On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:07:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Two things: First of all, the guy who killed the pet didn't finish the
job.
He should wrapped it in a trash bag and taken it to a dumpster.

He still ended up forking over some dough for illegally killing his
neighbor's pet. That in itself would seem to validate the notion that
killing a pet over yard damage is neither legal nor justified.

Not necessarily. First of all, this was a TV show. Jerry Springer aside, do
you seriously think a network would air a court session which informed
millions of people that they could get away with executing stray dogs?

So you now posit that the law is somehow "modified" in its
interpretation when the legal venue is televised? I'd be interested in
seeing some data that supports this.


The laws you referenced were put into place to cover wild animals
destroying commercial crops, not domestic pets invading a vegetable
garden.

The law here does not specify animals by species. Any uncontrolled animal
is
"wild".

A good lawyer could argue that. A domestic "pet" is not considered
wild. Especially if it is properly licensed, and displays them.

In a town with the laws written the way they are in mine, that lawyer would
be wasting his breath. Besides, what difference does it make whether crops
are destroyed by a coyote or your neighbor's stray dog? Either way, the
damage is done.

Right, which is why someone who is as concerned about crop damage as
you are, would be well advised to take preventative measure, such as
erecting a fence. Don't rely on everyone else to protect your
investment. You have as much (if not more) responsibility to keep your
valuables away from harm.


And, answer a question which I posed to one of the Patsy Twins: How
large do YOU think a vegetable garden has to be before YOU consider it a
food source which, if threatened, is the same as someone sticking a knife
in
your face and demanding your wallet?

Would you kill someone who ran off with your car? Would the law
consider it justified? Why then do you not extend the same logic to
pets? The "value" of the item is irrelevant. That you resorted to
using deadly force, when the use of such was not warranted IS the
issue.

If someone runs off with my car, they are no longer on my property. Even if
caught them in the driveway fiddling with the ignition, the law only allows
me to shoot them if they are in my dwelling. I can't even SHOW a gun legally
in that situation. It's called "brandishing". I can have my hand ready on
the concealed weapon, and I can tell them I have a weapon, but it can only
be drawn under a narrow set of circumstances.

I'm glad you understand this so well, and you are 100% correct. But
tell me then, how can you extend a whole different set of
circumstances to a neighbor's dog?


In an earlier post, you remarked about the intrinsic "value"
of crops versus that of destructive animals as some sort of
justification for killing them. In the case of wild animals, the
"value" of commercial crops would seem to exceed the "value" of
rabbits, deer, or other indigenous wildlife.

Commercial crops? Who are YOU to determine the monetary value of the food
I
grow? One year, I got a 20x40 area to crank out what we estimated to be
over
$800.00 worth of food.

What is the "value" that you place on another living being?

Depends on which being you're referring to. On a scale of 0 to 10, everyone
in my family is worth 10. The neighbor's dog is worth 4, at most, as long as
it's off my property. Its value drops to 0 the minute it breaks the rules on
my property. To give you something to compare to:

Earthworm: 8
Cow: 8
Cat: 9
Coyote: 6
Trout, any species: 218
Neighbors' kids: 9

I find it interesting that you'd rate fish higher than you own
family.......





But pets are another
matter. People place a high "value" on their pets, and as such, they
are not as arbitrary and subject to the same considerations WRT
intrinsic value versus a wild animal.

Correction: ***SOME*** people place a high value on their pets. The ones
who
let dogs roam the neighborhood do NOT.

And you know this how?

Because I'm much smarter than you, and won't fall for such a ridiculous
question.

For a guy who's supposedly so smart, you sure have a convoluted
understanding of the law and your rights and responsibilities within
it.

And for the record, you not "falling" for the question is not so much
a matter of your greater intelligence as it is your realization that
you would be unable to honestly answer the question, since you cannot
be in the position to make that statement with any degree of validity.
Your answer, therefore, was little more than another feeble attempt at
deflection.


Those people have clearly
demonstrated that they want their dogs to be hit by cars. Otherwise, they
would not let them roam.

An assumption. One that is not interchangeable with fact. To apply
that same logic, parents who let their kids out to play, must want
harm to come to them, since by doing so, they open them up to
potential accidents and abductions. Surely you see the flaws in your
logic.

No. Kids can eventually be taught that it's dangerous to be careless around
traffic.

But accidents can still happen, and pedophiles are lying in wait.


Dogs, on the other hand, are stupid, and will never learn this.

An interesting statement coming from someone who once declared that
animals are as intelligent as humans.


Since this is obvious, it's safe to assume that anyone who lets their dog
roam has accepted the likelihood that it will be hit by a car.

You've obviously never spent much time training a dog. I've been
around many dogs who were not only aware of traffic, they actually
learned to look both ways before crossing a street. Any seeing-eye dog
is aware of things like traffic, the life of their handler depends on
it. That you would make such a blanket statement shows how little you
really know about dogs.


Anything which is easily prevented but which is NOT prevented, is intentional.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of living in a black and white,
binary world? If that statement is not an example of binary thinking
on steroids, I don't know what is....


This
is the logic behind laws involving negligence, i.e.: criminally negligent
homicide.

Which is much different from an intentional homicide, like murder.

You can be legally responsible for a loss of life, but you didn't have
to intend to do it. That's the difference between manslaughter and
murder. You should learn the difference.

Do you have a right to kill a wild rabbit who invades your garden?
What if it was your neighbor's prized poodle? What if it was the
neighbor's kid? Where do you draw the line? I'm curious to hear your
justification.

Rabbit: 99% of the time, no. Bugs and rabbits sometimes eat 10% of your
crops. I plant 10% extra. It works out nicely. Rabbits may eat some
lettuce,
but they don't dig up a 1x1 square every time they take a crap.

Most dogs don't either. Dogs dig for other reasons which have little
to do with their potty habits.

Doesn't matter to me why they do it. If they do it in my garden, they're
headed for trouble. I begin working on food plants in the middle of January
using plant lights. The hard work goes on indoors until April. Once they're
in the ground, the plants are vulnerable until they reach a certain size.
Any animal that destroys 4 months' worth of work can expect to be dealt
with.

So why not just put up a fence then? It seems that your investment is
valuable enough for you to take precautions?



One
particularly bold rabbit became coniglio con aglio, rosmarino & pomodori,
served with buckwheat polenta. Delicious.

But the point here is that no one would miss a wild rabbit, so there's
likely no one who would challenge your "right" to kill it. A pet is
another story.

You keep falling into this hole. Question: If a person cares about his dog,
why does that person let it roam a suburban neighborhood full of traffic?

If a person cares so much about his vegetable garden, then why does he
not put a fence around it?


Poodle: If it fits the necessary criteria and diplomatic efforts to stop
the
problem have failed, the dog is in trouble.

It's not your call to make.

The law says it is, as long as I've pursued legal means to put a stop to it.

Show me the passage where it states that if you have exhausted (or
became frustrated with) legal channels that you have the right to kill
the offending pet. I won't hold my breath.


Incidentally, you've chosen or
pretended to miss the difference between a rabbit and a dog. The rabbit's
doing what it's supposed to do.

And a dog is not?

Private property, Dave. Why do you have so much trouble understanding that
concept? On your property, you have the right to put tacky stuffed sheep and
ugly statues and there's not a thing I can do about it. On my property, I
have the right to deal with dogs.

No you don't. I can jump up and down naked on your property and you
can call the cops to come arrest me. But you CAN'T shoot me. Nor can
you shoot my dog. You seem to have no problem understanding that you
can't shoot a person, but you seem to have a problem extending this to
animals.

Some neighborhoods have restrictions about what "tacky" things you can
put out as well. The "man's home is his castle" concept is long gone
in a growing number of areas..


The dog belongs to a person who is
pretending not to know that you cannot destroy your neighbor's property.

Like I said before, put up a fence if you can't deal with a neighbor's
pet who occasionally wanders.

Only if the neighbor pays for the fence. Otherwise, they're stealing from
me. Nice fences don't come cheap.

So you want other people to "protect" your investment? You sound just
like those waterfront idiots who want all boats to pass by at no-wake
speeds so you don't have to invest your own money to build a retaining
wall.


Neighbor's kids: Don't be stupid. That's a human being, easily dealt with
via the standard laws of civil trespass.

So why then, can you not exercise the same consideration for pets? I
suspect that you just have some sort of mental thing for dogs.

A mental thing? Yeah...it's called "hate". I don't feel this way about any
other animal. I even like mosquitoes more than dogs. :-) I'm polite to the
well-behaved dogs and their owners. That's as far as I go, and that's
enough.

I would suggest that your hatred for dogs is severely clouding your
judgement in this case. As far as inadvertent damage to property,
whether it is caused by a human or an animal, there are laws that
address this, as well as civil court. Those options are far better
than shooting something you are just itching for an excuse to do
anyway.

Dave