When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:31:31 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

What the **** is it with you John?
What the hell difference does it make if Doug agrees with me?
Don't you have a brain of your own?
Don't you have a backbone?
We're not talking rocket surgery here, just very simple basics.
Most kids are taught these things at about age 5, how old are you?
Here, I'll spell it out for you:
*Treat other people as you want to be treated.*
There, is that simple enough?
If you abuse that one simple rule of humanity you may pay a severe
consequence.
Don't let your dog **** in my yard, don't paintball my house, don't
fondle
my daughter, etc.
In turn I won't do those things to you.
Does any of this make sense to you?


Fair enough. If my dog ****s in your yard, you have my permission to
**** in mine. If you kill my dog, then I kill you. Fair?

That is fair.
However, I went one step further, to insure your civility. We installed a 6'
high estate fence around our new home so that your dog will not cause you to
get killed.
See how nice I am?

You seem to have this issue with comparing apples to oranges. In no
way, in any rational person's mind, should something so trivial as
"dog droppings" justify lethal force as a response.

Then you would have no problem with all of my dogs ****ting on your couch
repeatedly?
You seem to be following Johns footsteps.
Not once have I advocated harming an animal, ever.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

You're full of ****.
I am under no obligation file anything with anyone, and I will do exactly as
I please and you have no say about it.
Our closest neighbor is over a mile away.
This boy has lost his capacity to think.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:UZ7ic.10371$_L6.898892@attbi_s53...
Don, I am not reacting emotional, it appears that you are, based upon
your
experience with a bad neighbor. I hate to tell you this, but if someone
damages your property, you have neither the moral or the legal
justification
to damage your neighbors property. You have the right to file a report
with
the police and to take them to court.


"Don" wrote in message
...
Geezis, what the hell is going on around here?
I said that if you choose to use MY stuff to YOUR benefit than I have
the
moral equivilent to do the same.
John, PLEASE think these things through before reacting emotionally.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Cd%hc.16820$GR.2456214@attbi_s01...
Don,
I am having a hard time following this conversation, but from what I
can
tell you are saying that a dog taking a crap on your lawn is the same
as
being a child molester. Did I miss something?


"Don" wrote in message
...
"Henry Blackmoore" wrote
"Doug Kanter" wrote:
Actually, it's legally permitted, performed and tested in the
courts
on
a
fairly regular basis. In many places, including what you'd
consider
"normal
suburbs", animals which damage food crops may be killed as long
as
the
method does not endanger neighbors or violate weapons laws. You
really
ought
to think before you hurl, boy.

Uh-huh. And you think that somebody's garden comes under the
"food
crop"
definition and that you have the right to kill your neighbor's
pets
for
a
damaged tomato plant?

Can I come into your house and eat all your food, drink all your
beer,
fondle your 13 yo daughters nubbins, issue you a matched pair of
knuckle
sandwiches and take your DVD player on the way out the door?
If you choose to use MY personal property for YOUR use, YOU open
yourself
up
to that same behavior.
Doesn't anyone know how to *think* anymore?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Don" wrote in message
...


Then you would have no problem with all of my dogs ****ting on your couch
repeatedly?

Warning, Don: You've just suggested a hypothetical situation. Dave Hall
likes to call that a "straw man", which he's incapable of dealing with. He
doesn't realize that virtually every legal debate in the higher courts
involves lawyers and judges trading a series of "straw men" to test the law.
So, he uses the term to dismiss other peoples' arguments.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:25:49 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

"Henry Blackmoore" wrote
"Doug Kanter" wrote:
Actually, it's legally permitted, performed and tested in the courts
on a
fairly regular basis. In many places, including what you'd consider
"normal
suburbs", animals which damage food crops may be killed as long as the
method does not endanger neighbors or violate weapons laws. You really
ought
to think before you hurl, boy.

Uh-huh. And you think that somebody's garden comes under the "food
crop"
definition and that you have the right to kill your neighbor's pets for
a
damaged tomato plant?

Can I come into your house and eat all your food, drink all your beer,
fondle your 13 yo daughters nubbins, issue you a matched pair of knuckle
sandwiches and take your DVD player on the way out the door?
If you choose to use MY personal property for YOUR use, YOU open yourself
up
to that same behavior.
Doesn't anyone know how to *think* anymore?



Perhaps you need to measure your response to the situation. A damaged
flower is not the same as a break-in, theft, sexual assault etc.
Lethal force is justified in cases of imminent threat, but not for
lesser infractions.

Perhaps you need to surround your garden with a fence. Killing a pet
is an excessive response, and shows a general irresponsibility and
reckless disregard for other people's rights. There are other
effective (and legal) ways of dealing with a situation like this.

IMHO, people who can easily justify the killing of an animal for such
petty "crimes", is only one step away from using that same mindset
against humans as well. Psychological studies show that most serial
killers started out torturing animals. So maybe the ticking time bomb
analogy is not so far off the mark.......

sigh
Dave, Dave, Dave.
Again, you are trying to smear me as a person that harms animals. Why?
Please be specific. Thanks.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

Time for some you to take some anger management classes Don. Are you ever
happy?

"Don" wrote in message
...
You're full of ****.
I am under no obligation file anything with anyone, and I will do exactly
as
I please and you have no say about it.
Our closest neighbor is over a mile away.
This boy has lost his capacity to think.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:UZ7ic.10371$_L6.898892@attbi_s53...
Don, I am not reacting emotional, it appears that you are, based upon
your
experience with a bad neighbor. I hate to tell you this, but if someone
damages your property, you have neither the moral or the legal
justification
to damage your neighbors property. You have the right to file a report
with
the police and to take them to court.


"Don" wrote in message
...
Geezis, what the hell is going on around here?
I said that if you choose to use MY stuff to YOUR benefit than I have
the
moral equivilent to do the same.
John, PLEASE think these things through before reacting emotionally.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Cd%hc.16820$GR.2456214@attbi_s01...
Don,
I am having a hard time following this conversation, but from what I
can
tell you are saying that a dog taking a crap on your lawn is the
same
as
being a child molester. Did I miss something?


"Don" wrote in message
...
"Henry Blackmoore" wrote
"Doug Kanter" wrote:
Actually, it's legally permitted, performed and tested in the
courts
on
a
fairly regular basis. In many places, including what you'd
consider
"normal
suburbs", animals which damage food crops may be killed as long
as
the
method does not endanger neighbors or violate weapons laws. You
really
ought
to think before you hurl, boy.

Uh-huh. And you think that somebody's garden comes under the
"food
crop"
definition and that you have the right to kill your neighbor's
pets
for
a
damaged tomato plant?

Can I come into your house and eat all your food, drink all your
beer,
fondle your 13 yo daughters nubbins, issue you a matched pair of
knuckle
sandwiches and take your DVD player on the way out the door?
If you choose to use MY personal property for YOUR use, YOU open
yourself
up
to that same behavior.
Doesn't anyone know how to *think* anymore?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

Don wrote in message
...

"Henry Blackmoore" wrote

Wait a minute, awhile back you said:
************************************************** ***
I also live in Sugar Land. And no, one cannot take firearms out into the
backyard and practice with live rounds. Not even a BB gun for that
matter.
You have watched too many westerns on your boob tube.
************************************************** ***

And now you're saying that people CAN shoot guns in their backyards:
************************************************** ***
LoL, actually I have a police officer neighbor a few door away that
shoots
snakes in his yard. He is deathly afraid of snakes and his house backs
up to a bayou.
************************************************** ***

So the question is, were you lying then, or are you lying now?
Please consult your boob tube if necessary.

Oh oh Henry! You've 'been told' again.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:51:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I'm simply helping him understand laws he is 100% unfamiliar with. The
same
laws I've become 100% familiar with in order to enjoy the simple pleasure
of
a vegetable garden in the midst of a few neighbors who don't care.


Well, I can remember a case that I saw on one of those TV court shows
(I know, not the best forum) where a neighbor had problems with a cat
or dog tearing up their garden, and after finally having enough, set
out some rat poison. The neighbor's pet ate it and died. The pet
owner figured out what happened and sued the "killer" and was awarded
damages for her loss.

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.

Either way,
he was rid of the problem. Second: It's highly likely that the pet owner
learned to keep her next animal where it belonged.

I wouldn't know. Then again, it's even more likely that the pet killer
would not be so quick to murder the next pet either.



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.



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.


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?


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?

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.



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.


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.


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.


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?


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.



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. Your
contempt for them is plainly obvious. That you would take a totally
different tact when dealing with a human versus a dog, which is
causing the same damage, is telling in itself. Remember a parent is
responsible for a young child in much the same way as they are
responsible for a pet. Whatever tact or logic you apply toward an
unruly child, can also be used against an equally unruly pet. You
still don't have the right to kill the pet, even if you consider them
below whale dung on the evolutionary scale.



Anything else you need to be taught today?


Nope, you've illustrated your poor judgement just fine for one day.


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Perhaps you need to surround your garden with a fence. Killing a pet
is an excessive response, and shows a general irresponsibility and
reckless disregard for other people's rights.

Rights? Are you saying that a neighbor has the RIGHT to send his dog over to
my yard and litter it with ****?

Who said anything about SENDING the dog over. Pardon the pun, but ****
happens. It's not the dog's fault that you live in its toilet.


If your answer is "yes", then you must also
believe I have the right to roll my trash barrel down to HIS property and
dump it on his porch.

You are supposed to know better. A dog does not.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:57:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Not only does the machine cost money, but the dog owner has stolen 3-4
hours
of my precious time. If I apply my working rate to my weekend hours, that
time is worth between $500 and $10,000.00. The dog owner has stolen that
from me.

An extreme exaggeration meant, no doubt, to attach some sort of
inflated value to your time,

Really? In the last 45 minutes, I sold 7 trucks of cereal to a large
midwestern grocery chain. I have 3 more to go. The profit will amount to
around $9000.00. Don't question what my time is worth, boy. Matter of fact,
don't question what ANYONE'S time is worth, except your own.


Irrelevant. Your time in this case is worth nothing. And even if it
were, it still does not justify using excessive force to kill an
animal.

The way you attempt to rationalize everything in terms of dollars and
cents, I'd swear you were one of those right wing radical capitalists.
You know, the ones who put money ahead of all other
considerations.....

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

Sheesh, why didn't you tell me you were talking about the law according to
one of America's most fiery anarchist.

I thought we were talking about the law according to the US Penal Code. Now
if we were talking about the Penal Code the law is:

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is
necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of
unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears
reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in
self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

The Right To Protect One's Person And Property From Injury.

It will be proper to consider: 1. The extent of the right of self-defence.
2. By whom it may be exercised. 3. Against whom. 4. For what causes.

As to the extent of the right: First, when threatened violence exists, it is
the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary
measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was
usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and
perhaps the law might require, that it should be closed in order to preserve
the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail for his good
behaviour. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party
should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most
instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force
enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from
danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny,
while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests
an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who
may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much
less to kill him; he ought to be secured and delivered to the public
authorities. But when an attack is made by a thief under such circumstances,
and it is impossible to ascertain to what extent he may push it, the law
does not requite the party assailed to weigh with great nicety the probable
extent of the attack, and he may use the most violent means against his
assailant, even to the taking of his life. For homicide may be excused where
a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who
attacks him while in the commission of a felony, or even on a sudden quarrel
he beats him, so that he is reduced to this inevitable necessity. And the
reason is that when so reduced, he cannot call to his aid the power of
society or of the commonwealth, and being unprotected by law, he reassumes
his natural rights which the law sanctions, of killing his adversary to
protect himself.

The party attacked may undoubtedly defend himself, and the law further
sanctions the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the near
relations of hushand and wife, patent and child, and master and servant. In
these cases, if the party himself or any of these his relations, be forcibly
attacked in their person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by
force, for the law in these cases respects the passions of the human mind,
and makes it lawful in him, when external violence is offered to himself, or
to those to whom he bears so near a connexion, to do that immediate justice
to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are
strong enough to restrain.

The party making the attack may be resisted, and if several persons join in
such attack they may all be resisted, and one may be killed although he may
not himself have given the immediate cause for such killing, if by his
presence and his acts he has aided the assailant.

The cases for which a man may defend himself are of two kinds; first, when a
felony is attempted, and secondly, when no felony is attempted or
apprehended.

1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention
of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a
felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and
battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in
defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who
manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to
commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and
the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist
and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.

2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or
attempted: 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no
mutual combat, such as where one meets another and attempts to commit or
does commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend
himself, and; 2. An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near so
that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not
required to wait until he has been struck.

When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel both parties are the
aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at
least, unless the survivor can prove two things: 1st. That before the mortal
stroke was given be had refused any further combat, and had retreated as far
as he could with safety; and 2d. That he killed his adversary from
necessity, to avoid his own destruction.

A man may defend himself against animals, and he may during the attack kill
them, but not afterwards.

As a general rule no man is allowed to defend himself with force if he can
apply to the law for redress, and the law gives him a complete remedy.



"Don" wrote in message
...
You don't know what you're talking about.
Go Google: Lysander Spooner and find out what real *Law* is. sheesh.....

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:8H7ic.9827$w96.1023873@attbi_s54...
What you said was "....The *law* says that if you touch my stuff, I am
required to shoot your
stupid ass in the face. Get it?"

What the law really says is you can not use deadly force unless a
reasonable
man would feel in danger of his life. If you shot someone because they
touched your stuff, you would be charged with murder.



"Don" wrote in message
...
John, you better straighten up your act or you will be sent to the
corner
for contemplation.
Where in my single sentence below did I mention dogs?

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:vr%hc.5371$YP5.524839@attbi_s02...
Don,
Again, I am confused, are you saying if your neighbors dog takes a
crap
in
your lawn, you are required by law to shot him in the face?


"Don" wrote in message
...
"Henry Blackmoore" wrote
Show me where the laws in a suburban area in this country have
been
interpreted to allow a homeowner to hide under the guise of
growing
"food
crops" while killing his neighbors dog or cats? Garden be
damned.

The *law* says that if you touch my stuff, I am required to shoot
your
stupid ass in the face. Get it?