture an animal, and many laws acknowledge that fact. ---
**Author:** ![Unstable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/65b543/32.png) [@Unstable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unstable)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-recourse-against-someone-who-deliberately-killed-your-dog/648720/24 "2013-01-31T05:05:03Z")
As a dog lover who has grown up having family dogs and have had numerous pet dogs myself, I would hope that one day the courts will finally recognize the value of the human-dog relation instead of considering of dogs as simply property like inanimate objects. I’m curious to know with the laws as they currently are (that dogs are considered purely property), if the courts recognize the financial investment put to into a pet lost at the hands of another. If the plaintiff is to be truly given proper restitution for his loss. Could it not be argued that he should be reimbursed not only for the cost of the pet/property itself, but also the maintenance costs of said property to reach the exact value of the said property at the moment of the loss? Considering the special nature of the loss, can’t the courts use the emotional attachment of the human/pet relationship to validate the costs incurred by the owner to maintain the pet/property from time of ownership until the demise of said animal? For example, if said pet was 6 years old. Can the plaintiff request reimbursement for all vetenary care incurred to ensure the health of the lost pet at it’s time of death (shots, neuter/spay, training, etc)? I would hope that even though pets are only considered as property in the eyes of the law at this time, that one could argue for more compensation than the cost of said pet/property in cases as the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-recourse-against-someone-who-deliberately-killed-your-dog/648720/25 "2013-01-31T16:52:44Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > While I am not disputing the law considers dogs “property,” bear in mind the law considered human beings legally property 150 years ago. The bar is not so fixed as you pretend. When that bar is changed and dogs are conisdered humans, you’ll have a point. > [@](#): > > And your “adopt a highway” example is pure sophistry. Everyone understands that’s a cutesy use of the term to generate public interest. You used the word adoption with a (recognised) meaning that is different from the the one pertaning humans I’m allowed to do the same. Interestinly, [the dictionary](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adopt) agrees with me and uses highways as an example, and of the five definitions offered the one for dogs would be the same as for roads. > [@](#): > > And as I stated, you _very much do_ replace a kid with another kid most of the time in most societies in human history. Your argument here is local only to your time and place, like saying “it’s Wednesday, so Saturday never existed.” You don’t replace kids with other kids in any real sense of the word. ou have a new some the replace the place of the previous kids. You don’t get another “Richard”. If you break a glass you can fully replace it with the same model. > [@](#): > > _Why_ do you feel animals don’t deserve justice? Justice is blind; justice is about the right thing, not about the wealth and power of the complainant. Animals don’t deserve justice, only humans. Human owners of the animal do deserve justice. > [@](#): > > And animals do have human families, dogs at least are very much aware of family dynamics. Dogs have packs, not families. I’m sure dogs are aware of things. Cockroaches too. > [@](#): > > I can’t help it if it bothers you that this is true. Your saying it, doesn’t make it true. > [@Learjeff](#): > > We don’t “replace” pets any more than we “replace” a lost child. Getting another is not replacement: they’re not fungible. I’m sure that any family who lost a child and went on to have more children would be deeply offended to hear the subsequent children “replacements”. > > I had a dog. She died; even our cat mourned her loss. Years later, we adopted a rescue pup. He’s not a replacement for the dead dog, he’s a new family member with a different personality. The cat is not amused, however. > > A beloved pet is rightly considered property, but is wrongly considered “mere property”. > > I agree that animals shouldn’t have the legal status of people. However, people who have beloved pets deserve justice. Justice would not be “replacement cost”, since a pet is irreplaceable. > > You can’t torture a sofa, but you can torture an animal, and many laws acknowledge that fact. Pets are, of course, more than mere property for the owner, but it’s a personal distinction in the same way that a particular book is more valuable to me beyond its monetary value. ---
**Author:** ![Kimballkid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5a626/32.png) [@Kimballkid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimballkid)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-recourse-against-someone-who-deliberately-killed-your-dog/648720/26 "2013-01-31T17:17:39Z")
> [@Kimballkid](#): > > In my state animal cruelty and inhumane treatment of animals are misdemeanors and can carry up to one year in jail. Some people don’t think this is enough and should carry a felony charge. To add to this: in addition to the up to one year in jail, it can also carry up to a $2,000.00 fine. The last case I’m aware of the guy got 100 days in jail with 86 suspended (with conditions) and a $500 fine. As part of the conditions, he has to remain law abiding for one year and not consume alcohol. He also made restitution of $500.00 for vet bills and wrote a letter of apology to the pet owner. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-recourse-against-someone-who-deliberately-killed-your-dog/648720/27 "2013-01-31T19:46:23Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > When that bar is changed and dogs are conisdered humans, you’ll have a point. That bar is evolving as we type. cases in point in this very thread. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You don’t replace kids with other kids in any real sense of the word. ou have a new some the replace the place of the previous kids. You don’t get another “Richard”. If you break a glass you can fully replace it with the same model. Another poster said it better than I did – you don’t replace a dog any more than you do a kid. Furthermore, to the extent that you consider a dog “replaced,” I consider a kid “replaced.” > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Animals don’t deserve justice, only humans. You’re talking about current law, [and excluding some law to make your point](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/26/humanrights.animalwelfare). But justice is about more than law. Many moral systems do indeed consider justice to be an issue of the right thing, not an issue of who doesn’t count and can be freely offended against. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Pets are, of course, more than mere property for the owner, but it’s a personal distinction in the same way that a particular book is more valuable to me beyond its monetary value. I don’t understand why you’re saying this. The law contemplates personal value for objects in some cases, and your statement neither rules out or in whether it’s been applied to dogs, thus seeming to be superfluous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-recourse-against-someone-who-deliberately-killed-your-dog/648720.md?page=1)