On Mon, 03 May 2004 11:35:24 -0400, DSK wrote:

No. That would be childish and disgusting,

Dave Hall wrote:
But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not?

This is a new high water mark in stupidity, even for you, Dave. Did
anybody say anything about "teaching them a lesson?" No.

Doug did. If you are going to enter this fray, then you need to pay
attention.



An animal that destroys property can, under many circustances, be killed
by the property owner.

Those "circumstances" do not include taking a dump on the yard.


This is in order to prevent further damage to his
property. It comes under the heading of "property rights" and could
easily be equated with defending one's home against robbers.

Not in any sane interpretation of law. If you feel that eliminating a
defecation problem is in the same category as defending against
robber, I would offer that your perception is a bit out of whack. In
fact there was a recent news story, in my general area, where a guy
caught two thugs breaking into his shed. He shot at them and killed
one of them. The homeowner is now facing murder charges. You simply
can't kill people or animals for being on your property unless there
is an imminent threat of life or safety.

Your "right" to defend your property is severely limited in scope.


The fact that the animal is a pet does not change the circumstances,

It does change the circumstances as a pet is perceived to have some
intrinsic value to the person who owns him, as opposed to a "wild"
animal. Think of it this way; If I blow up your boat, will you not
seek retribution? Does the law not give you that right?

The fact remains that other vigilante types have taken the law into
their hands before, and killed animals that they didn't like. They
have also been taken to court , by the animal's owner, and found
liable for damages.

except that the owner of the animal has declared himself to be
responsible for the animal, then abdicated his responsibility.

And it is not the place of Joe Citizen to play judge and jury. That's
why we have agencies like animal control.

This explanation might have too many big words for you, Dave, but it
doesn't matter since you appear to be determined to never ever learn a
single fact in this world.

I know a lot of facts. The fact that YOU fail to accept them and
instead choose to view the world through your own myopic bias does not
mean that I am wrong. Look it up. Find me any law which gives a
property owner the right to shoot domestic animals for simple
trespass. I have asked "the other" Doug to do the same, and he bobbed
and weaved, and spun his way out of it.

Put up or shut up.

Dave